Living on the Edge of Effective Field Theory: Near-Extremal Black Holes in Quadratic Gravity

Gary T. Horowitz; Kelvin Ka-Ho Lam; Nicol\'as Yunes

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 98 references

Living on the Edge of Effective Field Theory: Near-Extremal Black Holes in Quadratic Gravity

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

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that, at leading order in the EFT expansion, rapidly rotating black holes in dynamical Chern-Simons gravity have a continuous extremal limit that reproduces the deformed near-horizon extremal Kerr throat, while…

desk verdict A strong numerical study that resolves the dCS/sGB near-extremal dichotomy and shows the sGB NHEK throat is a local artifact, modulo an unproven metric ansatz and missing public code. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05268 v1 pith:VWS6URXC submitted 2026-08-05 gr-qc hep-th

Kelvin Ka-Ho Lam , Gary T. Horowitz , Nicolás Yunes This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783D05

keywords effectivefieldtheorynear-extremalblackholesquadraticgravitydynamicalChern-SimonsscalarGauss-Bonnetpseudospectralmethodsnear-horizonextremalKerrtidalforces

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 asks whether near-extremal rotating black holes remain within the reach of gravitational effective field theory, and finds that the answer depends on which higher-curvature correction one adds. In dynamical Chern-Simons (dCS) gravity, a sequence of asymptotically flat, rapidly rotating solutions constructed at ever smaller surface gravity reaches a well-defined extremal endpoint whose near-horizon limit is exactly the dCS-deformed near-horizon extremal Kerr (NHEK) geometry with its enhanced $SO(2,1)\times U(1)$ symmetry. In scalar Gauss-Bonnet (sGB) gravity the same limiting procedure fails: the scalar field acquires a logarithmic divergence at the extremal horizon, the metric develops a boundary layer of width proportional to the surface gravity, and the commonly used sGB-deformed NHEK solution solves a different boundary-value problem rather than describing the throat of a regular asymptotically flat black hole. The paper also separates two notions of EFT breakdown: scalar curvature invariants remain finite at the horizon even though tidal forces on infalling observers diverge as inverse powers of the surface gravity. The upshot is a perturbative-validity estimate that places current observational bounds inside the regime of control while excluding the strict extremal black hole from it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the horizon-adapted metric perturbation ansatz (Eq. 19) with four functions $H_i(r,χ)$ and the $Ξ(r)$ factor, whose constants $Λ$ are fixed by demanding regular poles on extremal solutions, together with boundary conditions that lock the surface gravity $κ$ and horizon angular velocity $Ω_H$ to their Kerr values. This parametrization makes extremality a limit of the solution family rather than a separate boundary-value problem. The argument is carried by the near-horizon zoom (Eq. 49) that maps the exterior metric to a deformed NHEK throat, and by the dCS-deformed NHEK solution (Eq. 46), whose $P_i$ functions are matched against $H_i(r_+,χ)$ to verify the $10^{-5}$ agreement in dCS and whose sGB counterpart is shown to require different boundary conditions (regular poles versus horizon-regular scalar) than the exterior branch.

What would settle it

Extend the ansatz to include a $g_{rχ}$ perturbation and let $Ξ$ depend on $χ$, then repeat the extremal solve; if the dCS near-horizon limit stops matching the dCS-deformed NHEK solution, or the sGB boundary layer disappears, the paper's central claims fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the extremal limit of EFT-corrected Kerr is continuous in dCS gravity and discontinuous in sGB gravity. Using a horizon-adapted ansatz that fixes surface gravity and horizon angular velocity rather than ADM quantities, the dCS exterior can be continued to $κ=0$; the resulting metric corrections stay finite, and zooming into the horizon reproduces the dCS-deformed NHEK solution of [39] at the $10^{-5}$ level once the throat normalization constant is matched. In sGB gravity the $κ\to 0$ limit is singular: the monopole of the scalar field forces a logarithmic divergence at the horizon, the exterior metric functions acquire a boundary layer of width $κ$, and the near-horizon limit of the exterior branch carries a logarithmic term that cannot be removed by the shift symmetry, so it never becomes an isometry-preserving NHEK profile.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the four-function metric ansatz being complete: if a leading-order stationary, axisymmetric deformation of Kerr near extremality lives outside $H_1$ through $H_4$ and the fixed $Ξ(r)$, the dCS extremal matching and the sGB boundary-layer picture could both change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In dCS gravity the deformed NHEK throat is not a local curiosity: it is the genuine near-horizon limit of an asymptotically flat extremal black hole, so near-horizon mode calculations in the throat are tied to real exteriors.
In sGB gravity the deformed NHEK metric cannot be used to model the near-horizon region of an astrophysical black hole; the two branches solve different boundary-value problems.
Tidal-force divergence provides an EFT breakdown diagnostic that scalar curvature invariants miss: both theories leave the perturbative regime at the horizon as $κ\to 0$ even while the Kretschmann scalar stays finite.
For black holes observed so far, the estimated regimes of validity are consistent with perturbative control, while the strict extremal solution lies outside perturbative control in both theories.
The on-shell sGB action remains finite even though the scalar field diverges logarithmically at the extremal horizon, so the first type of EFT breakdown (action divergence) does not occur at leading order.

