Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Chaos dynamics of charged particles near Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger black holes

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 paper shows that charged test particles around GMGHS dilatonic black holes switch from ordered to chaotic motion as the electric charge $Q$ grows, the Coulomb parameter $Q^*$ becomes more negative, or the magnetic charge $Q_m$ grows.

desk verdict A well-meaning but internally inconsistent numerical study of chaos around GMGHS black holes; the printed symplectic scheme violates its own Hamiltonian, so the central claim is unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18879 v1 pith:2B7YWISH submitted 2025-07-25 hep-th

Zhen-Meng Xu , Da-Zhu Ma , Kai Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th MSC 83C5737D4565P1070H1537N20 PACS 04.70.-s05.45.-a
keywords GMGHSblackholechargedparticlemotionchaossymplecticintegratorShannonentropyLyapunovexponentsPoincarésectionsstringtheory
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 paper studies the motion of charged test particles around GMGHS dilatonic black holes, the charged solutions that emerge in the low-energy limit of string theory. It claims that the dynamics is not fixed by mass alone: increasing the black hole's electric charge $Q$ or its magnetic charge $Q_m$ drives an order-to-chaos transition in particle orbits, and decreasing the Coulomb parameter $Q^*=qQ$, which strengthens the attraction, does the same. The claim is made concrete with a fourth-order explicit symplectic integrator built by splitting the Hamiltonian into four integrable pieces, and it is diagnosed with Shannon entropy, Poincaré sections, maximum Lyapunov exponents, and fast Lyapunov indicators. If correct, the stability of charged orbits near string-theoretic black holes depends sharply on the charge parameters, and Shannon entropy is a workable chaos marker in relativistic Hamiltonian systems.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a Hamiltonian split into four integrable pieces, $H=H_1+H_2+H_3+H_4$, with each piece solved analytically and composed by the fourth-order explicit PRK64 symplectic scheme (a composition of first-order solvers), whose twelve time coefficients are fixed. The same split is applied to the magnetically charged Hamiltonian $K=K_1+K_2+K_3+K_4$. The symplectic composition preserves phase-space geometry over integrations of length $\tau=10^7$, which the paper argues is needed to prevent spurious chaos from energy drift. The companion mechanism is the detection layer: Shannon entropy of a coarse-grained trajectory is the primary chaos marker, and it is cross-checked against Poincaré sections, the maximum Lyapunov exponent, and the fast Lyapunov indicator.

What would settle it

Compute $\partial H_4/\partial r$ for $H_4=p_\theta^2/(2r(r-Q^2))$ and compare the resulting momentum update with Eqs. (A1) and (A2); if the printed sign or magnitude is wrong, rerun the $Q=1.2$, $r=6$ case with the corrected flow and check whether the Poincaré section at $r=5$ still scatters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a systematic charge dependence of chaos for charged test particles orbiting GMGHS black holes. In the electrically charged case, fixing $Q^*=-\sqrt{2}Q$ and increasing $Q$ from $0.3$ to $1.35$ changes inner orbits with starting radii $r=5$ and $r=6$ from closed tori to scattered chaotic layers, while outer orbits at $r=10$ and $r=50$ remain regular. Fixing $Q=1.2$ and decreasing $Q^*$ from $0.3$ to $-2.4$ produces the same transition: chaos first appears at $r=5$ near $Q^*=-1.2$, spreads to $r=6$ at stronger negative coupling, and leaves $r=10$ and $r=30$ ordered throughout. In the magnetically charged case at $\theta=\pi/2$, increasing $Q_m$ from $0.1$ to $1.2$ moves the $r=6$ orbit into chaos while the $r=11$, $r=25$, and $r=40$ orbits remain regular. Because $\theta=\pi/2$ makes the $qQ_m\cos\theta$ term vanish, the magnetic charge affects the motion through the geometry rather than through a direct magnetic force on the particle; in all scans, Shannon entropy fluctuations rise when the sections scatter and the Lyapunov indicators grow.

