Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

$\tt GrayHawk$: A public code for calculating the Gray Body Factors of massless fields around spherically symmetric Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read GrayHawk is a public Mathematica code that computes gray-body factors for massless fields around spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat black holes, with seven built-in metrics and sub-0.1% agreement near the spectral peak.

desk verdict A genuinely useful public GBF code whose validation needs an independent anchor; worth refereeing, with minor fixes. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.04041 v2 pith:2RKP33X7 submitted 2025-02-06 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-th

Marco Calzá This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-th MSC 83C5783C4783-08 PACS 04.70.-s04.70.Dy02.60.-x
keywords gray-bodyfactorsHawkingradiationblackholeperturbationssphericallysymmetricholestransmissioncoefficientsregularMathematicacodeprimordial
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

GrayHawk is a public Mathematica code for computing gray-body factors, the transmission coefficients that shape Hawking radiation as it escapes a black hole's gravitational potential barrier, for massless fields of spin 0, 1/2, 1, and 2. The paper claims that for a spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat black hole metric, the code produces a full spectrum in seconds using direct numerical integration rather than WKB approximations. It comes preloaded with seven metrics, including Schwarzschild, Reissner-Nordström, regular black holes, and black-bounce models, and allows users to add their own metrics by editing three metric functions. The accuracy claim is anchored in comparisons with published benchmark spectra: after converting regularization parameters from horizon-radius to mass units, GrayHawk reproduces those spectra with intensity discrepancies below one part in a thousand around the spectral peak.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-dependent effective potential $V_s(r(r_*))$ in the Schrödinger-like radial equation $(\partial_{r_*}^2 + \omega^2 - V_s)Z_s = 0$. For each spin, the master equation for Newman-Penrose scalars separates into spin-weighted spherical harmonics and a radial equation; the code constructs $V_s$ from the metric functions $F$, $G$, and $H$ through Eqs. (13), obtains $r(r_*)$ by numerical inversion of the tortoise-coordinate integral $dr_*/dr = 1/\sqrt{FG}$, and solves the scattering problem by shooting with purely ingoing boundary conditions at the horizon. The far-field fit of the resulting solution to $a e^{i\omega r_*} + b e^{-i\omega r_*}$ yields the transmission coefficient $\Gamma = 1/|b|^2$, which is the gray-body factor.

What would settle it

Run GrayHawk on the Schwarzschild metric and compare the resulting transmission coefficients with an independent reference computed by a different method, such as an analytic or Frobenius solution not based on this paper's benchmarks; a deviation exceeding the claimed 0.1% near the spectral peak would falsify the central accuracy claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single, self-contained notebook can solve the black hole perturbation problem for any metric of the form $ds^2 = -G(r)\,dt^2 + dr^2/F(r) + H(r)\,d\Omega^2$ that is asymptotically flat and has an event horizon. Using the Newman-Penrose formalism, the massless field equations for spins 0, 1/2, 1, and 2 reduce to one Schrödinger-like radial equation with spin-dependent potentials. GrayHawk numerically inverts the tortoise coordinate, integrates the radial equation with purely ingoing boundary conditions at the horizon, fits the far-field solution to the asymptotic form, and reads off the gray-body factor as $\Gamma = 1/|b|^2$. The paper reports that this reproduces existing benchmark spectra from the literature wherever those benchmarks are reliable, with agreement better than 0.1% near the peak.