Reading between the lines

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

Inference: this split suggests a general criterion, namely that a higher-derivative theory whose scalar source has a vanishing near-horizon monopole (like dCS) will have a continuous extremal limit, while a nonvanishing monopole (like sGB) will not; testing this against other quadratic theories would be a direct check.
Inference: the dCS throat matching fixes its scaling data, so the Aretakis instability and the zero-damped/damped quasinormal-mode phase boundary should be computable from the deformed NHEK geometry, a connection the paper leaves implicit.
Inference: if higher-order-in-$ζ$ terms shift the sGB near-horizon power slightly positive, the logarithmic divergence would be regularized and a continuous extremal limit could reappear; the paper notes this as a possibility without taking a side.
Inference: the contrast between the divergent Lorenz-gauge trace and the regular horizon-locking description in dCS warns that gauge choice can mislead assessments of horizon regularity in near-extremal EFT solutions.

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

First thing you should know: this is a genuinely important paper, and the physics claims look right. It settles a long-open question—whether dCS and sGB extremal rotating BHs exist as asymptotically flat spacetimes—and gives the first controlled numerical access to spins 1−ā ~ 1e-8. The dCS endpoint connects smoothly to the dCS-deformed NHEK throat, and the sGB case disconnects: the logarithmic scalar divergence forces a different near-horizon branch. Those are real results, not numerology.

What's new: the horizon-adapted formulation fixing κ and Ω_H, which is the right variable near extremality; the explicit dCS extremal exterior; and the clean separation of EFT breakdown via curvature invariants vs. tidal forces. The analytic sGB monopole solution (Appendix B) and the dCS matching check (Fig. 8, 1e-5 agreement after fixing one constant) are the strongest evidence. The paper is honest about what is imposed and what is checked—the boundary conditions Eq. (25) and (39) fix some matching relations by construction, and they say so.

Soft spots, in order. First, the metric ansatz Eq. (19) is four functions plus radial Ξ. It is not proven complete. A g_{rχ} perturbation or χ-dependent Ξ could in principle affect the dCS-NHEK matching and the sGB boundary layer. The overdetermined solve (six equations for four functions, residuals ~1e-7) is strong circumstantial evidence, but it is not a proof. This is a caveat, not a fatal flaw—the stress-test worry is real but secondary. Second, no public code or data repository. For a paper whose central claims rest on numerical extrapolation to κ~1e-4, that is a legitimate reproducibility gap. Third, the sGB extremal limit is not constructed; the paper argues convincingly why it cannot be within the linearized EFT, but the negative claim is necessarily extrapolated. Minor: the self-citations to [59,60,65] are appropriate—the work is a direct extension.

Who this is for: anyone working in modified gravity EFTs, black hole spectroscopy, or near-horizon geometry. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it out; the referee should push for code release and an independent check of the ansatz, but I'd be surprised if the main conclusions change.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper constructs near-extremal rotating black hole solutions in dynamical Chern-Simons (dCS) and scalar Gauss-Bonnet (sGB) gravity, working to leading order in the EFT coupling. The authors use a horizon-adapted pseudospectral scheme that fixes surface gravity and horizon angular velocity rather than ADM data, reaching surface gravities as small as κ~1e-4. They find that dCS solutions have a continuous extremal endpoint whose near-horizon limit matches the previously known dCS-deformed NHEK geometry, whereas sGB solutions develop an unavoidable logarithmic scalar divergence at the horizon and an O(κ) boundary layer in the metric, so that the sGB-deformed NHEK solution solves a different local boundary-value problem and is not the near-horizon limit of the regular asymptotically flat exterior branch. The paper further distinguishes two notions of EFT breakdown: scalar curvature invariants remain finite at the horizon, while tidal forces on infalling congruences diverge as inverse powers of κ, and it translates these diagnostics into a perturbative-validity estimate that is consistent with current observational bounds.

