pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2601.16037 · v3 · submitted 2026-01-22 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Exact Kerr-Newman-(A)dS and other spacetimes in bumblebee gravity: employing a simple generating technique

Hryhorii Ovcharenko
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 12:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th
keywords bumblebee gravityexact solutionsgenerating techniqueKerr-Newman spacetimeTaub-NUT metriccosmological constantgeodesicsmodified gravity
0
0 comments X

The pith

If the bumblebee field equals its vacuum expectation value with vanishing field strength, exact solutions follow by adding a b_mu b_nu term to any vacuum spacetime metric.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that fixing the bumblebee field at its vacuum expectation value and requiring its field strength to be zero provides a unique way to generate exact solutions in Einstein-bumblebee gravity. One starts from a vacuum solution and adds a term proportional to the product of the bumblebee vector components to the metric tensor. This approach works even when a cosmological constant or electromagnetic field is present. The resulting bumblebee field aligns with the tangent to a geodesic curve in the original spacetime, which can be found from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The method produces a family of Kerr-Newman-Taub-NUT-(anti-)de Sitter solutions in bumblebee gravity, though global reality of the field restricts which geodesics are allowed.

Core claim

Under the assumptions that the bumblebee field B_mu equals its vacuum expectation value b_mu and that its field strength vanishes, the Einstein-bumblebee equations are satisfied by taking any vacuum solution g_mu nu and replacing it with g_mu nu plus a term proportional to b_mu b_nu. This generates the exact solutions, and the b_mu is proportional to the four-velocity along a geodesic in the vacuum spacetime.

What carries the argument

The metric modification g'_μν = g_μν + ξ b_μ b_ν, where b_μ is the fixed vacuum expectation value of the bumblebee field satisfying the non-dynamical condition that its field strength vanishes.

If this is right

  • The technique extends to spacetimes with nonzero cosmological constant and electromagnetic fields.
  • Any known vacuum solution such as Schwarzschild or Kerr yields a corresponding bumblebee gravity solution.
  • The bumblebee vector is obtained directly from the solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for geodesics in the background metric.
  • The Kerr-Newman-Taub-NUT-(anti-)de Sitter family in bumblebee gravity arises as special cases, with non-uniqueness arising from the choice of geodesic.
  • Global reality of the bumblebee field imposes limits on the admissible geodesic curves.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same fixed-vector condition may allow similar generating techniques in other vector-tensor modified gravity models without solving the full nonlinear system each time.
  • Different geodesic choices could correspond to distinct physical realizations, such as different asymptotic observers or embeddings in the modified theory.
  • Stability analysis or observational constraints on these generated solutions would require separate calculations outside the generating procedure itself.

Load-bearing premise

The bumblebee field must be locked exactly at its vacuum expectation value with its field strength identically zero throughout spacetime.

What would settle it

Direct substitution of the modified metric into the Einstein-bumblebee equations while allowing a nonzero field strength for the bumblebee vector, showing that the equations fail to hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.16037 by Hryhorii Ovcharenko.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: The ranges of energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The ranges of energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The ranges of energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The ranges of energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The ranges of energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_5.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In this work, we show that if the bumblebee field in the Einstein-bumblebee theory is given by its vacuum expectation value ($B_{\mu}=b_{\mu}$) and it is not dynamical ($\partial_{\mu}B_{\nu}-\partial_{\nu}B_{\mu}=0$), then these conditions uniquely provide a generating technique, allowing us to construct exact solutions to bumblebee gravity from the vacuum solutions by adding a term $\sim b_{\mu}b_{\nu}$ to the metric tensor (thus proving the uniqueness of the method, presented in [Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 613]). Also, we show that the bumblebee field within this technique is proportional to the tangential vector of the (timelike or spacelike) geodesic curve in the background vacuum spacetime, and can be easily found knowing the solution to the Hamilton--Jacobi equation. Moreover, we prove that this technique can be extended to the case of any non-zero cosmological constant and the presence of the electromagnetic field. We apply this generating technique and obtain the bumblebee extension of the Kerr--Newman--Taub-NUT--(anti-)de Sitter spacetime. We show that this extension is not unique, as it depends on the exact geodesic curve one chooses to associate a bumblebee field with. Then, by considering various special cases of this generic solution, we demonstrate that the condition of the global reality of the bumblebee field limits the set of geodesics with which we can associate it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that fixing the bumblebee field at its vacuum expectation value B_μ = b_μ with vanishing field strength F_μν = 0 uniquely yields a generating technique for exact solutions in Einstein-bumblebee gravity: given a vacuum (or electrovacuum) solution g_μν, the deformed metric ĝ_μν = g_μν + ξ b_μ b_ν solves the full theory. It further asserts that b_μ is proportional to the tangent of a timelike or spacelike geodesic in the background, recoverable from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation, and that the construction extends without obstruction to nonzero cosmological constant and electromagnetic fields. The technique is applied to produce a family of bumblebee Kerr-Newman-Taub-NUT-(A)dS metrics whose non-uniqueness is parameterized by the choice of geodesic, with global reality of the bumblebee field imposing restrictions on admissible geodesics.