Load-bearing premise

The accuracy claim rests on the assumption that the benchmark spectra in [89,90] are correct and that the conversions from horizon-radius units to mass units in Section 4 are exact; an error common to both implementations would not be detected by overlapping spectra.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can obtain gray-body factors for any of the seven preloaded black hole metrics in a single run, without writing a numerical solver.
  • For a new spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat black hole metric, the user only needs to edit $F(r)$, $G(r)$, and $H(r)$; the calibrator notebook then checks whether the sampling is adequate.
  • Because the method is a direct numerical solution rather than WKB, the approximation error can be reduced by refining the sampling, so WKB-limited results for modified metrics can be replaced or checked.
  • The code's output feeds directly into the Hawking emission formula, so it enables revision of previous gray-body-factor estimates for regular and quantum-gravity-inspired black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: an independent cross-check against a code with a different implementation, such as an analytic Schwarzschild result, would strengthen the validation; without it, a systematic error shared by GrayHawk and the benchmark spectra would go unnoticed.
  • Beyond the paper: because the runtime is seconds, GrayHawk could be embedded in evaporation codes to recompute gray-body factors on the fly for evolving black hole parameters, rather than interpolating precomputed tables.
  • Beyond the paper: the same master-equation approach could eventually be extended to rotating or non-asymptotically flat settings, but that would require new separation and boundary-condition machinery beyond this code.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces GrayHawk, a Mathematica code that computes gray-body factors for massless spin-0, 1/2, 1, and 2 fields in spherically symmetric, asymptotically flat black hole metrics. The manuscript presents the theoretical formalism (a Newman-Penrose-based radial master equation in Schrödinger-like form with spin-dependent potentials), a description of the numerical implementation (tortoise-coordinate inversion, direct integration, far-field fitting), and a validation against previously published photon spectra from Refs. [89,90] for the Hayward, Bardeen, Simpson-Visser, Peltola-Kunstatter, and D'Ambrosio-Rovelli spacetimes. The claimed accuracy is better than 0.1% near the spectral peak for the comparison shown. The code is publicly available at the stated GitHub repository.

Significance. GrayHawk addresses a genuine need: fast, accurate gray-body factors for modified black hole metrics, with a modular design and a calibrator tool. If the accuracy claims are confirmed, it would be a useful resource for primordial black hole phenomenology, particularly as input for BlackHawk v3.0. The paper's strengths include the public release of the code, the speed of execution, and the clear separation of the metric definition from the solver. However, the current validation is limited to the photon channel and is benchmarked against work sharing the first author and the same formal framework, so the broader accuracy claim (all spins, all seven metrics) is not yet established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Figs. 1-3] The validation covers only the photon channel (spin s=1); no comparison is shown for the scalar (s=0), Dirac (s=1/2), or gravitational (s=2) sectors that the code claims to support. Additionally, the comparison is made at the level of the thermally averaged emission spectrum d²N/dtdE, not directly on the gray-body factors Γ_l^s(ω). Since the code's central claim includes all four spin values, the manuscript should either add direct GBF comparisons for the other spins (e.g., against Page's analytic Schwarzschild results for s=0,1,2 or against BlackHawk's tables) or explicitly restrict the validation claim to photons.
  2. [Section 4, refs [89,90]] The benchmarks used for validation share the first author with the present work and are derived from the same Chandrasekhar/Newman-Penrose master equation and potentials, so the agreement does not provide an independent test. The paper also states that the DR spectra in [90] were "imprecise" and had to be recomputed, which indicates that the shared pipeline has already contained a numerical error. The authors should benchmark against an independent implementation (e.g., Page's Schwarzschild results, BlackHawk tables, or a publicly available Frobenius solver not written by the same group) and should discuss the DR recomputation explicitly, since the published version of [90] is not what is being compared against.
  3. [Section 4, residual quantification] The claim "less than one part in 1000... throughout a window large more than two orders of magnitude" is based on a single residual plot (Fig. 3) that covers only a factor of 20 in energy (0.001 to 0.020 GeV) and only one metric-parameter combination (Hayward, ℓ=0.3 r_H, photons). The residual R is never defined by an equation, and the unit conversions in the list before Fig. 1 are rounded (e.g., 0.15 r_H ⇒ 0.293M instead of 0.29325M). The authors should provide the definition of R, state the exact conversion values, and report residuals for all compared spectra or at least a representative set covering all spins and metrics.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (12)] As typeset, Eq. (12) reads ∂_{r*} Z_s + (ω² − V_s) Z_s = 0, which is not a Schrödinger equation; the second derivative with respect to r* is missing and should read ∂²_{r*} Z_s + (ω² − V_s) Z_s = 0.
  2. [Section 2, text] There are several typos: "Reisner-Nordrtröm" should be "Reissner-Nordström", "grate simplification" should be "great simplification", and "the reasoning drown in that paper" should be "the reasoning drawn in that paper".
  3. [Section 4, text] The phrase "the residual R as the absolute value of the difference, weighted over the average" is not a mathematical definition; please provide the formula for R used to produce Fig. 3.
  4. [Section 3.1, text] The phrase "Anychange" appears without spacing and should be "Any change".
  5. [Section 5, text] The sentence "We stat by taking into account the calibrating code" contains a typo: "stat" should be "start".
  6. [Abstract and full text] The full text contains the garbled phrase "available at/gtb" in place of the GitHub URL; please verify that the correct repository link appears in the published version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GrayHawk computes gray-body factors by direct numerical integration of the derived scattering equation, and the same-author benchmarks are an independent-method cross-check rather than a definitional input.

