Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Nonuniqueness of capped black holes: large and small bubbles

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new four-parameter family of regular capped black holes in five-dimensional minimal supergravity exhibits discrete non-uniqueness: two branches with the same mass, electric charge, and angular momenta as the Cvetič-Youm black hole…

desk verdict New four-parameter capped black hole family with genuine large/small bubble non-uniqueness, but the interior regularity proof is replaced by thin numerical evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.19082 v2 pith:RFQZM3IK submitted 2024-11-28 hep-th gr-qc

Ryotaku Suzuki , Shinya Tomizawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc MSC 83C5783E50 PACS 04.70.-s04.65.+e
keywords five-dimensionalminimalsupergravitycappedblackholenon-uniquenessEhlers-HarrisontransformationCvetič-Youmbubbletopologyclosedtimelikecurvesexactsolution
topics Quantum Gravity
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 constructs a new four-parameter family of asymptotically flat, stationary, bi-axisymmetric black holes in the bosonic sector of five-dimensional minimal supergravity. The solutions are spherical black holes whose exterior region contains a disk-shaped bubble, so a timeslice has the topology $[\mathbb{R}^4 \# \mathbb{CP}^2]\setminus \mathbb{B}^4$. The central claim is that these capped black holes exhibit discrete non-uniqueness: for the same mass, two angular momenta, and electric charge, there are two distinct regular solutions, one with a large bubble and one with a small bubble, in addition to the Cvetič-Youm black hole. The authors also compare entropies and find the large-bubble branch can beat the Cvetič-Youm black hole thermodynamically while the small-bubble branch always has lower entropy than it.

What carries the argument

The construction rests on the combined Ehlers and Harrison transformations of five-dimensional minimal supergravity, which add angular momentum and electric charge, respectively, to a vacuum seed. The seed is a rotating black lens solution generated by the inverse scattering method, and the transformed metric is written in C-metric coordinates $(x,y)$ with functions $H(x,y)$ and $D(x,y)$ whose positivity controls regularity. The boundary conditions select parameters so that the two rotational axes and the inner disk-shaped bubble are free of Dirac-Misner strings and conical singularities, and the horizon cross-section has topology $S^3$, enforced through an integer $n=\pm 1$ in the holonomy condition. The positivity of $H$ and $D$ is proven at the boundaries and verified numerically on representative parameter points; it guarantees curvature regularity and the absence of closed timelike curves throughout the exterior region. The distinct bubble branches arise because the same conserved charges leave the bubble area and magnetic flux free, so the two branches are labelled by non-conserved data.

