Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Negative potential-induced scalarization in the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg black hole

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single family of scalarized Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg black holes exists for all q>0 with M=1/2, μ=0.3, α=1, but every member is thermodynamically disfavored and dynamically unstable under radial scalar perturbations.

desk verdict A plausible new family of scalarized EEH black holes with a clean thermodynamic story; the headline instability claim is only as solid as an unproved decoupling step in Section 4. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16083 v1 pith:VUITYYXD submitted 2025-08-22 gr-qc

Hong Guo , Miok Park , Yun Soo Myung This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C4783C22 PACS 04.70.-s04.40.Nr
keywords blackholescalarizationEinstein-Euler-Heisenbergnegativescalarpotentialquasinormalmodeschargeprimaryhairvssecondaryoverchargedholesweakenergycondition
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 claims that a negative scalar potential V=-4α²φ⁶ can dress a magnetically charged Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg (EEH) black hole with scalar hair, producing a single continuous branch of scalarized solutions for every nonzero magnetic charge q, with fixed mass M=1/2 and Euler-Heisenberg parameter μ=0.3. Because μ>0.019 ensures a single horizon, the charge is not bounded by the extremal limit, so the hairy solutions extend into an overcharged regime q/M>1. The scalarized black holes are, however, disfavored: their horizon entropy is smaller than that of the bald EEH black hole with the same parameters, and the imaginary part of their fundamental s-mode quasinormal frequency is positive for all q>0, so the hair is dynamically unstable. The paper also reports a change in the growth of the scalar charge with q at q=1/2, interpreting it as a transition from primary to secondary hair. The value of this result, if correct, is that it establishes negative-potential scalarization as a viable route to hair on EEH black holes while showing that the resulting endpoint is not physically realized.

What carries the argument

The central object is the negative sextic scalar potential V(φ)=-4α²φ⁶ in the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-scalar action, which allows a nontrivial scalar profile on a magnetically charged EEH background while keeping the scalar equation minimally coupled. The single-horizon condition μ>0.019 (here μ=0.3) removes charge bounds and lets q exceed the extremal ratio, so the branch covers the overcharging regime. The argument's stability analysis runs through a Schrödinger-type master equation for the radial scalar perturbation with potential VsEEH, obtained after a decoupling of the two metric perturbations H0 and H1, and quasinormal frequencies computed by the pseudo-spectral method with ingoing/

What would settle it

Solve the full system of coupled l=0 perturbations (H0, H1, δφ) without assuming decoupling, and check for exponentially growing modes; if the coupled system shows no mode with Im ω>0 for some q>0, or if the decoupled and coupled spectra differ, the claimed universal instability collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-scalar theory with potential V=-4α²φ⁶, the full field equations admit a single branch of asymptotically flat, spherically symmetric scalarized black holes labelled by the magnetic charge q>0, once M=1/2, μ=0.3, α=1 are fixed. The scalar field decays as qs/r at infinity, and qs(q) is nearly constant for q<1/2 then grows markedly for q>1/2, which the authors read as primary hair below 1/2 and secondary hair above it. Thermodynamically, the scalarized solutions have lower entropy aH<ãH than the bald EEH black hole at the same q, so they are not the preferred phase. Dynamically, solving the l=0 scalar perturbation on the numerical background gives quasinormal fre

