Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Hair imprints of the gravitational decoupling and hairy black hole spectroscopy

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The ringdown frequencies of gravitational-decoupling hairy black holes differ from Reissner–Nordström black holes with the same horizon and squared charge by more than the estimated WKB error.

desk verdict Solid extension with a useful matched-{r+,Q^2} comparison, but the WKB error claim is only supported for VGD1; the other two cases need error estimates before the central claim can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20044 v2 pith:7AZW5IYZ submitted 2025-06-24 gr-qc hep-th

V. F. Guimarães , R. T. Cavalcanti , R. da Rocha This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords gravitationaldecouplinghairyblackholesprimaryhairquasinormalmodesRegge–WheelerpotentialWKBapproximationholeringdownReissner–Nordström
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

Gravitational decoupling (GD) produces black hole spacetimes that resemble Reissner–Nordström at large distances but carry an extra exponential term interpreted as primary hair. This paper asks whether that hair leaves a mark on the gravitational-wave ringdown by comparing the quasinormal-mode frequencies of three GD hairy black hole solutions with the frequencies of Reissner–Nordström black holes matched to the same horizon radius and squared charge. Using sixth-order WKB perturbation theory on the odd-parity Regge–Wheeler potentials, it finds that the frequency gaps $\Delta\omega$ between each GD/RN pair grow with the hair coupling $\alpha$ and, for the first family, exceed the estimated WKB error by two to four orders of magnitude. The paper concludes that the spectrum can in principle distinguish hairy GD black holes from no-hair RN black holes with identical $\{r_+, Q^2\}$, while noting that the differences lie below the sensitivity of current gravitational-wave detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GD metric function $f_{GD}(r) = 1 - 2M/r + Q^2/r^2 - \alpha M\, e^{-r/M}/r$, which is the Reissner–Nordström metric plus an exponential hair term; three explicit solutions ($f_{GD1}$, $f_{GD2}$, $f_{GD3}$) follow from the dominant energy condition and the horizon condition. Substituting each into the Regge–Wheeler potential for RN-like backgrounds, $V_{odd} = (f/r^2)\left(\tfrac12 r^2 f'' - r f' + n(n+1) + f - 1 - 2Q^2/r^2\right)$, yields the three potentials $V_{GD1}$, $V_{GD2}$, $V_{GD3}$. The quasinormal frequencies come from the sixth-order WKB formula $\omega^2 = V_0 - \frac{i}{2}\sqrt{2V_0''}\,\left(\Lambda_2 + \Lambda_3 + \Lambda_4 + \Lambda_5 + \Lambda_6 + n_0 + \tfrac12\right)$, and the comparison to no-hair physics uses the frequency gap $\Delta\omega$ against RN black holes selected to share the same $\{r_+, Q^2\}$; the error estimator $\delta_6 = (\omega_7 - \omega_5)/2$ is what lets the paper claim the gap is not numerical noise.

What would settle it

Compute δ6 = (ω7 − ω5)/2 for the fundamental quasinormal frequencies of VGD2 and VGD3 at α = 0.1 and compare with the tabulated ΔIm(ω) ≈ $10^{-5}$ gaps in Tables VII and VIII; if the error estimate for those potentials is comparable to or larger than the gap, the claimed hair signature is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery claim is that primary hair generated by gravitational decoupling is spectroscopically visible: for each of the three GD metric functions $f_{GD1}$, $f_{GD2}$, $f_{GD3}$, the quasinormal frequencies of odd-parity tensor perturbations differ from those of the Reissner–Nordström black hole with the same outer horizon $r_+$ and squared charge $Q^2$ by an amount $\Delta\omega = |\omega_{GD} - \omega_{RN}|$ that increases with the coupling $\alpha$. The paper computes these frequencies with a sixth-order WKB approximation from the Regge–Wheeler potential adapted to the RN-like $1/r^2$ term, and compares $\Delta\omega$ with the error estimator $\delta_6 = (\omega_7 - \omega_5)/2$. For the $V_{GD1}$ family the gap is two to four orders of magnitude above $\delta_6$, and the paper concludes that $\Delta\omega$ constitutes a hair signature in an observable quantity, a distinction that future gravitational-wave detectors could in principle resolve even though current detectors cannot.

