Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 91 references

Black Hole Tomography: Unveiling Black Hole Ringdown via Gravitational Wave Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An analytic transfer formula now connects the ringdown waves a detector sees to the radiation falling into the remnant black hole.

desk verdict A genuinely new analytic bridge between horizon influx and outgoing ringdown modes, with a load-bearing no-incoming-radiation check that is asserted rather than shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.08964 v2 pith:WCIYFJ2I submitted 2025-01-15 gr-qc

A. Ribes Metidieri (1) , B. Bonga (1) , B. Krishnan (1 , 2 , 3) ((1) Institute for Mathematics , Astrophysics , Particle Physics , Radboud University
show 3 more authors
(2) Albert-Einstein-Institut Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik (3) Leibniz Universität Hannover)
This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C3583C0583C60 PACS 04.30.-w04.70.-s
keywords blackholeperturbationtheoryquasi-normalmodesisolatedhorizonsgravitationalwaveringdownNewman-PenroseformalismTeukolskyequationtomographycharacteristicinitialvalueformulation
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 establishes, in linear perturbation theory around a Schwarzschild (slowly spinning) black hole, what numerical simulations have long suggested: the radiation falling into a remnant black hole during ringdown is a superposition of the same quasi-normal modes as the outgoing gravitational-wave signal. The authors reformulate the ringdown problem on null surfaces—the horizon and a transverse outgoing null surface—rather than on spacelike slices, and show that demanding analyticity and future stability of the perturbation selects the standard Schwarzschild quasi-normal frequencies without imposing the usual no-incoming-radiation boundary condition. The central result is an explicit mode-by-mode transfer formula, Eq. (138), linking the amplitude of $\Psi_4$ at future null infinity to the amplitude of $\Psi_4$ at the horizon, and through Eqs. (139)–(140), to the horizon data $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$. If correct, this gives an analytic foundation for “black hole tomography”: the horizon geometry and infalling flux could be inferred from observed ringdown amplitudes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the characteristic initial value formulation tailored to a perturbed isolated horizon: the horizon is a null surface $\mathcal{H}$ on which the free data is the spin-weight-2 Weyl scalar $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$ (equivalently the shear), and a transverse null surface $N$ registers the outgoing $\widetilde{\Psi}_4$. The Newman–Penrose field equations at the horizon reduce to a closed system, Eqs. (41), that propagates $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$ through the spin coefficients and Weyl scalars up to $\widetilde{\Psi}_4$; the Teukolsky equation then carries each mode radially. Separability plus analyticity of the confluent-Heun series pins the frequencies to the roots of the continued fraction (84), i.e. the standard QNM frequencies, and the transfer coefficient $F_{\ell mn} = \sum_k a_k$ is the value of the radial series at $\mathcal{I}^+$ relative to the horizon. The hyperboloidal coordinate transformation (132) makes the horizon-to-infinity map explicit and shows its slicing dependence.

