Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Image of a time-dependent rotating regular black hole

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spatio-temporal Matérn field with anisotropic Keplerian structure can generate realistic time-dependent images of a rotating Hayward black hole, reproducing M87*'s 30-degree ring shift.

desk verdict Useful stochastic imaging framework for regular black holes, but the M87* ring-shift claim is asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21628 v1 pith:HU3CJ637 submitted 2025-07-29 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Sen Guo , En-Wei Liang , Yu-Xiang Huang , Yu Liang , Qing-Quan Jiang , Kai Lin , Li-Fang Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords rotatingHaywardblackholeshadowaccretiondiskturbulencespatio-temporalMatérnfieldstochasticgenerativemodelraytracingM87*slow-lighteffects
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

Using a spatio-temporal generalization of Matérn random fields, this paper builds a fast generative model of the turbulent accretion flow around a rotating Hayward black hole and renders its time-dependent image by ray tracing. The locally anisotropic correlation tensor of the field is aligned with Keplerian motion, so the stochastic texture mimics GRMHD turbulence without solving magnetohydrodynamic equations. The central claim is that this synthetic image sequence reproduces the observed roughly 30-degree clockwise shift of the brightest sector of M87*'s emission ring between 2017 and 2018, with statistical consistency comparable to GRMHD simulations at far lower computational cost. If right, this provides a practical surrogate for producing time-resolved black hole images and for interpreting variability in EHT and ngEHT observations.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spatio-temporal Matérn field defined by the stochastic partial differential equation whose Green's function gives a Matérn covariance. The anisotropy tensor encodes temporal coherence and spatial correlation lengths along directions aligned with the flow: the temporal axis follows the local velocity field, while one spatial principal axis is tilted by about 20 degrees to mimic the spiral pitch seen in shearing-box simulations. The intensity is the radial envelope multiplied by the exponential of the normalized fluctuation field, and the resulting maps are passed through fast-light or slow-light ray tracing. This mechanism lets the authors generate statistically plausible turbulent disk images without solving MHD equations.

What would settle it

Generate a long sequence with the stated parameters, measure the brightest-sector position angle of the photon ring in each frame, and compare with the EHT 2017-2018 M87* data: the claim predicts a roughly 30-degree clockwise shift, so a failure to produce that shift, or a shift that depends strongly on arbitrary parameter choices, would falsify the reproduction claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The discovery the authors are trying to establish is that a stochastic generative model, an inhomogeneous, anisotropic, spatio-temporal Gaussian random field built on the Matérn covariance, can serve as a fast stand-in for GRMHD simulations when imaging a rotating Hayward black hole. The field is constructed through a stochastic partial differential equation whose anisotropy tensor encodes direction-dependent correlation lengths set by a Keplerian velocity field, and the source brightness is the radial envelope multiplied by the exponential of the normalized field. Images are obtained with both fast-light and slow-light ray tracing. The paper reports that the slow-light treatment smears strongly lensed, rapidly varying features, improving physical realism, and that the resulting time-lapse sequence reproduces the dynamic positional shift of the bright ring seen in M87*, advancing clockwise by about 30 degrees from 2017 to 2018. The authors claim this demonstrates statistical consistency with GRMHD while offering substantial computational efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a zero-mean Gaussian fluctuation field with hand-set parameters, such as correlation scales, anisotropy ratio, temporal coherence, and a fixed radial envelope, faithfully represents the turbulent accretion flow around M87*, and this mapping is asserted rather than derived from magnetohydrodynamics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same pipeline can generate long, time-resolved synthetic image sequences for any regular or non-Kerr metric, enabling parameter surveys of spin and magnetic charge.
  • The roughly 30-degree ring-shift reproduction, if robust, gives a concrete way to connect stochastic accretion variability to EHT time-variable images of M87*.
  • Because slow-light ray tracing changes morphology mainly in strongly lensed regions, fast-light images are adequate for quasi-steady disks but not for rapidly evolving hotspots.
  • Synthetic visibility functions from the model can be compared directly with VLBI data to constrain turbulence parameters.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The hand-set correlation parameters are not calibrated to MHD; a natural next step would be to fit them to a GRMHD snapshot and check whether the ring-shift statistic survives.
  • Whether the 30-degree shift is a robust prediction or a by-product of the assumed envelope and anisotropy could be tested by varying those choices and measuring the shift distribution.
  • The framework's visibility-space predictions could serve as a fast noise model for testing how temporal undersampling biases shadow recovery in future ngEHT reconstruction algorithms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops a spatio-temporal stochastic model of accretion-flow emission around a rotating Hayward black hole. The authors generalize Matérn Gaussian random fields to inhomogeneous, locally anisotropic fields (their 'INOISY' framework), with correlation structure tied to a Keplerian velocity field, and couple the resulting emissivity field to fast-light and slow-light ray tracing. They present synthetic images at inclinations 17°, 53°, and 75°, for magnetic charges g = 0.5 and 0.8, time-series snapshots, and claim (i) statistical consistency with GRMHD simulations and (ii) reproduction of the ~30° clockwise shift of the M87* bright ring between 2017 and 2018. The paper contains no quantitative comparison to EHT data or to GRMHD outputs, and the fast-light/slow-light implementation is described inconsistently.

