Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 69 references

Black hole spectroscopy and nonlinear echoes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Black hole echoes survive fully nonlinear collapse in a consistent theory.

desk verdict Worth refereeing: the linear work is careful and the nonlinear echo run is a genuine first, but the 'first' claim and the single-run identification need tightening. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14259 v4 pith:G6DGRTPA submitted 2024-12-18 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th

Marco Melis , Fabrizio Corelli , Robin Croft , Paolo Pani This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th PACS 04.70.-s04.30.-w
keywords blackholeechoesEinstein-Maxwell-scalartheoryquasinormalmodesscalarizationringdownspectroscopyphotonspherenonlinearnumericalrelativity
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 tries to establish that gravitational-wave echoes—repeated pulses in a black hole's ringdown—are not an artifact of linearized toy models. In Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory with a nonminimal electromagnetic-scalar coupling, hairy black holes can have a stable photon sphere, which turns the effective potential seen by perturbations into a multi-peaked cavity. The paper computes the quasinormal-mode spectrum of these backgrounds and shows by 1+1 nonlinear simulations that the echo pattern persists even when the perturbation is strong enough to grow the horizon area by a factor of about 32. This is claimed as the first example of echoes appearing in a consistent theory beyond a linearized analysis. If true, it means ringdown spectroscopy of extreme compact objects must take such cavity modes seriously in a fully nonlinear setting.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-dimensional effective potential $V_\phi$ in the linearized radial perturbation equation for the scalar field, written in tortoise coordinates; its wells and barriers turn the wave equation into a Schr\"odinger-like scattering problem whose cavity modes leak out through the barrier and arrive as echoes. For non-spherical perturbations, a coupled system of axial equations for the electromagnetic-led and gravitational-led channels plays the same role, with the coupling potential $V_{UH}$ controlling how echoes mix between channels. On the nonlinear side, the machinery is a 1+1 evolution in Painlev\'e-Gullstrand-like coordinates with horizon excision, fourth-order finite differences, and Kreiss-Oliger dissipation, whose output is compared with a four-damped-sinusoid fit using frequencies computed in the linear frequency domain.

What would settle it

Repeat the $A=0.03\,M_0$ collapse with an independent, manifestly strongly hyperbolic formulation of the same theory; if the late-time signal extracted at $R=100\,M_0$ no longer matches the four-QNM fit of the reconstructed final black hole, the claim that echoes persist in a consistent nonlinear theory fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in the EMS theory with coupling $F[\phi]=e^{\alpha\phi^2}$, scalarized black holes near the critical charge develop an effective potential $V_\phi$ with multiple maxima and a minimum, corresponding to a stable photon sphere. Such a potential traps low-frequency scalar perturbations in a cavity; they escape slowly by tunneling, producing repeated echo pulses in the time-domain response instead of a single prompt ringdown. The paper shows that a superposition of the first four quasinormal modes of the final black hole fits the late-time signal, and reports that fully nonlinear 1+1 evolutions, in which the horizon area grows by a factor of about 32, still display the echoes. The authors state that, to their knowledge, this is the first example of echoes in a consistent theory beyond a linearized analysis.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's status as a consistent theory rests on the expectation, not a proof, that the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar equations remain well-posed for the chosen coupling and initial data; if they do not, the late-time echoes could be numerical artifacts rather than physical signals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Echoes are not wiped out by nonlinearities in this theory; a fully nonlinear spherical collapse onto a scalarized black hole retains the echo pattern seen in linear perturbation theory.
  • The late-time ringdown of a nonlinearly perturbed scalarized black hole is well described by a superposition of the first four quasinormal modes of the final static configuration, not the initial one.
  • Scalarized black holes with a stable photon sphere can have long-lived cavity modes with quality factor up to about 15, roughly four times the Schwarzschild value.
  • Axial $l=2$ perturbations also produce echoes, and the echo pattern depends on the relative amplitude of electromagnetic-led and gravitational-led initial data.
  • No nonlinear photon-sphere instability is found in the radial simulations, consistent with the theorem's hypotheses not applying to these black-hole backgrounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the authors leave implicit is that echo morphology depends on how efficiently the horizon absorbs low-frequency radiation; one could test this by repeating the nonlinear run with a different coupling $F[\phi]$ that produces a deeper or wider cavity and measuring how echo amplitude scales with horizon area growth.
  • The QNM-fit consistency between linear frequency-domain and nonlinear time-domain calculations suggests that the final state is well captured by the static scalarized solution; a sharper check would compare the full metric functions of the reconstructed final black hole with the simulated end state, not just the horizon radius and charge.
  • If echoes survive nonlinearity generically in EMS-like theories, post-merger gravitational-wave searches would need template banks containing cavity modes in addition to ordinary damped sinusoids, and the absence of such modes in observed ringdowns could constrain the coupling $\alpha$.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies linear and nonlinear perturbations of spherically symmetric black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar (EMS) theory with coupling F[phi] = exp(alpha phi^2). It derives the linearized radial and non-radial perturbation equations, computes quasinormal-mode frequencies with a frequency-domain shooting method, and evolves the linear perturbations in the time domain. In a parameter region where the scalarized black holes have a stable photon sphere and multipeaked effective potentials, the linear response shows repeated echo-like structures. The paper then presents fully nonlinear 1+1 simulations of scalar wave packets falling onto scalarized black holes. In the linear-amplitude regime the nonlinear code reproduces the echoes found by the linear code; in one high-amplitude run, in which the horizon area grows by a factor of about 32, it claims that echoes persist and that the late-time signal is well approximated by the first four quasinormal modes of the presumed final scalarized black hole. The abstract states that this is the first example of echoes appearing in a consistent theory beyond a linearized analysis.