Significance. If the results hold, they resolve a longstanding question about whether EFT-deformed NHEK throats admit asymptotically flat exteriors: the answer is yes in dCS and no in sGB at leading order. The paper is careful and unusually transparent about what is imposed versus checked: the dCS matching constant c1 is fixed by one equatorial value, and the agreement of the remaining angular profiles (Fig. 8) is a genuine check; likewise, the appendix derives an analytic exterior sGB scalar solution (Eq. B6) that independently exhibits the monopole logarithm. The numerical convergence monitoring and residual tracking (Figs. 1, 2) are exemplary, and the separation of finite curvature invariants from divergent tidal forces is a useful diagnostic for the broader EFT program.

major comments (3)

[III.B / Eq. (19)] The load-bearing assumption of the paper is that the four-function metric ansatz (19), together with radial-only Ξ(r), captures all leading-order stationary, axisymmetric deformations of near-extremal Kerr. The paper does not prove that a g_{rχ} component, an independent radial scaling for g_rr versus g_χχ, or a χ-dependent Ξ vanishes. The overdetermined solve (six field equations for four functions, with residuals ~1e-7) demonstrates that the assumed functions satisfy the equations, but it does not establish completeness of the function basis. Because the dCS-NHEK matching (Eq. 51) and the sGB boundary-layer structure (Sec. V.B) are both extracted from this ansatz, I request an explicit independent check: for example, include a g_{rχ} perturbation (or a χ-dependent Ξ) at a representative κ and show that the additional components are driven to zero by the equations, or report the magnitude of the four unused field equations evaluated on the solution. Without such a check, the central dCS-versus-sGB contrast is contingent on an unproven completeness assumption.
[V.C / Eqs. (A12)-(A13)] The paper's own sGB near-horizon analysis introduces a χ-dependent Υ(χ) logρ term in Ξ (Eq. A12), and the function p2(χ), which controls Υ(χ), is left unfixed; footnote 9 explicitly states that it is unclear whether the choice making Υ vanish is compatible with the higher-order equations or with asymptotic flatness. The exterior ansatz (19) used for all finite-κ solutions contains only radial Ξ and no such logarithmic or χ-dependent term. If Υ(χ) is nonzero, the near-horizon structure of the exterior branch differs from what the exterior solve implements, and the boundary-layer description in Sec. V.B could be incomplete. The authors should either determine Υ(χ) (or p2(χ)) from the full exterior problem, or demonstrate that the finite-κ solutions and the extracted κ→0 behavior are unaffected at the reported accuracy. This is directly relevant to the claim that the sGB-deformed NHEK solution is not the near-horizon limit of the asymptotically flat exterior.
[VI.C / Appendix C] The abstract and Sec. VI state that tidal forces on infalling observers diverge, but the detailed computation in the main text is for an ingoing null congruence with a particular polar separation vector. Appendix C computes the norm of the tidal tensor for the same null congruence and finds similar power-law growth, which is reassuring. However, the statement that the same divergence occurs for infalling timelike observers is only asserted ('we have checked') without showing the calculation or the resulting power laws. Since the paper's physical interpretation of EFT breakdown depends on this claim, please either provide the timelike-observer computation in an appendix or temper the abstract wording to refer specifically to null congruences.

minor comments (5)

