Extending the Comisso-Asenjo Energy Extraction Mechanism to Pure Lovelock Gravity

Chengxun Yuan; Chen Zhou; Ikhtiyor Eshtursunov; Sanjar Shaymatov

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 83 references

Extending the Comisso-Asenjo Energy Extraction Mechanism to Pure Lovelock Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that magnetic reconnection extracts rotational energy from rapidly rotating pure Lovelock black holes far more efficiently as spacetime dimension rises, with efficiency exceeding 180% in eight dimensions and peaking in nin

desk verdict A clean, transparent parameter scan of the Comisso–Asenjo mechanism on an approximate rotating pure-Lovelock metric; the D-trend is plausible but the quantitative claims rest on an unvalidated metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28789 v1 pith:6BONMNFX submitted 2026-07-30 gr-qc

Chen Zhou , Ikhtiyor Eshtursunov , Sanjar Shaymatov , Chengxun Yuan This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc

keywords magneticreconnectionenergyextractionpureLovelockgravityGauss-BonnetblackholesergosphereBlandford-Znajekprocesshigher-dimensionalComisso-Asenjomechanism

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

The paper extends the Comisso-Asenjo magnetic reconnection mechanism—a way of pulling rotational energy out of a black hole by having magnetized plasma reconnect inside the ergosphere, the region outside the horizon where spacetime is dragged along with the hole—to rotating pure Lovelock/Gauss-Bonnet black holes in dimensions six through nine. It claims that, for maximally spinning holes with a single rotation axis, the extraction efficiency η = ε+/(ε+ + ε−) grows with dimension: roughly 135% in six dimensions, 150% in seven (matching the four-dimensional rotating black hole of general relativity), at least 180% in eight, and its highest values in nine. It also claims that over broad ranges of plasma magnetization, the power extracted by reconnection is much larger than the power of the Blandford-Znajek process, unless magnetization is extremely high. The D=7 case coincides with the standard four-dimensional general-relativity result, serving as a check.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through two pieces of machinery. First, the effective rotating pure Lovelock spacetime: a line element of the same form as the standard higher-dimensional rotating black hole, with the mass parameter replaced by the pure Lovelock exponent α = (D−2N−1)/N, giving the horizon and ergosphere structure used in all subsequent calculations. Second, the Comisso-Asenjo magnetic reconnection equations, which give the energy-at-infinity per enthalpy ε±∞ of the accelerated/decelerated plasma outflows in the zero angular momentum observer (ZAMO) frame, together with the extraction efficiency η = ε+/(ε++ε−) and the extracted power P_ext = −ε−∞ w0 A_in U_in. The conditions ε+>0 and ε−<0 d

What would settle it

Compute the first-order corrections to the effective rotating pure Lovelock metric by solving the vacuum field equations perturbatively in the rotation parameter and re-evaluate η and P_ext; if the corrected horizon or ergosphere radius changes by a significant fraction, the reported dimension-dependence and efficiency values would not survive. Alternatively, an exact rotating vacuum solution—or a proof that none exists—would settle the spacetime question directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the efficiency and power of the Comisso-Asenjo magnetic reconnection mechanism increase with spacetime dimension for rapidly rotating pure Lovelock black holes with a single rotation parameter. Using an effective rotating metric built by inserting the pure Lovelock mass parameter into the standard higher-dimensional rotating black hole line element (valid to leading order), the authors compute the energy-at-infinity per enthalpy of accelerated and decelerated plasma outflows and the resulting efficiency. They find η exceeding 100% in all dimensions 6–9, reaching about 135% in D=6, 150% in D=7 (the same as the four-dimensional rotating black hole), 180% in D=8, and t

