No-hair theorems in General Relativity and scalar-tensor theories

Daniela Doneva; Stoytcho Yazadjiev

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

No-hair theorems in General Relativity and scalar-tensor theories

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The review establishes that most known no-hair theorems for black holes in scalar-tensor gravity hold, and adds a new theorem: in classical multiscalar theories with a nonzero potential whose target-space Hessian is semi-positive…

desk verdict A dependable, self-contained review with one new theorem in Sec. 5.5 whose proof has a fixable gap, plus a sign error in the noncanonical section. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01038 v1 pith:BPJVUBL7 submitted 2025-05-02 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Stoytcho Yazadjiev , Daniela Doneva This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th PACS 04.70.Bw04.50.Kd

keywords no-hairtheoremsblackholeuniquenessscalar-tensorgravitymultiscalartheoriesKerrholesHorndeskiscalar-Gauss-Bonnetstationaryaxisymmetric

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

This review argues that the black-hole classification problems of general relativity and of scalar-tensor gravity are largely governed by the same no-hair mechanism: under suitable conditions on the scalar potential and on the scalar fields' symmetries, the only stationary, asymptotically flat vacuum black holes are the Kerr or Schwarzschild solutions with a constant scalar field. The paper's own new contribution is a theorem in Section 5.5 covering rotating black holes in classical multiscalar theories with a nonzero potential: if the target-space Hessian of the potential is semi-positive definite everywhere, then every stationary and axisymmetric solution with symmetry-compatible scalar fields and a regular horizon must be Kerr with a constant scalar map. The review also demonstrates that the bulk of the known no-hair statements, including static spherical cases with time-dependent scalars and several shift-symmetric Horndeski subclasses, follow from the same family of techniques. A sympathetic reader would care because the result draws a boundary around where beyond-GR scalar hair can exist and reduces a large part of the black-hole uniqueness problem back to the Kerr family.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the target-space Hessian of the scalar potential, $D_bD_cV(\phi)$, together with the divergence identity $$\nabla_\mu(D_a V(\phi)\nabla^\mu\phi^a) = D_bD_cV(\phi)\nabla_\mu\phi^b\nabla^\mu\phi^c + \frac{1}{4}\$gamma^{{ab}}$D_aV(\phi)D_bV(\phi).$$ After dimensional reduction to the two-dimensional factor space of the stationary and axial Killing fields, this becomes an elliptic identity in which $\rho = \sqrt{-\det \Gamma_{IJ}}$ multiplies both sides; the boundary terms drop out because $\rho$ vanishes on the horizon and the rotation axis and the potential decays at infinity, leaving a manifestly nonnegative bulk integral. The same toolbox recurs through the review: conformal doubling with factors $\Omega_\pm = \frac{1}{4}(1\pm N)^2$ combined with the positive-mass theorem for static cases, the Mazur identity for the vacuum Kerr uniqueness proof, a scaling argument on the mass function of scalar hair, and the conserved-current integral that kills the scalar charge in shift-symmetric Horndeski theories.