[IV.B / Eq. (39)] The first boundary condition in Eq. (39) is written as 'H2 − ∂H2/∂r = (1972+315π)/420'; since H2(r+,χ)=0 from Eq. (25), it is clearer to state it directly as −∂rH2(r+,χ) = P2 = (1972+315π)/420.
[VI.B / Fig. 11] The text says the Kretschmann correction becomes 'two orders of magnitude larger' than the Kerr value; it would be helpful to state explicitly that this comparison is made with the coupling ζ factored out, so the actual EFT correction is ζ|K^(1)|.
[VI.C / Eq. (82)] The removal of the p=−1 pole 'by hand' is justified physically, but the numerical implementation should be described more explicitly (e.g., how the subtraction is performed on the spectral coefficients and how the residual contamination is estimated).
[II / Eq. (8)] The source tensors in Eq. (8) are typeset very densely, especially the sGB expression with the generalized Kronecker delta; a short explanation of which index contractions are nonzero for the ansatz would improve readability.
[V.A / Eq. (56)] The notation ρ≡r−1 is introduced after Eq. (55); it would be helpful to remind the reader in Sec. V.A that this is the extremal-horizon coordinate offset, since the same symbol is used in the boundary-layer discussion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper transparently separates imposed boundary data from genuine checks, and its central matching and non-connectivity claims rest on independent numerical and analytic evidence.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The dCS near-horizon matching does contain elements fixed by construction: H1(r+,χ)=H3(r+,χ) follows from the horizon condition Eq. (25), and the NHEK fibration coefficient P2 is fixed by the extremal boundary condition Eq. (39). The paper explicitly acknowledges this: 'Let us now separate the relations in Eq.(51) into those imposed by construction and those that provide genuine checks of the matching.' The remaining claims are genuine checks: after fixing the single constant c1 by Eq. (52), the full angular profiles P1(χ) and P4(χ)−Λ are compared with the numerically computed H1(r+,χ) and H4(r+,χ), and the agreement at the 10^-5 level is a nontrivial test involving many spectral coefficients. The sGB non-connectivity claim is likewise derived, not assumed: the paper solves the near-horizon equations under two explicitly different regularity requirements, finding clog=4 with regular poles for the exterior branch and clog=0 with singular poles for the NHEK branch, and derives different values of Λ (Eqs. 69 and 70). This is a mathematical incompatibility of boundary conditions, not a renaming of the conclusion. The Λ values in Eq. (21) are rederived in Appendix A, so the citation to [11] is not load-bearing. The tidal-force divergences are numerical outputs, checked by convergence and by an independent tidal-tensor norm in Appendix C; the fitted power laws κ^-1 and κ^-2 are diagnoses, not inputs. The metric ansatz Eq. (19) is an assumption, but the overdetermined solve (six field equations for four functions) with residuals ~10^-7–10^-9 provides supporting evidence; its completeness is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces by definition or by self-citation to its own inputs.

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

The central claims rest on the EFT truncation at leading order, the metric ansatz, and numerical convergence. No free parameters are fitted; constants such as Λ_q are fixed by regularity conditions, and integration constants are fixed by gauge or matching. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The shift-symmetric massless scalar EFT (Eq. 2) with only the quadratic-curvature coupling is the complete leading-order correction to GR for dCS and sGB gravity.
Invoked in Sec. II; the paper works to linear order in ζ and neglects higher-order operators.
domain assumption The metric perturbation ansatz Eq. (19) with four functions H_i and the Ξ(r) factor spans the space of stationary, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat leading-order deformations of Kerr.
If the true solution contains extra components (e.g., g_{rχ}) or a more general Ξ, the results would change. The overdetermined system solves 6 equations for 4 unknowns and residuals are small, supporting completeness.
domain assumption The pseudospectral numerical method converges to the true solution; convergence is verified by backward modulus differences and residuals (Sec. III.C).
No rigorous convergence proof; numerical evidence is presented.
domain assumption The boundary conditions fixing κ and Ω_H to their Kerr values (Eq. 25) select the astrophysically relevant branch of solutions.
This is the horizon-adapted parametrization; the paper argues it is the natural labeling near extremality.
domain assumption The analytic extremal dCS scalar field from [65] is correct.
Used in Sec. IV.B to source the extremal metric equations; the paper checks it agrees with the pseudospectral scalar within numerical error.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Living on the Edge of Effective Field Theory: Near-Extremal Black Holes in Quadratic Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWS6URXC