Load-bearing premise

The rotating pure Lovelock spacetime used in the paper is not an exact vacuum solution; every quantitative result depends on the assumption that this leading-order metric faithfully captures the horizon, ergosphere, and frame-dragging geometry, with no estimate of how large the neglected terms are.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Rapidly rotating pure Lovelock black holes in dimensions 6–9 can convert a substantial fraction of their rotational energy into escaping plasma, with efficiency exceeding 100% in all cases and reaching 180% or more in higher dimensions.
The Comisso-Asenjo mechanism can outproduce the Blandford-Znajek process by factors ≫1 over broad magnetization ranges, making magnetic reconnection a potentially dominant energy extraction channel for these black holes.
The D=7 case matches the four-dimensional rotating black hole result exactly, giving a consistency check and a concrete prediction for what a pure Lovelock black hole looks like energetically in that dimension.
Higher-dimensional pure Lovelock black holes are energetically distinct from general-relativity counterparts, except at D=3N+1, so energy-extraction measurements could in principle distinguish the theories.

Reading between the lines

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

If the leading-order rotating metric is a reliable approximation, the same analysis could be extended to multiple rotation parameters and to higher Lovelock order N > 2, likely pushing efficiencies even higher; the paper does not explore these cases.
The sharp divergence between MR and BZ power as σ0→∞ suggests an observational discriminant: high-magnetization systems should show BZ-dominated jets, while moderate-magnetization rapidly spinning candidates should show reconnection-enhanced outflows.
Because the paper's metric is not an exact solution, a numerical or perturbative check of the first corrections could either confirm or overturn the reported dimension-dependence; the authors provide no estimate of the corrections' size.
The growth of η with dimension, if taken at face value, offers a potential signature of extra dimensions in future high-energy astrophysical observations, though the paper does not specify an observational route.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new thing here is the first application of the Comisso–Asenjo magnetic-reconnection extraction formula to rotating pure-Lovelock/GB black holes in D=6–9 with a single rotation. The D=7 result matching 4D Kerr is a useful sanity check that the pipeline is coherent, and the internal algebra from Eq. (28) through Eq. (34) checks out. The authors are also honest about the main caveat: the rotating metric they use is not an exact solution of the pure-GB field equations, only valid to leading order. That admission is to their credit, but it does not make the caveat go away.

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. Every quantitative result—horizon radius, ergosphere boundary, frame-dragging term, the energy-at-infinity formula, and therefore the efficiency and power curves—is computed from this approximate metric. No estimate is given for the size of the neglected terms or how they would shift r_H, r_erg, or β^φ. Since the central claim is the dimension dependence of the efficiency (135% in D=6, 150% in D=7, 180% in D=8, highest in D=9), even a modest dimension-dependent correction could change the trend. This does not make the paper worthless; it makes the numbers indicative rather than definitive. The D=7 coincidence gives some confidence, but it does not validate D=6, 8, or 9.

A second, related gap is that Eq. (28) was derived for 4D Kerr and is carried over without justifying that the ZAMO decomposition and the assumptions behind the Comisso–Asenjo formula remain valid for a D-dimensional spacetime that is not an exact solution. That deserves at least a paragraph. The BZ comparison in Eq. (34) also uses numerical constants from Kerr split-monopole models; fine for a rough comparison, but it should be flagged as an order-of-magnitude estimate.

None of this is fatal. The paper is a legitimate extension within an active program, the parameter scans are clearly described, and the authors do not overclaim beyond what the approximate metric allows. No code or data is provided, but for a theory scan like this that is a minor issue, not a decisive one.

