Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Enabling Multi-Agent Systems as Learning Designers: Applying Learning Sciences to AI Instructional Design

T0 review · 4 major / 2 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 This paper constructs a Kalb-Ramond–quintessence black hole solution and derives parameter-dependent deviations in shadows, orbits, lensing, and heat capacity from Schwarzschild.

desk verdict A plausible MAS-for-instructional-design study whose central claim rests on teacher preference while its only standardized measure found no significant differences; the supplied full text is an unrelated physics paper, so the work is un-auditable as submitted. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16659 v1 pith:WVN5CCTJ submitted 2025-08-20 cs.CY cs.AIcs.HC

Jiayi Wang , Ruiwei Xiao , Xinying Hou , John Stamper This is my paper
classification cs.CYcs.AIcs.HC MSC 83C5783D0583C10 PACS 04.70.-s04.50.Kd95.30.Sf04.70.Bw
keywords blackholesKalb-RamondgravityquintessenceLorentzviolationholeshadowgeodesicsgravitationallensingthermodynamics
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

Although the attached abstract describes an AI instructional-design study, the manuscript body presents a physics paper: a static, spherically symmetric black hole solution in Kalb-Ramond gravity surrounded by a quintessence field. The paper's claim is that this two-parameter family of spacetimes systematically modifies photon and massive-particle geodesics, photon-sphere and shadow radii, perturbation spectra, gravitational lensing, and heat capacity relative to Schwarzschild, and that these modifications are encoded analytically in the Lorentz-violating parameter η and the quintessence parameters (C, w). The derivation is the contribution: every observable quantity is traced back to a single metric function, so the paper offers a compact theoretical test-bed for jointly constraining Lorentz-violating and dark-energy effects through black hole observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the metric function f(r) in Eq. (2.11), determined by a Kalb-Ramond field frozen at a constant-norm vacuum expectation value that spontaneously breaks Lorentz symmetry (parameter η), and a quintessence fluid with equation of state p = wρ (parameters C, w). That single function feeds all subsequent derivations: geodesic effective potentials, photon-sphere and shadow formulas, the Gauss-Bonnet deflection angle, perturbation potentials, and the thermodynamic quantities. The Gibbons-Werner Gauss-Bonnet theorem is the mechanism for the lensing calculation, and the Bekenstein-Hawking area law anchors the entropy.

What would settle it

A precision shadow measurement consistent with the Schwarzschild radius 3√3 M to within a few percent, together with GR-consistent photon ring and ISCO constraints, would rule out the large-η, large-C regimes the paper highlights; by contrast, a shadow smaller than 3√3 M, or an ISCO radius far beyond 6 M from an inspiraling compact object, would be direct evidence for the proposed combined modification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the metric function f(r) = 1/(1-η) - 2M/r - C/r^{3w+1} is a genuine static black hole solution combining Kalb-Ramond Lorentz violation with a quintessence fluid. The solution has two horizons, a central curvature singularity, and the standard Schwarzschild and Schwarzschild-quintessence limits at C = 0 and η = 0 respectively. Working from this metric, the paper derives analytic expressions for the photon sphere, shadow radius, ISCO radius, scalar and electromagnetic perturbation potentials, the Gauss-Bonnet lensing deflection angle, and the Hawking temperature, Gibbs free energy, and heat capacity. The consistent qualitative pattern is that η amplifies gravitational