Load-bearing premise

The calculation of instability relies on the claim that the two metric perturbations H0 and H1 decouple from the scalar perturbation, leaving a single master equation; this decoupling is asserted rather than derived in the paper, and if it fails the computed quasinormal-mode frequencies may not describe the true radial stability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For all q>0 the scalarized branch fails both stability tests reported: lower entropy than the bald solution and positive imaginary QNM frequency, so no member is a viable endpoint of scalarization.
  • The switch in the q-dependence of the scalar charge at q=1/2, if generic, sharpens the distinction between primary and secondary hair in nonlinear electrodynamics.
  • Since ωI stays positive even into the overcharged regime q>1, the instability covers exactly the region where EEH black holes are most exotic, limiting their observable use.
  • The bald EEH black hole's stability under scalar perturbations implies the negative potential, not a tachyonic mode, is what enables hair formation here.
  • A potential well in VsEEH is not enough to diagnose instability; the paper's QNM computation is what fixes the sign of ωI.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the H0/H1 decoupling holds, the uniform ωI>0 result suggests any initially scalarized EEH black hole would shed its hair and relax to the bald solution, so astrophysically one would expect to see only bald EEH configurations.
  • The negative energy density and entropy ordering may be linked: the same φ⁶ term that sources hair also lowers the entropy, implying the scalarization is thermodynamically uphill; this could be tested by computing free energy differences along the branch.
  • Applying the same negative potential to other nonlinear electrodynamics, such as Born-Infeld, would test whether unstable hair is a generic feature of negative-potential scalarization or particular to the EEH structure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies scalarized black holes in an Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg-scalar theory with a negative scalar potential V(φ)=-4α²φ⁶. After establishing that the bald EEH black hole has a single horizon for μ>0.019 at M=1/2, the authors solve the full static, spherically symmetric field equations and report a single branch of hairy (sEEH) solutions for all q>0, with fixed M=0.5, μ=0.3, α=1. They compare temperature, entropy, mass function, and energy density of the hairy branch with the bald EEH and Reissner-Nordström solutions, and interpret the q-dependence of the scalar charge as showing a transition from 'primary' to 'secondary' hair. They then perform a radial (l=0) scalar perturbation analysis and compute quasinormal-mode frequencies, reporting ω_I>0 for all q>0 and concluding that the sEEH branch is dynamically unstable. The abstract frames the work as negative-potential-induced scalarization in the overcharging regime.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the paper provides a concrete, relatively simple example of black-hole scalar hair in a theory with nonlinear electrodynamics and an overcharging single-horizon regime, which is a useful addition to the scalarization literature. The exact treatment of the magnetic potential, the explicit bald-limit consistency check for the effective potential, and the direct computation of QNM frequencies are strengths: they make the central statements falsifiable in principle. However, the paper's main dynamical conclusion rests on a decoupling assertion that is not derived, and the numerical results are presented without convergence tests or code/data. The advertised primary/secondary scalar-charge classification is also not established by the evidence shown. These issues are localizable and, in my view, fixable within the scope of a revision.

major comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (31)-(35)] The reduction from the linearized Einstein-scalar system to the single master equation (33) is asserted without derivation. After the ansatz (31), the text states that H0(t,r) and H1(t,r) 'become redundant via a decoupling procedure', but for l=0 the scalar perturbation equation contains metric-perturbation terms such as δg^{rr} φ0'' and first-order connection terms involving φ0'; eliminating H0 and H1 requires use of the linearized Hamiltonian and momentum constraints. The consistency check below Eq. (35) only recovers the bald limit δ=φ=0 and therefore cannot validate the elimination in the hairy background. Since the central instability claim (ω_I>0 for all q>0, Fig. 9) relies directly on Eq. (33), a full derivation of the master equation, or a coupled perturbative calculation, is required.
  2. [Secs. 3-4, Figs. 6 and 9] The numerical results are not independently verifiable as presented. The shooting method used to solve Eqs. (21)-(23) and the pseudo-spectral method used for the QNM calculation are described only by references; no grid sizes, spectral truncation orders, domain truncation radii, boundary-condition implementation, tolerance, or convergence tests are reported, and no code or data are provided. The claims of a single branch for all q>0, the quantitative values of q_s(q) in Fig. 6, and the sign/magnitude of ω_I(q) in Fig. 9 therefore lack the numerical accountability expected for a paper whose central results are numerical.
  3. [Sec. 3, Fig. 6; Sec. 5; Abstract] The classification of the scalar hair as 'primary' for q<1/2 and 'secondary' for q>1/2 is not supported by the evidence. For fixed M, q_s(q) is a single-valued monotonic function of q, so q_s is not an independent integration parameter; 'varies only slightly' is a quantitative statement, not a criterion for primary charge. The paper itself notes in Sec. 5 that 'It would be interesting to examine more precisely in future whether the scalar charge is truly primary or not'. The abstract nevertheless states the primary/secondary behavior as a result, which overstates the finding.
  4. [Sec. 5, first paragraph] The text contains an apparent contradiction: it says 'The onset scalarization does not occur for this black hole because it remains stable under scalar perturbations. However, the introduction of a negative potential can trigger scalarization.' If the bald EEH solution is stable against scalar perturbations (as shown in Sec. 2), there is no tachyonic instability that would dynamically drive the system towards the hairy branch; the constructed hairy family is a separate solution branch, not the endpoint of a scalarization instability. The paper should clarify what is meant by 'trigger scalarization' and by the title's 'negative potential-induced scalarization', otherwise the mechanism is overstated.
  5. [Sec. 3, Eq. (29) and Fig. 5] The statement that the sEEH black holes are 'not thermodynamically favored' is based only on the entropy inequality a_H < a_H at fixed M and q. This is insufficient without specifying the ensemble and comparing a suitable free energy or Euclidean on-shell action, since the two branches have different temperatures and the hairy branch carries an additional scalar charge. The abstract's thermodynamic conclusion should either be made conditional on a stated ensemble or supported by a free-energy calculation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 5] Typographical errors: 'remians' should be 'remains'; 's-model' should be 's-mode'. In Sec. 3, 'black hols' should be 'black holes'.
  2. [Sec. 2 and Fig. 1] The text lists example values μ=0.001, 0.01, 0.19, and 0.3, while the abstract states μ_max=0.019 and the caption says three roots exist only for μ≲0.019. If the bottom-left panel corresponds to μ=0.19, it would be in the single-horizon regime, contradicting the caption. Please clarify whether 0.19 is a typo for 0.019.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (35)] The notation in Eq. (35) should be stated more explicitly: N, δ, and φ denote the sEEH background fields, and the r-dependence of VsEEH should be indicated. The consistency check to VEEH is useful; it would be even more helpful to write the intermediate expression for the bald limit to make the factor 3.6q^4/(5r^8) in Eq. (18) transparent.
  4. [Sec. 3, Figs. 3 and 4] The caption of Fig. 4 says negative regions appear for q=2 (EEH) and q=1,2 (sEEH), but the text in Sec. 3 states 'q ≳ 1'; this should be made consistent. Also, the asymptotic behavior of δ(r) in Fig. 3 (right) is discussed but the figure is hard to read because the curves nearly coincide; a log or zoomed plot would help.
  5. [General] The paper should cite or define what is meant by 'primary' and 'secondary' scalar charge, since these terms are used in the abstract and conclusion but are not formally defined in the text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular reduction found: the sEEH background, thermodynamics, and QNM results are computed from the stated field equations; self-citations are motivational only, and the flagged decoupling gap in Sec. 4 is an omitted proof, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper — existence of the single sEEH branch, entropy/temperature ordering, the q_s(q) behavior, and ωI>0 for all q>0 — are outputs of solving the stated field equations (21)–(23) and the linearized perturbation system with V(φ)=-4α²φ⁶, µ=0.3, α=1, M=0.5. The negative potential is an explicit ansatz imported from the authors' prior work [25] (Chew & Myung, with coauthor Myung), but it is presented as a model choice, not as a first-principles derivation, and it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The self-citations ([25] for the potential form, [28] for the inner-horizon no-go theorem) are non-load-bearing: removing them would not alter the numerical construction, and the paper does not invoke them as uniqueness theorems that force its results. The only substantive weakness is in Sec. 4, where the reduction of the coupled perturbations to the single master equation (33) is asserted via 'become redundant via a decoupling procedure' with no derivation or constraint equations shown; if that elimination is incorrect, the computed QNM imaginary parts in Fig. 9 could change. However, a missing derivation is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: Eq. (33) is not equal to an input by construction, and the consistency check below Eq. (35) only reproduces the bald limit and cannot by itself manufacture the hairy potential. No prediction in the paper reduces to its own input by definition, by fitting, or by a load-bearing self-citation chain. Thus the circularity score is low, reflecting only the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