Load-bearing premise

The argument that every GD/RN frequency gap is larger than the numerical error depends on assuming that the error estimate δ6 measured for a single potential (VGD1) also applies to the other two potentials and to the RN side, where no such estimate is given.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A no-hair degeneracy is broken: two black holes with identical horizon radius and squared charge, one GD-hairy and one Reissner–Nordström, cannot produce the same ringdown spectrum.
  • The damping rate is the cleanest hair probe: $|\Delta\mathrm{Im}(\omega)|$ grows monotonically with the hair coupling $\alpha$ for all three families, so stronger hair means a more distinguishable decay time.
  • For the $V_{GD1}$ family, the gap exceeds the sixth-order WKB error by two to four orders of magnitude, so the distinction is not an artefact of the approximation's estimated uncertainty.
  • All three DEC-compliant hairy solutions ring longer than Schwarzschild: hair systematically lowers the Regge–Wheeler potential barrier and reduces damping relative to the seed solution.
  • Current detectors cannot resolve $\Delta\omega$, but the paper's estimates give future detectors a concrete target: the hair signature is predicted at frequency differences that scale with $\alpha$ and reach values of order $10^{-2}$ to $10^{-1}$ for the largest couplings considered.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct robustness check the paper leaves implicit is to compute $\delta_6$ for $V_{GD2}$ and $V_{GD3}$ at small $\alpha$: Tables VII and VIII contain $\Delta\mathrm{Im}(\omega)$ values near $10^{-5}$ at $\alpha = 0.1$, within the error range reported for $V_{GD1}$, so the claimed distinction for all three families depends on the error for the other potentials being smaller than those gaps.
  • The same $\{r_+, Q^2\}$-matched comparison could be rerun fixing mass and charge instead, or using the isospectral pair of axial and polar RN potentials, to test whether the exponential hair term is what breaks the degeneracy rather than the particular matching of parameters.
  • Because the hair lives in the short-range exponential term, late-time tails or echo-like features in the ringdown may carry complementary hair signatures beyond the fundamental-mode frequencies studied here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper computes quasinormal modes (QNMs) of axial gravitational perturbations for three families of hairy black holes obtained by gravitational decoupling (GD), using a sixth-order WKB method applied to Regge–Wheeler-type potentials. It compares the resulting spectra with those of Reissner–Nordström (RN) black holes having the same outer horizon radius r+ and squared charge Q^2, defines the frequency difference Δω, and concludes that the differences exceed the estimated WKB error, making Δω a theoretically distinguishable hair signature, while noting that current detectors are not yet sensitive enough. The paper tabulates the QNM frequencies, the differences Δω, and an error estimate δ6 for one of the potentials.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work provides a concrete theoretical distinction between hairy GD black holes and RN black holes with identical {r+, Q^2}, cast in terms of gravitational-wave ringdown observables. The systematic comparison across three GD families and the explicit tabulation of Δω are valuable and reproducible. The paper is also honest in stating that the predicted differences lie below current detector sensitivity. However, the headline conclusion relies on an error estimate reported for only one potential and one overtone family; until that analysis is extended, the claim should be regarded as provisional rather than established.