Significance. If the consistency of the deformed metric with the coupled Einstein-Maxwell-bumblebee equations holds, the work supplies a concrete, coordinate-based method for generating exact black-hole solutions in Lorentz-violating gravity, including charged rotating spacetimes with cosmological constant. The explicit link to geodesics and the Hamilton-Jacobi equation offers a practical route to constructing b_μ, while the reality constraint provides a selection criterion that could be tested against observational signatures of Lorentz violation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and extension-to-EM section] Abstract and the section deriving the extension to electrovacuum + Λ: the claim that ĝ_μν satisfies the full Einstein-bumblebee equations when g_μν solves the electrovacuum equations rests on the assertion that the bumblebee stress-energy exactly cancels G_μν(ĝ) − G_μν(g). However, the Maxwell stress-energy tensor is recomputed with the deformed metric and Hodge dual; no explicit verification is given that the Maxwell equations remain satisfied or that no new sources appear for the electromagnetic field after the deformation.
  2. [Uniqueness proof paragraph] The uniqueness proof for the generating technique (referenced to the 2022 base method): while the vacuum case may be covered, the extension to nonzero Λ and nonzero electromagnetic field requires additional assumptions on the Maxwell sector (e.g., that the electromagnetic potential remains unchanged or transforms in a specific way). These assumptions are not stated explicitly, leaving open whether the uniqueness continues to hold without further restrictions.
  3. [Geodesic association and Hamilton-Jacobi subsection] The step asserting that b_μ derived from the background Hamilton-Jacobi equation continues to solve the bumblebee equation of motion on ĝ_μν: because the curvature scalars and the covariant derivatives are evaluated with the deformed metric, the non-dynamical condition F_μν = 0 must be re-checked after deformation; the manuscript performs the derivation only on the background, so consistency after deformation is not demonstrated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Notation paragraph] Notation for the constant ξ and the overall normalization of b_μ should be clarified once and used consistently; the abstract writes “∼ b_μ b_ν” while the body presumably fixes the coefficient.
  2. [Application to KN-Taub-NUT-(A)dS] The statement that the extension “is not unique, as it depends on the exact geodesic curve” would benefit from an explicit count or parametrization of the distinct families obtained for the Kerr-Newman-Taub-NUT-(A)dS case.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below, providing clarifications from the derivations and indicating revisions where additional explicit steps will strengthen the presentation without altering the core results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and extension-to-EM section] Abstract and the section deriving the extension to electrovacuum + Λ: the claim that ĝ_μν satisfies the full Einstein-bumblebee equations when g_μν solves the electrovacuum equations rests on the assertion that the bumblebee stress-energy exactly cancels G_μν(ĝ) − G_μν(g). However, the Maxwell stress-energy tensor is recomputed with the deformed metric and Hodge dual; no explicit verification is given that the Maxwell equations remain satisfied or that no new sources appear for the electromagnetic field after the deformation.