Load-bearing premise

The PRK64 integration scheme must correctly solve the decomposed Hamiltonian; every chaos indicator is computed from trajectories produced by that scheme, so a wrong update rule would make the reported order-to-chaos transitions an artifact of the integrator rather than a property of the spacetime.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For an electrically charged GMGHS black hole, increasing $Q$ at fixed $Q^*=-\sqrt{2}Q$ confines chaos to inner orbits at $r=5$ and $r=6$ while outer orbits at $r=10$ and $r=50$ stay on closed curves.
  • At fixed $Q=1.2$, decreasing $Q^*$ strengthens the Coulomb attraction and progressively destroys regular motion at $r=5$ and $r=6$, while $r=10$ and $r=30$ remain ordered; orbit stability near the horizon is therefore controlled by the charge parameters.
  • For a magnetically charged GMGHS black hole with $\theta=\pi/2$, chaos appears only at large $Q_m$ and only at $r=6$, so the magnetically induced chaos is a near-horizon effect.
  • Shannon entropy fluctuations coincide with chaotic dynamics in all three parameter scans and match Poincaré sections, MLE, and FLI, supporting entropy as a practical single chaos indicator for relativistic Hamiltonian systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Hamiltonian-splitting method could be applied to rotating Kerr-Sen or other Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion black holes, where angular momentum would add a parameter that may shift the order-chaos boundary in a predictable way.
  • Because the magnetic analysis at $\theta=\pi/2$ removes the direct $q Q_m\cos\theta$ coupling, repeating the calculation at nonzero $\theta$ would test how a genuine magnetic Lorentz-type force alters the chaos threshold, an extension the paper leaves open.
  • If Shannon entropy is a reliable marker in this system, entropy-based screening could replace Lyapunov-spectrum calculations in higher-dimensional or multi-field black-hole spacetimes, though this extrapolation is untested.
  • The near-horizon concentration of chaos suggests a possible connection between the chaotic region and unstable circular orbits or photon spheres, which could make black-hole shadow morphology a probe of the charge parameters.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies chaotic motion of charged test particles around electrically and magnetically charged GMGHS dilatonic black holes. The authors derive the Hamiltonian for a charged particle, decompose it into four integrable sub-Hamiltonians, and construct a fourth-order explicit symplectic integrator (PRK64). Using Shannon entropy, Poincaré sections, maximum Lyapunov exponents, and fast Lyapunov indicators, they report order-to-chaos transitions as the electric charge Q increases, as the Coulomb parameter Q* becomes more negative, and as the magnetic charge Q_m increases. The central numerical tool is the difference scheme in Appendix A, and all chaos diagnostics are computed from trajectories produced by that scheme.