Significance. If the nonlinear echo claim is upheld, the paper would be a valuable step beyond the large body of work on echoes in linearized and often ad hoc models: it would show the phenomenon in a concrete field-theory setting that has a variational principle and is amenable to full nonlinear evolution. The linear part of the paper is solid and provides useful material in itself: the perturbative equations are obtained from the action, the RN limit is recovered, the frequency-domain and time-domain linear codes agree, and the linear echo patterns are clearly exhibited. The nonlinear claim, however, is the main advertised result and currently rests on a single simulation whose echo identification is largely visual and whose remnant identification is tested only by a four-mode fit. These points need to be strengthened before the 'first beyond-linearized example' claim can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V.C, Fig. 10] The central claim that echoes survive in the nonlinear regime is based on a single run, and the echo identification is not quantitative. No echo delay is measured or compared with the cavity round-trip time implied by the effective potential, and no criterion is given that distinguishes the scalloped structure in the semi-log plot from a generic smooth late-time decay. I ask the authors to define the echo feature quantitatively (e.g., peak times and expected delay from the potential profile), to report the residuals of the four-mode fit, and ideally to repeat the nonlinear run with at least one different set of parameters to show that the feature is robust.
  2. [Sec. V.C, Fig. 10] The remnant identification is partly circular: the final state is assumed to be the static scalarized black hole with the measured horizon radius and charge, and the fit uses quasinormal frequencies of the same solution family. This is a consistency check but not an independent identification of the remnant. I request a comparison with at least one alternative model (for example, the RN quasinormal modes of the same mass and charge, or a non-static remnant) and a report of the fit residuals and parameter uncertainties, so that the reader can judge whether the data actually prefer the scalarized final state.
  3. [Appendix B] The convergence tests in Appendix B establish fourth-order scaling of the constraint violations for the nonlinear run at t = 812 M0, but they do not test convergence of the extracted observable ∂tϕ at R = 100 M0 or of the echo bumps themselves. The lowest-resolution nonlinear run crashes, and no estimate of numerical noise in Fig. 10 is provided, so the significance of the echoed bumps relative to numerical error is unquantified. I ask for a resolution study of the echo feature itself and an error estimate for the fitted amplitudes and phases.
  4. [Sec. I, bullet i; Sec. V.A] The framing of the nonlinear simulation as a 'consistent theory' rests on the well-posedness of the EMS system, but the paper only states an expectation of strong hyperbolicity for reasonable F[phi]. Since the nonlinear runs use very small horizon radii, a large amplitude wave packet, and a regime in which the final configuration is close to the critical charge, the authors should either provide a reference or a short numerical/analytic check of strong hyperbolicity in the regime they simulate, or explicitly qualify the claim so that it is not stronger than the evidence.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV.A] The heading 'Frequecy domain method' contains a typo and should read 'Frequency domain method'.
  2. [Ref. [65]] Reference [65] contains the typo 'Einstein-Mawxell-dilaton theory'; it should read 'Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton theory'.
  3. [Figs. 9 and 10] The y-axis labels in the text rendering of Figs. 9 and 10 appear garbled as 't (t, R = R) M0'; they should be typeset as ∂tϕ(t, R = 100 M0) with appropriate units.
  4. [Sec. V.C and Fig. 10] There is a small inconsistency in the reported start time of the nonlinear fit: the text in Fig. 10 says 't > 200 M0', while the discussion in Sec. V.C and the caption should be harmonized with the exact value used.
  5. [Eq. (90)] The paper should state explicitly that in the fit of Eq. (90) only the amplitudes A_n and phases phi_n are fitted, while the frequencies are taken from the frequency-domain calculation of Sec. IV.C; this is clear from the text but an explicit sentence would avoid any impression that the frequencies are being tuned.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No meaningful circularity: the nonlinear echo claim is a numerical consistency check, not a reduction of prediction to fit.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained: static hairy black-hole solutions are built from the EMS action, the perturbed field equations are derived, QNM frequencies are computed as a boundary-value problem with purely ingoing/outgoing conditions, and the time-domain linear response is obtained by independent evolution. The nonlinear run in Sec. V.C is then compared with a damped-sinusoid superposition whose complex frequencies are those of the assumed final static scalarized black hole. These frequencies are not read off the time signal; they are computed from the perturbation equations via a shooting method, and the only fitted quantities are the amplitudes and phases in Eq. (90). This is a standard consistency check between nonlinear evolution and linear perturbation theory, not a reduction of the echo claim to the fit. The final-state construction from the measured horizon radius, charge, and scalar-field value is a remnant identification procedure, and any concern about whether a different remnant would fit equally well is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity. Self-citations, such as the numerical setup taken from Ref. [41] and the follow-up paper Ref. [65], are methodological and not load-bearing for the central claim. The well-posedness of the full system is asserted as an expectation rather than proven, but this is an assumption about the theory, not a circular step. Overall, no step in the paper's derivation is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation has essentially no fitted physical constants: QNM frequencies are obtained from boundary-value problems, and the nonlinear final configuration is measured from the simulation. The tuned initial pulse amplitude and the fit amplitudes/phases in Eq. (90) are the only free numbers. The main axioms are the existence of hairy solutions, unproven strong hyperbolicity, and the static-remnant approximation.