I would send this to peer review with a request for an error estimate on the metric approximation—an order-of-magnitude estimate of the neglected terms, or a perturbative check that the D-trend survives. If the authors can supply that, the paper would be solid. As it stands, the paper is a useful, transparent contribution that should be published after revision, but not with the quantitative claims taken at face value.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the Comisso–Asenjo (CA) magnetic reconnection energy-extraction mechanism to rotating pure Lovelock/Gauss–Bonnet black holes with a single rotation parameter in D=6,7,8,9 dimensions. The spacetime is the effective rotating metric of Dadhich and Ghosh (Eqs. (1)–(7)), which the authors explicitly state is not an exact solution of the pure Lovelock vacuum equations but is valid to leading order. Using the CA energy-at-infinity formula (Eq. (28)), the paper computes allowed parameter-space regions, extracted power P_ext (Eq. (31)), efficiency η=ε+/(ε++ε−) (Eq. (32)), and compares P_ext with the Blandford–Znajek power P_BZ (Eqs. (33)–(34)). The central claims are that the efficiency grows with dimension, reaching approximately 135% in D=6, approximately 150% in D=7 (matching 4D Kerr), approximately 180% in D=8, and its highest values in D=9, and that P_MR/P_BZ≫1 over broad magnetization ranges. The paper also emphasizes the D=3N+1 correspondence, whereby D=7 reproduces the 4D Kerr behavior.

Significance. If the quantitative results are reliable, the paper would extend a well-studied astrophysical energy-extraction mechanism to higher-dimensional pure Lovelock gravity and identify a striking dimension dependence, including a regime in which magnetic reconnection outperforms the Blandford–Znajek process. The paper is transparent about the fact that the rotating metric is approximate, and the D=7 agreement with Kerr provides a valuable internal consistency check. The parameter-space scans are clearly described and the algebra leading from Eq. (28) through Eq. (34) is internally coherent. However, the central quantitative claims rest on two unvalidated premises: the effective rotating metric is not an exact solution, and Eq. (28) is imported from the 4D Kerr derivation. Because the D-dependence of η and P_MR/P_BZ is the paper's main finding, these premises are load-bearing. The paper does not supply numerical code or data, limiting independent reproducibility of the scans.

major comments (3)

The rotating pure Lovelock/GB metric used for all subsequent calculations is explicitly not an exact vacuum solution: the text states 'Although it does not exactly satisfy the pure GB vacuum field equations, it remains valid to leading order.' Every quantitative result in the paper—the horizon and ergosphere boundaries, the lapse and shift functions, the Keplerian velocity, the energy-at-infinity conditions, η, and P_MR/P_BZ—is computed from this approximate metric. No estimate is provided for the size of the neglected terms or for how they shift r_H, r_erg, or β^φ. Since the central claim is that η grows with dimension (≈135% in D=6, ≈150% in D=7, ≈180% in D=8, highest in D=9), a dimension-dependent shift in the horizon or ergosphere by even a few percent could change η by tens of percent and alter the claimed trend. The authors should provide an explicit error estimate, for example by
The core energy-at-infinity formula ϵ±∞ is taken directly from the Comisso–Asenjo derivation [28], which is formulated for a four-dimensional Kerr background. The paper does not rederive Eq. (28) for a D-dimensional effective metric, nor does it justify that the ZAMO 3+1 decomposition, the equatorial-plane reduction, the neglect of the electromagnetic energy density leading to Eq. (20), and the velocity addition rule in Eq. (27) remain valid when the spacetime is not an exact solution and has D>4. The quantities α, β^φ, and v_K are D-dependent, so a formal extension may be possible, but it must be demonstrated. In particular, the Lorentz factor and the coordinate transformations in Eqs. (21)–(22) implicitly assume a 3+1 split; for a single-rotation D-dimensional metric one may need to project onto the equatorial plane and explicitly state the relevant (2+1)-dimensional subspace. Because
The comparison with the Blandford–Znajek mechanism uses the split-monopole formula with κ=0.05, χ1=1.38, χ2=−9.2 from [84], and the flux estimate Φ_BH∼B_0 sinξ r_H^2. These constants and the flux scaling are calibrated for 4D Kerr force-free electrodynamics, where the horizon is a 2-sphere. For D=6–9 pure Lovelock black holes the horizon topology is S^{D−2} and the field geometry differs; no D-dependent calibration is provided. Consequently, the ratio P_MR/P_BZ≫1, which is one of the paper's central conclusions, carries an unjustified normalization from 4D. Similarly, A_in=(r_st^2−r_H^2) in Eq. (31) is a 4D cross-section ansatz; in D dimensions the current-sheet area should be derived from the induced metric on the reconnection layer. The authors should either derive D-dependent coefficients and area factors, or restrict the discussion to qualitative statements that do not depend on the

minor comments (5)