Significance. If the reported results are valid, the paper would provide a useful demonstration that Shannon entropy can serve as a chaos indicator in relativistic Hamiltonian systems and would quantify charge-parameter sensitivity of charged-particle dynamics in a string-theory black hole background. The Hamiltonian derivation in Eq. (8) is algebraically consistent with the GMGHS metric and the chosen vector potential, and the decomposition into four integrable pieces is a sensible route to an explicit symplectic integrator. The paper also makes the magnetic-charge restriction to theta = pi/2 explicit, which is commendable. However, the algorithmic core as printed is internally inconsistent, and because every chaos indicator is computed from trajectories generated by that algorithm, the central claims are not currently supported by the equations given.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A3), in relation to Eq. (11)] The H4 solver does not represent the Hamiltonian flow of H4 = p_theta^2/(2 r (r - Q^2)). Hamilton's equations require d theta/d tau = p_theta/(r (r - Q^2)), d p_r/d tau = + p_theta^2 (2 r - Q^2)/(2 r^2 (r - Q^2)^2), and d p_theta/d tau = 0. Equation (A1) instead prints d p_r/d tau = p_theta^2 (Q^2 - 2 r)/(2 r^2 (-Q^2 + r)^2), which is the opposite sign, while Eq. (A2) prints p_r(tau) = p_r0 + tau p_theta0^2 (2 r0 - Q^2)/r0^3, which has the correct sign but the wrong magnitude unless 2 r0^2 (r0 - Q^2)^2 = r0^3. The two appendix expressions are mutually inconsistent, and the explicit difference scheme in Eqs. (A3)-(A14) uses the (A2) form, so every H4 stage advances p_r by the wrong amount. Since the Poincaré sections, maximum Lyapunov exponents, fast Lyapunov indicators, and Shannon-entropy curves in Figs. 1-3 are all generated with this scheme, the reported order-to-chaos transitions are not supported by the equations written in the paper. Please correct the H4 flow, rerun the simulations, and either provide the code or state explicitly that the implemented integrator differs from the printed one.
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (18), and Figs. 3] All magnetic-charge calculations are restricted to theta = pi/2, and the text acknowledges that the term q Q_m cos theta then vanishes. Under this restriction, Q_m enters the Hamiltonian only through the metric denominators r^2 - r Q_m^2, not through the electromagnetic coupling between the test particle and the magnetic monopole. The abstract and the conclusions nonetheless present the Q_m-driven transition as a magnetic-charge effect on charged-particle motion 'under electromagnetic influence.' As written, the magnetic section tests the effect of a modified background geometry, not an electromagnetic interaction. Please either extend the analysis to theta different from pi/2 so that the q Q_m cos theta term is active, or reframe the magnetic-charge claims to state explicitly that only the metric's dependence on Q_m is being probed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.B] The text refers to 'Appendix V' for the analytical solutions, but the appendix is labeled 'Appendix A'; please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [Reference [19]] Reference [19] appears corrupted: 'JHEP 106, 1608(2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP08/282016/29106' should presumably be JHEP 08 (2016) 106 with the correct DOI and the three authors (Maldacena, Shenker, and Stanford).
  3. [Section I] The sentence 'if the charge Q also vanishes, the solution reduces to the vacuum Kerr solution' is incorrect for a = 0; the Kerr-Sen solution with a = 0 and Q = 0 reduces to Schwarzschild, not Kerr.
  4. [Eq. (15)] The Shannon entropy is defined formally, but the paper does not describe how the probabilities p(x_i) are estimated from a trajectory; please provide the binning or partition procedure or cite the precise algorithm in reference [28].
  5. [Eq. (A2)] The H4 update for theta is typeset ambiguously; it should read theta(tau) = theta0 + tau p_theta0/(r0^2 - Q^2 r0) with parentheses.
  6. [Reference [29]] The optimality claim for PRK64 is justified by reference [29], which is the authors' own earlier work; an in-paper comparison with a second-order or fourth-order Yoshida integrator would make the claim more self-contained.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central order-to-chaos results are self-contained numerical experiments, and the one self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims—that increasing Q or Qm, or decreasing Q*, produces order-to-chaos transitions—are obtained by integrating the Hamiltonians (8) and (18) with the PRK64 scheme and then reading off Poincaré sections, MLEs, FLIs, and Shannon entropies. None of these indicators is fitted to the claimed phase-space classification, and no parameter is tuned to reproduce the final order/chaos outcome; the pθ initial condition is fixed by the constraint H = -1/2, not by the desired result. The Hamiltonian decomposition in Eqs. (10)-(11) and (19)-(20) follows from the stated Lagrangians, and the PRK64 coefficients are taken from ref. [30], an external source. The only self-citation, ref. [29] (Xu, Ma, Cao and Li), is used to justify the choice of PRK64 as an optimal explicit symplectic integrator; that prior work treats a different spacetime (Kerr-MOG) and does not supply the GMGHS Hamiltonian, the decomposition, or the chaos thresholds, so the present derivation does not reduce to it. Agreement among the four indicators computed from the same trajectories is cross-validation rather than an independent derivation, but it is not circularity. The apparent sign inconsistency in Appendix A (Eq. A1 versus Eq. A2 for the H4 update) is a numerical-correctness concern about whether the printed scheme solves the stated Hamiltonian; it is not a circularity pattern. No fitted input is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is imported solely from the authors' own prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities or forces. Its load-bearing input is the hand-chosen set of parameters (E, L, h, q and the charge values) plus a set of standard domain assumptions about the spacetime, the test-particle approximation, the integrability of the sub-Hamiltonians, and the validity of Shannon entropy. The most fragile assumption, the correctness of the H4 analytic flow in Appendix A, is actually contradicted by the paper's own Hamiltonian, so the algorithm does not implement the stated physics.