    Authors: The derivation in the electrovacuum extension section proceeds by substituting the deformed metric into the full set of equations and showing that the bumblebee contribution precisely cancels the difference in the Einstein tensor while the Maxwell sector is preserved because the electromagnetic potential A_μ is left unchanged and the deformation is constructed to be orthogonal to the Maxwell field in the relevant contractions. However, we acknowledge that an explicit recomputation of the Maxwell equations (including the Hodge dual on ĝ) was only sketched rather than written out term-by-term. We will add this explicit verification in the revised manuscript to remove any ambiguity. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Uniqueness proof paragraph] The uniqueness proof for the generating technique (referenced to the 2022 base method): while the vacuum case may be covered, the extension to nonzero Λ and nonzero electromagnetic field requires additional assumptions on the Maxwell sector (e.g., that the electromagnetic potential remains unchanged or transforms in a specific way). These assumptions are not stated explicitly, leaving open whether the uniqueness continues to hold without further restrictions.

    Authors: The uniqueness argument begins from the vacuum case of the 2022 reference and extends it by requiring that the electromagnetic potential A_μ is identical on both g_μν and ĝ_μν (i.e., no additional gauge transformation is introduced by the deformation). This assumption is implicit in the statement that the technique applies to any electrovacuum seed, but we agree it should be stated explicitly. In the revision we will add a dedicated paragraph listing the precise assumptions under which uniqueness holds for nonzero Λ and nonzero electromagnetic fields. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Geodesic association and Hamilton-Jacobi subsection] The step asserting that b_μ derived from the background Hamilton-Jacobi equation continues to solve the bumblebee equation of motion on ĝ_μν: because the curvature scalars and the covariant derivatives are evaluated with the deformed metric, the non-dynamical condition F_μν = 0 must be re-checked after deformation; the manuscript performs the derivation only on the background, so consistency after deformation is not demonstrated.

    Authors: Because b_μ is defined to be the gradient of the Hamilton-Jacobi function on the background and the deformation ĝ_μν = g_μν + ξ b_μ b_ν is constructed so that b_μ remains a Killing vector (or geodesic tangent) with respect to ĝ as well, the exterior derivative F_μν = ∂_μ b_ν − ∂_ν b_μ vanishes identically on both metrics. The bumblebee equation of motion reduces to the algebraic constraint that the field is at its vacuum expectation value, which is preserved by construction. Nevertheless, to make the post-deformation verification fully transparent we will insert an explicit line-by-line check of the bumblebee equation on ĝ_μν in the revised subsection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Uniqueness proof for bumblebee generating technique depends on self-citation to 2022 paper

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract]
    "these conditions uniquely provide a generating technique, allowing us to construct exact solutions to bumblebee gravity from the vacuum solutions by adding a term ∼b_μ b_ν to the metric tensor (thus proving the uniqueness of the method, presented in [Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 613])"

    The uniqueness of the generating technique is proven by referencing the prior presentation in the 2022 paper, while the conditions (B_μ = b_μ and F_μν=0) are the defining assumptions that make the metric deformation work, reducing the uniqueness claim to the self-cited method without independent external validation.

full rationale

The paper's strongest claim is that the fixed bumblebee conditions uniquely enable the metric modification technique, but this uniqueness is tied directly to the method introduced in the cited 2022 work. While the application to Kerr-Newman-(A)dS and the geodesic association via Hamilton-Jacobi appear to be new contributions with independent content, the core uniqueness assertion relies on the self-referenced prior result. This warrants a moderate circularity score as the central premise has some load-bearing self-citation, but extensions retain external grounding. No other patterns like self-definitional reductions or fitted predictions are evident in the provided derivation chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on two domain assumptions about the bumblebee field; no free parameters are introduced and no new entities are postulated beyond the standard bumblebee vector.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bumblebee field equals its vacuum expectation value B_μ = b_μ
    Invoked in the abstract as the first condition that enables the metric modification.
  • domain assumption Bumblebee field is non-dynamical: ∂_μ B_ν − ∂_ν B_μ = 0
    Invoked in the abstract as the second condition required for the generating technique to hold.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5588 in / 1574 out tokens · 41784 ms · 2026-05-16T12:06:09.433304+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Gravitational-Bumblebee perturbations: Exact decoupling and isospectrality

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Bumblebee gravity perturbations decouple exactly into gravitational and vector sectors, with gravitational modes dynamically immune to Lorentz violation and odd-even parities strictly isospectral.

  2. When Bumblebee Meets NLED: Lorentz-Violating Black Holes and Regular Spacetimes

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bumblebee gravity coupled to NLED yields charged black hole solutions that become regular and horizonless when mass and charge are tuned to specific functions of the couplings.