Load-bearing premise

The solution assumes a static, spherically symmetric spacetime can simultaneously host a frozen constant-norm Kalb-Ramond vacuum expectation value and a quintessence energy-momentum tensor of the simple Kiselev form; if that ansatz is inconsistent with the field equations, the metric and every derived observable collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ISCO radii grow sharply with both η and C: the paper's table shows values exceeding 400 M for moderate parameters, versus 6 M in Schwarzschild, which would move the inner edge of accretion disks outward.
  • Shadow radius is suppressed by η and enhanced by C, with state-dependent analytic forms for different w, giving two separate observational handles for separating Lorentz violation from quintessence effects.
  • Weak gravitational deflection gains (1-η) enhancement factors and w-dependent corrections, so astrometric lensing measurements could probe the same parameter space as shadows.
  • Scalar and electromagnetic perturbation potentials shift with η and C, which implies modified quasinormal-mode frequencies and damping times in gravitational-wave ringdown signals.
  • Heat capacity diverges and Hawking temperature can become negative in parts of the parameter space, indicating thermodynamic instability regions and possible phase transitions beyond Schwarzschild behavior.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The attached abstract and the manuscript body are from different papers: the abstract describes a multi-agent LLM system for instructional design, while the body is a pure black hole physics derivation. The educational claims in the abstract are not supported by the body and must be verified against the actual submitted manuscript before being credited.
  • The analytic shadow and deflection formulas are not fitted to data in the paper; a direct fit to high-resolution shadow images could yield joint constraints on η and C, though the paper does not perform that inversion.
  • Because η enters as 1/(1-η) multiplicative factors, some apparent Lorentz-violating signatures may be reducible to a length rescaling plus a reparameterization of the horizon; testing whether coordinate rescaling absorbs η would clarify which deviations are physically new.
  • The opposing effects of η and C suggest a degeneracy surface in parameter space: a single shadow measurement may constrain a combination of the two parameters rather than either one individually, so multi-observable fits will be needed to break the degeneracy.
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

4 major / 2 minor

Summary. The submission claims to evaluate three LLM-based systems for generating secondary Math and Science instructional materials: a Single-Agent baseline, a role-based sequential MAS, and a collaborative conquer-and-merge MAS (MAS-CMD). The reported evaluation uses 20 practicing teachers and an LLM-as-a-judge system, both applying the Quality Matters (QM) K-12 rubric. The abstract reports that rubric differences were 'small, often statistically insignificant,' yet concludes that teachers strongly preferred MAS-CMD activities and that embedding pedagogical principles into LLM systems is a scalable path for high-quality educational content. However, the full text supplied to me is an unrelated physics paper on Kalb-Ramond black holes with quintessence. The methods, implementation, instruments, and data behind the abstract therefore cannot be audited from the manuscript under review.

Significance. If the claims were backed by rigorous evidence, the study would be practically significant: it would show that pedagogical expertise can be moved from user prompts into system architecture and that a collaborative multi-agent design yields measurably better instructional materials at scale. The experimental framing—comparing a single-agent baseline, a sequential MAS, and a collaborative MAS against an external rubric and practicing teacher judgments—is a reasonable and potentially useful design. The study also uses an established external standard (QM K-12) and includes human teachers, which are strengths. As submitted, however, the central claim is unsubstantiated: the manuscript text supplied does not contain the reported study, the abstract's own quantitative evidence shows at most small and statistically insignificant differences, and no effect sizes, confidence intervals, inter-rater reliability, blinding protocol, or learning-outcome validation are reported. The qualitative preference of 20 teachers is not established as a valid proxy for instructional quality.

major comments (4)
  1. [Full Text (entire manuscript body)] The full text of the submission is an unrelated paper, 'A Black Hole Solution in Kalb-Ramond Gravity with Quintessence Field: From Geodesic Dynamics to Thermal Criticality,' with no connection to multi-agent systems, LLMs, K-12 education, the KLI framework, or the QM rubric. This is not a minor formatting issue; it makes the central empirical claims of the abstract completely unauditable. No methods, system descriptions, evaluation instruments, data analyses, or limitations for the claimed MAS study are present in the manuscript.
  2. [Abstract, Results sentence] The abstract reports that QM K-12 rubric scores showed 'small, often statistically insignificant differences' between systems. This directly contradicts or at least severely undermines the paper's closing claim that MAS-CMD produces 'high-quality educational content' via a 'scalable path.' No effect sizes, confidence intervals, or per-criteria breakdowns are reported. With n = 20 teachers, the qualitative preference cannot compensate for absent quantitative evidence of quality differences.
  3. [Abstract, Evaluation and Conclusion] The strong qualitative conclusion rests entirely on 20 teachers' impressions that MAS-CMD activities were 'significantly more creative, contextually relevant, and classroom-ready.' There is no evidence that teacher preference tracks learning effectiveness, no reported inter-rater reliability, no blinding of teachers to experimental condition, and no independent validation of the preference judgments. The LLM-as-a-judge component is described only in passing and may share stylistic biases with the generated content. Without learning-outcome data or a validated proxy, the central claim that MAS-CMD generates high-quality instructional materials is unsupported.
  4. [Abstract, KLI framework claim] The abstract states that the KLI framework was 'embedded' into a multi-agent system to act as an instructional designer. Even if the full text were available, this would require a detailed account of how KLI constructs were operationalized in the agents' prompts, memory, or discussion protocol. The supplied manuscript contains none of this. As it stands, the mechanism for the claimed effect is not specified and cannot be checked.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, Method description] The relationship between the LLM-as-a-judge scores and the human teacher ratings is not described. If both were used as evaluators, the manuscript should report their agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa or correlation) and whether they produced conflicting conclusions.
  2. [Abstract, Sample description] The abstract does not describe the subject-matter coverage beyond 'secondary Math and Science,' the number of activities per system, or the teacher recruitment criteria. At minimum, a statement of the corpus size and teacher backgrounds is needed to interpret the qualitative results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found; the abstract's conclusion rests on external evaluation, though the supplied full text is mismatched and the quality inference is under-supported.