What would settle it

Evaluate $H(x,y)$ and $D(x,y)$ directly over the full allowed parameter and coordinate ranges on a dense grid or via interval arithmetic; a single point satisfying conditions (19), (33)-(35), (45), and (47) with $H\le 0$ or $D\le 0$ would invalidate the stated regularity, since the Kretschmann scalar behaves like $H^{-6}D^{-6}$. A rigorous analytic positivity proof over the entire region would do the opposite and settle the regularity claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery is an exact, non-BPS (non-supersymmetric) solution describing a charged, rotating spherical black hole with a non-trivial domain of outer communication. It is obtained by applying the Ehlers and Harrison transformations to a vacuum seed and then imposing boundary conditions that remove Dirac-Misner string, conical, orbifold, and curvature singularities and closed timelike curves on and outside the horizon. The resulting four-parameter family reduces to the previously known three-parameter capped black hole when $\beta=0$. For a fixed set of conserved charges $(M, J_\psi, J_\phi, Q)$, the authors find two capped black hole branches, large bubble and small bubble, distinguished by local quantities such as magnetic flux and magnetic potential, not by conserved charges. This is a demonstration of non-uniqueness among spherical black holes that persists within the capped-black-hole class itself, and it shows that the uniqueness theorem is evaded once the trivial-topology assumption on the exterior is dropped.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the functions $H(x,y)$ and $D(x,y)$ remain strictly positive throughout the exterior region; the paper proves positivity only at the boundaries and checks it numerically for representative parameters, so a permitted parameter choice where either function becomes non-positive would introduce a curvature singularity or closed timelike curves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For angular momenta inside the overlap region, three stationary black holes share the same $(M, J_\psi, J_\phi, Q)$: the Cvetič-Youm black hole, a large-bubble capped black hole, and a small-bubble capped black hole.
  • Beyond the extremal Cvetič-Youm angular-momentum bound, only the large-bubble branch exists among the capped solutions, so the phase diagram is not merely a duplicate of the Cvetič-Youm family.
  • Thermodynamic preference is branch-dependent: for sufficiently large bubble area the large-bubble branch has higher entropy than the Cvetič-Youm black hole, whereas the small-bubble branch is always entropically disfavoured relative to it.
  • The previously constructed three-parameter capped black hole is a one-dimensional slice ($\beta=0$) of the new four-parameter phase space; it does not show the two-branch non-uniqueness, so the fourth parameter is essential for the effect.
  • The $n=1$ and $n=-1$ phases are related by the reflection $(t,\psi)\to(-t,-\psi)$ with $Q$ flipping sign, which lets the two phases together cover a complete $Q/M=\text{constant}$ phase space.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The entropy ordering suggests a selection rule driven by bubble size: if the large-bubble branch is thermodynamically preferred in one region, dynamical or phase-transition arguments might favour it, though the paper does not address dynamics.
  • The results imply that any complete uniqueness statement for five-dimensional charged rotating black holes must include local data on the bubble, such as magnetic flux and magnetic potential, in addition to conserved charges.
  • The same Ehlers-Harrison machinery could plausibly produce analogous non-unique capped solutions with other allowed exterior topologies, such as multiple bubbles or lens spaces; the authors list this as future work.
  • The entropy discontinuity when taking the extremal black-hole limit suggests the topology change leaves a thermodynamic remnant, potentially relevant for microstate counting.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a new stationary, bi-axisymmetric solution in the bosonic sector of five-dimensional minimal supergravity by applying Ehlers and Harrison transformations to a vacuum seed, extending the authors' previous three-parameter capped black hole to a four-parameter family. The solution is claimed to describe a regular capped black hole with asymptotically flat boundary conditions, S3 horizon topology, and nontrivial spatial topology [R4#CP2]\B4 outside the horizon, carrying four independent conserved charges (M, Jψ, Jϕ, Q). The central result is that for identical values of these charges there exist two distinct regular solutions, the large-bubble and small-bubble branches, thereby demonstrating discrete non-uniqueness among spherical black holes; the paper also compares their entropies with the Cvetič-Youm black hole.

Significance. If fully established, this is a significant contribution: it provides an exact non-BPS solution displaying non-uniqueness in five-dimensional minimal supergravity, going beyond the known uniqueness theorem by exploiting nontrivial domain-of-outer-communication topology. The construction via solution-generating techniques is explicit, and the boundary conditions are imposed with care. The paper also gives a quantitative thermodynamic comparison with the Cvetič-Youm black hole. However, the central regularity claim is only partially proven: positivity of the key functions H(x,y) and D(x,y) is verified analytically at isolated boundaries and numerically for a single representative parameter point, rather than over the full parameter space. This gap directly affects the existence claim for the two regular branches.