What would settle it

Consider a two-scalar theory with potential $V(\varphi^1,\varphi^2)=(\varphi^1)^2$, so $D_bD_cV$ has eigenvalues $2$ and $0$ and is semi-positive definite, and numerically search for a stationary, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat, regular-horizon black hole whose $\varphi^2$ profile is nonconstant outside the horizon and tends to a constant at infinity; such a solution would refute the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as a new theorem, is this: consider the vacuum field equations of the classical multiscalar theories of gravity with potential $V(\phi)\neq 0$, and assume the tensor $D_bD_cV(\phi)$ is semi-positive definite everywhere on the target space $\mathbb{E}^N$. Then every stationary and axisymmetric black hole solution with regular horizon and stationary, axisymmetric scalar fields, $L_\xi\phi^a = L_\eta\phi^a = 0$, consists of the Kerr solution and a constant scalar map with $D_aV(\phi)=0$. The paper presents the proof by reducing the problem to a Riemannian one on the factor space of the two Killing fields, integrating a divergence identity weighted by $\rho$, and concluding that the scalar gradients and the potential derivative must vanish; the remaining equations are the vacuum Einstein equations, whose unique stationary black hole is Kerr. Alongside this theorem the review maintains that the known single-scalar results, the static spherical multiscalar results, the $V=0$ rotating result, and the shift-symmetric Horndeski scalar-charge result all hold, and it gives the proofs in detail.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing step is that the vanishing of the integrated nonnegative terms in Eq. (158) forces the scalar-field gradients to be zero; with only a semi-positive definite Hessian, those gradients could instead lie in a flat direction of $V$, and the paper gives no further argument excluding that possibility.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In every multiscalar vacuum theory whose potential has a semi-positive definite Hessian and at least one zero, a stationary axisymmetric black hole with symmetry-compatible scalar fields must be Kerr with a constant scalar field.
For the classical theories with a single scalar field, the no-hair theorem applies whenever $\phi V'(\phi)\ge 0$ or $V''(\phi)\ge 0$, so any observed deviation from Kerr inside those classes would have to come from time-dependent scalars or from matter.
Static, spherically symmetric multiscalar black holes in the vacuum with $V(\phi)\ge 0$ are Schwarzschild with a constant scalar map, including the cases where the scalars are time-dependent along a target-space Killing flow with nonempty axis.
In shift-symmetric Horndeski theories with regular coupling functions, static spherical black holes have no nontrivial scalar profile and rotating circular black holes carry zero scalar charge, so hairy solutions require exceptional pole-type couplings or explicit time dependence.
The explicit scalar-Gauss-Bonnet scalarization branches show that no-hair theorems do not extend to every beyond-GR theory: multiple hairy branches and nonuniqueness appear once the potential or coupling allows a different effective structure.

Reading between the lines

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

The flat-direction gap in the Section 5.5 proof suggests that the most likely place for a counterexample is a potential that is nonnegative but flat in some direction, where the Hessian condition cannot see the hair.
If one could close that gap, the same Hessian condition would give a clean convexity criterion separating Kerr-only multiscalar theories from theories that can host scalar hair.
The divergence-identity technique appears general enough to carry over to electrovacuum multiscalar theories or to higher-dimensional black holes with interval structure data, though the paper does not develop those extensions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a review with one genuinely new result. The theorem in Sec. 5.5 extends Heusler's rotating no-hair theorem to multiscalar theories with a nonzero potential whose Hessian is positive semidefinite. The review part is solid: it gives a self-contained account of the GR uniqueness theorems (Bunting-Masood-ul-Alam, Mazur's identity) and the main scalar-tensor no-hair results, with proofs sketched at a level that is actually usable. This is the kind of review people will keep on their desks.

The soft spots are in the new material. The proof of Theorem 5.5 has a genuine gap. After integrating the divergence identity, the vanishing of the right-hand side of (158) only gives D_a V = 0 and D_b D_c V \hat D_i phi^b \hat D_i phi^c = 0. With a semidefinite Hessian, that second condition does not force \hat D_i phi^a = 0—the gradients can lie in the kernel of the Hessian. The example V = (phi^1)^2 on a flat two-scalar target, with phi^1 = 0 and phi^2 nonconstant, satisfies all the stated assumptions and makes the integrand vanish without a constant scalar map. The theorem may still be true: since D_a V = 0 along the scalar image and V tends to 0 at infinity, the solution satisfies the V = 0 field equations, so the Sec. 5.4 theorem should apply. But that reduction is not in the paper, and the assertion as written is not derived. This is fixable, but the proof is incomplete.

Section 6 has a smaller but real sign problem. The theorem states conditions (160)-(161) with phi ∂_phi F having the same sign as ∂_K F, but the proof requires opposite signs to make both terms in (162) non-negative. As stated, the theorem's hypotheses do not imply the conclusion; the inequalities need to be swapped.