The central results rest on three hand-chosen parameters (α, µ, M) and two domain assumptions about the action and potential, plus an asserted perturbation decoupling. No new particles or fields are introduced beyond the scalar field already present in the theory.

free parameters (3)
  • α (scalar coupling in V = -4α²φ⁶) = 1
    Chosen by hand; the authors fix α = 1 throughout Section 3. The potential form is imported from [25].
  • µ (Euler-Heisenberg parameter) = 0.3
    Chosen by hand so that µ > µmax ≈ 0.019, ensuring a single event horizon for all q (Section 2).
  • M (ADM mass) = 1/2
    Chosen by hand; all numerical solutions are constructed for M = 1/2 (Sections 2 and 3).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The EEH action (1) is the correct effective action for gravity coupled to one-loop QED
    The entire construction starts from the EEHS action with F and µF² terms; this is the standard EEH framework from [15].
  • domain assumption The scalar potential V(φ) = -4α²φ⁶ is a viable model for negative-potential scalarization
    Adopted from the authors' prior work [25]; the paper does not derive this potential from a more fundamental theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The l=0 radial perturbation decouples into a single master equation
    Section 4 states that H0 and H1 become redundant via a decoupling procedure, but the derivation is not shown; the QNM instability result relies on this decoupling.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Negative potential-induced scalarization in the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VUITYYXD

@misc{pith2026250816083,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Negative potential-induced scalarization in the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VUITYYXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16083}
}
abstract