Notation is inconsistent: the enthalpy density is denoted w in Eq. (11), but ω_0 in Eq. (31) and in the figures, while ω is also used for the frame-dragging angular velocity in Sec. II. Please unify the notation throughout.
The definition of Δϵ+∞ is hard to parse. Please define p/w and explain why Δϵ+∞ reduces to ϵ+∞ in the present approximation.
The captions refer to 'left panels' and 'right panels' but the panel arrangement is not fully self-explanatory. Please label each panel (a), (b), ... and refer to them explicitly in the text.
The phrase 'vertical dashed lines in all figures represent limiting circular orbits' is not accompanied by a definition. Specify which orbit (e.g., the innermost stable circular orbit or the static limit) and how it is computed for the effective metric.
The D=7 agreement with 4D Kerr is a strong consistency check and should be highlighted as following from the D=3N+1 correspondence. It would be useful to state explicitly that this check does not, by itself, validate the D=6, 8, and 9 results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the efficiency/power claims are evaluations of external Comisso–Asenjo formulas on a cited approximate metric, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative results are obtained by inserting a known metric (Sec. II, taken from Dadhich & Ghosh, Ref. [79]) into the externally derived Comisso–Asenjo energy-at-infinity expression (Eq. (28)), the extraction-power formula (Eq. (31)), the efficiency definition (Eq. (32)), and the Blandford–Znajek comparison (Eqs. (33)–(34)). No parameter is fitted to the target claims: the magnetization σ0, orientation angle ξ, spin a, and reconnection radius r are scanned input parameters, and the constants κ=0.05, χ1=1.38, χ2=−9.2 are taken from the independent Tchekhovskoy et al. result [84]. The D=7 ↔ 4D Kerr agreement is presented as an external consistency check, not as an input. The self-citations present in the manuscript are background or related-work citations (e.g., Refs. [26], [27], [57], [68], [70]) and are not load-bearing for the central extraction-efficiency trend. The admitted approximation that the rotating pure-Lovelock metric is not an exact vacuum solution is a correctness/robustness caveat, not a circularity: the paper discloses that the metric is valid only to leading order, and the subsequent computation is a straightforward application of independent formulas to that stated approximate spacetime. There is no step where a 'prediction' reduces by construction to an input, and no uniqueness claim or ansatz is smuggled in via self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's new content is a parameter scan; it imports the MR energy formula, the approximate rotating metric, plasma assumptions, and the BZ comparison formula. The main uncharged premises are the metric's validity and the higher-dimensional applicability of Eq. (28). No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

free parameters (7)