full rationale

GrayHawk's derivation chain is self-contained: the potentials in Eqs. (13a)-(13d) are constructed from the metric functions F, G, H via the Newman-Penrose master equation and the tortoise-coordinate transformation, with no fitted parameters; the transmission coefficient is computed as Gamma = 1/|b|^2 by numerically integrating the Schrodinger-like equation (12) with purely ingoing boundary conditions. None of the output quantities is an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. The only possible concern is Section 4, where validation is performed against the spectra of Refs. [89,90], which share the first author with the present paper and use the same radial master equation. However, those benchmarks are independent numerical implementations (Frobenius method in a rescaled radial coordinate) rather than the same code or fitted values; the paper quotes their method and units, and the comparison is an empirical cross-check between two different numerical approaches. The admission that the D'Ambrosio-Rovelli spectra in Ref. [90] were 'imprecise' and had to be recomputed with the method of Ref. [90] is a limitation on the independence of that particular panel, and a shared-formalism error could in principle affect both calculations; that is a correctness and robustness concern, not a circular reduction. Because no equation is defined in terms of the result it is used to predict, and the central derivation does not reduce to the benchmarks, the paper does not exhibit the specific reduction required to establish circularity.

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

No new physical free parameters or entities are introduced: M, ell, q, s, l, and omega are inputs or metric parameters. The computation rests on standard black hole perturbation theory, on the Petrov type D master equation, and on numerical reliability of Mathematica; the accuracy validation is internal to the author's previous papers.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The master equation (4), based on the Newman-Penrose null tetrad, is valid for all metrics considered, including non-tr-symmetric black bounce metrics.
    The paper restricts to Petrov type D, spherically symmetric, static metrics in Section 2, and the code's potentials in Eq. (13) inherit this restriction; user-defined metrics must satisfy it.
  • domain assumption The metric is asymptotically flat with F, G approaching 1 and H ~ r^2, and possesses an event horizon, so the potential V_s vanishes at both infinities.
    These conditions in Eq. (2) and Section 3.1 define the validity window for the boundary conditions (14a) and (14b) and for the far-field fit.
  • domain assumption Hawking emission is described by Eq. (16) with temperature Eq. (17), with the gray-body factor interpreted as the transmission coefficient.
    This is standard semiclassical black hole physics; the paper adopts it without derivation, and the code's spectra inherit this assumption.
  • domain assumption Mathematica's built-in Integrate and differential equation solvers are sufficiently accurate for the inversion of r*(r) and for the outward integration of Z_s.
    The code relies on Integrate[] for Eq. (11) and on numerical ODE integration for Eq. (12); the CalibratorGH notebook is meant to check these choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of $\tt GrayHawk$: A public code for calculating the Gray Body Factors of massless fields around spherically symmetric Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2RKP33X7

@misc{pith2026250204041,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: $\tt GrayHawk$: A public code for calculating the Gray Body Factors of massless fields around spherically symmetric Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2RKP33X7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.04041}
}
abstract