@misc{pith2026260805268,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Living on the Edge of Effective Field Theory: Near-Extremal Black Holes in Quadratic Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWS6URXC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05268}
}

abstract

Near-extremal black holes can amplify higher-derivative corrections to general relativity, making them sharp probes of the perturbative control of gravitational effective field theory. We study this question in quadratic gravity with a dynamical scalar degree of freedom, focusing on dynamical Chern-Simons and scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Using pseudospectral methods, we construct rapidly rotating exterior solutions at fixed surface gravity and fixed horizon angular velocity, and follow this controlled family toward extremality. In dynamical Chern-Simons gravity, the sequence approaches an asymptotically flat extremal exterior whose near-horizon limit agrees with the dynamical-Chern-Simons-deformed near-horizon extremal Kerr geometry and inherits its enhanced $SO(2,1)\times U(1)$ symmetry. In scalar Gauss-Bonnet gravity, the same limiting procedure behaves differently: the scalar develops an unavoidable logarithmic singularity at the horizon, the exterior metric develops a small boundary layer near the horizon, and the scalar-Gauss-Bonnet-deformed near-horizon extremal solution is not connected to a regular asymptotically flat exterior. We then use curvature invariants and tidal forces to diagnose the breakdown of the perturbative effective-field-theory expansion. We find that scalar curvature invariants can remain finite at the horizon even when tidal forces measured by infalling observers diverge as inverse powers of the surface gravity. These results separate distinct notions of effective-field-theory breakdown near extremality and provide a perturbative validity estimate that can be compared with current bounds on the dynamical Chern-Simons and scalar-Gauss-Bonnet couplings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05268 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Error residual of the scalar field equation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. dCS and sGB scalar fields [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (10 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Metric corrections of dCS and sGB BHs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Derivative of the dCS metric corrections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Identical to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Exterior metric corrections evaluated at the horizon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Identical to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: shows the EFT correction to the Kretschmann scalar on the equator and on the horizon |K(1)(r+, 0)| as a function of κ. In both theories, as κ → 0, |K(1)| at the horizon increases rapidly at first, and then it plateaus. Observe that the correction becomes two orders of…

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. The orthonormal polar tidal force [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. The regime of validity (region under the curves) of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. The correction of the square of the tidal tensor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

98 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

[1]

In sGB gravity, because the scalar field magnitude becomes large at the horizon, more spectral basis functions along the radial direction are needed

Implementation To compute the scalar field, we truncate the scalar field at spectral orderNz = Nχ = 50for spins ¯a≤0.9999, and at Nz = Nχ = 100for0 .9999 <¯a <1in dCS gravity. In sGB gravity, because the scalar field magnitude becomes large at the horizon, more spectral basis functions along the radial direction are needed. We setNz = 300and Nχ = 100for1 ...
[3]

We find that increasing the number of terms included would not significantly affect the accuracy of the final solution

To compute the source tensorSµν, as stated before, we use the analytic extremal scalar field solution up to Pl=47(χ)[ 65]. We find that increasing the number of terms included would not significantly affect the accuracy of the final solution
[6]

The EFT expansion of the action becomes uncon- trolled
[8]

dCS gravity In dCS gravity, at the extremal limit with¯a= 1(recall we set ¯M = 1), assuming the horizon is finite, we can expand the metric functions as Hi(r, χ) =hi(χ) +k i(χ)ρlogρ+p i(χ)ρ+o(ρ),(A1) where recall thatρ=r−1, which was defined below Eq. (55). Substituting the above expansion and the scalar field solution in Eq. (44), or the full exterior so...
[9]

First, we must compute the near-horizon scalar field solution

sGB gravity In sGB gravity, we wish to compute the near-horizon extremal solution. First, we must compute the near-horizon scalar field solution. The scalar field equation in sGB gravity can be written as □ϑ=−R µναβ Rµναβ ,(A4) which, after multiplying byΣ, reduces to ∂ ∂r (r−1) 2 ∂ϑ ∂r + ∂ ∂χ (1−χ 2) ∂ϑ ∂χ =− 48(r6 −15r 4χ2 + 15r2χ4 −χ 6) Σ5 ,(A5) when e...

arXiv
[10]

C. M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity17, 4 (2014)

2014
[11]

Yunes and X

N. Yunes and X. Siemens, Living Rev. Rel.16, 9 (2013), arXiv:1304.3473 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013
[12]

D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, Nuclear Physics B291, 41 (1987)

1987

Show all 98 references

[13]

D. J. Gross and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B277, 1 (1986)

1986
[14]

P. A. Cano and D. Pereñiguez, Phys. Rev. D101, 044016 (2020), arXiv:1910.10721 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[15]

P. A. Cano and A. Ruipérez, Phys. Rev. D105, 044022 (2022), arXiv:2111.04750 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[16]