The citation practice is fine; the authors cite their own numerical work for context, and the new theorem does not depend on it. The review claims are mostly faithful to the original proofs. For a reader wanting a map of the no-hair landscape, this is a good entry point. I would send it to a competent referee after a light revision: fix the 5.5 proof, correct the Section 6 sign, and it becomes a solid contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is a review of no-hair and uniqueness theorems for stationary, asymptotically flat black holes in general relativity and in scalar-tensor theories. It presents detailed proofs of the GR uniqueness theorems for Schwarzschild and Kerr black holes, then surveys and reproves results for classical single-field and multiscalar scalar-tensor theories, noncanonical scalar fields, and shift-symmetric Horndeski theories. The paper also claims one new theorem, in Section 5.5, for stationary and axisymmetric black holes in multiscalar theories with nonzero potential and a semi-positive definite Hessian of the potential. The review is largely self-contained, and the authors state that their aim is both to collect known results and to demonstrate the underlying mathematical techniques.

Significance. If fully correct, the new theorem in Section 5.5 would be a substantive extension of the no-hair paradigm to rotating black holes in multiscalar theories with a class of nonzero potentials, and the review would provide a useful pedagogical survey of the available uniqueness techniques. The paper's strengths include its detailed, largely self-contained derivations of the classical GR uniqueness arguments via the positive mass theorem and the Mazur identity, and its explicit treatment of several nontrivial scalar-field cases. However, the central new claim is not proven as stated, and a theorem in Section 6 is stated with sign conditions that contradict the proof. These issues affect the reliability of the paper's original and review content, and they require correction before the manuscript can be accepted.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 5.5, Eq. (158)] The inference after Eq. (158) that the vanishing of the integrated non-negative terms forces \hat D_i\varphi^a = 0 is not valid under the stated hypothesis. Semi-positive definiteness of D_bD_cV only gives D_bD_cV \hat D_i\varphi^b \hat D_i\varphi^c = 0; this allows nonzero scalar gradients lying in the kernel of the Hessian. For example, with a flat target metric and V(\varphi^1,\varphi^2)=(\varphi^1)^2, any configuration with \varphi^1=0 and nonconstant \varphi^2 has D_aV=0 and a vanishing Hessian term, while \hat D_i\varphi^2 \neq 0. The proof would need an additional argument, such as using D_aV=0 and asymptotic flatness to show that V vanishes on the scalar image and then invoking the V=0 theorem of Sec. 5.4, but no such step is supplied. The theorem is therefore not proven as stated.
[Sec. 6, Eqs. (160)-(163)] The sign conditions in the theorem do not match the proof. In Eq. (163) the integrand is \partial_KF\,\nabla_\mu\varphi\nabla^\mu\varphi - \varphi\partial_\varphi F. If \partial_KF>0 and \varphi\partial_\varphi F\ge 0, this is a difference of two nonnegative terms and can vanish for nontrivial configurations, so the vanishing of the integral does not imply that the scalar field is trivial. The argument requires opposite signs, namely \partial_KF>0 with \varphi\partial_\varphi F\le 0, or \partial_KF<0 with \varphi\partial_\varphi F\ge 0. As printed, the theorem's hypotheses are insufficient for the stated conclusion.
[Sec. 5.3, theorem and Eq. (132)] The theorem's conclusion k^2(\varphi_0)=0 is not derived in the case \omega=0. The integration of Eq. (132) forces P=0 and \omega^2|k|^2=0; when \omega=0, this imposes no condition on |k|^2. A constant scalar map at a point with V=0 but k^2\neq 0 satisfies L_\xi\varphi=-\omega k with \omega=0 and reduces the field equations to vacuum GR, so such a configuration is not excluded by the stated hypotheses. The theorem should either assume \omega\neq 0 or drop the condition k^2(\varphi_0)=0 from the conclusion.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 5.4, Eq. (149)] In the second integrand of Eq. (149), the first term is printed as (\partial_\rho h_\phi)^2 twice; it should be (\partial_\rho h_\phi)^2 + (\partial_z h_\phi)^2.
[Sec. 5.4, Eq. (139)] The Christoffel term in the reduced scalar equation should read \gamma^a_{bc}(\partial_\rho\varphi^b\partial_\rho\varphi^c + \partial_z\varphi^b\partial_z\varphi^c); as printed, the index structure with \gamma^a_{bc}\partial_\rho\varphi^a\partial_\rho\varphi^b is inconsistent.
[Sec. 3.2, after Eq. (77)] The boundary values of the twist potential on the axis are quoted as \chi=\pm J + O(\rho^2), whereas Eq. (68) and the Komar integral give \chi=\pm 4J + O(\rho^2); the factor does not affect the boundedness argument but should be made consistent.
[Sec. 6, proof of the theorem] The proof explicitly assumes that \varphi\to 0 at infinity, while the theorem only states that \varphi is constant; because the authors note this limitation at the end of the proof, the theorem statement should either include the asymptotic condition or the proof should be extended to constants at other zeros of the potential.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical slips, such as "passting" in Sec. 5.1, "the filed equations" in Sec. 3.1, and a duplicated coefficient in the paragraph containing Eq. (149); these should be corrected in a final pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the original Sec. 5.5 theorem and the reviewed results are derived from stated assumptions and standard external theorems, with no fitted parameters and no conclusions built into the premises.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The new theorem in Sec. 5.5 starts from the scalar field equation (152), derives the divergence identity (156) and its elliptic counterpart (157) by direct differentiation, integrates over the factor space, and uses asymptotic flatness and the vanishing of rho on the boundary to conclude that the non-negative integrand in Eq. (158) must vanish. The conclusion "Kerr solution and a constant scalar map" is not an input: the Kerr uniqueness theorem of Sec. 3.2 is invoked as an external standard result, and the scalar-field part is proven from the assumed semi-positive definiteness of D_b D_c V. No parameter is fitted, and no quantity is defined in terms of the target conclusion. Self-citations (e.g., [18], [72], [73], [86]) appear as context, numerical illustrations, or as references for theorems whose proofs are reproduced in the text, so they are not load-bearing. The only substantive concern is a mathematical gap in the inference after Eq. (158): semi-positive definiteness alone does not force \hat D_i phi^a = 0 when the Hessian has flat directions. That is a correctness issue, not circularity, because the claimed reduction of the theorem to its assumptions is absent, while the assumptions do not already contain the conclusion.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data. The paper depends on standard external theorems (positive mass, rigidity, topological censorship) and on the specific conditions of each no-hair theorem (energy conditions, symmetry assumptions, semidefinite Hessian). The semidefinite Hessian condition in Section 5.5 is the most fragile.