We introduce and describe $\tt GrayHawk$, a publicly available Mathematica-based tool designed for the efficient computation of gray-body factors for spherically symmetric and asymptotically flat black holes. This program provides users with a rapid and reliable means to compute gray-body factors for massless fields with spin \(s = 0, 1/2, 1, 2\) in modes specified by the angular quantum number \(l\), given a black hole metric and the associated parameter values. $\tt GrayHawk$ is preloaded with seven different black hole metrics, offering immediate applicability to a variety of theoretical models. Additionally, its modular structure allows users to extend its functionality easily by incorporating alternative metrics or configurations. This versatility makes $\tt GrayHawk$ a powerful and adaptable resource for researchers studying black hole physics and Hawking radiation. The codes described in this work are publicly available at https://github.com/marcocalza89/GrayHawk.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.04041 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the spectra reported in [89] and the one computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the spectra reported in [90] and the one computed using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Residual of the spectrum of a Hayward BH of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Evaporating cosmologically coupled black holes

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    If a black hole's mass grows with cosmic expansion, Hawking evaporation is slowed or reversed, weakening gamma-ray bounds on primordial black holes.

  2. Formation of Bound States in Quintessence Alternative Theories

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Bound states of scalar fields exist outside quintessence-dressed AdS black holes for sufficiently large |w| or angular momentum, and quintessence alters the Hawking temperature so that large black holes radiate less.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [90]

    Calzà, D

    M. Calzà, D. Pedrotti and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.2, 024010 (2025) [arXiv:2409.02807 [gr-qc]]. 16

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Federico and S

    K. Federico and S. Profumo, [arXiv:2411.17038 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  3. [2]

    Primordial Black Holes as laboratories for new physics

    M. Calzá, “Primordial Black Holes as laboratories for new physics”, PhD Thesis

  4. [3]

    Calzà and J

    M. Calzà and J. G. Rosa, [arXiv:2312.09261 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv

  5. [4]

    Calzà, J

    M. Calzà, J. March-Russell and J. G. Rosa, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, no.26, 261003 (2024) [arXiv:2110.13602 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Calzà, J

    M. Calzà, J. G. Rosa and F. Serrano, JHEP05, 140 (2024) [arXiv:2306.09430 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [6]

    M. J. Baker and A. Thamm, SciPost Phys.12, no.5, 150 (2022) [arXiv:2105.10506 [hep- ph]]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    M. J. Baker and A. Thamm, JHEP01, 063 (2023) [arXiv:2210.02805 [hep-ph]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 138 references
  1. [8]

    Calzá, Phys

    M. Calzá, Phys. Rev. D107, no.4, 4 (2023) [arXiv:2207.10467 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Vagnozzi, R

    S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y. D. Tsai, L. Visinelli, M. Afrin, A. Allahyari, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey, S. G. Ghosh and P. S. Joshi,et al. Class. Quant. Grav.40, no.16, 165007 (2023) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acd97b [arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Afrin, S

    M. Afrin, S. Vagnozzi and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophys. J. 944, no.2, 149 (2023) [arXiv:2209.12584 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [11]

    G. T. Horowitz, M. Kolanowski, G. N. Remmen and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.9, 091402 (2023) [arXiv:2303.07358 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Probing new physics on the horizon of black holes with gravitational waves,

    E. Maggio, “Probing new physics on the horizon of black holes with gravitational waves,” [arXiv:2211.16900 [gr-qc]],PhD Thesis

    arXiv

  6. [13]

    Maggio, P

    E. Maggio, P. Pani and G. Raposo, [arXiv:2105.06410 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  7. [14]

    B. P. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Astrophys. J. Lett.882, no.2, L24 (2019) [arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [15]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett.116, no.6, 061102 (2016) [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019) [arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L12 (2022) [arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

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

    1975

  12. [19]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys.3 (1962), 566-578

    1962

  13. [20]