We investigate a negative potential-induced scalarization of the Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg (EEH) black hole in the EEH-scalar (EEHS) theory, characterized by mass $M$, Euler-Heisenberg parameter $\mu$, and magnetic charge $q$. Within this framework, the charge $q$ can exceed the extremal bound $q/M > 1$, and a single event horizon is maintained provided the parameter $\mu$ exceeds the $\mu_{\text{max}} = 0.019$, with the ADM mass fixed at $M = 1/2$. We obtain a single branch of scalarized EEH (sEEH) black holes for $q > 0$ which is considered as the simplest model for scalarization of EEH black holes. We found that this class of hairy black holes is not thermodynamically favored, and their quasinormal modes indicate they are dynamically unstable. An interesting feature is that when $q < 1/2$, the scalar charge varies only slightly with $q$ for a fixed mass. In contrast, for $q>1/2$, the scalar charge increases more rapidly as $q$ increases. This distinct behavior suggests that the scalar charge exhibits the characteristics of a primary charge for $q < 1/2$, and of a secondary charge for $q > 1/2$. This finding reveals notable features of hairy black holes in EEH theory, specifically in the overcharging regime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16083 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The parameter γ represents the charge-to-mass ratio, with the dashed black line indicating γ = 1.02. In the EEH black hole, three distinct real positive horizons exist only when µ ≲ 0.019, as shown in the top and bottom-left figures. When a single horizon exists µ > 0.019, its size is compared with that of a RN black hole of the same ADM mass (M = 0.5) in the bottom-right figure. where the last two terms represent t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Potential v(r, M, q) and its integration I(M, q). (Left) Five q-dependent potentials v(r, M = 0.5, q) as functions of r/r+ with q = 0.15, 0.35, 0.5, 1, 2. Negative regions appear near the horizon for q > 0.5. However, vRN(r, 0.5, q) is a positive function of r ∈ [rRN+,∞] for q ∈ [0, 0.5]. (Right) Integration I(0.5, q) as a function of q. Its lower limit is 0.5 at q = 0.0001 and then, I grows monotonically with incre… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (Left) Scalar hair ϕ(r ∈ [r+, 100], q) with q = 0.15, 0.35, 0.5, 1, 2. These all are decreasing functions of r with different initial values at r = r+. (Right) δ(r ∈ [r+, 100], q) with different q = 0.15, 0.35, 0.5, 1, 2, are negative decreasing functions of r. where the expansion coefficients are given by m1 = q 2 2r 2 + − 0.3q 4 r 6 + + r 2 +V (ϕ+) 4 , δ1 = −r+ϕ 2 1 , ϕ1 = r+V ′ (ϕ+) 4(1 − 2m1) . (26) Here the con… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Left) Mass function ˜m(r ∈ [r+, 100], M = 0.5, q) with q = 0.15, 0.35, 0.5, 1, 2 for EEH black hole. They all converge M = 0.5 at large r. Negative regions appear for q = 2. (Right) Mass function m(r ∈ [r+, 100], q) for sEEH black hole with α = 1. Negative regions app…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (Left) Temperature T˜(M = 0.5, q), T(M = 0.5, q), and T˜ RN(M = 0.5, q) as functions of q for EEH, sEEH and RN (µ = 0) black holes. The first two are increasing functions while the last is a decreasing function. The minimum temperature (=0.08) for EEH black hole is loc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) Constant scalar charge and scalar charge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Energy density ρ(r, q) as a function of r/r+. (Left) Five profiles ˜ρ(r, q) as functions of r/r+ ∈ [1, 5] with q = 0.15, 0.35, 0.5, 1, 2 for EEH black holes, together with the energy density of RN black hole (µ = 0) ˜ρRN(r, q) = q 2/2r 4 over r/r+ ∈ [1, 5]. Negative re…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (Left) Scalar potentials VsEEH(r, q) for l = 0 scalar mode with various values of q ≤ 0.51 in the single branch. The potential well deepens as q increases and becomes shallower for q > 0.45. (Right) As q increases from q = 0.51, a potential barrier first emerges, follo…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Fundamental QNM frequency ωI of the l = 0 scalar mode as a function of q for sEEH black hole (blue), EEH black hole with α = 0 (green) and RN black hole with α = µ = 0 (red). The black vertical dashed line represents q = 1/2. and purely outgoing waves at spatial infini…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Charge-dependent scalarization of Einstein- Euler-Heisenberg black holes

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Charge-dependent scalarization of EEH black holes yields stable scalarized branches for 0<q<1.115 with positive α and for q>1.115 with negative α.

  2. Scalarization of Einstein-Euler-Heisenberg black hole with multiple horizons

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Stable, positive-mass scalarized EEH black holes exist only in an intermediate primary-scalar-charge window for low/cold horizons and above a lower bound for hot horizons.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Israel, Phys

    W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 164 (1967), 1776-1779 doi:10.1103/PhysRev.164.1776

    doi:10.1103/physrev.164.1776 1967

  2. [2]

    Israel, Commun

    W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys. 8 (1968), 245-260 doi:10.1007/BF01645859

    doi:10.1007/bf01645859 1968

  3. [3]

    Ruffini and J

    R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, no. 1, 30 (1971). doi:10.1063/1.3022513

    doi:10.1063/1.3022513 1971

  4. [4]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 (1972), 452-455 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.452

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28.452 1972

  5. [5]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 51 (1995) no.12, R6608 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.51.R6608