  3. Macroscopic Optical Nonreciprocity: A Black Hole as an Optical Diode

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Rotating black holes with a nonminimally coupled Lorentz-violating background act as optical diodes by producing direction-dependent shadows that morph from quasi-symmetric to teardrop upon path reversal.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Static case (no twist:a= 0, l= 0) 20

    work page

  2. [2]

    Kerr spacetime (no Taub-NUT parameter:l= 0) 24

    work page

  3. [3]

    Spacetimes with a cosmological constant (no charge:q= 0) 29

    Kerr–Taub-NUT spacetime 27 C. Spacetimes with a cosmological constant (no charge:q= 0) 29

    work page

  4. [4]

    Static case (no twist:a= 0, l= 0) 30

    work page

  5. [5]

    Charged spacetimes 33

    Kerr–(A)dS (no Taub-NUT parameter:l= 0) 31 D. Charged spacetimes 33

    work page

  6. [6]

    Reissner–Nordstr¨ om spacetime (no twista= 0, l= 0 and Λ = 0 ) 33

    work page

  7. [7]

    Reissner–Nordstr¨ om–(A)dS (no twista= 0, l= 0) 34

    work page

  8. [8]

    freezing

    Kerr–Newman spacetime (no Taub-NUT parameterl= 0 and Λ = 0) 35 V. Conclusions37 VI. Supplementary material38 VII. Acknowledgments38 References39 2 I. INTRODUCTION General Relativity (GR), since its appearance, has been able to describe a lot of unusual, initially unexpected, spacetime geometries such as black holes, gravitational waves, etc. Even though a...

    work page

  9. [9]

    In this case b=±b p 1 +ϵξb 2 r ϵ f dr,(63) wheref=Q/r 2 = 1−2m/r

    Static case (no twist:a= 0, l= 0) Let us start with the static case and the case whenE=L=C= 0 (as it gives the simplest spacetime). In this case b=±b p 1 +ϵξb 2 r ϵ f dr,(63) wheref=Q/r 2 = 1−2m/r. The background metric is given by ds2 Sch =−fdt 2 + dr2 f +r 2(dθ2 + sin2 dφ2).(64) Substitutingbto (32), one sees that the final metric takes the form: ds2 b ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Kerr spacetime (no Taub-NUT parameter:l= 0) Now, let us move to the case of Kerr spacetime. Even though the most general expression for the bumblebee field in this case was already obtained in [31], it is worth considering it because in [31] authors did not investigate the physical properties of their solution in great detail. In addition, we will see her...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Kerr–Taub-NUT spacetime The last vacuum spacetime we wish to investigate is the Kerr–Taub-NUT spacetime. In this case, (59)-(60) become f ′(r) = s ϵr2 −C Q + (aL−E(r 2 + (a+l) 2))2 Q2 ,(80) h′(x) = r ϵ(ax+l) 2 +C P − (L−E(a(1−x 2) + 2l(1−x))) 2 P 2 ,(81) withQ=a 2 −l 2 −2mr+r 2,P= 1−x 2. Let us investigate the conditions that have to be imposed to have th...

    work page

  12. [12]

    In fact, this case was already considered and it gives rise to the bumblebee field (63) and the metric (65), however, here f= 1− 2m r − Λ 3 r2

    Static case (no twist:a= 0, l= 0) Let us start with the static case and withE=L=C= 0. In fact, this case was already considered and it gives rise to the bumblebee field (63) and the metric (65), however, here f= 1− 2m r − Λ 3 r2. All the important issues related to the reality of the bumblebee field are still present in this case, so to avoid them, one ma...

    work page

  13. [13]

    Kerr–(A)dS (no Taub-NUT parameter:l= 0) Now let us investigate the Kerr–(A)dS. The metric functions are given by Q=a 2 −2mr+r 2 − Λ 3 r2(r2 +a 2),(93) P=(1−x 2) 1 + Λ 3 a2x2 .(94) For the caseE=C= 0, the bumblebee field is given by (75) and the metric is given 31 FIG. 4: The ranges of energyEand the rotation parametera/m, where the bumblebee field for Ker...

    work page

  14. [14]

    Ba- sically, all the expressions for the bumblebee field and the metric are the same as for the case of the Schwarzschild spacetime (see Sec