Maeda, N

K.-i. Maeda, N. Ohta, and Y. Sasagawa, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104032 (2009), arXiv:0908.4151 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[17]

Moura and R

F. Moura and R. Schiappa, Class. Quant. Grav.24, 361 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0605001 [hep-th]

2007 arXiv
[18]

J. F. Donoghue, arXiv:1209.3511 [gr-qc, physics:hep-ph, physics:hep-th] , 73 (2012), arXiv: 1209.3511

2012 arXiv
[19]

G. T. Horowitz, M. Kolanowski, G. N. Remmen, and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 091402 (2023), arXiv:2303.07358 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[20]

G. T. Horowitz, M. Kolanowski, G. N. Remmen, and J. E. Santos, JHEP05, 122 (2024), arXiv:2403.00051 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[21]

G. T. Horowitz, M. Kolanowski, G. N. Remmen, and J. E. Santos, (2026), arXiv:2605.30411 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[22]

H. Yang, D. A. Nichols, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, Z. Zhang, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D86, 104006 (2012), arXiv:1207.4253 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[23]

H. Yang, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, D. A. Nichols, E. Berti, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D87, 041502 (2013), arXiv:1212.3271 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[24]

P. A. Cano, M. David, and G. van der Velde, (2025), arXiv:2510.17962 [gr-qc]

2025
[25]

Di Russo and A

G. Di Russo and A. Tokareva, (2025), arXiv:2510.06813 [hep-th]

2025
[26]

W. L. Boyce and J. E. Santos, JHEP12, 017 (2025), arXiv:2506.10074 [hep-th]

2025
[27]

S. J. B. Husken, T. van der Steen, S. Maenaut, K. K.-H. Lam, M. D. Jockwer, A. K.-W. Chung, T. Hertog, T. G. F. Li, and N. Yunes, (2026), arXiv:2604.02214 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[28]

van der Steen, S

T. van der Steen, S. Maenaut, S. J. B. Husken, P. G. S. Fernandes, M. D. Jockwer, V. Cardoso, T. Hertog, and T. G. F. Li, (2026), arXiv:2604.11755 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[29]

W. L. Boyce and J. E. Santos, (2026), arXiv:2603.10102 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[30]

L. C. Stein, Phys. Rev. D90, 044061 (2014), arXiv:1407.2350 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[31]

C. Y. R. Chen, C. de Rham, and A. J. Tolley, Phys. Rev. D111, 024056 (2025), arXiv:2408.05549 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[32]

X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena, and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP02, 020 (2016), arXiv:1407.5597 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[33]

Serra, J

F. Serra, J. Serra, E. Trincherini, and L. G. Trombetta, JHEP08, 157 (2022), arXiv:2205.08551 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[34]

Cassem and M

A. Cassem and M. P. Hertzberg, (2026), arXiv:2604.07332 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[35]

Alexander, H

S. Alexander, H. Bernardo, and N. Yunes, (2025), arXiv:2506.14889 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[36]

Yajima and T

H. Yajima and T. Tamaki, Phys. Rev. D63, 064007 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0005016

2001 arXiv
[37]

W. G. Brenna and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D86, 064035 (2012), arXiv:1206.4738 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv
[38]

P. A. Cano and Á. Murcia, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 075014 (2021), arXiv:2006.15149 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[39]

P. G. S. Fernandes, Phys. Lett. B805, 135468 (2020), arXiv:2003.05491 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[40]

Cremonini, C

S. Cremonini, C. R. T. Jones, J. T. Liu, and B. McPeak, JHEP09, 003 (2020), arXiv:1912.11161 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[41]

Kleihaus, J

B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 151104 (2011), arXiv:1101.2868 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[42]

Kleihaus, J

B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, S. Mojica, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D93, 044047 (2016), arXiv:1511.05513 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[43]

Delsate, C

T. Delsate, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B787, 8 (2018), arXiv:1806.06700 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[44]

J. M. Bardeen and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D60, 104030 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905099

1999 arXiv
[45]

Astefanesei, K

D. Astefanesei, K. Goldstein, R. P. Jena, A. Sen, and S. P. Trivedi, JHEP10, 058 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0606244

2006 arXiv
[46]

H. K. Kunduri, J. Lucietti, and H. S. Reall, Class. Quant. Grav.24, 4169 (2007), arXiv:0705.4214 [hep-th]

2007 arXiv
[47]