Lovelock order N = 2 (Gauss-Bonnet)
Only the N=2 pure Lovelock case is treated; the allowed dimension window and all results depend on this choice.
Spacetime dimension D = 6, 7, 8, 9
Chosen from the allowed window 2N+2 ≤ D ≤ 4N+1 for N=2; the D-dependence is the paper's central claimed trend.
Dimensionless spin parameter a = D=6: 1.299; D=7: 0.99; D=8: 1.0911; D=9: 1.4142
Chosen by hand to be near the maximum allowed spin in each dimension; the headline efficiencies are maximal-spin numbers, not averaged over spins.
Upstream magnetization σ0 = Scanned 3–100 (phase-space) and 10–10^5 (power)
Plasma parameter scanned; extraction regions and power depend strongly on it.
Magnetic field orientation angle ξ = Scanned 0 to π/6, often fixed at π/20
Orientation of the reconnecting field; controls the azimuthal outflow component and strongly affects results.
Reconnection radius r = Scanned from horizon to ergosphere
Location of the reconnection layer; power and efficiency curves are functions of r.
Inflow coefficient U_in = O(10^-1)
Assumed collisionless fast reconnection regime; scales absolute power and the BZ comparison linearly.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Comisso-Asenjo energy-at-infinity formula (Eq. 28) is valid in D=6–9 Lovelock spacetimes.
Taken from [28], derived for 4D Kerr ZAMO fluid; assumed to carry over to higher dimensions with only g_tφ nonzero. Location: Sec. III, Eq. (28).
domain assumption The rotating pure Lovelock/GB metric of [79] is a valid effective spacetime for ergosphere energy-extraction calculations.
Section II: 'it does not exactly satisfy the pure GB vacuum field equations, it remains valid to leading order.' All quantitative results inherit this approximation.
domain assumption Plasma is non-compressible and adiabatic; electromagnetic energy density is negligible compared with the hydrodynamic term.
Section III, following [28]; used to simplify the energy density to Eq. (20).
domain assumption Reconnection occurs in the fast collisionless regime with U_in = O(10^-1).
Section IV; this coefficient scales P_ext and P_MR/P_BZ.
standard math Blandford-Znajek split-monopole power formula with κ=0.05, χ1=1.38, χ2=−9.2 from [84] is applicable.
Used for the comparison in Eqs. (33)-(34), with flux Φ~B0 sinξ r_H^2.
domain assumption Single-rotation configuration (n=1) and equatorial-plane analysis capture the mechanism.
Section II and III; restricts the metric to one nonvanishing rotation parameter and one off-diagonal g_tφ component.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extending the Comisso-Asenjo Energy Extraction Mechanism to Pure Lovelock Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6BONMNFX

@misc{pith2026260728789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extending the Comisso-Asenjo Energy Extraction Mechanism to Pure Lovelock Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6BONMNFX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28789}
}

abstract

In this paper, we extend the Comisso-Asenjo magnetic reconnection (MR) mechanism to rotating black holes (BHs) in pure Lovelock/Gauss-Bonnet (GB) gravity in dimension $2N+2\leq D\leq 4N+1$ (where $N$ is the Lovelock polynomial degree of $N$th order term in the action). We perform a comprehensive analysis of the efficiency and power of extracted energy by exploring the effects of the spin parameter, plasma magnetization, magnetic field orientation, and reconnection location. Our results reveal distinctive energetic features of pure Lovelock BHs relative to their Einstein counterparts, except in the special case of $D=3N+1$, where the two theories coincide. Our results demonstrate that magnetic reconnection becomes increasingly efficient in extracting rotational energy from rapidly rotating pure Lovelock BHs with single rotation configuration as the spacetime dimension increases from $D=6$ to $9$. Furthermore, the Comisso-Asenjo MR mechanism can produce higher extraction power than the Blandford-Znajek (BZ) process in certain regions of parameter space because of its enhanced energy extraction rate. These results show that magnetic reconnection is an efficient mechanism for extracting rotational energy from rapidly rotating pure Lovelock/GB BHs, highlighting their relevance to high-energy astrophysical phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28789 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. For rotating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. For maximally rotating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. For maximally rotating [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The energy extraction efficiency via the Comisso–Asenjo mechanism, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the power extracted via the Comisso–Asenjo and Blandford–Znajek mechanisms, expressed as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

[28]

Comisso and F

L. Comisso and F. A. Asenjo, Phys. Rev. D103, 023014 (2021), arXiv:2012.00879 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2021
[84]

Tchekhovskoy, R

A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, Astrophys. J.711, 50 (2010), arXiv:0911.2228 [astro- ph.HE]

arXiv 2010
[1]

Lovelock, J

D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971)

1971
[2]

Zwiebach, Phys

B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B156, 315 (1985)

1985
[3]

Sen, JHEP2005, 059 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411255 [hep-th]

A. Sen, JHEP2005, 059 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411255 [hep-th]

arXiv 2005
[4]

D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2656 (1985)

1985
[5]

J. T. Wheeler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 737 (1986)

1986
[6]

J. T. Wheeler, Nucl. Phys. B273, 732 (1986)

1986

Show all 83 references

[7]