major comments (2)
  1. [III.A, Eq. (57)] The Regge–Wheeler potential used for the GD metrics is taken directly from the RN derivation, but the GD spacetimes are not vacuum solutions: they have a nonzero effective energy-momentum tensor θμν, given in Eqs. (32)–(34). The linearized perturbation equations then involve δθμν unless the hair sector is assumed to be frozen. The manuscript should either derive Eq. (57) for the GD background, explicitly state the frozen-source assumption, or otherwise justify why the RN form of the potential applies to a non-electromagnetic hair parameter. Without this, the computed QNMs are those of an assumed effective potential rather than of the hairy spacetime itself.
  2. [IV.A, Table II and Section V] The error estimate δ6 is reported only for VGD1 and only for the fundamental overtones (n0 = 0) and only for imaginary parts. Tables VII and VIII, however, contain ΔIm values at or below this scale; for example, Table VII, n = 2, n0 = 0, α = 0.1 lists ΔIm = 1.49×10^-5, about four times smaller than δ6 = 6.05×10^-5 for VGD1 at the same α, and Table VII also gives ΔIm = 3.03×10^-5 for n = 3, n0 = 0, α = 0.1. No δ6 is provided for VGD2, VGD3, or for the RN potentials VRN1–VRN3, and no independent numerical method (such as direct integration or continued fractions) is used to cross-check the WKB results. The Section V claim that the frequency differences between the two classes of solutions exceed the estimated WKB error is therefore not established for the full set of potentials and modes; either the error analysis must be extended to all three GD potentials, the three RN potentials, and the higher overtones, or the conclusion must be restricted to the cases where the comparison is actually supported.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I] The introduction states that the aim is to analyze deviations from the standard Schwarzschild solution, while the actual comparison is performed against Reissner–Nordström solutions with the same r+ and Q^2; the wording should be aligned with the comparison actually made.
  2. [Figures 1–3 captions] The captions state that the plots are made for n = 2, but the plotted quantity dr*/dr = f^{-1} does not depend on the harmonic number n; please clarify what role n plays in these figures.
  3. [Table II caption] The caption reports 'imaginary parts of δ6', but δ6 defined in Eq. (68) is a complex quantity; please state explicitly whether the tabulated values are |Im(δ6)| or Im(δ6), and define the notation used.
  4. [Throughout] The spelling of 'quasi-normal' is inconsistent; the standard term 'quasinormal' should be used uniformly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: GD and RN QNM spectra are computed independently from fixed metrics, and the Δω comparison is a derived prediction rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the fixed GD metric functions (41)–(43), inherited from the GD construction of Ref. [36], through the Regge–Wheeler potential (57) and the sixth-order WKB formula (60), to the complex frequencies; no parameter is fitted to those frequencies and no output is fed back into the metric. The RN spectra are an external no-hair benchmark: Eq. (62) fixes the RN mass from the same {r+, Q^2} values, and the same WKB algorithm is applied to the independent RN potentials. Δω = |ω_GD − ω_RN| is therefore computed from two independently constructed spectra, not defined into existence. The only self-citation with substantive content is Ref. [47], which is cited to note that the fGD1 scalar QNM behavior is similar to the tensor results obtained here; it is corroborative and is not load-bearing for the GD-vs-RN comparison. The paper's real weakness is numerical rather than circular: the WKB error estimate δ6 is reported only for VGD1 (Table II), while some entries of Table VII are of the same magnitude, so the Section V claim that every Δω exceeds the estimated error is not fully established. This is an error-estimation gap, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs, and it does not indicate circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particle, force, or entity; the hair charges {ell0, Q} are inherited from the gravitational decoupling model of Ref. [36]. All free parameters are scanned or algebraically fixed, not fitted to observation.

free parameters (3)
  • alpha = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9 (scanned)
    Free gravitational decoupling coupling; the QNM spectra are computed for these chosen values, not fitted to data.
  • ell_0 = alpha ell = e^-2 for fGD1; 3 for fGD2; 1 for fGD3
    Integration constant from the metric solution, fixed by demanding the event horizon at r+=2 or r+=3; it enters the potential and the QNM shift.
  • Q^2 (hair charge squared) = 4 alpha e^-2; alpha ell(2+alpha e^-alpha ell); alpha(2+alpha ell)e^-alpha ell - 2
    Determined by the horizon and DEC conditions for each of the three cases; it is a model parameter, not a measurement.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three GD hairy metric functions fGD1, fGD2, fGD3 (Eqs. 41-43, 58a-c) are valid black hole solutions within the gravitational decoupling construction of Ref. [36].
    The QNM calculation starts from these metric functions without re-deriving the field equations or checking the horizons beyond the stated constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper The Regge-Wheeler potential for a charged background, Eq. (57), with the -2Q^2/r^2 term, applies unchanged when Q is the GD hair parameter rather than an electromagnetic charge.
    The paper substitutes fGD into the RN-form potential and cites Ref. [101] for the RN case; no derivation is given for a non-electromagnetic hair term.
  • domain assumption The sixth-order WKB formula, Eq. (60), with error estimate δ6 from the fifth and seventh orders, gives accurate QNM frequencies for these potentials.
    WKB is an asymptotic approximation; the paper does not check it against time-domain or continued-fraction results.
  • standard math The dominant energy condition constraints and the choice of fixed event horizons determine the allowed parameter ranges and the particular Q^2 values in Eqs. (39a)-(39c).
    These are algebraic constraints inherited from Ref. [36], used to define the three metric cases.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hair imprints of the gravitational decoupling and hairy black hole spectroscopy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7AZW5IYZ