Significance. The proposed stochastic surrogate is genuinely useful if the claims hold: it offers a computationally cheap way to generate time-resolved black-hole images with tunable statistical properties, which could help interpret EHT/ngEHT variability. The extension of anisotropic Matérn SPDEs to spatio-temporal ray tracing in a non-Kerr spacetime is a reasonable technical contribution, and the explicit construction of the anisotropy tensor from a Keplerian flow is a nice idea. However, the paper's headline results are currently asserted rather than demonstrated: the M87* ring-shift claim lacks any quantitative image analysis, the GRMHD comparison is qualitative, and the model parameters are calibrated to the target morphology. No code or data products are provided beyond a YouTube link, which further limits reproducibility.

major comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; Section 4] The central claim that the simulations 'reproduce the dynamic positional shift of the bright ring structure observed in M87*' is not supported by any quantitative analysis. No position-angle time series of the simulated ring is defined or plotted, no estimator (e.g., the phase of the m=1 azimuthal brightness mode or a ring-centroid shift) is described, and no comparison to the EHT 2017/2018 position-angle measurements of Ref. [50] is made. Figure 17 merely reproduces EHT images; it does not compare them with the simulation. Because the model already contains a rotating, advected pattern with pitch angle 20° and Keplerian rotation, some clockwise drift is essentially built in; demonstrating that it matches the observed ~30° shift requires measuring the simulated shift from the images. Please add this quantitative step, with error bars, or weaken the claim in the abstract and conclusion.
  2. [Section 3.2; Section 4] The abstract and conclusion claim that the model 'maintains statistical consistency' with GRMHD simulations, but no quantitative comparison is presented. The text states that the images are 'qualitatively consistent' and 'closely matching' GRMHD outputs, yet no comparison metric, no GRMHD baseline dataset, and no uncertainty quantification are given. A meaningful test would compare, for example, image-domain correlation coefficients, visibility amplitude distributions, or power-spectrum slopes against published GRMHD snapshot libraries (such as those used in EHT modeling papers), and would report the resulting agreement and its dependence on the free parameters. Without this, the GRMHD-consistency claim is unverifiable.
  3. [Section 3.2] The model parameters—lambda1/r = 5, lambda2/lambda1 = 0.1, lambda0 = 2*pi/Omega_K, theta_angle = 20 degrees, and the envelope g(r) = x^4 e^{-x^2}—are introduced as 'guided by' M87* and GRMHD morphology, and the paper then treats the resulting resemblance as validation. That is circular: if the parameters are chosen to reproduce M87-like and GRMHD-like morphology, the observation that the images look M87-like or GRMHD-like does not validate the model. Please provide a sensitivity analysis and an independent calibration of these parameters, for example by fitting the fluctuation-field statistics to actual GRMHD snapshots, and state explicitly which features are predictions rather than inputs.
  4. [Section 3.3; Eqs. (3.27)-(3.31)] The fast-light and slow-light implementations are internally inconsistent. The text first says 'we adopt the fast-light approximation' and defines the image by Eq. (3.27), but later says the framework 'incorporate[s] the slow-light effect' and presents Figs. 11-13 as 'slow-light images,' while the formalism referenced for those results is still Eq. (3.27). Equations (3.29)-(3.31) define V_fast, V_slow, and a residual delta V, but no slow-light computation, no delta V plot, and no algorithm for the trajectory-dependent emission times t_s^(n)(x) are presented. Please clarify which figures are produced with which approximation, provide the actual slow-light calculation (or state explicitly that slow-light results are deferred), and show the quantitative difference between the two, if any.