major comments (2)
  1. The regularity of the metric on and outside the horizon reduces to H(x,y)>0 and D(x,y)>0 on (x,y)∈[-1,1]×[-1/ν,-1], as the Kretschmann invariant diverges like H^{-6}D^{-6} and CTCs are excluded by det(g_IJ)>0, equivalent to D(x,y)>0. The authors prove these inequalities only at boundary points (Eqs. (20), (45), (46), and (70)), and the numerical evidence in Figs. 1 and 2 is for a single parameter set (σ,ν̃,γ̃)=(0.8,1.2,0.239). The text in Section III.E states that H(x,y)>0 is 'numerically confirmed for the parameters satisfying the conditions,' but the displayed plot does not show a scan over the allowed parameter region; similarly, the claim of 'several choices' for D(x,y) is not reflected in Fig. 2. The small-bubble branch, which is the new element of the non-uniqueness claim, is precisely the region where a violation of H>0 or D>0 would be most dangerous, especially near the critical curve jψ=jψ,c (Fig. 8) and the extremal limits κ→0. Because the central assertion is the existence of two regular solutions with identical conserved charges, this gap is load-bearing. I request either an analytic proof (e.g., a manifestly positive decomposition of H and D) or a systematic numerical survey over the full allowed parameter range (σ,ν̃,γ̃) and both branches, with quantitative margins.
  2. The two-branch non-uniqueness and the entropy ordering are demonstrated only for the slice σ=0.8, and the detailed entropy comparison in Fig. 8 is for a single value jϕ=0.235. The statement in Section IV.B that 'other cases with σ≠0.8 are qualitatively similar' is not supported by any displayed computation. Since the abstract claims a four-parameter family and a general statement that 'the large/small bubble branch can have larger/smaller entropy than the Cvetič-Youm black hole,' the paper should either provide evidence for additional σ slices (and ideally map the region in (σ,ν̃,γ̃) where two branches coexist) or explicitly restrict the claims to the demonstrated parameter values. As it stands, the generality of the non-uniqueness result rests on a single slice of the parameter space.
minor comments (6)
  1. The boundary list is numbered (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (vi), (v); either renumber so that the horizon (v) precedes the center (vi), or order the items in the text consistently.
  2. The term 'Kretchman invariant' should be 'Kretschmann invariant'.
  3. The sentence 'the requirements H(x,y)≠0 and D≠0 on and outside the horizon can be replaced with H(x,y)>0 and D>0' lacks a final period and should read '... can be replaced with H(x,y)>0 and D(x,y)>0.'
  4. In the final paragraph, 'as preformed in Ref. [10]' should be 'as performed in Ref. [10]'.
  5. The text claims numerical confirmation of D(x,y)>0 'for several choices of the parameters,' but Fig. 2 displays only one parameter set; please add additional panels or revise the text to say 'for the representative parameter set shown in Fig. 2.'
  6. The abstract and introduction state that the solution is 'free from curvature, conical, Dirac-Misner string and orbifold singularities, as well as closed timelike curves on and outside the horizon,' but Section III.E explicitly acknowledges that analytic proof of H>0 and D>0 is challenging and relies on numerical verification. Please qualify the abstract accordingly or move the numerical-evidence statement into the abstract.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the two-branch non-uniqueness is computed from an explicit solution, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The authors take an explicit vacuum seed [19] (Chen and Teo), apply standard G2(2) Ehlers/Harrison transformations, write the full metric and gauge potential explicitly in Eqs. (4)-(14), impose regularity boundary conditions (33)-(35), solve those constraints for the parameters, and then compute conserved charges (23)-(28), horizon entropy (55), bubble area (44), and the Cvetič-Youm entropy (106) directly from the solution. The central two-branch non-uniqueness claim is a computed property of that explicit solution: Fig. 4 shows two solutions with identical normalized charges (j_psi, j_phi) in the purple region, and Fig. 8 compares their entropies with the Cvetič-Youm black hole. No step fits a parameter to the target conclusion, and no quantity called a prediction is defined in terms of itself. The paper does cite the authors' own prior work for the seed/transformation technology and cites a uniqueness theorem coauthored by Tomizawa [6], but those citations supply background and construction tools rather than the non-uniqueness result; indeed Sec. IV.D shows that the previous three-parameter solution does not exhibit the two-branch structure. The only notable weakness is that H(x,y) > 0 and D(x,y) > 0 are established analytically only at boundary points and numerically for representative parameters (Sec. III.E, Figs. 1-2); this is an unproven regularity assertion and a correctness/falsifiability risk, not circular reasoning. Accordingly the circularity score is low, reflecting minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or empirically fitted constants. It uses established solution-generating techniques and a prior vacuum seed. The solution's four parameters are continuous moduli, not fits to external data. The regularity constraints are solved numerically, but no numerical values are fitted to data; they merely select points in the solution space. The central claim therefore rests on standard theory and prior published results, with the main new element being the solution itself and its branch structure.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The bosonic sector of five-dimensional minimal supergravity is described by the action and field equations given in Eqs. (1)-(3).
    The central construction solves these field equations. This is the standard theory setup introduced in Section II.
  • domain assumption The G2(2) solution-generating technique, specifically the Ehlers transformation and Harrison transformation, produces valid solutions of the field equations when applied to a vacuum seed.
    The paper invokes this technique in Section II, citing Refs. [16,18]. The validity is not re-derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption The inverse scattering vacuum seed solution of Chen and Teo (Ref. [19]) is a valid vacuum solution with the claimed properties.
    The construction starts from this seed, as stated in Section II. The seed's validity is taken from the cited literature.
  • domain assumption The first law and Smarr formula for black holes with bubbles, as derived by Kunduri and Lucietti (Ref. [20]), apply to the constructed solution.
    Section IV.A uses these formulas to compute thermodynamic quantities. The applicability to this solution is assumed.
  • domain assumption The standard criteria for removing conical, Dirac-Misner, and orbifold singularities in C-metric coordinates are sufficient to guarantee regularity of the full spacetime.
    Section III imposes these criteria, following standard procedures in the cited black hole solution literature. The sufficiency is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonuniqueness of capped black holes: large and small bubbles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RFQZM3IK