@misc{pith2026250620044,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hair imprints of the gravitational decoupling and hairy black hole spectroscopy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7AZW5IYZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20044}
}
read the original abstract

Hairy black holes by gravitational decoupling (GD) are probed to derive the gravitational waveform produced by perturbation theory applied to these compact objects. Using the Regge-Wheeler and Zerilli equations governing the metric perturbations and applying a higher-order WKB method, the quasinormal modes (QNMs) are computed and discussed. Compared to the QNMs produced in the ringdown phase of Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole solutions, it yields a clear physical signature of primary hair imprinting the hairy GD black hole gravitational waveforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20044 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_12.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Coherent quantum hairy black holes from gravitational decoupling: regularity, geodesics, and scalar ringdown

    hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Gaussian-smearing the gravitational-decoupling hairy black hole produces a regular core and modified photon rings, lensing, and a claimed but absent ringdown spectrum.

  2. Regular fluid of strings black hole with non trivial core and asymptotic structure by gravitational decoupling

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A cloud-of-strings black hole can be made regular by screening both the mass and string terms with a Hayward-type factor, resulting in a deformed core and modified thermodynamic and quasinormal-mode behavior.

  3. Gravitational decoupling and regular hairy black holes: Geodesic stability, quasinormal modes, and thermodynamic properties

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    For the regular hairy black hole metric (29), larger β shrinks the ISCO and photon sphere, reduces QNM damping, and adds a canonical-ensemble stable phase.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 221101 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)] ( Preprint 1602.03841)

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 104036 (Preprint 1903.04467)

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Ovalle J 2017 Phys. Rev. D 95 104019 (Preprint 1704.05899) 37

    arXiv 2017

  4. [5]

    Estrada M 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C79 918 (Preprint 1905.12129)

    arXiv 2019

  5. [6]

    Gabbanelli L, Ovalle J, Sotomayor A, Stuchlik Z and Casadio R 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C79 486 (Preprint 1905.10162)

    arXiv 2019

  6. [7]

    Leon P and Las Heras C 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 260

    2023

  7. [8]

    Ramos A, Arias C, Fuenmayor E and Contreras E 2021 Eur. Phys. J. C 81 203 (Preprint 2103.05039)

    arXiv 2021

  8. [9]

    Dark Univ

    Sharif M and Naseer T 2023 Phys. Dark Univ. 42 101324 (Preprint 2310.00872)

    arXiv 2023

Show all 107 references
  1. [10]

    Rinc´ on A, Gabbanelli L, Contreras E and Tello-Ortiz F 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C 79 873 ( Preprint 1909.00500)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Morales E and Tello-Ortiz F 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C78 841 (Preprint 1808.01699)

    2018 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Panotopoulos G and Rinc´ on A 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C78 851 (Preprint 1810.08830)

    2018 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Singh K N, Maurya S K, Jasim M K and Rahaman F 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C 79 851

    2019

  5. [14]

    Scripta 98 045305

    Jasim M K, Maurya S K, Khalid Jassim A, Mustafa G, Nag R and Saif Al Buwaiqi I 2023 Phys. Scripta 98 045305

    2023

  6. [15]

    Gabbanelli L, Rinc´ on A and Rubio C 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C 78 370 (Preprint 1802.08000)

    2018 arXiv

  7. [16]

    P´ erez Graterol R 2018Eur. Phys. J. Plus 133 244

  8. [17]

    Heras C L and Leon P 2018 Fortsch. Phys. 66 1800036 (Preprint 1804.06874)

    2018 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Torres-S´ anchez V A and Contreras E 2019Eur. Phys. J. C79 829 (Preprint 1908.08194)

    1908 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Hensh S and Stuchl´ ık Z 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C 79 834 (Preprint 1906.08368)