    Reissner–Nordstr¨ om spacetime (no twista= 0, l= 0andΛ = 0) The first charged spacetime we wish to investigate is the Reissner–Nordstr¨ om one. Ba- sically, all the expressions for the bumblebee field and the metric are the same as for the case of the Schwarzschild spacetime (see Sec. IV B 1), but with the functionfgiven by f= 1− 2m r + q2 r2 . For the ca...

    work page

  15. [15]

    Basically, all the expressions for the bumblebee field and the metric are the same as for the case of Reissner–Nordstr¨ om spacetime (see Sec

    Reissner–Nordstr¨ om–(A)dS (no twista= 0, l= 0) The next case we wish to discuss is the Reissner–Nordstr¨ om–(A)dS spacetime. Basically, all the expressions for the bumblebee field and the metric are the same as for the case of Reissner–Nordstr¨ om spacetime (see Sec. IV D 1), but with the functionfgiven byf= 1− 2m r + q2 r2 − Λ 3 r2. Thus, without additi...

    work page

  16. [16]

    In this case functionsQandPare given by Q=a 2 +q 2 −2mr+r 2,(99) P=(1−x 2).(100) The bumblebee field is given by (72)-(73), and the metric is given by (62)

    Kerr–Newman spacetime (no Taub-NUT parameterl= 0andΛ = 0) Now, we move to the case of the Kerr–Newman black holes, corresponding to Λ, l→0 in the general expressions. In this case functionsQandPare given by Q=a 2 +q 2 −2mr+r 2,(99) P=(1−x 2).(100) The bumblebee field is given by (72)-(73), and the metric is given by (62). Let us investigate whether the bu...

    work page

  17. [17]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Physical Review D59, 124021 (1999)

    work page 1999

  18. [18]

    Ellis, N

    J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, and D. V. Nanopoulos, General Relativity and Gravitation32, 127 (2000)

    work page 2000

  19. [19]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Physical Review D39, 683 (1989)

    work page 1989

  20. [20]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Physical Review Letters63, 224 (1989)

    work page 1989

  21. [21]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Physical Review D69, 105009 (2004)

    work page 2004

  22. [22]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. Poulis, and E. Santos, Physical Review D97, 104001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Maluf and J

    R. Maluf and J. C. Neves, Physical Review D103, 044002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [24]

    Liu, W.-D

    J.-Z. Liu, W.-D. Guo, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. Liu, The European Physical Journal C85, 145 (2025)

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Static Spherical Vacuum Solution to Bumblebee Gravity with Time-like VEVs,

    H. Li and J. Zhu, “Static Spherical Vacuum Solution to Bumblebee Gravity with Time-like VEVs,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  26. [26]

    Exact Black Hole Solutions in Bumblebee Gravity with Lightlike or Spacelike VEVS,

    J.-Z. Liu, S.-P. Wu, S.-W. Wei, and Y.-X. Liu, “Exact Black Hole Solutions in Bumblebee Gravity with Lightlike or Spacelike VEVS,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  27. [27]

    Q. G. Bailey, H. S. Murray, and D. T. Walter-Cardona, Physical Review D112, 024069 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [28]

    R. Xu, D. Liang, and L. Shao, Physical Review D107, 024011 (2023)

    work page 2023

  29. [29]

    Marques, R

    M. Marques, R. Menezes, A. Petrov, and P. Porfrio, Nuclear Physics B996, 116374 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    The flight of the bumblebee in a non-commutative geometry: A new black hole solution,

    A. A. A. Filho, N. Heidari, I. P. Lobo, Y. Shi, and F. S. N. Lobo, “The flight of the bumblebee in a non-commutative geometry: A new black hole solution,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    Oliveira, D

    R. Oliveira, D. M. Dantas, and C. A. S. Almeida, EPL (Europhysics Letters)135, 10003 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    W.-D. Guo, Q. Tan, and Y.-X. Liu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024, 008 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    W. Liu, X. Fang, J. Jing, and J. Wang, The European Physical Journal C83, 83 (2023)

    work page 2023

  34. [34]

    Kuang and A

    X.-M. Kuang and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Annals of Physics447, 169147 (2022)

    work page 2022

  35. [35]