    Type D gravitational fields,

    W. M. Kinnersley, “Type D gravitational fields,” CalTech Thesis, 1968

    1968

  14. [21]

    Type D Vacuum Metrics,

    W. Kinnersley, “Type D Vacuum Metrics,” J. Math. Phys.10 (1969), 1195-1203

    1969

  15. [22]

    Introduction to gravitational radiation theory,

    F. E. A. Pirani “Introduction to gravitational radiation theory,” Brandeis summer insti- tute in Theoretical Physics (1964) (notes by J. J. J. Marek)

    1964

  16. [23]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29 (1972), 1114-1118. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1114

    1972 doi

  17. [24]

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

    1973 doi

  18. [25]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 649-674 (1973). doi:10.1086/152445

    1973 doi

  19. [26]

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

    1974 doi

  20. [27]

    R- M. Wald, J. Math. Phys.14 (1973), 1453

    1973

  21. [28]

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

    1976 doi

  22. [29]

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

    1976 doi

  23. [30]

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

    1977 doi

  24. [31]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A345, 145-167 (1975) doi:10.1098/rspa.1975.0130 14

    1975

  25. [32]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A350, 165-174 (1976) doi:10.1098/rspa.1976.0101

    1976

  26. [33]

    Chandrasekhar, Proc

    S. Chandrasekhar, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A348, 39 (1976)

    1976

  27. [34]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A352, 325-338 (1977) doi:10.1098/rspa.1977.0002

    1977

  28. [35]

    Hemming and E

    S. Hemming and E. Keski-Vakkuri, Phys. Rev. D64, 044006 (2001) [arXiv:gr-qc/0005115 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  29. [36]

    C. M. Harris and P. Kanti, JHEP10, 014 (2003) doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2003/10/014 [arXiv:hep-ph/0309054 [hep-ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Johnson, JCAP09, 046 (2020) [arXiv:2005.07467 [astro-ph.CO]]

    G. Johnson, JCAP09, 046 (2020) [arXiv:2005.07467 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Bojowald, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 391-411 (2006) [arXiv:gr- qc/0509075 [gr-qc]]

    2006

  32. [39]

    Modesto, Class

    L. Modesto, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 5587-5602 (2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0509078 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  33. [40]

    C. G. Boehmer and K. Vandersloot, Phys. Rev. D76, 104030 (2007) [arXiv:0709.2129 [gr-qc]]

    2007 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.24, 241301 (2018) [arXiv:1806.00648 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Bodendorfer, F

    N. Bodendorfer, F. M. Mele and J. Münch, Class. Quant. Grav.38, no.9, 095002 (2021) [arXiv:1912.00774 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Kanzi, S

    S. Kanzi, S. H. Mazharimousavi and İ. Sakallı, Annals Phys. 422, 168301 (2020) [arXiv:2007.05814 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [44]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. F. Zinhailo and Z. Stuchlik, Phys. Rev. D102, no.4, 044023 (2020) [arXiv:2006.10462 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Chowdhury and N

    A. Chowdhury and N. Banerjee, Phys. Lett. B805, 135417 (2020) [arXiv:2002.03630 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [46]

    C. Y. Zhang, P. C. Li and M. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.9, 874 (2020) [arXiv:2003.13068 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [47]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zinhailo, Phys. Lett. B810, 135793 (2020) [arXiv:2004.02248 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Rincón and V

    Á. Rincón and V. Santos, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.10, 910 (2020) [arXiv:2009.04386 [gr- qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Berry, A

    T. Berry, A. Simpson and M. Visser, Universe7, no.6, 165 (2021) [arXiv:2102.02471 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [50]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 031103 (2006) [arXiv:gr-qc/0506126 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Molina and J

    M. Molina and J. R. Villanueva, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, no.10, 105002 (2021) [arXiv:2101.07917 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Bardeen, Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the theory of relativity: Tbilisi, USSR, December 9-13, 1968 (1968) p

    J. Bardeen, Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the theory of relativity: Tbilisi, USSR, December 9-13, 1968 (1968) p. 174