assumptions (8)

standard math Positive mass theorem in Riemannian form (Schoen-Yau/Witten) applies to the constructed doubled manifold.
Used in Section 3.1 to prove Schwarzschild uniqueness and in Section 5.1 to prove static multiscalar no-hair; the paper invokes it without proof.
domain assumption Rigidity theorem: stationary analytic black hole has a Killing horizon and is static or axisymmetric.
Invoked in Sections 3 and 4 to reduce stationary black holes to static or stationary-axisymmetric form.
domain assumption Topological censorship and S2 topology of the horizon under averaged null energy condition.
Used in Section 3.2 to fix the domain of outer communication topology and the boundary structure of the factor space.
domain assumption Energy conditions: weak/null/average null energy condition for the scalar field energy-momentum tensor.
Assumed in Sections 3 and 4; for scalar fields with V >= 0 it follows from the field equations.
domain assumption Asymptotic flatness and scalar field approaches a zero of V at infinity (phi*), set to 0 without loss of generality.
Used in Section 4 to show the boundary term at infinity vanishes.
ad hoc to paper For the Section 5.5 theorem, the potential Hessian D_b D_c V is semipositive definite on the target space.
This is the main condition of the new theorem; the proof uses it to make the integrated identity non-negative, but strictly it is insufficient to force D_i phi = 0 unless the Hessian is positive definite or an additional argument is supplied.
ad hoc to paper In Section 5.3, the target space metric admits a Killing vector k^a with non-empty axis and invariant A(phi), used to model time-dependent scalar fields.
This is an assumption of the theorem for time-periodic scalar fields.
domain assumption In Section 7, the Noether current J^mu is assumed asymptotically equal to d^mu phi, and the functions G_i have no poles at K -> 0.
Needed for the scalar-charge vanishing argument in shift-symmetric Horndeski theories.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No-hair theorems in General Relativity and scalar-tensor theories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BPJVUBL7