H. K. Kunduri and J. Lucietti, Living Rev. Rel.16, 8 (2013), arXiv:1306.2517 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[48]

Chen and L

B. Chen and L. C. Stein, Phys. Rev. D97, 084012 (2018), arXiv:1802.02159 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[49]

P. A. Cano and M. David, Phys. Rev. D110, 064067 (2024), arXiv:2407.02017 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[50]

P. A. Cano and M. David, JHEP05, 219 (2023), arXiv:2303.13286 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[51]

G. T. Horowitz and J. E. Santos, JHEP02, 169 (2025), arXiv:2411.07295 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[52]

Alexander and N

S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept.480, 1 (2009), arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[53]

Jackiw and S

R. Jackiw and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. D68, 104012 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0308071

2003 arXiv
[54]

K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D93, 024010 (2016), arXiv:1510.02152 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[55]

R. Nair, S. Perkins, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 191101 (2019), arXiv:1905.00870 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[56]

Yunes and L

N. Yunes and L. C. Stein, Phys. Rev. D83, 104002 (2011), arXiv:1101.2921 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[57]

P. A. Cano and A. Ruipérez, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 189 (2019), arXiv: 1901.01315

2019 arXiv
[58]

Sen, (2026), arXiv:2607.12031 [hep-th]

A. Sen, (2026), arXiv:2607.12031 [hep-th]

2026 arXiv
[59]

Taveras and N

V. Taveras and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D78, 064070 (2008), arXiv:0807.2652 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[60]

Yunes and F

N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D79, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0902.4669 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[61]

K. Yagi, N. Yunes, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D86, 044037 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 049902 (2014)], arXiv:1206.6130 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[62]

Ayzenberg and N

D. Ayzenberg and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D90, 044066 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 069905 (2015)], arXiv:1405.2133 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[63]

Maselli, P

A. Maselli, P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D92, 083014 (2015), arXiv:1507.00680 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[64]

A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 181401 (2024), arXiv:2405.12280 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[65]

A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D110, 064019 (2024), arXiv:2406.11986 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[66]

A. K.-W. Chung, K. K.-H. Lam, and N. Yunes, (2025), arXiv:2503.11759 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[67]

P. A. Cano, A. Deich, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D109, 024048 (2024), arXiv:2305.15341 [gr-qc]. 25

2024 arXiv
[68]

K. K.-H. Lam, A. K.-W. Chung, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D113, 024030 (2026)

2026
[69]

K. K.-H. Lam, A. K.-W. Chung, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 021401 (2026)

2026
[70]

H. S. Reall and J. E. Santos, JHEP04, 021 (2019), arXiv:1901.11535 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[71]

O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos, and B. Way, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 133001 (2016), arXiv:1510.02804 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[72]

P. G. S. Fernandes and D. J. Mulryne, (2022), arXiv:2212.07293 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[73]

P. G. S. Fernandes, (2025), arXiv:2512.02338 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[74]

McNees, L

R. McNees, L. C. Stein, and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 235013 (2016), arXiv:1512.05453 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[75]

Boyd,Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods: Second Revised Edition, Dover Books on Mathematics (Dover Publications, 2013)

J. Boyd,Chebyshev and Fourier Spectral Methods: Second Revised Edition, Dover Books on Mathematics (Dover Publications, 2013)

2013
[76]

Poisson,A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

E. Poisson,A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, 2009)

2009
[77]

Berti, K

E. Berti, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 46 (2018), arXiv:1801.03208 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[78]

Hegade K R, E

A. Hegade K R, E. R. Most, J. Noronha, H. Witek, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D105, 064041 (2022), arXiv:2201.05178 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[79]

J. F. M. Delgado, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, JHEP 04, 180 (2020), arXiv:2002.05012 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[80]

Bueno and P

P. Bueno and P. A. Cano, Phys. Rev. D94, 104005 (2016), arXiv:1607.06463 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[81]

S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Struc- ture of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- matical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

2023
[82]

P. A. Cano, M. David, and G. van der Velde, Phys. Rev. D113, 104025 (2026), arXiv:2509.08664 [gr-qc]

2026
[83]

Wald,General Relativity(The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

R. Wald,General Relativity(The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

1984
[84]

Racz and R

I. Racz and R. M. Wald, Class. Quant. Grav.9, 2643 (1992)

1992
[85]

