Rotating Lifshitz-like black holes in <i>F(R)</i> gravity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the alternative theories of gravitation with a possible UV completion of general relativity is Horava–Lifshitz gravity. Regarding a particular class of pure F(R) gravity in three dimensions, we obtain an analytical rotating Lifshitz-like black hole solution. We first investigate some geometrical properties of the obtained solution that reduces to a charged rotating Banados–Teitelboim–Zanelli black hole in a special limit. Then, we study the optical features of such a black hole, like the photon orbit and the energy emission rate, and discuss how electric charge, angular momentum, and exponents affect them. To have acceptable optical behavior, we should apply some constraints on the exponents. We continue our investigation by studying the thermodynamic behavior of solutions in the extended phase space and explore the validity of the first law of thermodynamics as well as local thermal stability using heat capacity. Evaluating the existence of van der Waals-like phase transition, we obtain critical quantities and show how they change under the variation of black hole parameters. Finally, we construct a holographic heat engine of such a black hole and obtain its efficiency in a cycle. Comparing the obtained results with the well-know Carnot heat engine efficiency, we examine the second law of thermodynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".