@misc{pith2026250501038,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No-hair theorems in General Relativity and scalar-tensor theories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BPJVUBL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01038}
}

read the original abstract

In the present review, we consider the status of the classification of the vacuum, stationary and asymptotically flat black holes in scalar-tensor gravity. Contrary to the similar problem in general relativity, the black hole classification in scalar-tensor theories is much more challenging due to the very complicated character of the field equations and the very complex mathematical structure of the scalar-tensor gravity as a whole. We review most of the known no-hair results, and where possible new ones, as well demonstrate some of the difficulties that appear in our attempts to classify the black holes within scalar-tensor gravity. The proofs of the theorems and the underlying mathematical techniques are given in sufficient detail. To make the review self-contained we also present the vacuum black hole uniqueness theorems in general relativity and their proofs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01038 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The scalar charge as a function of the normalized mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Black hole interiors in the thermal view of scalar-tensor gravity
gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

In the thermal view of Brans-Dicke gravity, black hole singularities are 'hot': the effective temperature KT diverges as 1/t, and a fluid with P=wρ controls whether gravity approaches or departs from general relativity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Robinson, in The Kerr Spacetime: Rotating Black Holes in General Relativity, edited by D

D. Robinson, in The Kerr Spacetime: Rotating Black Holes in General Relativity, edited by D. Wiltshire et. al, Cambridge University Press, 2009

2009
[2]

P. O. Mazur, arXiv:hep-th/0101012 [hep-th]

arXiv
[3]

Ruffini and J

R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, 30 (1971)

1971
[4]

Israel, Phys

W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776-1779 (1967)

1967
[5]

Carter, Phys

B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331-333 (1971)

1971
[6]

D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905-906 (1975)

1975
[7]

P. O. Mazur, J. Phys. A 15, 3173-3180 (1982)

1982
[8]

Proof of the uniqueness conjecture for black holes

G.L. Bunting, “Proof of the uniqueness conjecture for black holes”, PhD Thesis, Univ. of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., 1983

1983

Show all 88 references

[9]

Black hole uniqueness theorems

M. Heusler, “Black hole uniqueness theorems”, Cambridge University Press, 1996

1996
[10]

S. Droz, M. Heusler and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B 268, 371-376 (1991)

1991
[11]

M. S. V olkov and D. V . Galtsov, JETP Lett.50, 346-350 (1989) 42

1989
[12]

Bizon, Phys

P. Bizon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2844-2847 (1990)

1990
[13]

B. R. Greene, S. D. Mathur and C. M. O’Neill, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2242-2259 (1993)

1993
[14]

Hartmann, B

B. Hartmann, B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024027 (2002)

2002
[15]

Hollands and S

S. Hollands and S. Yazadjiev, Commun. Math. Phys. 283, 749-768 (2008)

2008
[16]

Nedkova and S

P. Nedkova and S. Yazadjiev, Lect. Notes Phys. 1031, pp. (2024)

2024
[17]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 221101 (2014)

2014
[18]

L. G. Collodel, D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084032 (2020)

2020
[19]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 121401 (2023)

2023
[20]

D. D. Doneva, F. M. Ramazano ˘glu, H. O. Silva, T. P. Sotiriou and S. S. Yazadjiev, Rev. Mod. Phys. 96, 015004 (2024)

2024
[21]

Gravitation,

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation,” W. H. Freeman (1973)

1973
[22]

General Relativity

R. Wald, “General Relativity”, University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1984)

1984
[23]