Whitt, Phys

B. Whitt, Phys. Rev. D38, 3000 (1988)

1988
[8]

Kastor and R

D. Kastor and R. Mann, JHEP2006, 048 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603168 [hep-th]

2006 arXiv
[9]

Giribet, J

G. Giribet, J. Oliva, and R. Troncoso, JHEP2006, 007 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0603177 [hep-th]

2006 arXiv
[10]

Ba˜ nados, C

M. Ba˜ nados, C. Teitelboim, and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D49, 975 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9307033 [gr-qc]

1994 arXiv
[11]

Cris´ ostomo, R

J. Cris´ ostomo, R. Troncoso, and J. Zanelli, Phys. Rev. D62, 084013 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/0003271 [hep-th]

2000 arXiv
[12]

Cai and N

R.-G. Cai and N. Ohta, Phys. Rev. D74, 064001 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0604088 [hep-th]

2006 arXiv
[13]

Dadhich and S

N. Dadhich and S. Shaymatov, Phys. Dark Universe35, 100986 (2022), arXiv:2104.00427 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[14]

Dadhich, S

N. Dadhich, S. G. Ghosh, and S. Jhingan, Physics Let- ters B711, 196 (2012), arXiv:1202.4575 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[16]

Dadhich, S

N. Dadhich, S. G. Ghosh, and S. Jhingan, Phys. Rev. D 88, 124040 (2013), arXiv:1308.4770 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[17]

Chakraborty and N

S. Chakraborty and N. Dadhich, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 81 (2018)

2018
[18]

Gannouji, Y

R. Gannouji, Y. Rodr ´ ıguez Baez, and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. D100, 084011 (2019), arXiv:1907.09503 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[19]

Dadhich, inSpringer Proc

N. Dadhich, inSpringer Proc. Phys., Springer Proceed- ings in Physics, Vol. 157 (2014) p. 43

2014
[20]

Dadhich, Eur

N. Dadhich, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 104 (2016), arXiv:1506.08764 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[21]

Chakraborty and N

S. Chakraborty and N. Dadhich, Phys. Dark Universe 30, 100658 (2020), arXiv:2005.07504 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[22]

Dadhich and S

N. Dadhich and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D95, 064059 (2017), arXiv:1606.01330 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Dadhich, S

N. Dadhich, S. Hansraj, and B. Chilambwe, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26, 1750056 (2017), arXiv:1607.07095 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[24]

Chakraborty and N

S. Chakraborty and N. Dadhich, JHEP2015, 3 (2015), arXiv:1509.02156 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[25]

Dadhich, JCAP2020, 035 (2020), arXiv:1903.03436 [gr-qc]

N. Dadhich, JCAP2020, 035 (2020), arXiv:1903.03436 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[26]

Shaymatov and N

S. Shaymatov and N. Dadhich, Phys. Lett. B846, 138243 (2023), arXiv:2209.02560 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Shaymatov and N

S. Shaymatov and N. Dadhich, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2022, 060 (2022), arXiv:2008.04092 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[29]

A. R. King, M. B. Davies, M. J. Ward, G. Fabbiano, and M. Elvis, Astrophys. J.552, L109 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0104333 [astro-ph]

2001
[30]

B. M. Peterson,An Introduction to Active Galactic Nu- clei(1997)

1997
[31]

Meszaros, Rept

P. Meszaros, Rept. Prog. Phys.69, 2259 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605208

2006 arXiv
[32]

R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.179, 433 (1977)

1977
[33]

Penrose, Riv

R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cim.1, 252 (1969)

1969
[34]

M. Bhat, S. Dhurandhar, and N. Dadhich, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy6, 85 (1985)

1985
[35]

Parthasarathy, S

S. Parthasarathy, S. M. Wagh, S. V. Dhurandhar, and N. Dadhich, Atrophys. J.307, 38 (1986)

1986
[36]