@misc{pith2026241119082,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonuniqueness of capped black holes: large and small bubbles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RFQZM3IK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.19082}
}
abstract

We present a new non-BPS solution describing an asymptotically flat, stationary, bi-axisymmetric capped black hole in the bosonic sector of five-dimensional minimal supergravity. This solution describes a spherical black hole, while the exterior region of the horizon exhibits a non-trivial topology of $[{\mathbb R}^4 \# {\mathbb C}{\mathbb P}^2] \setminus {\mathbb B}^4$ on a timeslice. This solution extends our previously constructed three-parameter solution to a more general four-parameter solution. To derive this solution, we utilize a combination of the Ehlers and Harrison transformations and then impose appropriate boundary conditions on the solution's parameters. It can be shown that the resultant solution is free from curvature, conical, Dirac-Misner string and orbifold singularities, as well as closed timelike curves on and outside the horizon. Characterized by four independent conserved charges -- mass, two angular momenta, and electric charge -- this solution reveals two distinct branches: a small bubble branch and a large bubble branch, distinguished by non-conserved local quantities such as magnetic flux or magnetic potential. This shows the non-uniqueness for spherical black holes, even among capped black holes. For equivalent sets of conserved charges, we find that the large/small bubble branch can have larger/smaller entropy than the Cveti\v{c}-Youm black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.19082 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Profile of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Profile of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: All solutions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The extension of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Bubble area of large (blue) and small (red) bubble branches for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Entropy of large and small bubble branches for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The phase of the three parameter capped black hole solution (black curve) embedded in the four parameter phase [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The condition for the absence of Dirac-Misner string singularity: The inner axis ∂Σin is free from Dirac-Misner string singularities if the Killing vector vin has no time component. From Eq. (29), this condition connects the parameter α with the other parameters: tanh3 α = (a − b)f2˜g1 (1 − ab)f1g12 , (33) where the magnitude of the right-hand side must b...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (34) To specifically ensure a topology of S3, we must set n = ±1

    The condition for the horizon topology: The cross-section of the Killing horizon has the topology of L(n; 1) (n: integer) if vψ in = ∆ f1f2 ad1 + (1 − γ)(1 + ν)(1 − a2)c1 d1 − 1 + 1 = n. (34) To specifically ensure a topology of S3, we must set n = ±1

    work page

  3. [3]

    The condition for the absence of conical singularities: Since on this axis, the Killing vector ∂ϕ+ := ∂ϕ + n∂ψ vanishes under the two conditions previously mentioned, the inner axis does not exhibit a conical singularity if ∆ϕ+ 2π 2 = d2 1f 2 1 f 2 2 (1 − γ)3(1 − ν)2(1 + ν)(1 − a2)2∆2 = 1. (35)

    work page

  4. [4]