H. O. Silva, A. Ghosh, and A. Buonanno, (2022), arXiv:2205.05132 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[86]

S. E. Perkins, R. Nair, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D104, 024060 (2021), arXiv:2104.11189 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[87]

A. K.-W. Chung, P. Wagle, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124032 (2023), arXiv:2302.11624 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[88]

A. K.-W. Chung, P. Wagle, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044072 (2024), arXiv:2312.08435 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[89]

D. Li, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021029 (2023), arXiv:2206.10652 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[90]

D. Li, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 112, 044005 (2025), arXiv:2503.15606 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[91]

Wagle, D

P. Wagle, D. Li, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104029 (2024), arXiv:2311.07706 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[92]

E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

1985
[93]

Karikos, J

G. Karikos, J. A. Saes, P. Wagle, and N. Yunes, (2026), arXiv:2604.18680 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[94]

Aretakis, Commun

S. Aretakis, Commun. Math. Phys.307, 17 (2011), arXiv:1110.2007 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[95]

Aretakis, Adv

S. Aretakis, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.19, 507 (2015), arXiv:1206.6598 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[96]

Lucietti and H

J. Lucietti and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D86, 104030 (2012), arXiv:1208.1437 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[97]

Angelopoulos, S

Y. Angelopoulos, S. Aretakis, and D. Gajic, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 131102 (2018), arXiv:1809.10037 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[98]

C. Y. R. Chen and Á. D. Kovács, JHEP09, 084 (2025), arXiv:2507.12529 [hep-th]

2025
[99]

A. K.-W. Chung, (2026), arXiv:2602.10462 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[100]

Richards, A

C. Richards, A. Dima, and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D108, 044078 (2023), arXiv:2305.07704 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[101]

Durkee and H

M. Durkee and H. S. Reall, Phys. Rev. D83, 104044 (2011), arXiv:1012.4805 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[102]

O. J. C. Dias, J. E. Santos, and M. Stein, JHEP10, 182 (2012), arXiv:1208.3322 [hep-th]

2012 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

In sGB gravity, because the scalar field magnitude becomes large at the horizon, more spectral basis functions along the radial direction are needed

Implementation To compute the scalar field, we truncate the scalar field at spectral orderNz = Nχ = 50for spins ¯a≤0.9999, and at Nz = Nχ = 100for0 .9999 <¯a <1in dCS gravity. In sGB gravity, because the scalar field magnitude becomes large at the horizon, more spectral basis functions along the radial direction are needed. We setNz = 300and Nχ = 100for1 ...

[2] [3]

We find that increasing the number of terms included would not significantly affect the accuracy of the final solution

To compute the source tensorSµν, as stated before, we use the analytic extremal scalar field solution up to Pl=47(χ)[ 65]. We find that increasing the number of terms included would not significantly affect the accuracy of the final solution

[3] [6]

The EFT expansion of the action becomes uncon- trolled

[4] [8]

dCS gravity In dCS gravity, at the extremal limit with¯a= 1(recall we set ¯M = 1), assuming the horizon is finite, we can expand the metric functions as Hi(r, χ) =hi(χ) +k i(χ)ρlogρ+p i(χ)ρ+o(ρ),(A1) where recall thatρ=r−1, which was defined below Eq. (55). Substituting the above expansion and the scalar field solution in Eq. (44), or the full exterior so...

[5] [9]

First, we must compute the near-horizon scalar field solution

sGB gravity In sGB gravity, we wish to compute the near-horizon extremal solution. First, we must compute the near-horizon scalar field solution. The scalar field equation in sGB gravity can be written as □ϑ=−R µναβ Rµναβ ,(A4) which, after multiplying byΣ, reduces to ∂ ∂r (r−1) 2 ∂ϑ ∂r + ∂ ∂χ (1−χ 2) ∂ϑ ∂χ =− 48(r6 −15r 4χ2 + 15r2χ4 −χ 6) Σ5 ,(A5) when e...

arXiv

[6] [10]

C. M. Will, Living Reviews in Relativity17, 4 (2014)

2014

[7] [11]

Yunes and X

N. Yunes and X. Siemens, Living Rev. Rel.16, 9 (2013), arXiv:1304.3473 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2013

[8] [12]

D. J. Gross and J. H. Sloan, Nuclear Physics B291, 41 (1987)

1987