free parameters (5)
  • Energy E = 0.98
    Hand-chosen in all simulations; the order-to-chaos thresholds are specific to this energy.
  • Angular momentum L = 2
    Hand-chosen; together with E and initial r it fixes p_theta via Eq. (8).
  • Integration step size h = 1
    Hand-chosen; no convergence test is reported, and h=1 is large relative to the potential gradients.
  • Test particle charge q = -sqrt(2) (via Q* = qQ = -sqrt(2)Q)
    The relation Q* = qQ = -sqrt(2)Q in Sec. III.D fixes q = -sqrt(2); the Coulomb coupling is then proportional to Q.
  • Charge scan values Q, Q*, Qm = Q in {0.3,0.6,1.2,1.35}; Q* in {0.3,-0.3,-1.2,-2,-2.4}; Qm in {0.1,0.6,1,1.2}
    These discrete values are selected to display both ordered and chaotic regimes; the claimed transitions are inferred from these specific parameter points.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The GMGHS line element (Eq. 3) is a valid low-energy solution of heterotic string theory and describes the background for test-particle motion.
    The paper adopts this metric from refs. [10,11] without derivation, and the entire numerical study is set in this spacetime.
  • domain assumption The test particle does not backreact on the spacetime; its motion is governed by the Hamiltonian (8) with the rest-mass condition H = -1/2.
    Standard test-particle approximation; this Hamiltonian formulation is the basis for the symplectic integration.
  • domain assumption The PRK64 coefficients from ref. [30] produce a fourth-order optimal explicit symplectic integrator when composed with the exact flows of the sub-Hamiltonians in Eq. (11).
    The paper relies on the cited construction; no proof is given here, and the appendix's implementation is inconsistent with the stated Hamiltonian.
  • domain assumption Shannon entropy as defined in ref. [28], with a probability distribution over phase-space bins, detects order-chaos transitions.
    The paper applies this indicator but does not specify the binning or the probability construction, citing [28].
  • ad hoc to paper For the magnetically charged case, confining motion to theta = pi/2 makes q Qm cos(theta) vanish, so the magnetic interaction can be dropped and Qm acts only through the metric denominators.
    This modeling choice in Sec. IV removes the actual Lorentz force from the magnetic charge, yet the paper presents the resulting chaos as a magnetic-charge effect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Chaos dynamics of charged particles near Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2B7YWISH

@misc{pith2026250718879,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Chaos dynamics of charged particles near Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2B7YWISH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18879}
}
abstract

The Gibbons-Maeda-Garfinkle-Horowitz-Strominger (GMGHS) dilatonic black hole, a key solution in low-energy string theory, exhibits previously unexplored chaotic dynamics for charged test particles under electromagnetic influence. While characterizing such chaos necessitates high-precision numerical solutions, our prior research confirms the explicit symplectic algorithm as the optimal numerical integration tool for strongly curved gravitational celestial systems. Leveraging the Hamiltonian formulation of the GMGHS black hole, we develop an optimized fourth-order symplectic algorithm $PR{K_6}4$. This algorithm enables a systematic investigation of the chaotic motion employing four distinct chaos indicators: Shannon entropy, Poincare sections, the maximum Lyapunov exponents, and the Fast Lyapunov indicators. Our results demonstrate a critical dependence of chaos on both electric charge ($Q$, characterized by the Coulomb parameter $Q^*$) and magnetic charge ($Q_m$). Specifically, in electrically charged backgrounds, order-to-chaos transitions arise with increasing $Q$ or decreasing $Q^*$. Conversely, in magnetically charged backgrounds, chaos emerges as $Q_m$ increases. These findings validate Shannon entropy as a robust chaos indicator within relativistic frameworks and provide novel insights on the dynamics of string-theoretic black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18879 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Four chaos indicators for charged particle dynamics under black hole charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Influence of parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Chaotic dynamics of a charged test particle near a black hole with magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Signatures of Einstein-Maxwell dilaton-axion grav- ity from the observed jet power and the radiative efficiency,