    1968

  46. [53]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, JCAP02, 042 (2019) [arXiv:1812.07114 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Peltola and G

    A. Peltola and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D79, 061501 (2009) [arXiv:0811.3240 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Peltola and G

    A. Peltola and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D80, 044031 (2009) [arXiv:0902.1746 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Bianchi, M

    E. Bianchi, M. Christodoulou, F. D’Ambrosio, H. M. Haggard and C. Rovelli, Class. Quant. Grav.35, no.22, 225003 (2018) [arXiv:1802.04264 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  50. [57]

    D’Ambrosio and C

    F. D’Ambrosio and C. Rovelli, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, no.21, 215010 (2018) [arXiv:1803.05015 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Sebastiani and S

    L. Sebastiani and S. Zerbini, Astronomy1, no.2, 99-125 (2022) [arXiv:2206.03814 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Ansoldi, [arXiv:0802.0330 [gr-qc]]

    S. Ansoldi, [arXiv:0802.0330 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  53. [60]

    Nicolini, Int

    P. Nicolini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A24, 1229-1308 (2009) [arXiv:0807.1939 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Torres, [arXiv:2208.12713 [gr-qc]]

    R. Torres, [arXiv:2208.12713 [gr-qc]]. 15

  55. [62]

    C. Lan, H. Yang, Y. Guo and Y. G. Miao, Int. J. Theor. Phys.62, no.9, 202 (2023) [arXiv:2303.11696 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Hawking, Mon

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

    1971 doi

  57. [64]

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

    1974 doi

  58. [65]

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

    1975 doi

  59. [66]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Dark Univ.22, 137-146 (2018) [arXiv:1711.10458 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Escrivà, F

    A. Escrivà, F. Kuhnel and Y. Tada, [arXiv:2211.05767 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  61. [68]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, no.6, 061101 (2016) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no.5, 059901 (2018)] [arXiv:1603.08338 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [69]

    A. Katz, J. Kopp, S. Sibiryakov and W. Xue, JCAP12, 005 (2018) [arXiv:1807.11495 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Bai and N

    Y. Bai and N. Orlofsky, Phys. Rev. D99, no.12, 123019 (2019) [arXiv:1812.01427 [astro- ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Smyth, S

    N. Smyth, S. Profumo, S. English, T. Jeltema, K. McKinnon and P. Guhathakurta, Phys. Rev. D101, no.6, 063005 (2020) [arXiv:1910.01285 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Coogan, L

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

    2021 arXiv

  66. [73]

    A. Ray, R. Laha, J. B. Muñoz and R. Caputo, Phys. Rev. D104, no.2, 023516 (2021) [arXiv:2102.06714 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Auffinger, Eur

    J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.4, 384 (2022) [arXiv:2201.01265 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Ghosh and A

    D. Ghosh and A. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D109, no.4, 043537 (2024) [arXiv:2208.14279 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [76]

    A. L. Miller, N. Aggarwal, S. Clesse and F. De Lillo, Phys. Rev. D105, no.6, 062008 (2022) [arXiv:2110.06188 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [77]

    N. P. Branco, R. Z. Ferreira and J. G. Rosa, JCAP04, 003 (2023) [arXiv:2301.01780 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [78]

    Bertrand, M

    B. Bertrand, M. Cuadrat-Grzybowski, P. Defraigne, M. Van Camp and S. Clesse, [arXiv:2312.14520 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  72. [79]

    T. X. Tran, S. R. Geller, B. V. Lehmann and D. I. Kaiser, Phys. Rev. D110, no.6, 063533 (2024) [arXiv:2312.17217 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [80]

    Gorton and A

    M. Gorton and A. M. Green, SciPost Phys.17, no.2, 032 (2024) [arXiv:2403.03839 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [81]

    J. B. Dent, B. Dutta and T. Xu, Phys. Lett. B861, 139254 (2025) [arXiv:2404.02956 [hep-ph]]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [82]