    2019 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Contreras E, Rinc´ on A and Bargue˜ no P 2019Eur. Phys. J. C 79 216 (Preprint 1902.02033)

    1902 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Tello-Ortiz F, Maurya S K and Bargue˜ no P 2021 Eur. Phys. J. C 81 426

    2021

  13. [22]

    Andrade J, Ortega K Y, Kl´ ınger W N R, Copa R C G, Medina S S C and Cruz J D 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 1085

    2023

  14. [23]

    Zubair M, Azmat H and Jameel H 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 905

    2023

  15. [24]

    Bamba K, Bhatti M Z, Yousaf Z and Shoukat Z 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 1033 (Preprint 2307.10399)

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Dark Univ

    Maurya S K, Mustafa G, Ray S, Dayanandan B, Aziz A and Errehymy A 2023 Phys. Dark Univ. 42 101284

    2023

  17. [26]

    Iqbal N, Amir M, Alshammari M, Mohammed W W and Ilyas M 2025 Eur. Phys. J. C 85 428

    2025

  18. [27]

    Tello-Ortiz F, Bargue˜ no P, Alvarez A and Contreras E 2023 Fortsch. Phys. 71 2200170

    2023

  19. [28]

    Contreras E and Fuenmayor E 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 124065 (Preprint 2107.01140)

    2021 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Sharif M and Majid A 2020 Chin. J. Phys. 68 406–418

    2020

  21. [30]

    Meert P and da Rocha R 2021 Nucl. Phys. B 967 115420 (Preprint 2006.02564)

    2021 arXiv

  22. [31]

    da Rocha R and Tomaz A A 2019 Eur. Phys. J. C 79 1035 (Preprint 1905.01548)

    2019 arXiv

  23. [32]

    da Rocha R and Tomaz A A 2020 Eur. Phys. J. C 80 857 (Preprint 2005.02980)

    2020 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Estrada M, Crispim T M and Alencar G 2024 Fortsch. Phys. 2025 2400220 (Preprint 2410.06189)

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    da Rocha R and Hoff da Silva J M 2014 EPL 107 50001 (Preprint 1408.2402) 38

    2014 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Cavalcanti R T, da Silva A G and da Rocha R 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 215007 ( Preprint 1605.01271)

    2016 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Dark Univ

    Ovalle J, Casadio R, Contreras E and Sotomayor A 2021 Phys. Dark Univ. 31 100744 ( Preprint 2006.06735)

    2021 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Liang Y, Lyu X and Tao J 2024 Commun. Theor. Phys. 76 085402

    2024

  29. [38]

    Avalos R, Bargue˜ no P and Contreras E 2023 Fortsch. Phys. 2023 2200171 (Preprint 2303.04119)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Zhang C M, Zhang M and Zou D C 2023 Chin. Phys. C 47 015106 (Preprint 2208.06830)

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Dark Univ

    Ditta A, Javed F, Maurya S K, Mustafa G and Atamurotov F 2023 Phys. Dark Univ. 42 101345

    2023

  32. [41]

    Mansour N, Toghrai T, El Boukili A, Benami A, Daoudia A K and Sedra M B 2024 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 39 2450151

    2024

  33. [42]

    Dark Univ

    Mahapatra S and Banerjee I 2023 Phys. Dark Univ. 39 101172 (Preprint 2208.05796)

    2023 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Albalahi A M, Yousaf Z, Ali A and Khan S 2024 Eur. Phys. J. C 84 9

    2024

  35. [44]

    Naseer T 2024 Eur. Phys. J. C 84 1256 (Preprint 2501.03690)

    2024 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Dark Univ

    Maurya S K, Jasim M K, Errehymy A, Boshkayev K, Mustafa G and Dayanandan B 2024 Phys. Dark Univ. 46 101665

    2024

  37. [46]

    Dark Univ

    Misyura M, Rincon A and Vertogradov V 2024 Phys. Dark Univ. 46 101717 (Preprint 2405.05370)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Cavalcanti R T, de Paiva R C and da Rocha R 2022Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137 1185 (Preprint 2203.08740)

    arXiv

  39. [48]