    Boundary behavior around ∂Σψ One can show ∂Σψ represents a regular rotational axis in the radial coordinate r by y = −1 − C0r2 with a positive constant C0. Then, the metric at r → 0 (y → −1) behaves as ds2 ≃ γ0 tt(x)dt2 + 2γ0 tϕ(x)dtdϕ + γ0 ϕϕ(x)dϕ2 + α0(x)(dr2 + r2dψ2 + G−1(x)dx2), (36) where γ0 tt = − D|y=−1H(−1, x) H(x, −1) , γ 0 tϕ = − H(−1, x)[c3Ωϕ(x...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Using the radial coordinate r by x = ±1 ∓ C±r2 with positive constants C± for x = ±1, we can see that, with the use of Eqs

    Boundary behavior around ∂Σϕ and ∂Σin Similarly, ∂Σϕ and ∂Σin can be shown to be the ϕ-rotational axis and inner rotational axes, respectively. Using the radial coordinate r by x = ±1 ∓ C±r2 with positive constants C± for x = ±1, we can see that, with the use of Eqs. (33), (34) and (35), the metric at r → 0 (x → ±1) behaves as ds2 ≃ γ± tt (y)dt2 + 2γ± tψ(...

    work page

  6. [6]

    , f19 Every fi is a quadratic function of β

    f1, . . . , f19 Every fi is a quadratic function of β. fi for 16 ≤ i ≤ 19 appears only in the expressions of gi. f1 = 1 + 2(a − b)β + β2 γ2 − ν2 (a − b)2γ2 − (1 − a)2γ(1 + 2b + (3 + 2b)ν) + ν (1 − a)2(3 + 2b) + 1 − 2a + 2 1 − a + a2 b − b2 ν , (A1) f2 = 1 + 2(1 − ab)β + β2 γ2 − ν2 (2 − a)a − 2 1 − a + a2 b − (1 − 2a)b2 γ2 + (1 − a)2γ(1 + 2b + (3 + 2b)ν) −...

    work page

  7. [7]

    g1, . . . , g13 and ˜g1 For the metric functions, we have g1 = f13f14 − c1c3 (f13f14 − f16f19) 2(a − b)(1 − γ)2ν + (1 − ν)c3f3f10 2(a − b)(1 − γ)(1 + ν)d1 , (A20) g2 = ∆ + c3 (∆ − f3f4) d3 , (A21) g3 = f14f18 − d1 (f14f18 − f2f17) (1 − γ)(1 + ν) (ac1 − 1 + ν) − bν(γ − ν)f10f12 (1 − γ)(1 − ν2) (ac1 − 1 + ν) , (A22) g4 = ∆ + 1 d4 − (1 − γ)2(1 − ν)2νd1 ∆ − f...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Topological censorship,

    J. L. Friedman, K. Schleich and D. M. Witt, “Topological censorship,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 1486-1489 (1993) [erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1872 (1995)] [arXiv:gr-qc/9305017 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 1993

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Further restrictions on the topology of stationary black holes in five dimensions,

    S. Hollands, J. Holland and A. Ishibashi, “Further restrictions on the topology of stationary black holes in five dimensions,” Annales Henri Poincare 12, 279-301 (2011) [arXiv:1002.0490 [gr-qc]]. 28

    2011 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Uniqueness and nonuniqueness of static vacuum black holes in higher dimen- sions,

    G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida and T. Shiromizu, “Uniqueness and nonuniqueness of static vacuum black holes in higher dimen- sions,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 148, 284-290 (2003) [arXiv:gr-qc/0203004 [gr-qc]]

    2003 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Uniqueness and nonuniqueness of static black holes in higher dimensions,

    G. W. Gibbons, D. Ida and T. Shiromizu, “Uniqueness and nonuniqueness of static black holes in higher dimensions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 041101 (2002) [arXiv:hep-th/0206049 [hep-th]]

    2002 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Schwarzschild field in n dimensions and the dimensionality of space problem,

    F. R. Tangherlini, “Schwarzschild field in n dimensions and the dimensionality of space problem,” Nuovo Cim. 27, 636 (1963)

    1963

  5. [13]

    Uniqueness theorem for charged rotating black holes in five-dimensional minimal supergravity,

    S. Tomizawa, Y. Yasui and A. Ishibashi, “Uniqueness theorem for charged rotating black holes in five-dimensional minimal supergravity,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 124023 (2009) [arXiv:0901.4724 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    General rotating five-dimensional black holes of toroidally compactified heterotic string,