  5. [Section 2; Eqs. (2.11), (3.12), (3.14), (3.17)] There is a sign/exponent inconsistency in the definition of the anisotropy tensor. Equation (2.11) defines Lambda(x) = sum_l lambda_l^2 u_l u_l^T, which is consistent with Eqs. (3.14) and (3.17), but Eq. (3.12) writes Lambda(x_s) = sum_l lambda_l^{-2} u_l u_l^T, which is the inverse tensor. This matters because Eq. (3.16) uses Lambda^{-1} to define the Mahalanobis distance. Please correct Eq. (3.12) and verify that the numerical implementation follows the same convention; if the code follows Eq. (3.12), then the interpretation of lambda_1 and lambda_2 as correlation lengths is reversed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2, first paragraph] The rotating Hayward metric is attributed to Ref. [39] (Pauls et al., 'Time-Dependent Ray-Tracing of Black Hole Accretion Flows with Gaussian Random Fields'), which is not the source of the metric; please cite the original Hayward metric and the relevant rotating-regular-black-hole paper.
  2. [Section 3.3; Figs. 14-16] The time axis is confusing: Figs. 14-16 caption says 'total duration of 400 seconds,' while the rest of the paper uses geometrical units with M = 1 and times in units of M. Please specify the mass scaling and, if the target is M87*, give the conversion to physical time so that the 400-second duration can be compared with the dynamical timescale of M87*.
  3. [Eq. (3.13)] The Matérn power spectral density as written appears to be missing the factor kappa^{2*nu} and has an unusual normalization; please check Eq. (3.13) against the standard Matérn spectrum and correct any typographical error.
  4. [Introduction; Section 3.2] The acronym 'INOISY' is introduced without being defined. Please spell out the name or explain what it stands for in the text.
  5. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.24)] The radial infall rate iota is introduced in the velocity field but its value is never specified in the simulation setup. Please state whether iota = 0 in the presented runs or give the adopted radial-velocity profile.
  6. [Figure 17] The caption of Fig. 17 reads like a press release and does not indicate the source of the displayed EHT images; please mark the figure as reproduced from Ref. [50] and state explicitly that it is observational data, not a product of this work.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Partially circular: the M87*/GRMHD 'reproduction' relies on parameters and an envelope fitted to those same targets, and the claimed 30-degree ring shift is asserted without a quantitative comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.2, Eq. (3.22); Abstract and Section 4]
    "We adopt g(r) = x4e−x2, which produces a central brightness depression or “shadow,” reminiscent of the morphology observed in M87∗, while ensuring an asymptotic r−4 decay at large radii."

    The radial envelope is hand-selected specifically so that the time-averaged image contains an M87-like central brightness depression. The paper then presents the model as reproducing M87* morphology and, in the abstract, claims that 'the simulated results reproduce the dynamic positional shift of the bright ring structure observed in M87*.' To the extent the claim concerns morphology, the target feature was put in by construction through g(r); the positional shift itself is a separate assertion that is not reduced to this fit, but the validation is weakened because the M87-like appearance is an input rather than a prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.26) and validation text]
    "We adopt θ∠ ≈ 20◦ to match the spiral pitch angles observed in GRMHD simulations [48, 49], thereby ensuring consistency between the statistical emission model and the underlying fluid dynamics."