full rationale

The abstract's claimed derivation is: embedding the KLI framework into a multi-agent system (MAS-CMD) yields instructional materials that teachers strongly prefer, and this is offered as a scalable path to high-quality content. The evaluation instruments—20 practicing teachers and the external Quality Matters K-12 rubric—are outside the generator's own outputs, so the central claim is not definitionally tied to the system's internal design. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation data and then renamed a prediction; the rubric scores are honestly reported as showing only small, often statistically insignificant differences, and the positive conclusion is explicitly based on qualitative teacher feedback. That is an evidentiary/validity weakness (teacher preference is not a direct measure of learning effectiveness), not a circular reduction. There are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness claims in the abstract. However, the supplied 'full text' is an unrelated Kalb-Ramond black-hole paper, so the methods, instruments, and raw data behind the abstract cannot be independently audited; this is a serious missing-support/integrity issue, but it does not make the derivation circular. Therefore no circular steps are identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only ledger. No fitted constants are identifiable because the full methodology is unavailable. The load-bearing inputs are validity assumptions: KLI as the pedagogical backbone, QM K-12 as the quality yardstick, teacher preference as a proxy for effectiveness, and LLM-as-a-judge as a valid rater. The mismatch between metadata and supplied full text prevents a deeper parameter audit.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework is a valid, applicable model for designing learning activities.
    The entire system design embeds KLI as the pedagogical backbone; the abstract asserts it is 'well-established' but provides no independent validation within this study.
  • domain assumption Quality Matters (QM) K-12 standards capture instructional quality.
    Used as the evaluation rubric for all three systems; the abstract does not justify why QM standards are the right yardstick.
  • domain assumption Teacher qualitative judgments predict educational effectiveness.
    The main positive finding is teacher preference; no learning-outcome data are reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge ratings are a valid complement to human evaluation.
    The abstract states materials were evaluated by a complementary LLM-as-a-judge system without details on calibration against human raters.
invented entities (1)
  • MAS-CMD (collaborative conquer-and-merge multi-agent system)
    purpose: Coordinate multiple LLM agents to co-construct learning activities through conquer-and-merge discussion, embedding the KLI pedagogy framework.
    This is the paper's proposed architecture. Its effectiveness is exactly what the study tests, and the abstract offers no falsifiable handle outside the paper's own 20-teacher evaluation, so independent evidence is absent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enabling Multi-Agent Systems as Learning Designers: Applying Learning Sciences to AI Instructional Design." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WVN5CCTJ

@misc{pith2026250816659,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enabling Multi-Agent Systems as Learning Designers: Applying Learning Sciences to AI Instructional Design},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WVN5CCTJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16659}
}
read the original abstract