free parameters (2)
  • Initial scalar-pulse amplitude A (nonlinear run) = A = 0.03 M0
    Chosen so that after absorption the remnant has q = 1.0182, inside the echo-producing near-critical region; the nonlinear echo result is demonstrated for this tuned pulse, not for generic large-amplitude perturbations.
  • QNM fit amplitudes and phases {A_n, phi_n} in Eq. (90) = not reported
    Fitted to the time-domain signal when comparing with the damped-sinusoid superposition; they are representation coefficients, not theory parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The EMS action (1) with F[phi] = e^(alpha phi^2) is the correct effective theory and its static scalarized BH solutions from refs. [44-46] are physical backgrounds.
    The paper relies on prior construction of hairy BH solutions; it does not re-derive their existence from first principles.
  • domain assumption The EMS evolution is strongly hyperbolic and well-posed for the couplings and initial data used.
    Sec. I states 'we expect strong hyperbolicity for any reasonable choices of F[phi]' without proof; the nonlinear simulations and the 'consistent theory' label depend on this.
  • standard math QNMs are selected by standard boundary conditions: purely outgoing at infinity and purely ingoing at the horizon.
    Used in Sec. IV A shooting method; this is the standard definition of QNMs but is an added condition, not a theorem for these coupled systems.
  • domain assumption In the nonlinear run, the final remnant is well approximated by the static scalarized BH with the measured horizon radius and charge, whose QNMs are interpolated from Sec. IV C.
    Sec. V C; if the remnant carried significant additional structure or was not near a static solution, the late-time QNM fit would not test the same echo mechanism.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black hole spectroscopy and nonlinear echoes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G6DGRTPA