    The pitch angle θ∠, together with λ1/r = 5, λ2/λ1 = 0.1, and λ0 = 2π/ΩK, is chosen by hand to mimic the texture and pitch angles seen in GRMHD simulations. Later the paper says the resulting image morphology 'aligns closely with single-frame outputs from high-resolution GRMHD simulations, thereby validating the physical plausibility of our stochastic, time-dependent model.' Because the parameters were fitted to GRMHD outputs, agreement with GRMHD is partly by construction and is not an independent validation of the stochastic generative model.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Abstract; Section 4, Fig. 17 caption and discussion]
    "Moreover, the simulated results reproduce the dynamic positional shift of the bright ring structure observed in M87∗, providing theoretical support for interpreting its time-variable images."

    The headline M87* claim is never quantitatively tested in the paper: no simulated bright-ring position angle is defined, measured, or plotted over time, and no comparison is made to the EHT 2017/2018 measurements of the approximately 30-degree shift. A clockwise drift is essentially built into the model through a prograde Keplerian velocity field v = ΩK ẑ×x together with a 20-degree spiral pitch angle, so the qualitative direction of drift is not an emergent surprise. The specific 30-degree value is not fitted, which gives the claim some independent content, but as written the assertion goes beyond what the paper demonstrates.

full rationale

The paper's core technical contribution — extending anisotropic, inhomogeneous Matérn/GMRF fields to spatio-temporal emission models and coupling them with fast-light and slow-light ray tracing — is largely self-contained and not circular. The geodesic equations, ray-tracing scheme, and slow-light time-delay comparison stand on their own, and citations to the authors' earlier geodesic work are used as background rather than as a load-bearing uniqueness argument. However, the validation claims are partially circular. The envelope g(r) is explicitly chosen to produce an M87-like shadow, and the anisotropy parameters including the 20-degree pitch angle are chosen to match GRMHD spiral texture; the paper then cites agreement with M87* morphology and GRMHD images as support. That portion is fitted input called prediction. The strongest advertised result — reproducing the dynamic ~30-degree positional shift of M87*'s bright ring — is asserted in the abstract and conclusion but never compared quantitatively with EHT position-angle measurements, so it is unsupported rather than strictly derived. Overall, the stochastic framework has independent content, but the M87*/GRMHD validation partially reduces to the hand-tuned inputs, giving a circularity score of 5.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on many hand-set stochastic and geometric parameters and on domain assumptions that the Gaussian random field and the chosen anisotropy faithfully mimic turbulence. There are no invented physical entities such as new particles or forces; the anisotropy tensor is a modeling construct rather than a new physical object.

free parameters (7)
  • fluctuation amplitude sigma = 1
    Set by hand in Section 3.2 to normalize the fluctuation field.
  • envelope fluctuation scale n = not specified
    Appears in Eq. (3.23) as the effective turbulence strength; no numerical value is given.
  • radial correlation scale ratio lambda1/r = 5
    Chosen in Section 3.2 without fitting or an independent constraint.
  • anisotropy ratio lambda2/lambda1 = 0.1
    Chosen in Section 3.2 without fitting or an independent constraint.
  • spiral pitch angle theta_angle = 20 degrees
    Set in Section 3.2 and Eq. (3.26) to match GRMHD spiral pitch angles, but used as a free tunable parameter.
  • temporal coherence scale lambda0 = 2*pi/Omega_K
    Set equal to the local Keplerian period in Section 3.2, coupling the turbulence coherence time to the rotation profile.
  • Keplerian exponent m = 3/2
    Section 3.2 states that m = 3/2 yields the most pronounced and plausible spiral morphology after visual comparison of m = 1/2, 3/2, and 2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A zero-mean multiplicative Gaussian fluctuation field on the emission profile faithfully represents turbulent accretion variability.
    Asserted in Sections 2 and 3.2 via the central limit theorem; no quantitative statistical comparison to GRMHD simulations is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper The anisotropic tensor Lambda(x) with u1 tilted 20 degrees and correlation lengths varying linearly with radius reproduces GRMHD turbulence.
    The parameter choices in Section 3.2 are motivated by shearing-box and GRMHD studies, but are not derived from MHD equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The radial emission envelope g(r) = x^4 e^{-x^2} is an adequate M87*-like time-averaged profile.
    Introduced after Eq. (3.21) as reminiscent of the M87* morphology, not derived from radiative transfer.
  • domain assumption Null geodesic ray tracing in the rotating Hayward spacetime from the authors' prior work is correct.
    Relied on throughout Section 3.3; the geodesic equations are not rederived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Fast-light and slow-light approximations as implemented capture the relevant photon time delays.
    The fast-light approximation is first said to be sufficient and used, then slow-light is introduced; no validation against a full radiative transfer solution is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image of a time-dependent rotating regular black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HU3CJ637