K-12 educators are increasingly using Large Language Models (LLMs) to create instructional materials. These systems excel at producing fluent, coherent content, but often lack support for high-quality teaching. The reason is twofold: first, commercial LLMs, such as ChatGPT and Gemini which are among the most widely accessible to teachers, do not come preloaded with the depth of pedagogical theory needed to design truly effective activities; second, although sophisticated prompt engineering can bridge this gap, most teachers lack the time or expertise and find it difficult to encode such pedagogical nuance into their requests. This study shifts pedagogical expertise from the user's prompt to the LLM's internal architecture. We embed the well-established Knowledge-Learning-Instruction (KLI) framework into a Multi-Agent System (MAS) to act as a sophisticated instructional designer. We tested three systems for generating secondary Math and Science learning activities: a Single-Agent baseline simulating typical teacher prompts; a role-based MAS where agents work sequentially; and a collaborative MAS-CMD where agents co-construct activities through conquer and merge discussion. The generated materials were evaluated by 20 practicing teachers and a complementary LLM-as-a-judge system using the Quality Matters (QM) K-12 standards. While the rubric scores showed only small, often statistically insignificant differences between the systems, the qualitative feedback from educators painted a clear and compelling picture. Teachers strongly preferred the activities from the collaborative MAS-CMD, describing them as significantly more creative, contextually relevant, and classroom-ready. Our findings show that embedding pedagogical principles into LLM systems offers a scalable path for creating high-quality educational content.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. AI-accelerated End-to-End Framework for Rapid Professional Upskilling

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    An end-to-end AI-accelerated upskilling framework produced a certification-grade training program, with 3 of 3 learners passing the NVIDIA Agentic AI exam, plus NASBA CPE approval and a 1,267-item risk dataset.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Shankaranarayanan and J

    S. Shankaranarayanan and J. P. Johnson, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 54, 44 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Myrzakulov, A

    Y. Myrzakulov, A. H. A. Alfedeel, M. Koussour, S. Muminov, E. I. Hassan and J. Rayimbaev, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139506 (2025). 33

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, ˙I. Sakallı and A. Bouzenadad, Nucl. Phys. B 1011, 116806 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D 111, 086027 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

    2003

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380, 235 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Tangphati, I

    T. Tangphati, I. Sakalli, A. Banerjee and A. Pradhan, Chinese Phys. C 49, 025110 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    al-Badawi, S

    A. al-Badawi, S. Shaymatov and I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 825 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Kalb and P

    M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D 9, 2273 (1974)

    1974

  8. [16]

    Witten, Nucl

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

    1981

  9. [17]

    Al-Badawi, S

    A. Al-Badawi, S. Shaymatov and I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 825 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L. M. Wang and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 214003 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    C. Ding, S. Kang, C. Y. Chen, S. Chen, B. Wang and J. L. Yang, C. Ding and X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 45, 025106 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    V. V. Kiselev, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 1187 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Fernando, Gen

    S. Fernando, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 1857 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Azreg-Ainou, Eur

    M. Azreg-Ainou, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 34 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Ahmed, ˙I

    F. Ahmed, ˙I. Sakallı and A. Al-Badawi, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139448 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Mangut, H

    M. Mangut, H. G¨ ursel and˙I. Sakallı, Astropart. Phys. 144, 102763 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Rovelli, ������� ������� (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    C. Rovelli, ������� ������� (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi and ˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101988 (2025). ,

    2025

  27. [35]

    Bambi, Rev

    C. Bambi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025001 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Narayan, M

    R. Narayan, M. D. Johnson and C. F. Gammie, Astrophys. J. Lett. 885, L33 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    S. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  31. [39]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  32. [40]

    R. M. Wald, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 6 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Bonder, Phys

    Y. Bonder, Phys. Rev. D 91, 125002 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Bluhm, Lect

    R. Bluhm, Lect. Notes Phys. 702, 191 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Mattingly, Living Rev

    D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 5 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Padmanabhan, Gen

    T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 529 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    A. P. Baeta Scarpelli, H. Belich, J. L. Boldo and J. A. Helayel-Neto, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085021 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Chen and J

    S. Chen and J. Jing, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 4651 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 525, 331 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, ��� ����� ����� ��������� �� ���������� (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973)

    1973

  42. [50]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  43. [51]

    S. W. Hawking, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 294, 511 (1966)

    1966

  44. [52]

    R. M. Wald, ������� ����������(University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

    1984

  45. [53]

    Kubiznak and R

    D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, J. High Energ. Phys. 2012, 33 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  47. [55]

    Strominger and C

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 379, 99 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Bambi, ����� ������ � ���������� ��� ������� ������ �������(Springer, New York, 2017)

    C. Bambi, ����� ������ � ���������� ��� ������� ������ �������(Springer, New York, 2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Hegde, A

    K. Hegde, A. Naveena Kumara, C. L. A. Rizwan, M. S. Ali and K. M. Ajith, Ann. Phys. (NY) 429, 168461 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Perlick, O