Kaluza, Sitz

T . Kaluza, Sitz. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin. Math. Phys. S.966 (1921)

1921
[24]

Klein, Zeit, f

O. Klein, Zeit, f. Phys. Bd.37, S.895 (1926)

1926
[25]

Jordan, Nature 164, 637 (1949); Schwerkraft und Weltall (Braunschweig: Viewrg) (1955)

P. Jordan, Nature 164, 637 (1949); Schwerkraft und Weltall (Braunschweig: Viewrg) (1955)

1949
[26]

Fierz, Helv

M. Fierz, Helv. Phys. Acta 29, 128-134 (1956)

1956
[27]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 186, 412 (1981)

1981
[28]

Mallik, Helv

S. Mallik, Helv. Phys. Acta 58, 1004 (1985) BUTP-84/24-BERN

1985
[29]

M. J. Duff, B. E. W. Nilsson and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rept. 130, 1-142 (1986)

1986
[30]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925-935 (1961)

1961
[31]

R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 125, 2163-2167 (1962)

1962
[32]

P. G. Bergmann, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 25-36 (1968)

1968
[33]

R. V . Wagoner, Phys. Rev. D1, 3209-3216 (1970)

1970
[34]

Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics,

C. M. Will, “Theory and Experiment in Gravitational Physics,” Cambridge University Press (2018)

2018
[35]

Wands, Class

D. Wands, Class. Quant. Grav. 11, 269-280 (1994)

1994
[36]

Damour and G

T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 2093-2176 (1992) 43

1992
[37]

Charmousis, Lect

C. Charmousis, Lect. Notes Phys. 769, 299-346 (2009)

2009
[38]

R. R. Metsaev and A. A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B 293, 385-419 (1987)

1987
[39]

Yunes and L

N. Yunes and L. C. Stein, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104002 (2011)

2011
[40]

P. Pani, C. F. B. Macedo, L. C. B. Crispino and V . Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 84, 087501 (2011)

2011
[41]

Alexander and N

S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept. 480, 1-55 (2009) [arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]]

2009 arXiv
[42]

G. W. Horndeski, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 10, 363-384 (1974)

1974
[43]

Deffayet, S

C. Deffayet, S. Deser and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. D 80, 064015 (2009)

2009
[44]

Kobayashi, M

T. Kobayashi, M. Yamaguchi and J. Yokoyama, Prog. Theor. Phys.126, 511-529 (2011)

2011
[45]

Armendariz-Picon, T

C. Armendariz-Picon, T. Damour and V . F. Mukhanov, Phys. Lett. B 458, 209-218 (1999)

1999
[46]

Chiba, T

T. Chiba, T. Okabe and M. Yamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D 62, 023511 (2000)

2000
[47]

Armendariz-Picon, V

C. Armendariz-Picon, V . F. Mukhanov and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 4438- 4441 (2000)

2000
[48]

Armendariz-Picon and E

C. Armendariz-Picon and E. A. Lim, JCAP 08, 007 (2005)

2005
[49]

Dynamics of k-essence,

A. D. Rendall, “Dynamics of k-essence,” Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 1557-1570 (2006)

2006
[50]

Bernard, L

L. Bernard, L. Lehner and R. Luna, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024011 (2019)

2019
[51]

G. J. Galloway, K. Schleich, D. M. Witt and E. Woolgar, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104039 (1999)

1999
[52]

The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,

S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time,” Cam- bridge University Press (2023)

2023
[53]

P. T. Chrusciel, Commun. Math. Phys. 189, 1-7 (1997)

1997
[54]

Friedrich, I

H. Friedrich, I. Racz and R. M. Wald, Commun. Math. Phys. 204, 691-707 (1999)

1999
[55]

Bunting and A

G. Bunting and A. Masood-ul Alam, Gen. Rel. Grav. 19, No2, 147 (1987)

1987
[56]

Schoen and S

R. Schoen and S. T. Yau, Commun. Math. Phys. 65, 45-76 (1979)

1979
[57]

