Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 274

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Are black holes in alternative theories serious astrophysical candidates? The case for Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet black holes

Open access
Pani, Paolo, Cardoso, Vitor·2009·Physical Review D

Abstract

It is generally accepted that Einstein's theory will get some as yet unknown corrections, possibly large in the strong-field regime. An ideal place to look for these modifications is in the vicinities of compact objects such as black holes. Here, we study dilatonic black holes, which arise in the framework of Gauss-Bonnet couplings and one-loop corrected four-dimensional effective theory of heterotic superstrings at low energies. These are interesting objects as a prototype for alternative, yet well-behaved gravity theories: they evade the ``no-hair'' theorem of general relativity but were proven to be stable against radial perturbations. We investigate the viability of these black holes as astrophysical objects and try to provide some means to distinguish them from black holes in general relativity. We start by extending previous works and establishing the stability of these black holes against axial perturbations. We then look for solutions of the field equations describing slowly rotating black holes and study geodesic motion around this geometry. Depending on the values of mass, dilaton charge, and angular momentum of the solution, one can have differences in the innermost-stable-circular-orbit location and orbital frequency, relative to black holes in general relativity. In the most favorable cases, the difference amounts to a few percent. Given the current state-of-the-art, we discuss the difficulty of distinguishing the correct theory of gravity from electromagnetic observations or even with gravitational-wave detectors.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.79.084031

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 74 references

Cited by

See all 274

Metadata

Authors
Pani, P., & Cardoso, V.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2009-04-21
Volume
79
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W1969449998
Cited by
274
References
74
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are black holes in alternative theories serious astrophysical candidates? The case for Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet black holes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.79.084031
The paper
Pani, P., & Cardoso, V. (2009). Are black holes in alternative theories serious astrophysical candidates? The case for Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet black holes. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.79.084031

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.