    V. Perlick, O. Y. Tsupko and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104031 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Younsi, A

    Z. Younsi, A. Broderick, M. Incl´ an, D. Marrone, R. Narayan, C. Gammie, K. Akiyama and M. Johnson, Astrophys. J. 942, 47 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu and H. F. Runarsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 211102 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Wielgus et al

    M. Wielgus et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. 901, 67 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Berti, V

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

    2009

  55. [63]

    H. P. Nollert, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, R159 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999). 34

    1999

  57. [65]

    Cardoso and J

    V. Cardoso and J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D 63, 124015 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

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

    2011

  59. [67]

    Chandrasekhar, ��� ������������ ������ �� ����� ����� (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992)

    S. Chandrasekhar, ��� ������������ ������ �� ����� ����� (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992)

    1992

  60. [68]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  61. [69]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  62. [70]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  63. [71]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  64. [72]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024018 (2003)

    2003

  66. [74]

    Gundlach, R

    C. Gundlach, R. H. Price and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 883 (1994)

    1994

  67. [75]

    E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, W. M. Suen and K. Young, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2118 (1995)

    1995

  68. [76]

    J. M. Bardeen and W. H. Press, J. Math. Phys. 14, 7 (1973)

    1973

  69. [77]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. 193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  70. [78]

    J. D. Jackson, ��������� ���������������� ��� �������(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, �������� �� ������������ ��������� (Dover Publications, New York, 1965)

    1965

  72. [80]

    Pound, Fund

    A. Pound, Fund. Theor. Phys. 179, 399 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    Detweiler, Class

    S. Detweiler, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, S681 (2005)

    2005

  74. [82]

    Barack, Class

    L. Barack, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 213001 (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Pound and B

    A. Pound and B. Wardell, ����� ���� ������������ ������ ��� ������������� ���������� In C. Bambi, �� ���(Eds.) �������� �� ������������� ���� ��������� (Springer, Singapore, 2021); arXiv:2101.04592 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    S. E. Gralla, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124011 (2012)

    2012

  77. [85]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers and E. E. Falco, ������������� ������(Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992)

    1992

  78. [86]

    A. B. Balakin, J. P. S. Lemos and A. E. Zayats, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 1867 (2005)

    2005

  79. [87]

    G. W. Gibbons and M. C. Werner, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 235009 (2008)

    2008

  80. [88]

    M. C. Werner, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 3047 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    T. Ono, A. Ishihara and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124030 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    Sucu and ˙I

    E. Sucu and ˙I. Sakalli, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064049 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Li and A

    Z. Li and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Phys. Rev. D101, 024040 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Arakida, Gen

    H. Arakida, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 48 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    T. Ono, A. Ishihara and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044047 (2018)

    2018

  86. [94]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 064018 (1999)

    1999

  87. [95]

    M. M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola and D. Klemm, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 399 (2000)

    2000

  88. [96]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 195011 (2009)

    2009

  89. [97]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 125020 (2011)

    2011

  90. [98]

    Rajagopal, D

    A. Rajagopal, D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, Phys. Lett. B 737, 277 (2014)

    2014

  91. [99]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3292 (1974)

    1974

  92. [100]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 13, 191 (1976)

    1976

  93. [101]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752 (1977)

    1977

  94. [102]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995)

    1995

  95. [103]

    R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 75, 064008 (2007)

    2007

  96. [104]

    S. W. Wei and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044014 (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    R. Zhao, H. H. Zhao, M. S. Ma and L. C. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2645 (2013)

    2013

  98. [106]

    J. X. Mo and W. B. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084057 (2014)

    2014

  99. [107]

    Altamirano, D

    N. Altamirano, D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 88, 101502 (2013)

    2013

  100. [108]

    A. M. Frassino, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann and F. Simovic, J. High Energ. Phys. 2014, 80 (2014)

    2014

  101. [109]

    C. V. Johnson, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, 205002 (2014)

    2014

  102. [110]

    B. R. Majhi and S. Samanta, Phys. Lett. B 773, 203 (2017)

    2017

  103. [111]

    Chabab, H

    M. Chabab, H. El Moumni, S. Iraoui and K. Masmar, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 676 (2016)

    2016

  104. [112]

    S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan and B. Eslam Panah, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650010 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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