    M. Cvetic and D. Youm, “General rotating five-dimensional black holes of toroidally compactified heterotic string,” Nucl. Phys. B 476, 118-132 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9603100 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Black hole non-uniqueness via spacetime topology in five dimensions,

    H. K. Kunduri and J. Lucietti, “Black hole non-uniqueness via spacetime topology in five dimensions,” JHEP 10, 082 (2014) [arXiv:1407.8002 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    New construction of a charged dipole black ring by the Harrison transformation,

    R. Suzuki and S. Tomizawa, “New construction of a charged dipole black ring by the Harrison transformation,” Phys. Rev. D 109, no.8, 084020 (2024) [arXiv:2402.07589 [hep-th]]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    New black ring with all independent conserved charges in five-dimensional minimal super- gravity,

    R. Suzuki and S. Tomizawa, “New black ring with all independent conserved charges in five-dimensional minimal super- gravity,” [arXiv:2407.18142 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    A Capped Black Hole in Five Dimensions,

    R. Suzuki and S. Tomizawa, “A Capped Black Hole in Five Dimensions,” [arXiv:2311.11653 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Solution Generation of a Capped Black Hole,

    R. Suzuki and S. Tomizawa, “Solution Generation of a Capped Black Hole,” [arXiv:2403.17796 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Black ring with two angular momenta,

    A. A. Pomeransky and R. A. Sen’kov, “Black ring with two angular momenta,” [arXiv:hep-th/0612005 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    More on the similarity between D = 5 simple supergravity and M theory,

    S. Mizoguchi and N. Ohta, “More on the similarity between D = 5 simple supergravity and M theory,” Phys. Lett. B 441, 123-132 (1998) [arXiv:hep-th/9807111 [hep-th]]

    1998 arXiv

  14. [22]

    On discrete U duality in M theory,

    S. Mizoguchi and G. Schroder, “On discrete U duality in M theory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 835-870 (2000) [arXiv:hep- th/9909150 [hep-th]]

    2000

  15. [23]

    Stationary axisymmetric solutions of five dimensional gravity,

    S. Giusto and A. Saxena, “Stationary axisymmetric solutions of five dimensional gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 4269- 4294 (2007) [arXiv:0705.4484 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  16. [24]

    New construction of a vacuum doubly rotating black ring by the Ehlers transformation,

    R. Suzuki and S. Tomizawa, “New construction of a vacuum doubly rotating black ring by the Ehlers transformation,” [arXiv:2406.11804 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    G(2) generating technique for minimal D=5 supergravity and black rings,

    A. Bouchareb, G. Clement, C. M. Chen, D. V. Gal’tsov, N. G. Scherbluk and T. Wolf, “G(2) generating technique for minimal D=5 supergravity and black rings,” Phys. Rev. D 76, 104032 (2007) [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 78, 029901 (2008)] [arXiv:0708.2361 [hep-th]]

    2007 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A Rotating black lens solution in five dimensions,

    Y. Chen and E. Teo, “A Rotating black lens solution in five dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 064062 (2008) [arXiv:0808.0587 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The first law of soliton and black hole mechanics in five dimensions,

    H. K. Kunduri and J. Lucietti, “The first law of soliton and black hole mechanics in five dimensions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31, no.3, 032001 (2014) [arXiv:1310.4810 [hep-th]]

    2014 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Entropy of nonextreme charged rotating black holes in string theory,

    M. Cvetic and D. Youm, “Entropy of nonextreme charged rotating black holes in string theory,” Phys. Rev. D54, 2612-2620 (1996) [arXiv:hep-th/9603147 [hep-th]]

    1996 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bicycling Black Rings,

    H. Elvang and M. J. Rodriguez, “Bicycling Black Rings,” JHEP 04, 045 (2008) [arXiv:0712.2425 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    A Supersymmetric black ring,

    H. Elvang, R. Emparan, D. Mateos and H. S. Reall, “A Supersymmetric black ring,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 211302 (2004) [arXiv:hep-th/0407065 [hep-th]]

    2004 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.