    Yang Y, Liu D, ¨Ovg¨ un A, Long Z W and Xu Z 2023Phys. Rev. D 107 064042 (Preprint 2203.11551)

    arXiv

  40. [49]

    Li Z 2023 Phys. Lett. B 841 137902 (Preprint 2212.08112)

    2023 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Cavalcanti R T, Alves K d S and Hoff da Silva J M 2022 Universe 8 363 (Preprint 2207.03995)

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Priyadarshinee S 2024 Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139 258 (Preprint 2308.05719)

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Rehman H and Abbas G 2023 Chin. Phys. C 47 125106

    2023

  44. [53]

    Avalos R and Contreras E 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 155 (Preprint 2302.09148)

    2023 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Al-Badawi A, Jha S K and Rahaman A 2024 Eur. Phys. J. C 84 145

    2024

  46. [55]

    Dark Univ

    Tello-Ortiz F, Avalos R, G´ omez-Leyton Y and Contreras E 2024 Phys. Dark Univ. 46 101547

    2024

  47. [56]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 011102 (Preprint 1811.00364)

    2019 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Will C M 2014 Living Rev. Rel. 17 4 (Preprint 1403.7377)

    2014 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Regge T and Wheeler J A 1957 Phys. Rev. 108 1063–1069

    1957

  50. [59]

    Cardoso V and Pani P 2019 Living Rev. Rel. 22 4 (Preprint 1904.05363)

    2019 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Barack L, Cardoso V, Nissanke S, Sotiriou T P and Askar A 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 143001 (Preprint 1806.05195)

    2019 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Richarte M G, Martins E L and Fabris J C 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 064043 (Preprint 2111.01595)

    2022 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Pani P 2013 Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28 1340018 (Preprint 1305.6759)

    2013 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Miranda A S, Ballon Bayona C A, Boschi-Filho H and Braga N R F 2009 JHEP 11 119 (Preprint 0909.1790)

    2009 arXiv

  55. [64]

    Lin K, Pavan A B, de Queiroz A R and Abdalla E 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 084076 39

    2025

  56. [65]

    434 168662 ( Preprint 2108.04998)

    Anacleto M A, Campos J A V, Brito F A and Passos E 2021 Annals Phys. 434 168662 ( Preprint 2108.04998)

    2021 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Oliveira R, Dantas D M, Santos V and Almeida C A S 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 105013 (Preprint 1812.01798)

    2019 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Rougemont R, Critelli R and Noronha J 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 034028 (Preprint 1804.00189)

    2018 arXiv

  59. [68]

    Richartz M 2016 Phys. Rev. D 93 064062 (Preprint 1509.04260)

    2016 arXiv

  60. [69]

    Bishop N T and Rezzolla L 2016 Living Rev. Rel. 19 2 (Preprint 1606.02532)

    2016 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Kokkotas K D and Schmidt B G 1999 Living Rev. Rel. 2 2 (Preprint gr-qc/9909058)

    1999 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Nollert H P 1999 Class. Quant. Grav. 16 R159

    1999

  63. [72]

    Berti E, Cardoso V and Starinets A O 2009 Class. Quant. Grav. 26 163001 (Preprint 0905.2975)

    2009 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Konoplya R A and Zhidenko A 2011 Rev. Mod. Phys. 83 793 (Preprint 1102.4014)

    2011 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Rodrigues Jr W A, da Rocha R and Vaz Jr J 2005 Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 2 305 (Preprint math-ph/0501064)

    2005 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Ovalle J, Linares F, Pasqua A and Sotomayor A 2013 Class. Quant. Grav. 30 175019 ( Preprint 1304.5995)

    2013 arXiv

  67. [76]

    da Rocha R and Hoff da Silva J M 2012 Phys. Rev. D 85 046009 (Preprint 1202.1256)

    2012 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Abdalla M C B, Hoff da Silva J M and da Rocha R 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 046003 (Preprint 0907.1321)

    2009 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Contreras E and Bargue˜ no P 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C 78 558 (Preprint 1805.10565)

    2018 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Dark Univ

    Linares Cede˜ no F X and Contreras E 2020 Phys. Dark Univ. 28 100543 (Preprint 1907.04892)