@misc{pith2026241214259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black hole spectroscopy and nonlinear echoes in Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G6DGRTPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14259}
}
read the original abstract

In the context of Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory with a nonminimal coupling between the electromagnetic and scalar field, we study linear (non)radial perturbations and nonlinear radial dynamics of spherically symmetric black holes. In a certain region of the parameter space, this theory admits hairy black holes with a stable photon sphere. This has a counterpart in the effective potential of linear perturbations, featuring multiple maxima and minima. The corresponding quasinormal mode spectrum contains long-lived modes trapped in the potential cavity and the time-domain linear response displays echoes, as previously observed for horizonless compact objects. Interestingly, the black-hole dynamics in this theory can be studied at the nonlinear level. By performing fully-fledged 1+1 simulations, we show that echoes are present even when the nonlinearities are significant. To our knowledge, this is the first example of echoes appearing in a consistent theory beyond a linearized analysis. In a follow-up work we will study whether this feature is also present in the post-merger signal from black hole collisions in this theory.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14259 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Metric functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Null-geodesic potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Fundamental QNMs for linear radial perturbations as a function of the charge-to-mass ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fundamental QNM and first three overtones for linear and spherical perturbations as a function of the charge-to-mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison between the scattered wave in the time domain and a superposition of four damped sinusoids with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Real (left panels) and imaginary (right panels) frequencies of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time-domain response of a hairy BH for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Asymptotic behavior of the time derivative of the scalar field extracted at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Asymptotic behavior of the time derivative of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Scaling of the constraint violations for the simu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Scaling of the constraint violations for the simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (A18), are functions of u4(r) and h1(r), respectively

    Axial sector The axial sector, which contains only perturbations of the Maxwell tensor and of the metric, can be written as a system of two coupled second order differential equations d2 dr2∗ + ω2 U (r) =VU UU (r) + VU HH(r) , (62) d2 dr2∗ + ω2 H(r) =VHU U (r) + VHH H(r) , (63) 7 where U (r) and H(r), defined in Eq. (A18), are functions of u4(r) and h1(r)...

    work page

  2. [2]

    axial” (which acquire a factor ( −1)l+1 un- der parity inversion) and “polar

    Polar sector 7 IV. QNMs and time-domain linear response 7 A. Frequecy domain method 8 B. Time domain method 8 C. QNMs of linear radial perturbations 9 D. Time-domain linear spherical perturbations 9 E. Ringdown of non-spherical perturbations 9 V. Nonlinear radial dynamics 11 A. Numerical setup 12 B. Initial data 14 C. Numerical results 15 VI. Conclusion a...

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    outgoing wave

    Polar sector The polar group (containing scalar, electromagnetic and metric perturbations) is described by a system of five first-order differential equations f ′ 12(r) = δ′ − N ′ N − 1 F [ϕ] δF [ϕ] δϕ ϕ′ f12(r) − iωe2δ N 2 f02(r) , (71) H ′ 1(r) = δ′ − N ′ N H1(r) − iω N [H0(r) + K(r)] − 4F [ϕ]V ′f12(r) , (72) f ′ 02(r) = l(l + 1)N e−2δ r2ω − ω if12(r) −...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Berti, V

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

    arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, et al. , (2025), to ap- 19 r / M0 10 12 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 10 2 100 102 CV M0 t = 1499 M0 r = r0 = 0.00335 M0 r = r1 = 2 r0 r = r2 = 2 r1 r = r0 rescaled as order 4 r = r1 rescaled as order 4 10 1 100 101 102 r / M0 10 17 10 14 10 11 10 8 10 5 10 2 101 CVEr M2 0 FIG. 11. Scaling of the constraint violations for the simu...