Witten, Commun

E. Witten, Commun. Math. Phys. 80, 381 (1981)

1981
[58]

Hollands and S

S. Hollands and S. Yazadjiev, Commun. Math. Phys. 302, 631-674 (2011)

2011
[59]

A Global Identity for Nonlinear Sigma-Models,

P. Mazur, “A Global Identity for Nonlinear Sigma-Models,” Phys. Lett A 100 (1984) 341. 44

1984
[60]

Weinstein, Math

G. Weinstein, Math. Res. Lett. 3, 835-844 (1996)

1996
[61]

S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 167-171 (1972)

1972
[62]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 452-455 (1972)

1972
[63]

T. P. Sotiriou and V . Faraoni, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 081103 (2012)

2012
[64]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, 1542014 (2015)

2015
[65]

Heusler, J

M. Heusler, J. Math. Phys. 33, 3497-3502 (1992)

1992
[66]

J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 51, R6608 (1995)

1995
[67]

Sudarsky, Class

D. Sudarsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 12, 579-584 (1995)

1995
[68]

Cardoso, I

V . Cardoso, I. P. Carucci, P. Pani and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 111101 (2013)

2013
[69]

Hod, Phys

S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104026 (2012) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 86, 129902 (2012)]

2012
[70]

Herdeiro and E

C. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 144001 (2015)

2015
[71]

Heusler, Class

M. Heusler, Class. Quant. Grav. 10, 791-799 (1993)

1993
[72]

Doneva and S

D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084055 (2020)

2020
[73]

S. S. Yazadjiev and D. D. Doneva, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 492 (2024)

2024
[74]

Pena and D

I. Pena and D. Sudarsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, 3131-3134 (1997)

1997
[75]

Friedberg, T

R. Friedberg, T. D. Lee and A. Sirlin, Phys. Rev. D 13, 2739-2761 (1976)

1976
[76]

Jetzer, Phys

P. Jetzer, Phys. Rept. 220, 163-227 (1992)

1992
[77]

S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Rev. Rel. 26, 1 (2023)

2023
[78]

L. G. Collodel, D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044021 (2020)

2020
[79]

Heusler, Class

M. Heusler, Class. Quant. Grav. 12, 2021-2036 (1995)

1995
[80]

A. A. H. Graham and R. Jha, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084056 (2014) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 92, 069901 (2015)]

2014
[81]

A. A. H. Graham and R. Jha, Phys. Rev. D 90, 041501 (2014)

2014
[82]

Hui and A

L. Hui and A. Nicolis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 241104 (2013)

2013
[83]

T. P. Sotiriou and S. Y . Zhou, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 251102 (2014)

2014
[84]

Capuano, L

L. Capuano, L. Santoni and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D 108, 6 (2023)

2023
[85]

Babichev and C

E. Babichev and C. Charmousis, JHEP 08, 106 (2014) 45

2014
[86]

D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131103 (2018)

2018
[87]

J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, D. D. Doneva, J. Kunz and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124005 (2022)

2022
[88]

L. G. Collodel, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz and E. Berti, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 075018 (2020) 46

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Robinson, in The Kerr Spacetime: Rotating Black Holes in General Relativity, edited by D

D. Robinson, in The Kerr Spacetime: Rotating Black Holes in General Relativity, edited by D. Wiltshire et. al, Cambridge University Press, 2009

2009

[2] [2]

P. O. Mazur, arXiv:hep-th/0101012 [hep-th]

arXiv

[3] [3]

Ruffini and J

R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, 30 (1971)

1971

[4] [4]

Israel, Phys

W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776-1779 (1967)

1967

[5] [5]

Carter, Phys

B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331-333 (1971)

1971

[6] [6]

D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905-906 (1975)

1975

[7] [7]

P. O. Mazur, J. Phys. A 15, 3173-3180 (1982)

1982

[8] [8]

Proof of the uniqueness conjecture for black holes

G.L. Bunting, “Proof of the uniqueness conjecture for black holes”, PhD Thesis, Univ. of New England, Armidale, N.S.W., 1983

1983