@misc{pith2026250721628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image of a time-dependent rotating regular black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HU3CJ637}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21628}
}
abstract

In this study, we develop a modeling framework based on spatio-temporal generalized random fields to simulate the time-evolving accretion flows and their associated imaging signatures around rotating regular black holes. We extend the Mat\'ern field formalism to the spatio-temporal domain and introduce a locally anisotropic tensor structure \(\Lambda(\mathbf{x})\), which encodes direction-dependent correlation scales motivated by Keplerian velocity fields, thereby generating physically informed perturbation structures. Coupled with a computationally efficient light ray-tracing scheme, this framework produces a sequence of time-resolved images of regular black hole shadow and accretion structures. By incorporating light-travel time effects, we identify significant temporal smearing of features within strongly lensed regions and rapidly varying sources, thus enhancing the physical realism of the modeling. Comparison with existing general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations demonstrates that our stochastic generative model maintains statistical consistency while offering substantial computational efficiency. Moreover, the simulated results reproduce the dynamic positional shift of the bright ring structure observed in M87$^{*}$, providing theoretical support for interpreting its time-variable images.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Akiyama, et al

    K. Akiyama, et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], The persistent shadow of the supermassive black hole of M87. I. Observations, calibration, imaging, and analysis, Astron. Astrophys.681: A79 (2024). – 25 –

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    L.,The Escape of Photons from Gravitationally Intense Stars, Mon

    Synge, J. L.,The Escape of Photons from Gravitationally Intense Stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 131, 463 (1966). – 22 –

    work page 1966

  3. [2]

    M.,Timelike and Null Geodesics in the Kerr Metric, inBlack Holes, edited by C

    Bardeen, J. M.,Timelike and Null Geodesics in the Kerr Metric, inBlack Holes, edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973), pp. 215–239

    work page 1973

  4. [3]

    P.,Image of a Spherical Black Hole with Thin Accretion Disk, Astron

    Luminet, J. P.,Image of a Spherical Black Hole with Thin Accretion Disk, Astron. Astrophys. 75, 228–235 (1979)

    work page 1979

  5. [4]

    Chandrasekhar, S.,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1983)

    work page 1983

  6. [5]

    Falcke, H., Melia, F., and Agol, E.,Viewing the Shadow of the Black Hole at the Galactic Center, Astrophys. J. Lett.528, L13 (2000)

    work page 2000

  7. [6]

    E., Lupsasca, A., and Marrone, D

    Gralla, S. E., Lupsasca, A., and Marrone, D. P.,The Shape of the Black Hole Photon Ring: A Precise Test of Strong-Field General Relativity, Phys. Rev. D102, 124004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [7]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration,First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 50 references
  1. [8]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration,First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L4 (2019)

    2019

  2. [9]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration,First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Galactic Center, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration,First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metric, Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L17 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    H., Wielgus, M., and Abramowicz, M

    Vincent, F. H., Wielgus, M., and Abramowicz, M. A.,Geometric Modeling of M87* as a Kerr Black Hole or a Non-Kerr Compact Object, Astron. Astrophys.646, A37 (2021)

