Scattering of scalar waves by scalarized black holes in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

By Li, Fang, Huang +2Oct 18, 2026

Score████░░░░░░4.2

Caveats

Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the original PDF

Abstract

We systematically investigate the scattering and absorption of a massive scalar field by scalarized black holes in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity with quartic coupling f(φ)=α(φ²+βφ⁴) and exponential coupling f(φ)=α(1-e^-βφ²). The background solutions are obtained numerically via a Chebyshev pseudospectral method, enabling a partial-wave analysis on purely numerical black hole backgrounds. The partial-wave results are cross-validated against geodesic and glory approximations and the Schwarzschild limit with excellent agreements. We find that scalarization suppresses the total absorption cross section relative to the Schwarzschild case, and produces distinctive signatures in the differential scattering cross section. A qualitative difference between the two coupling models is identified: for the quartic coupling model, deviations from Schwarzschild are concentrated in the intermediate-angle region ~(70^°,140^°), with comparatively small changes at forward angles and near the glory peak; for the exponential coupling model, deviations appear across the full angular range and substantially modify the glory peak, which in some parameter regimes can even exceed the Schwarzschild value. This distinctive angular pattern provides a potential diagnostic for distinguishing EsGB coupling functions from scattering observables.

Junyi Li, Yinrong Fang, Yang Huang, Qian Li, Junji Jia

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage3 / 5: A method or resource many groups across the field will adopt within a year.; 18% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude3 / 5: Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.; 20% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence3 / 5: Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.; 22% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty2 / 5: A new combination of known ideas.; 22% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory2 / 5: Some room to improve with obvious engineering.; 10% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes2 / 5: Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).; 8% of this desk’s rubric

Dimension	Level	Weight	What that level means
Leverage	███░░ 3	18%	A method or resource many groups across the field will adopt within a year.
Magnitude	███░░ 3	20%	Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
Evidence	███░░ 3	22%	Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.
Novelty	██░░░ 2	22%	A new combination of known ideas.
Trajectory	██░░░ 2	10%	Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
Stakes	██░░░ 2	8%	Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we report); gains (outperforms); verification (multiple benchmarks, experimental validation).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score████░░░░░░4.2

Score = 10 × (75% × adjusted merit / 10 + 15% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit: 5.2 / 10; Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit: 4.5 / 10; Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (38%).
Attention: 0%; Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness: 85%; Half-life decay since publication.

No attention signals recorded yet.

The record

Reviewed by heuristic-v7 on Oct 20, 2026, 07:29 UTC. Paper type: method.
Categories: gr-qc
BRIEF, No.5 in the Physics edition of October 20, 2026.