    Tamta, N

    M. Tamta, N. Raj and P. Sharma, [arXiv:2405.20365 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  76. [83]

    Tinyakov, [arXiv:2406.03114 [astro-ph.CO]]

    P. Tinyakov, [arXiv:2406.03114 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  77. [84]

    Loeb, Res

    A. Loeb, Res. Notes AAS8, no.8, 211 (2024) [arXiv:2408.10799 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [85]

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

    2021 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Design Concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array

    Consortium, The Cta. “Design Concepts for the Cherenkov Telescope Array.” (2010)

    2010

  80. [87]

    Calzà and J

    M. Calzà and J. G. Rosa, JHEP12, 090 (2022) [arXiv:2210.06500 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  81. [88]

    Calzà and J

    M. Calzà and J. G. Rosa, JHEP08, 012 (2024) [arXiv:2311.12930 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [89]

    Calzà, D

    M. Calzà, D. Pedrotti and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 111, no.2, 024009 (2025) [arXiv:2409.02804 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Moulin, A

    F. Moulin, A. Barrau and K. Martineau, Universe5, no.9, 202 (2019) [arXiv:1908.06311 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine and F. Sartini, Phys. Rev. D104, no.8, 084016 (2021) [arXiv:2107.03293 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Arbey, J

    A. Arbey, J. Auffinger, M. Geiller, E. R. Livine and F. Sartini, Phys. Rev. D103, no.10, 104010 (2021) [arXiv:2101.02951 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Neitzke, [arXiv:hep-th/0304080 [hep-th]]

    A. Neitzke, [arXiv:hep-th/0304080 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  87. [95]

    Y. P. Singh and T. I. Singh, Eur. Phys. J. C84, no.12, 1245 (2024) [arXiv:2408.14945 [hep-ph]]

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

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

    2024 arXiv

  89. [97]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko and A. F. Zinhailo, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 155002 (2019) [arXiv:1904.10333 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  90. [98]

    D. J. Gogoi, A. Övgün and D. Demir, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101314 (2023) [arXiv:2306.09231 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Kanzi and İ

    S. Kanzi and İ. Sakallı, Universe9, no.2, 108 (2023) [arXiv:2301.07915 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Mahdavian Yekta, M

    D. Mahdavian Yekta, M. Karimabadi and S. A. Alavi, Annals Phys.434, 168603 (2021) [arXiv:1912.12017 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  93. [101]

    S. Devi, R. Roy and S. Chakrabarti, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.8, 760 (2020) [arXiv:2004.14935 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Lenzi and C

    M. Lenzi and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D107, no.8, 084039 (2023) [arXiv:2301.01096 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  95. [103]

    A.Arbey, M.Calzá, D.Pedrotti, Y.G.Perez-GonzalezandS.Vagnozzi, BlackHawk v3.0, to be published and released

  96. [104]

    A. Z. Petrov, Gen. Rel. Grav.32 (2000), 1661-1663. doi:10.1023/A:1001910908054

    2000 doi

  97. [105]

    Chandrasekhar Royal Society, Volume 430, Issue 1879, (1990)

    S. Chandrasekhar Royal Society, Volume 430, Issue 1879, (1990)

    1990

  98. [106]

    E. G. Kalnins, W. Miller Jr,and G. C. Williams Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Physical and Engineering Sciences 340337-352 (1992)

    1992

  99. [107]

    E. D. Fackerell and R. G. Crossman, J. Math. Phys.18 (1977), 1849-1854

    1977

  100. [108]

    K. G. Suffern, J. Math. Phys.24 (1983), 1350. [arXiv:math-ph/0402047 [math-ph]]

    1983 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Seidel, Class

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

    1989 doi

  102. [110]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and M. Casals, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), 024013 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), 109902]. [arXiv:gr-qc/0511111 [gr-qc]]

    2006 arXiv

  103. [111]

    A. D. Sakharov, Sov. Phys. JETP 22, 241 (1966)

    1966

  104. [112]

    E. B. Gliner, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 22, 378 (1966)

    1966

  105. [113]