    A. A. Ara´ ujo Filho, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, and P. J. Porfrio, The European Physical Journal Plus140, 1117 (2025). 39

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Gomes, R

    D. Gomes, R. Maluf, and C. Almeida, Annals of Physics418, 168198 (2020)

    work page 2020

  37. [37]

    R. C. Pantig, S. Kala, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, and N. J. L. S. Lobos, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics , 2550240 (2025)

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Z. Wang, S. Chen, and J. Jing, The European Physical Journal C82, 528 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Kanzi and I

    S. Kanzi and I. Sakalli, Nuclear Physics B946, 114703 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Z. Li, G. Zhang, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Physical Review D101, 124058 (2020)

    work page 2020

  41. [41]

    Khodadi, G

    M. Khodadi, G. Lambiase, and L. Mastrototaro, The European Physical Journal C83, 239 (2023)

    work page 2023

  42. [42]

    Shi and A

    Y. Shi and A. Arajo Filho, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 045 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Arajo Filho, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 026 (2025)

    A. Arajo Filho, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025, 026 (2025)

    work page 2025

  44. [44]

    A. A. A. Filho, J. A. A. S. Reis, and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, The European Physical Journal C85, 83 (2025)

    work page 2025

  45. [45]

    C. Ding, C. Liu, R. Casana, and A. Cavalcante, The European Physical Journal C80, 178 (2020)

    work page 2020

  46. [46]

    R. V. Maluf and C. R. Muniz, The European Physical Journal C82, 94 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    F. P. Poulis and M. A. C. Soares, The European Physical Journal C82, 613 (2022)

    work page 2022

  48. [48]

    G. B. Cook, Living Reviews in Relativity3, 5 (2000)

    work page 2000

  49. [49]

    3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numerical Relativity,

    E. Gourgoulhon, “3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numerical Relativity,” (2007)

    work page 2007

  50. [50]

    A. A. A. Filho, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, and P. J. Porfrio, Physical Review D108, 085010 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Arajo Filho, J

    A. Arajo Filho, J. Nascimento, A. Petrov, and P. Porfrio, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2024, 004 (2024)

    work page 2024

  52. [52]

    Dyonic RN-like and Taub-NUT-like black holes in Einstein- bumblebee gravity,

    S. Li, L. Liang, and L. Ma, “Dyonic RN-like and Taub-NUT-like black holes in Einstein- bumblebee gravity,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  53. [53]

    Krtouˇ s, V

    P. Krtouˇ s, V. P. Frolov, and D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, Physical Review D78, 064022 (2008)

    work page 2008

  54. [54]

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtouˇ s, and D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, Living Reviews in Relativity20, 6 (2017)

    work page 2017

  55. [55]

    Podolsk´ y and A

    J. Podolsk´ y and A. Vr´ atn´ y, Physical Review D104, 084078 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Podolsk´ y and A

    J. Podolsk´ y and A. Vr´ atn´ y, Physical Review D107, 084034 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Ovcharenko, J

    H. Ovcharenko, J. Podolsk´ y, and M. Astorino, Physical Review D111, 024038 (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Ovcharenko, J

    H. Ovcharenko, J. Podolsk´ y, and M. Astorino, Physical Review D111, 084016 (2025)

    work page 2025

  59. [59]

    Chen and H.-S

    Y.-Q. Chen and H.-S. Liu, Physical Review D112, 084040 (2025). 40

    work page 2025

  60. [60]

    Hackmann and C

    E. Hackmann and C. L¨ ammerzahl, Physical Review D78, 024035 (2008)

    work page 2008

  61. [61]

    Hackmann and C

    E. Hackmann and C. L¨ ammerzahl, Physical Review Letters100, 171101 (2008)

    work page 2008

  62. [62]

    Hackmann, C

    E. Hackmann, C. L¨ ammerzahl, V. Kagramanova, and J. Kunz, Physical Review D81, 044020 (2010)

    work page 2010

  63. [63]

    Podolsk´ y and H

    J. Podolsk´ y and H. Ovcharenko, Physical Review Letters135, 181401 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Ovcharenko and J

    H. Ovcharenko and J. Podolsk´ y, Physical Review D112, 064076 (2025)

    work page 2025

  65. [65]

    Ovcharenko, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18432232

    H. Ovcharenko, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18432232. 41

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.18432232