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Ferrari and B

    V. Ferrari and B. Mashhoon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1361 (1984)

    work page 1984

  7. [7]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek, and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009), arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012044 (2015), arXiv:1404.7140 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    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]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Nature Astron. 1, 586 (2017), arXiv:1709.01525 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    I. Bena, E. J. Martinec, S. D. Mathur, and N. P. Warner, (2022), arXiv:2204.13113 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Bertone, A

    G. Bertone, A. R. A. C. Wierda, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, M. Volonteri, and N. Yoshida, (2024), arXiv:2404.08731 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cardoso, W.-D

    V. Cardoso, W.-D. Guo, C. F. B. Macedo, and P. Pani, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 503, 563 (2021), arXiv:2009.07287 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cannizzaro, T

    E. Cannizzaro, T. F. M. Spieksma, V. Cardoso, and T. Ikeda, Phys. Rev. D 110, L021302 (2024), arXiv:2405.05315 [gr-qc]. r / M0 10 12 10 10 10 8 10 6 10 4 10 2 100 102 CV M0 t = 1498.42 M0 r = r0 = 0.00417 M0 r = r1 = 2 r0 r = r2 = 2 r1 r = r0 rescaled as order 4 r = r1 rescale...

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 171101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 089902 (2016)], arXiv:1602.07309 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    R. F. Rosato, K. Destounis, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 110, L121501 (2024), arXiv:2406.01692 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ianniccari, A

    A. Ianniccari, A. J. Iovino, A. Kehagias, P. Pani, G. Perna, D. Perrone, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 211401 (2024), arXiv:2407.20144 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cardoso, L

    V. Cardoso, L. C. B. Crispino, C. F. B. Macedo, H. Okawa, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044069 (2014), arXiv:1406.5510 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    P. V. P. Cunha, E. Berti, and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 251102 (2017), arXiv:1708.04211 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Cardoso, S

    V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palen- zuela, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084031 (2016), arXiv:1608.08637 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Q. Wang, N. Oshita, and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024031 (2020), arXiv:1905.00446 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ferrari and K

    V. Ferrari and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D 62, 107504 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0008057

    2000 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Raposo, P

    G. Raposo, P. Pani, M. Bezares, C. Palenzuela, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104072 (2019), arXiv:1811.07917 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Pani and V

    P. Pani and V. Ferrari, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 15LT01 (2018), arXiv:1804.01444 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Mannarelli and F

    M. Mannarelli and F. Tonelli, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123010 (2018), arXiv:1805.02278 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zhang and S.-Y

    J. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Phys. Rev. D 97, 081501 20 r / M0 10 11 10 8 10 5 10 2 101 CV M0 t = 811.9 M0 r = r0 = 0.00107 M0 r = r1 = 2 r0 r = r2 = 2 r1 r = r0 rescaled as order 4 r = r1 rescaled as order 4 10 1 100 101 102 r / M0 10 13 10 10 10 7 10 4 10 1 102 CVEr M2 0 FIG. 13...

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Oshita and N

    N. Oshita and N. Afshordi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044002 (2019), arXiv:1807.10287 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    S. D. Mathur, Fortsch. Phys. 53, 793 (2005), arXiv:hep- th/0502050

    2005

  22. [30]

    Bena and N

    I. Bena and N. P. Warner, Lect. Notes Phys. 755, 1 (2008), arXiv:hep-th/0701216

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Balasubramanian, J

    V. Balasubramanian, J. de Boer, S. El-Showk, and I. Messamah, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 214004 (2008), arXiv:0811.0263 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Ikeda, M

    T. Ikeda, M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, A. Grillo, J. F. Morales, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 066021 (2021), arXiv:2103.10960 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Heidmann, N

    P. Heidmann, N. Speeney, E. Berti, and I. Bah, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024021 (2023), arXiv:2305.14412 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. Dima, M. Melis, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084067 (2024), arXiv:2406.19327 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dailey, N

    C. Dailey, N. Afshordi, and E. Schnetter, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 195007 (2023), arXiv:2301.05778 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Dailey, E