Koide and K

S. Koide and K. Arai, Astrophys. J.682, 1124 (2008), arXiv:0805.0044 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[37]

Parfrey, A

K. Parfrey, A. Philippov, and B. Cerutti, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 035101 (2019), arXiv:1810.03613 [astro- ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[38]

M. J. Rees, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.22, 471 (1984)

1984
[39]

J. C. McKinney and R. Narayan, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.375, 531 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0607576 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[40]

S. M. Wagh and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rep.183, 137 (1989)

1989
[41]

S. V. Dhurandhar and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. D30, 1625 (1984)

1984
[42]

S. M. Wagh, S. V. Dhurandhar, and N. Dadhich, Astro- phys. J.290, 12 (1985)

1985
[43]

A. A. Abdujabbarov, B. J. Ahmedov, S. R. Shayma- tov, and A. S. Rakhmatov, Astrophys Space Sci334, 13 237 (2011), arXiv:1105.1910 [astro-ph.SR]

2011 arXiv
[44]

Tursunov and N

A. Tursunov and N. Dadhich, Universe5, 125 (2019), arXiv:1905.05321 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[45]

Shaymatov, Phys

S. Shaymatov, Phys. Rev. D110, 044042 (2024), arXiv:2402.02471 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[46]

Xamidov, S

T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, P. Sheoran, and B. Ahme- dov, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1300 (2024), arXiv:2407.19800 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[47]

Dadhich, A

N. Dadhich, A. Tursunov, B. Ahmedov, and Z. Stuchl ´ ık, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, L89 (2018), arXiv:1804.09679 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[48]

Shaymatov, N

S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and A. Tursunov, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1015 (2024), arXiv:2404.06870 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[49]

Shaymatov, P

S. Shaymatov, P. Sheoran, R. Becerril, U. Nucamendi, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D106, 024039 (2022)

2022
[50]

Xamidov, P

T. Xamidov, P. Sheoran, S. Shaymatov, and T. Zhu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 053 (2025), arXiv:2412.03885 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[51]

Liu, Astrophys

W. Liu, Astrophys. J.925, 149 (2022), arXiv:2204.07338 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[52]

Wei, H.-M

S.-W. Wei, H.-M. Wang, Y.-P. Zhang, and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP2022, 050 (2022), arXiv:2201.12729 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[53]

Carleo, G

A. Carleo, G. Lambiase, and L. Mastrototaro, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 776 (2022), arXiv:2206.12988 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[54]

Khodadi, Phys

M. Khodadi, Phys. Rev. D105, 023025 (2022), arXiv:2201.02765 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[55]

Wang, C.-Q

C.-H. Wang, C.-Q. Pang, and S.-W. Wei, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124050 (2022), arXiv:2209.08837 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Khodadi, D

M. Khodadi, D. F. Mota, and A. Sheykhi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023, 034 (2023)

2023
[57]

Shaymatov, M

S. Shaymatov, M. Alloqulov, B. Ahmedov, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110, 044005 (2024), arXiv:2307.03012 [gr- qc]

2024 arXiv
[58]

Zhang, J

S.-J. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024, 042 (2024), arXiv:2405.16941 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[59]

B. Chen, Y. Hou, J. Li, and Y. Shen, Phys. Rev. D110, 063003 (2024), arXiv:2405.11488 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[60]

Shen and H.-Y

Y. Shen and H.-Y. YuChih, Phys. Rev. D111, 023003 (2025), arXiv:2412.03010 [astro-ph.HE]

2025 arXiv
[61]

F. Long, S. Wang, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 26 (2025), arXiv:2409.11942 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[62]

Rodriguez, A

S. Rodriguez, A. Sidler, L. Rodriguez, and L. R. Ram-Mohan, Phys. Dark Universe48, 101961 (2025), arXiv:2407.15347 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[63]

YuChih and Y

H.-Y. YuChih and Y. Shen, Phys. Rev. D112, 104016 (2025), arXiv:2510.23292 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[64]