    2021

  5. [12]

    D., Lupsasca, A., and Strominger, A.,Universal Interferometric Signatures of a Black Hole’s Photon Ring, Sci

    Johnson, M. D., Lupsasca, A., and Strominger, A.,Universal Interferometric Signatures of a Black Hole’s Photon Ring, Sci. Adv.6, eaaz1310 (2020)

    2020

  6. [13]

    A.,Formation and Evaporation of Nonsingular Black Holes, Phys

    Hayward, S. A.,Formation and Evaporation of Nonsingular Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 031103 (2006)

    2006

  7. [14]

    Abdujabbarov, A., Amir, M., and Ahmedov, B.,Shadow of Rotating Regular Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D93, 104004 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Bambi, C.,Testing Black Hole Candidates with Electromagnetic Radiation, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 025001 (2019)

    2019

  9. [16]

    Cardoso, V.,Testing the Kerr Paradigm with GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 171101 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    Zeng, X, X, et al.,Kerr-like Black Hole Surrounded by Cold Dark Matter Halo: The Shadow Images and EHT Constraints, arXiv: 2505.07063

    arXiv

  11. [18]

    K-J, Li, G-P, Yang

    He. K-J, Li, G-P, Yang. C-Y, Zeng. X-XObservational features of the rotating Bardeen black hole surrounded by perfect fluid dark matter, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 662 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

    Zeng, X, X, et al.,Optical Images of Mini Boson Stars in Palatini f(R) Gravity, arXiv: 2501.13764

  13. [20]

    Zeng, X, X, et al.,Optical images of massive boson stars with nonlinear electrodynamics, arXiv: 2507.11583

  14. [21]

    J-w Huang, Z-Y Zhang, M-Y Guo, Bin Chen.,Images and flares of geodesic hot spots around a Kerr black hole, Phys. Rev. D.109, 124062 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Zhenyu Zhang , Yehui Hou, Minyong Guo, Yosuke Mizuno, Bin Chen,Autocorrelation signatures in time-resolved black hole flare images: secondary peaks and convergence structure, arXiv: 2503.17200

  16. [23]

    Yehui Hou, Jiewei Huang, Minyong Guo, Yosuke Mizuno, Bin Chen,Near-Horizon Polarization as a Diagnostic of Black Hole Spacetime, arXiv: 2409.07248 – 23 –

    arXiv

  17. [24]

    Zelin Zhang, Songbai Chen, Jiliang Jing,Images of Kerr-MOG black holes surrounded by geometrically thick magnetized equilibrium tori, JCAP 09 (2024) 027

    2024

  18. [25]

    Yuan Meng, Xi-Jing Wang, Yong-Zhuang Li, Xiao-Mei Kuang,Effects of hair on the image of a rotating black hole illuminated by a thin accretion disk, Eur.Phys.J.C 85 (2025) 6, 627

    2025

  19. [26]

    Shiyang Hu, Dan Li, Chen Deng,Novel inner shadows of the Kerr black hole with a tilted thin accretion disk, JCAP 06 (2025) 03

    2025

  20. [27]

    R., and Liang

    Guo, S., Li, G. R., and Liang. E. W.,Influence of Magnetic Charge on Shadow and Accretion Imaging of Hayward Black Holes, Phys. Rev. D105, 023024 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    X., and Liang

    Guo, S., Huang, Y. X., and Liang. E. W., et al.,Image of the Kerr–Newman Black Hole Surrounded by a Thin Accretion Disk, Astrophys. J.975, 237 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    G.,Photon Ring Structure of Rotating Regular Black Holes, Class

    Kumar, R., & Ghosh, S. G.,Photon Ring Structure of Rotating Regular Black Holes, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 8 (2021)

    2021

  23. [30]

    Tsukamoto, N., Li, Z., & Bambi, C.,Constraining the Charge of a Black Hole with Electromagnetic Radiation, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.06, 043 (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    Cunha, P. V. P., & Herdeiro, C. A. R.,Shadows and Strong Gravitational Lensing: A Brief Review, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.50, 42 (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    J.942, 47 (2023)