    C. Dailey, E. Schnetter, and N. Afshordi, (2024), arXiv:2409.17970 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    S. Ma, Q. Wang, N. Deppe, F. H´ ebert, L. E. Kid- der, J. Moxon, W. Throwe, N. L. Vu, M. A. Scheel, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104007 (2022), arXiv:2203.03174 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Deppe, L

    N. Deppe, L. Heisenberg, H. Inchausp´ e, L. E. Kidder, D. Maibach, S. Ma, J. Moxon, K. C. Nelli, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, (2024), arXiv:2411.05645 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Siemonsen, Phys

    N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 031401 (2024), arXiv:2404.14536 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Figueras, A

    P. Figueras, A. Held, and A. D. Kov´ acs, (2024), arXiv:2407.08775 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Foucart, P

    F. Foucart, P. Laguna, G. Lovelace, D. Radice, and H. Witek, (2022), arXiv:2203.08139 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    J. L. Ripley and F. Pretorius, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 134001 (2019), arXiv:1903.07543 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Corelli, M

    F. Corelli, M. De Amicis, T. Ikeda, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 091501 (2023), arXiv:2205.13006 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Corelli, M

    F. Corelli, M. de Amicis, T. Ikeda, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044061 (2023), arXiv:2205.13007 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. H. K. R, J. L. Ripley, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044044 (2023), arXiv:2211.08477 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Thaalba, N

    F. Thaalba, N. Franchini, M. Bezares, and T. P. Sotiriou, (2024), arXiv:2409.11398 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 101102 (2018), arXiv:1806.05190 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P. G. S. Fernandes, C. A. R. Herdeiro, A. M. Pombo, E. Radu, and N. Sanchis-Gual, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 134002 (2019), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 37, 049501 (2020)], arXiv:1902.05079 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. L. Bl´ azquez-Salcedo, C. A. R. Herdeiro, J. Kunz, A. M. Pombo, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B 806, 135493 (2020), arXiv:2002.00963 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [50]

    G. Guo, P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang, JHEP 06, 073 (2022), arXiv:2204.00982 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G. Guo, P. Wang, and Y. Zhang, (2024), arXiv:2403.02089 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Y. S. Myung and D.-C. Zou, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 641 (2019), arXiv:1904.09864 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    E. W. Hirschmann, L. Lehner, S. L. Liebling, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064032 (2018), arXiv:1706.09875 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Brito and C

    R. Brito and C. Pacilio, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104042 (2018), arXiv:1807.09081 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano˘ glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 015004 (2024), arXiv:2211.01766 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571 (1964)

    1964

  49. [57]

    Q. Gan, P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044049 (2021), arXiv:2105.11770 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Q. Gan, P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024003 (2021), arXiv:2104.08703 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Regge and J

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

    1957

  52. [60]

    Jansen, A

    A. Jansen, A. Rostworowski, and M. Rutkowski, JHEP 12, 036 (2019), arXiv:1909.04049 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Ferrari, L

    V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and S. Marassi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104033 (2007), arXiv:0709.2925 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. G. Rosa and S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 85, 044043 (2012), arXiv:1110.4494 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104017 (2012), arXiv:1209.0773 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Pani, Int

    P. Pani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340018 (2013), arXiv:1305.6759 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Alcubierre, J

    M. Alcubierre, J. C. Degollado, and M. Salgado, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104022 (2009), arXiv:0907.1151 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Vellucci, E

    V. Vellucci, E. Franzin, and S. Liberati, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044027 (2023), arXiv:2205.14170 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Guo and S

    B. Guo and S. D. Mathur, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31, 2242009 (2022), arXiv:2205.10921 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Echoes from 21 black hole mergers in Einstein-Mawxell-dilaton theory,

    R. Croft, F. Corelli, M. Melis, and P. Pani, “Echoes from 21 black hole mergers in Einstein-Mawxell-dilaton theory,” in preparation (2025)

    2025

  61. [69]

    Kojima, Phys

    Y. Kojima, Phys. Rev. D 46, 4289 (1992)

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.