    2020 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Tello-Ortiz F 2020 Eur. Phys. J. C 80 413

    2020

  72. [81]

    Maurya S K, Kiroriwal S, Kumar J and Aziz A 2025 Eur. Phys. J. C 85 456

    2025

  73. [82]

    Pradhan S, Bhar P, Mandal S, Sahoo P K and Bamba K 2025 Eur. Phys. J. C 85 127 ( Preprint 2408.03967)

    2025 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Scripta 99 125302

    Yousaf Z, Ganesan T, Almutairi B, Bhatti M Z and Khan S 2024 Phys. Scripta 99 125302

    2024

  75. [84]

    Dark Univ

    Yousaf Z, Bamba K, Almutairi B, Hashimoto Y and Khan S 2024 Phys. Dark Univ. 46 101629 (Preprint 2408.12132)

    2024 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Maurya S K, Errehymy A, Newton Singh K, Aziz A, Hansraj S and Ray S 2024 Astrophys. J. 972 175

    2024

  77. [86]

    Maurya S K, Al Khayari F, Ashraf A, Jasim M K, T T S and Channuie P 2025 Chin. J. Phys. 96 621–642

    2025

  78. [87]

    Casadio R and da Rocha R 2023 Eur. Phys. J. C 83 537 (Preprint 2305.15752)

    2023 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Ovalle J, Gergely L and Casadio R 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 045015 (Preprint 1405.0252)

    2015 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Ovalle J and Linares F 2013 Phys. Rev. D 88 104026 (Preprint 1311.1844)

    2013 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Fernandes-Silva A, Ferreira-Martins A J and da Rocha R 2019 Phys. Lett. B 791 323–330 (Preprint 1901.07492)

    2019 arXiv

  82. [91]

    Casadio R and da Rocha R 2016 Phys. Lett. B763 434 (Preprint 1610.01572) 40

    2016 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Dvali G, Flassig D, Gomez C, Pritzel A and Wintergerst N 2013 Phys. Rev. D 88 124041 (Preprint 1307.3458)

    2013 arXiv

  84. [93]

    da Rocha R 2017 Phys. Rev. D 95 124017 (Preprint 1701.00761)

    2017 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Casadio R, Nicolini P and da Rocha R 2018 Class. Quant. Grav. 35 185001 (Preprint 1709.09704)

    2018 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Ovalle J, Casadio R, da Rocha R, Sotomayor A and Stuchlik Z 2018 EPL 124 20004 ( Preprint 1811.08559)

    2018 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Ovalle J, Casadio R, da Rocha R, Sotomayor A and Stuchlik Z 2018 Eur. Phys. J. C78 960 (Preprint 1804.03468)

    2018 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Ovalle J 2019 Phys. Lett. B788 213–218 (Preprint 1812.03000)

    2019 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Carroll S M 2019 Spacetime and geometry (Cambridge University Press)

    2019

  90. [99]

    Maggiore M 2007 Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press)

    2007

  91. [100]

    Ferrari V, Gualtieri L and Pani P 2020 General Relativity and its Applications (CRC Press)

    2020

  92. [101]

    Zerilli F J 1974 Phys. Rev. D 9 860–868

    1974

  93. [102]

    Konoplya R A, Zhidenko A and Zinhailo A F 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 155002 ( Preprint 1904.10333)

    2019 arXiv

  94. [103]

    Konoplya R A 2018 Phys. Lett. B 784 43–49 (Preprint 1805.04718)

    2018 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Churilova M S, Konoplya R A and Zhidenko A 2020 Phys. Lett. B 802 135207 (Preprint 1911.05246)

    2020 arXiv

  96. [105]

    Dark Univ

    Rinc´ on A and Panotopoulos G 2020 Phys. Dark Univ. 30 100639 (Preprint 2006.11889)

    2020 arXiv

  97. [106]

    Schutz B F and Will C M 1985 Astrophys. J. Lett. 291 L33–L36

    1985

  98. [107]

    2025 Phys

    Capote E et al. 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 062002 (Preprint 2411.14607)

    2025 arXiv

  99. [108]

    2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. 2016 Phys. Rev. D 93 112004 [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 97, 059901 (2018)] (Preprint 1604.00439)

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.