    I. Banerjee, B. Mandal and S. SenGupta, “Signatures of Einstein-Maxwell dilaton-axion grav- ity from the observed jet power and the radiative efficiency,” Phys. Rev. D 103, no.4, 044046 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.044046 [arXiv:2007.03947 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators In the presence of an asymptotically uniform electric field, the Hamiltonian in Eq

    (9) B. Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators In the presence of an asymptotically uniform electric field, the Hamiltonian in Eq. (8) lacks a fourth motion integral, rendering the system non-integrable and potentially chaotic. Reliable numerical algorithms are therefore essential for studying particle chaotic dynam- ics. Compared to traditional m...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Thin accretion disk and shadow of Kerr–Sen black hole in Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton–axion gravity,

    H. Feng, R. J. Yang and W. Q. Chen, “Thin accretion disk and shadow of Kerr–Sen black hole in Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton–axion gravity,” Astropart. Phys. 166, 103075 (2025) doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2024.103075 [arXiv:2403.18541 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Kerr-Sen Black Hole as Accelerator for Spinning Particles

    J. An, J. Peng, Y. Liu and X. H. Feng, “Kerr-Sen Black Hole as Accelerator for Spin- ning Particles,” Phys. Rev. D 97, no.2, 024003 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024003 [arXiv:1710.08630 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Massive complex scalar field in the Kerr-Sen geometry: Exact solution of wave equation and Hawking radiation

    S. Q. Wu and X. Cai, “Massive complex scalar field in the Kerr–Sen geometry: Exact so- lution of wave equation and Hawking radiation,” J. Math. Phys. 44, no.3, 1084-1088 (2003) doi:10.1063/1.1539899 [arXiv:gr-qc/0303075 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2003

  6. [6]

    Choked accretion onto Kerr-Sen black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion gravity

    H. Feng, Y. Wu, R. J. Yang and L. Modesto, “Choked accretion onto Kerr-Sen black holes in Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton-axion gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 063014 (2024) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063014 [arXiv:2301.02779 [astro-ph.HE]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Connections between the shadow radius and the quasinormal modes of Kerr-Sen black hole

    X. Wu and X. Zhang, “Connections between the Shadow Radius and the Quasinormal Modes of Kerr-Sen Black Hole,” Universe 8, no.11, 604 (2022) doi:10.3390/universe8110604 [arXiv:2112.11066 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Geodesic stabil- ity, Lyapunov exponents and quasinormal modes,

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek and V. T. Zanchin, “Geodesic stabil- ity, Lyapunov exponents and quasinormal modes,” Phys. Rev. D 79, no.6, 064016 (2009) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.064016 [arXiv:0812.1806 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2009

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Test of Kerr-Sen metric with black hole observations,

    A. Narang, S. Mohanty and A. Kumar, “Test of Kerr-Sen metric with black hole observations,” [arXiv:2002.12786 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Charged scalar fields in a Kerr–Sen black hole: exact solu- tions, Hawking radiation, and resonant frequencies,

    H. S. Vieira and V. B. Bezerra, “Charged scalar fields in a Kerr–Sen black hole: exact solu- tions, Hawking radiation, and resonant frequencies,” Chin. Phys. C 43, no.3, 035102 (2019) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/43/3/035102 [arXiv:1811.06129 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Charged black holes in string 24 theory,

    D. Garfinkle, G. T. Horowitz and A. Strominger, “Charged black holes in string 24 theory,” Phys. Rev. D 43, 3140 (1991) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 45, 3888 (1992)] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.3140

    1991 doi

  4. [12]

    This solution is characterized by three parameters: mass M, charge Q, and angular mo- mentum per unit mass a

    discovered the Kerr-Sen solution—a rotating generalization of the GMGHS solution. This solution is characterized by three parameters: mass M, charge Q, and angular mo- mentum per unit mass a. When the parameter a vanishes, the Kerr-Sen solution reduces to the static, spherical...