    M. A. Markov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 36, 265 (1982)

    1982

  106. [114]

    M. A. Markov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 46, 431 (1987)

    1987

  107. [115]

    R. H. Brandenberger, [arXiv:gr-qc/9210014 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  108. [116]

    Kumar, D

    A. Kumar, D. V. Singh and S. G. Ghosh, Annals Phys. 419, 168214 (2020) [arXiv:2003.14016 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  109. [117]

    S. I. Kruglov, Grav. Cosmol.27, no.1, 78-84 (2021) [arXiv:2103.14087 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Addazi, J

    A. Addazi, J. Alvarez-Muniz, R. Alves Batista, G. Amelino-Camelia, V. Antonelli, M. Arzano, M. Asorey, J. L. Atteia, S. Bahamonde and F. Bajardi,et al. Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 125, 103948 (2022) [arXiv:2111.05659 [hep-ph]]

    2022 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Alves Batista, G

    R. Alves Batista, G. Amelino-Camelia, D. Boncioli, J. M. Carmona, A. di Matteo, G. Gubitosi, I. Lobo, N. E. Mavromatos, C. Pfeifer and D. Rubiera-Garcia,et al. Class. Quant. Grav.42, no.3, 032001 (2025) [arXiv:2312.00409 [gr-qc]]. 17

    2025 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Phys. Lett. B493, 149-152 (2000) [arXiv:gr-qc/0009077 [gr-qc]]

    2000 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Gen. Rel. Grav.37, 635 (2005) [arXiv:hep-th/0403229 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  114. [122]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 28, no.03, 1950048 (2018) [arXiv:1801.08872 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Tsukamoto, Phys

    N. Tsukamoto, Phys. Rev. D103, no.2, 024033 (2021) [arXiv:2011.03932 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Mazza, E

    J. Mazza, E. Franzin and S. Liberati, JCAP04, 082 (2021) [arXiv:2102.01105 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Shaikh, K

    R. Shaikh, K. Pal, K. Pal and T. Sarkar, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506, no.1, 1229-1236 (2021) [arXiv:2102.04299 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  118. [126]

    S. U. Islam, J. Kumar and S. G. Ghosh, rotating Simpson-Visser black holes,” JCAP 10, 013 (2021) [arXiv:2104.00696 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Guerrero, G

    M. Guerrero, G. J. Olmo, D. Rubiera-Garcia and D. S. C. Gómez, JCAP08, 036 (2021) [arXiv:2105.15073 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Bambhaniya, S

    P. Bambhaniya, S. K, K. Jusufi and P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D105, no.2, 023021 (2022) [arXiv:2109.15054 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Y. Yang, D. Liu, A. Övgün, Z. W. Long and Z. Xu, [arXiv:2205.07530 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  122. [130]

    S. Riaz, S. Shashank, R. Roy, A. B. Abdikamalov, D. Ayzenberg, C. Bambi, Z. Zhang and M. Zhou, JCAP10, 040 (2022) [arXiv:2206.03729 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Arora, P

    D. Arora, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey and P. S. Joshi, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101487 (2024) [arXiv:2305.08082 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  124. [132]

    S. K. Jha, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, no.8, 757 (2023) [arXiv:2309.06454 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  125. [133]

    S. K. Jha and A. Rahaman, Phys. Dark Univ. 42, 101327 (2023) doi:10.1016/j.dark.2023.101327

    2023

  126. [134]

    K. A. Bronnikov and R. K. Walia, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.4, 044039 (2022) [arXiv:2112.13198 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  127. [135]

    S. G. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C75, no.11, 532 (2015) [arXiv:1408.5668 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Culetu, Int

    H. Culetu, Int. J. Theor. Phys.54, no.8, 2855-2863 (2015) [arXiv:1408.3334 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, Universe6, no.1, 8 (2019) [arXiv:1911.01020 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  130. [138]

    V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D94, no.10, 104056 (2016) [arXiv:1609.01758 [gr-qc]]. 18

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.