Wang and X.-X

K. Wang and X.-X. Zeng, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2025, 026 (2025), arXiv:2508.11934 [gr-qc]

2025
[65]

Comisso-asenjo mechanism in rotatingN= 2, u(1) 2 gauged supergravity black holes: Extended comparison with kerr black hole,

A. Jaguri, H. Nandan, P. Sheoran, and S. Shaymatov, “Comisso-asenjo mechanism in rotatingN= 2, u(1) 2 gauged supergravity black holes: Extended comparison with kerr black hole,” (2026), arXiv:2606.11732 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[66]

Zeng and K

X.-X. Zeng and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 064032 (2025), arXiv:2507.21777 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[67]

Zeng and K

X.-X. Zeng and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 064080 (2025)

2025
[68]

Magnetic recon- nection in five-dimensional kerr black hole,

I. Eshtursunov and S. Shaymatov, “Magnetic recon- nection in five-dimensional kerr black hole,” (2026), arXiv:2604.27797 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[69]

Cheng, S

Z. Cheng, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1130 (2025), arXiv:2507.11859 [gr-qc]

2025
[70]

Eshtursunov and S

I. Eshtursunov and S. Shaymatov, (2026), arXiv:2603.17928 [gr-qc]

2026
[71]

R. C. Myers and M. J. Perry, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)172, 304 (1986)

1986
[72]

J. An, J. Shan, H. Zhang, and S. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104007 (2018), arXiv:1711.04310 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[73]

Shaymatov, N

S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 585 (2019), arXiv:1809.10457 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[74]

Prabhu and N

K. Prabhu and N. Dadhich, Phys. Rev. D81, 024011 (2010), arXiv:0902.3079 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[75]

Shaymatov, N

S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D101, 044028 (2020), arXiv:1908.07799 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[76]

Shaymatov, N

S. Shaymatov, N. Dadhich, B. Ahmedov, and M. Jamil, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 481 (2020), arXiv:1908.01195 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[77]

Dadhich and S

N. Dadhich and S. Shaymatov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D.31, 2150120 (2022)

2022
[78]

Shaymatov and N

S. Shaymatov and N. Dadhich, Phys. Dark Universe31, 100758 (2021), arXiv:2004.09242 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[79]

Dadhich and S

N. Dadhich and S. G. Ghosh, arXiv e-prints (2013), arXiv:1307.6166 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[80]

Dadhich, Gen

N. Dadhich, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.45, 2383 (2013), arXiv:1301.5314 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[81]

Dadhich, J

N. Dadhich, J. M. Pons, and K. Prabhu, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.45, 1131 (2013), arXiv:1201.4994 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[82]

Dadhich, Math Today26:37(2011), arXiv:1006.0337 [hep-th]

N. Dadhich, Math Today26:37(2011), arXiv:1006.0337 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[83]

X. O. Camanho and N. Dadhich, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 149 (2016), arXiv:1503.02889 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [28]

Comisso and F

L. Comisso and F. A. Asenjo, Phys. Rev. D103, 023014 (2021), arXiv:2012.00879 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2021

[2] [84]

Tchekhovskoy, R

A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, and J. C. McKinney, Astrophys. J.711, 50 (2010), arXiv:0911.2228 [astro- ph.HE]

arXiv 2010

[3] [1]

Lovelock, J

D. Lovelock, J. Math. Phys.12, 498 (1971)

1971

[4] [2]

Zwiebach, Phys

B. Zwiebach, Phys. Lett. B156, 315 (1985)

1985

[5] [3]

Sen, JHEP2005, 059 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411255 [hep-th]

A. Sen, JHEP2005, 059 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0411255 [hep-th]

arXiv 2005

[6] [4]

D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Phys. Rev. Lett.55, 2656 (1985)

1985

[7] [5]

J. T. Wheeler, Nucl. Phys. B268, 737 (1986)

1986

[8] [6]

J. T. Wheeler, Nucl. Phys. B273, 732 (1986)

1986