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.51.r6608 1995

  6. [6]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 24, no. 09, 1542014 (2015) doi:10.1142/S0218271815420146 [arXiv:1504.08209 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    M. S. Volkov, doi:10.1142/9789813226609 0184 [arXiv:1601.08230 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    D. D. Doneva and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 13, 131103 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.131103 [arXiv:1711.01187 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    H. O. Silva, J. Sakstein, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 (2018) no.13, 131104 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.131104 [arXiv:1711.02080 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, no. 13, 131102 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.131102 [arXiv:1711.03390 [hep-th]]. 17

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Latosh and M

    B. Latosh and M. Park, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.2, 024012 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024012 [arXiv:2305.19814 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, no. 10, 101102 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.101102 [arXiv:1806.05190 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Y. H. Hyun, B. Latosh and M. Park, JHEP 08 (2024), 163 doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2024)163 [arXiv:2405.08769 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Z. Phys. 98 (1936) no.11-12, 714-732 doi:10.1007/BF01343663 [arXiv:physics/0605038 [physics]]

    1936 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Yajima and T

    H. Yajima and T. Tamaki, Phys. Rev. D 63, 064007 (2001) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.63.064007 [arXiv:gr-qc/0005016 [gr-qc]]

    2001 arXiv

  8. [16]

    V. E. Hubeny, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999), 064013 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.59.064013 [arXiv:gr-qc/9808043 [gr-qc]]

    1999 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Liu and S

    C. Liu and S. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.12, 124067 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124067 [arXiv:2003.12999 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M. R. Alipour, S. Noori Gashti, B. Pourhassan and ˙I. Sakallı, [arXiv:2504.03453 [gr- qc]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kehagias, K

    A. Kehagias, K. D. Kokkotas, A. Riotto, J. Taskas and G. Tringas, Class. Quant. Grav. 41 (2024) no.7, 075007 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad28f9 [arXiv:2305.07915 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Shaymatov and B

    S. Shaymatov and B. Ahmedov, Gen. Rel. Grav.55 (2023) no.2, 36 doi:10.1007/s10714- 023-03082-y [arXiv:2301.08569 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Brodin, M

    G. Brodin, M. Marklund and L. Stenflo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001), 171801 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.171801 [arXiv:physics/0108022 [physics.class-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Allahyari, M

    A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi and D. F. Mota, JCAP 02 (2020), 003 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/02/003 [arXiv:1912.08231 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    S. I. Kruglov, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 35 (2020) no.35, 2050291 doi:10.1142/S0217732320502910 [arXiv:2009.07657 [gr-qc]]. 18

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Karakasis, G

    T. Karakasis, G. Koutsoumbas, A. Machattou and E. Papantonopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.10, 104006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104006 [arXiv:2207.13146 [gr- qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    X. Y. Chew and Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.4, 044011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.044011 [arXiv:2405.04921 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Amaro and A

    D. Amaro and A. Mac ´ ıas, Phys. Rev. D 102, no.10, 104054 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104054

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    Bret´ on and L

    N. Bret´ on and L. A. L´ opez, Phys. Rev. D 104, no.2, 024064 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024064 [arXiv:2105.12283 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    D. O. Devecioglu and M. I. Park, Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022), 137107 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137107 [arXiv:2101.10116 [hep-th]]

    2022

  21. [29]

    Luo and J

    Z. Luo and J. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, no.8, 085107 (2022) doi:10.1088/1674-1137/ac6574

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Dotti and R

    G. Dotti and R. J. Gleiser, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, L1 (2005) doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/22/1/L01 [arXiv:gr-qc/0409005 [gr-qc]]

    2005 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Jansen, Eur

    A. Jansen, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 132 (2017) no.12, 546 doi:10.1140/epjp/i2017-11825-9 [arXiv:1709.09178 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Javed, Phys

    F. Javed, Phys. Dark Univ. 44 (2024), 101450 doi:10.1016/j.dark.2024.101450

    2024

  25. [33]

    D. P. Sorokin, Fortsch. Phys. 70 (2022) no.7-8, 2200092 doi:10.1002/prop.202200092 [arXiv:2112.12118 [hep-th]]. 19

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.