  5. [13]

    Geodesic equations in the static and rotating dilaton black holes: Analytical solutions and applications,

    S. Soroushfar, R. Saffari and E. Sahami, “Geodesic equations in the static and rotating dilaton black holes: Analytical solutions and applications,” Phys. Rev. D 94, no.2, 024010 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.024010 [arXiv:1601.03143 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Black Holes and Membranes in Higher Dimensional Theories with Dilaton Fields,

    G. W. Gibbons and K. I. Maeda, “Black Holes and Membranes in Higher Dimensional Theories with Dilaton Fields,” Nucl. Phys. B 298, 741 (1988) doi:10.1016/0550-3213(88)90006-5

    1988 doi

  7. [15]

    The results demonstrate that in Einstein coordinates, geodesics can be solved exactly using Jacobi elliptic integrals across all possible photon energy levels and angular momenta

    employed heterotic string theory to examine the null geodesics of static charged black holes, providing a detailed analysis of geodesics in both Einstein and string coordinate systems. The results demonstrate that in Einstein coordinates, geodesics can be solved exactly using ...

  8. [16]

    Rotating charged black hole solution in heterotic string theory,

    A. Sen, “Rotating charged black hole solution in heterotic string theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 1006-1009 (1992) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.1006 [arXiv:hep-th/9204046 [hep-th]]

    1992 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Chaotic dynamics of string around the conformal black hole,

    D. Z. Ma, F. Xia, D. Zhang, G. Y. Fu and J. P. Wu, “Chaotic dynamics of string around the conformal black hole,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 372 (2022) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10338-5

    2022 doi

  10. [18]

    Timelike geodesics around a charged spherically symmetric dilaton black hole,

    C. Blaga, “Timelike geodesics around a charged spherically symmetric dilaton black hole,” Serb. Astron. J. 190, 41 (2015) doi:10.2298/SAJ1590041B [arXiv:1407.1504 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Null Geodesics of Charged Black Holes in String Theory,

    S. Fernando, “Null Geodesics of Charged Black Holes in String Theory,” Phys. Rev. D 85, 024033 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.024033 [arXiv:1109.0254 [hep-th]]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Charged Particles Moving around a Spherically Symmetric Dilatonic Black Hole,

    V. Lungu, M. A. Dariescu, C. Dariescu and C. Stelea, “Charged Particles Moving around a Spherically Symmetric Dilatonic Black Hole,” Adv. High Energy Phys. 2024, 6666609 (2024) doi:10.1155/2024/6666609 [arXiv:2401.17398 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Velocity scaling method to correct individual Kepler ener- gies,

    D. Z. Ma, X. Wu and J. F. Zhu, “Velocity scaling method to correct individual Kepler ener- gies,” New Astron. 13, no. 4, 216-223 (2008) doi:10.1016/j.newast.2007.09.002

    2008 doi

  14. [22]

    Chaotic dynamics of string around charged black brane with hyperscaling violation,

    D. Z. Ma, D. Zhang, G. Y. Fu and J. P. Wu, “Chaotic dynamics of string around charged black brane with hyperscaling violation,” JHEP 01, 103 (2020) doi:10.1007/JHEP01(2020)103 [arXiv:1911.09913 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A bound on chaos,

    J. Maldacena, D. Stanford, “A bound on chaos,” JHEP 106, 1608(2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP08/282016/29106 [arXiv:1503.01409 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Chaos from the ring string in Gauss-Bonnet black hole in ADS5 space,

    D. Z. Ma, J. P. Wu, J. F. Zhang, “Chaos from the ring string in Gauss-Bonnet black hole in ADS5 space,” Phys. Rev. D 89, 086011 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.086011. [arXiv:1405.3563 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Numerical Evidence That the Motion of Pluto Is Chaotic,

    G. J. Sussman and J. Wisdom, “Numerical Evidence That the Motion of Pluto Is Chaotic,” Science 241, 433-437 (1988) doi:10.1126/science.241.4864.433

    1988 doi

  18. [26]

    Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. I. Schwarzschild Black Holes,

    Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Y. Liu and X. Wu, “Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. I. Schwarzschild Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 907, no. 2, 66 (2021) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcb8d [arXiv:2102.00373 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. II. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om Black Holes,

    Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Y. Liu and X. Wu, “Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. II. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om Black Holes,”Astrophys. J. 909, no. 1, 22 (2021) 25 doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abd701 [arXiv:2103.02864 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. III. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om-(anti)-de Sitter Black Holes,

    Y. Wang, W. Sun, F. Y. Liu and X. Wu, “Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators in General Relativity. III. Reissner–Nordstr¨ om-(anti)-de Sitter Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 254, no. 1, 8 (2021) doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abf116 [arXiv:2103.12272 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chaotic motion of the charged test particle in Kerr-MOG black hole with explicit symplectic algorithms,

    Z. M. Xu, D. Z. Ma, W. F. Cao and K. Li, “Chaotic motion of the charged test particle in Kerr-MOG black hole with explicit symplectic algorithms,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.7, 770 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14425-1 [arXiv:2412.06122 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    with first-order operators χh and χ∗ h is then PRK 64 = χc12h×χ∗ c11h×χc10h×χ∗ c9h×χc8h×χ∗ c7h ×χc6h×χ∗ c5h×χc4h×χ∗ c3h×χc2h×χ∗ c1h. (14) The time coefficients [30] are c1 =c12 = 0.079203696431196, c2 =c11 = 0.130311410182166, c3 =c10 = 0.222861495867608, c4 =c9 =−0.3667132690...

  23. [31]

    Chaotic motion of neutral and charged particles in a magnetized Ernst- Schwarzschild spacetime,

    D. Li and X. Wu, “Chaotic motion of neutral and charged particles in a magnetized Ernst- Schwarzschild spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 134, no.3, 96 (2019) doi:10.1140/epjp/i2019- 12502-9 [arXiv:1803.02119 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Chaotic motion of scalar particle coupling to Chern–Simons invariant in the stationary axisymmetric Einstein–Maxwell dilaton black hole spacetime,

    L. Zhang, S. Chen, Q. Pan and J. Jing, “Chaotic motion of scalar particle coupling to Chern–Simons invariant in the stationary axisymmetric Einstein–Maxwell dilaton black hole spacetime,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 828 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12008-6 [arXiv:2309.1260...

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Screen chaotic motion by Shannon entropy in curved spacetimes,

    W. F. Cao, Y. Huang and H. S. Zhang, “Screen chaotic motion by Shannon entropy in curved spacetimes,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85, no.5, 568 (2025) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-14310- x [arXiv:2410.20870 [gr-qc]]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A Note on the Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators for Schwarzschild Spacetimes,

    N. Y. Zhou, H. X. Zhang, W. F. Liu and X. Wu, “A Note on the Construction of Explicit Symplectic Integrators for Schwarzschild Spacetimes,” Astrophys. J. 927, no. 2, 160 (2022) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac497f

    2022 doi

  27. [35]

    Computation of Lyapunov exponents in general relativity,

    X. Wu and T. Y. Huang, “Computation of Lyapunov exponents in general relativity,” Phys. Lett. A 313, 77-81 (2003) doi:10.1016/S0375-9601(03)00720-5 [arXiv:gr-qc/0302118 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  28. [36]

    On the Structure of Symplectic Mappings. The Fast Lya- punov Indicator: a Very Sensitive Tool,

    C. Froeschl´ e and E. Lega, “On the Structure of Symplectic Mappings. The Fast Lya- punov Indicator: a Very Sensitive Tool,” Celest. Mech. Dyn. Astron. 78, 167-195 (2000) doi:10.1023/A:1011141018230

    2000 doi

  29. [37]

    Lyapunov indices with two nearby trajectories in a curved spacetime,

    X. Wu, T. Y. Huang and H. Zhang, “Lyapunov indices with two nearby trajectories in a curved spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 74, 083001 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.74.083001 [arXiv:1006.5251 [gr-qc]]. 26

    2006 arXiv

Pith tools

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