What would settle it

Carry out the deferred calculation: expand the radial solution for $\widetilde{\Psi}_1$ at $\mathcal{I}^-$ and check whether it decays as $\Omega^2$ (equivalently as $r^{-3}$ in the Bondi frame); if it does not, the no-incoming-radiation condition fails. A numerical counterpart would be to measure the ratio of horizon to infinity QNM amplitudes in a binary black-hole ringdown simulation and compare with $F_{\ell mn}$ of Table I; a disagreement beyond the reported convergence error would invalidate the transfer formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the correlation between horizon and infinity is not heuristic: it is encoded in a transfer coefficient. Working in a characteristic initial value problem with data on a perturbed isolated horizon and a transverse null surface, the authors solve the horizon field equations sourced by $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$, then solve the Teukolsky equations radially, and impose analyticity and stability toward the future. This selects the QNM frequencies $\omega_{\ell mn}$ of Schwarzschild and leaves the radiation at $\mathcal{I}^+$ written as $\Psi_4^{\mathcal{I}^+,\pm}_{\ell mn} = F_{\ell mn}(\omega_{\ell mn},c)\, \Psi_4^{\mathcal{H},\pm}_{\ell mn}$ (Eq. (138)), where $F_{\ell mn}$ is a convergent sum over the series coefficients of the radial solution. Inverting this relation gives the horizon amplitudes $\Psi_{0,\ell mn}^{\mathcal{H},\pm}$ in terms of the observed $\Psi_4^{\mathcal{I}^+,\pm}$ (Appendix C), completing the analytic “tomography” map. The paper also shows that the same QNM frequencies appear in $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$, $\widetilde{\Psi}_4$, and all intermediate Weyl scalars, and that the solution satisfies the no-incoming-radiation condition at $\mathcal{I}^-$; the verification of the $\Psi_1$ peeling condition is stated but its calculation is deferred.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the solution selected by analyticity and future stability really has no incoming radiation from past null infinity; the paper states that the required peeling fall-off of $\Psi_1$ has been checked but defers the calculation, so if that check fails the physical interpretation changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detected ringdown mode at $\mathcal{I}^+$ fixes the amplitude of the corresponding infalling mode at the horizon through $F_{\ell mn}$, so horizon flux and shear could be inferred from gravitational-wave observations.
  • The QNM frequencies arise from analyticity and future stability alone, which explains why the late-time ringdown and the horizon flux share the same frequencies and damping times.
  • In the minimal gauge, $|F_{\ell 00}| < 1$ for the fundamental $\ell=2,3,4$ modes, so the corresponding horizon amplitudes are larger than the observed amplitudes at infinity; this is a quantitative prediction that numerical-relativity simulations can test.
  • The map between horizon and infinity is slicing dependent, so any observational tomography claim must specify the height function; the same frequencies survive a change of slicing, but the amplitude relation does not.
  • The same construction applies, with minor changes, to a general isolated-horizon background, indicating that the correlation is a feature of horizon boundary data rather than of Schwarzschild-specific coordinates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the paper's transfer formula would be to extract horizon and infinity QNM amplitudes from numerical relativity simulations of a head-on merger or ringdown and compare their ratio to $F_{\ell mn}$; the paper reports $F$ values but does not perform this comparison.
  • The deferred $\Psi_1$ peeling check is the natural spot to probe: until it is published, the claim that analyticity and stability alone select the physical no-incoming-radiation solution rests on an assertion, and a failure there would not break Eq. (138) but would change which solution it describes.
  • Because $F_{\ell mn}$ depends on slicing, the notion of “the” horizon amplitude inferred from a waveform is gauge-dependent; a future extension might identify a gauge-invariant combination, such as energy flux ratios, that removes this ambiguity.
  • The same mode-correlation idea may extend to extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, where the horizon flux is driven by the orbiting companion; the paper announces this as forthcoming work, but if the transfer map survives, tidal heating rates could be measured from the inspiral waveform.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a characteristic initial-value formulation of linear perturbations of a slowly spinning isolated horizon, with free data on the horizon encoded in the perturbed Weyl scalar Ψ0 and outgoing radiation registered on a transverse null surface N that is eventually identified with future null infinity. The horizon transport equations (41) are solved explicitly in Eq. (54), the Teukolsky equations for Ψ0 and Ψ4 are separated in the adapted horizon-penetrating coordinates, and the requirement of analyticity plus future stability is shown to select the standard Schwarzschild QNM frequencies through the Leaver continued-fraction condition (84). The central result is the transfer relation (138), with explicit coefficients in Eqs. (139)-(140) and inverses in Eqs. (C4)-(C5), linking Ψ4 modes at I+ to Ψ0 modes at the horizon; the paper also provides an explicit expression for Ψ2 in Sec. VII. The presentation is constructive and the core algebraic structure is transparent, but the physical boundary-condition step that identifies the formal QNM solution with the no-incoming-radiation ringdown is not fully established.