    Younsi, Z., Psaltis, D., & Özel, F.,Time-dependent General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamics Simulations of Black Hole Accretion, Astrophys. J.942, 47 (2023)

    2023

  26. [33]

    Porth, O., et al.,The Event Horizon General Relativistic Magnetohydrodynamic Simulation Comparison Project, Astrophys. J. Suppl.243, 26 (2019)

    2019

  27. [34]

    Dexter, J., et al.,Time-variable Electromagnetic Radiation from Sgr A*, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 494, 4168–4182 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    D., et al.,Key Science Goals for the Next-Generation Event Horizon Telescope, Galaxies 11, 61 (2023)

    Johnson, M. D., et al.,Key Science Goals for the Next-Generation Event Horizon Telescope, Galaxies 11, 61 (2023)

    2023

  29. [36]

    J.945, 40 (2023)

    Andrew Chael, et al.,Multifrequency Black Hole Imaging for the Next-generation Event Horizon Telescope, Astrophys. J.945, 40 (2023)

    2023

  30. [37]

    J.925, 1 (2022)

    Event Horizon Telescope CollaborationThe Variability of the Black Hole Image in M87* at the Dynamical Timescale, Astrophys. J.925, 1 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    Blackburn, L., et al.,On the approximation of the black hole shadow with a simple polar curve, Astrophys. J. 900, 77 (2020)

    2020

  32. [39]

    T., et al.,Time-Dependent Ray-Tracing of Black Hole Accretion Flows with Gaussian Random Fields, Mon

    Pauls, J. T., et al.,Time-Dependent Ray-Tracing of Black Hole Accretion Flows with Gaussian Random Fields, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.514, 1229–1245 (2022)

    2022

  33. [40]

    A. E. Broderick and A. Loeb, Imaging bright spots in the accretion flow near the black hole horizon of Sgr A∗, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.363: 353-362 (2005)

    2005

  34. [41]

    Hamaus, T

    N. Hamaus, T. Paumard, T. Muller, et al, Prospects for testing the nature of Sgr A∗’s NIR flares on the basis of current VLT- and future VLTI-observations, Astrophys. J.692, 902-916 (2009)

    2009

  35. [42]

    Zamaninasab, A

    M. Zamaninasab, A. Eckart, G. Witzel, et al, Near infrared flares of Sagittarius A∗: Importance of near infrared polarimetry, Astron. Astrophys.510: A3 (2010)

    2010

  36. [43]

    S. E. Gralla, A. Lupsasca and A. Strominger, Observational Signature of High Spin at the Event Horizon Telescope, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.475: 3829-3853 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    J. M. Bardeen, J. R. Bond, N. Kaiser, et al, The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields, Astrophys. J.304: 15-61 (1986)

    1986

  38. [45]

    Lee and C

    D. Lee and C. F. Gammie, Disks as Inhomogeneous, Anisotropic Gaussian Random Fields, Astrophys. J. 906: 39 (2021). – 24 –

    2021

  39. [46]

    G. A. Fuglstad, F. Lindgren, D. Simpson1, et al, Exploring a New Class of Non-stationary Spatial Gaussian Random Fields with Varying Local Anisotropy, Stat. Sin.25, 115 (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    Lindgren, H

    F. Lindgren, H. Rue, and J. Lindström, An explicit link between Gaussian fields and Gaussian Markov random fields: the stochastic partial differential equation approach, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)73, 423–498 (2011)

    2011

  41. [48]

    X. Guan, C. F. Gammie, J. B. Simon, et al, Locality of MHD Turbulence in Isothermal Disks, Astrophys. J. 694, 1010-1018 (2009)

    2009

  42. [49]

    Paugnat, A

    H. Paugnat, A. Lupsasca, F. Vincent, et al, Photon ring test of the Kerr hypothesis: Variation in the ring shape, Astron. Astrophys.668: A11 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.