Significance. If the construction is sound, this is a valuable analytic explanation of the numerically observed correlation between infalling horizon radiation and outgoing ringdown radiation, and it gives a concrete, falsifiable transfer function for black-hole tomography. Strengths include the explicit solution of the horizon equations, the demonstration that the same QNM frequencies arise for Ψ0 and Ψ4 through the recurrence identities (116), and the explicit, convergent numerical estimates for the transfer coefficients F_lmn. The paper is also careful to flag the slicing dependence of the transfer function. The main weakness is that the no-incoming-radiation boundary condition, which is load-bearing for the physical interpretation of Eq. (138), is asserted without presenting the required calculation and is in tension with the divergent behavior of the QNM solution at I-.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V B, paragraph following Eq. (128)] The identification of the analytic/stability-selected solution with the physical ringdown having no incoming radiation from I- rests on the second Walker-Will sufficient condition, the peeling behavior of Ψ1 at I-. This check is deferred: the text states that the procedure is straightforward but lengthy and 'will be presented explicitly elsewhere,' and that the authors have 'indeed checked' the condition. This is a load-bearing omission: the no-incoming-radiation condition is what licenses Eq. (138) as a relation between detected amplitudes at I+ and horizon amplitudes, rather than a relation among formal modes. The calculation should be presented in the paper, or the physical claim should be weakened accordingly.
  2. [Sec. V A, paragraph after Eq. (120)] The statement that 'as a tentative proposal for this paper, we shall take the polynomial fall-off of eΨ0 as implementing a no-incoming radiation from I-' conflicts with the definitive assertion in Sec. V B. As the authors note, the QNM solution contains factors e^{iω(-v+2r)} with Im ω < 0, which diverge as v → -∞; consequently the mode sum does not define a regular field on I-, and the Walker-Will peeling argument, which assumes existence and regularity of I-, cannot be applied without a further limiting prescription. The paper should specify the precise asymptotic procedure under which the Ψ1 peeling is evaluated and show that the result is independent of the order of limits.
  3. [Sec. VIII, Conclusions] The conclusion states that analyticity and future stability select the 'unique solution' describing the ringdown. This is stronger than what is demonstrated: the explicit solution (54) is obtained after discarding the growing shear mode c1 e^{κ v}, setting the static tidal solution to zero, restricting to the Fourier ansatz (52), and later imposing k(2)=0 by stability. The paper does not prove that no other solutions in the stated solution class survive these conditions. Either a precise uniqueness statement with proof should be supplied, or the wording should be softened to describe the solution that satisfies the stated additional assumptions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (109)] The displayed equalities appear to contain index typos: the last three terms use l0n where the context requires lmn (c−(2)_{l0n}, b+(2)_{l0n}, c+(2)_{l0n} should be c−(2)_{lmn}, b+(2)_{lmn}, c+(2)_{lmn}).
  2. [Eq. (140a)] The denominator in the m≠0 expression uses ω_{l0n} in the factors (κ² + ω²) and (2κ - iω); consistency with Eq. (C5a) indicates these should be ω_{lmn}.
  3. [Abstract and Introduction] The symbol eΨ0 is used in the abstract before its definition as the perturbation symbol in Sec. III; a brief parenthetical definition would help the reader.
  4. [Sec. V A, heading and Introduction] There are several typos, including 'analicity' for 'analyticity' in the heading of Sec. V A, 'perturation' for 'perturbation' near the end of the Introduction, and 'Ilustration' in the caption of Fig. 3.
  5. [Sec. VI, Table I] The numerical values of F_lmn in Table I are presented as averages over N ∈ [30, 200], and the text notes numerical instability for large N. If these constants are intended for actual tomographic estimates, error bars from the truncation and from the approximated QNM frequencies should be provided or at least quantified in order of magnitude.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity (score 2): the Psi0-at-H to Psi4-at-I+ transfer formula is derived from the linearized field equations and pinned to Leaver's external QNM frequencies; the only self-citation that is structural, but not load-bearing, is the gauge framework imported from the authors' own Paper I.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. IIB and Sec. III (horizon gauge setup), citing Ref. [27] (Paper I)]
    "In a companion paper [27] (henceforth referred to as 'Paper I'), the application of this formalism in the context of tidally perturbed isolated horizons has been explained in great detail (see also [28–35]). ... Using the gauge discussed in Paper I, and summarized in App. A, the perturbations to the tetrad components simplify greatly at the horizon."

    The calculational framework is inherited from the authors' own companion paper (arXiv:2403.17114): the horizon-adapted null tetrad, the parallel-propagated n, and the gauge conditions e-l = 0, e-xi^z = 0, e-epsilon = 0, rho = 0 are taken from Paper I, and these choices structure the horizon system (41) whose term-by-term integration yields the Psi0-to-Psi4 map (54)-(55). This is genuine self-citation at the foundation of the computation. It is nevertheless not load-bearing for the central claim: the horizon system is re-solved in this paper, the Teukolsky radial solutions (59),(62) are constructed here, the same-frequency statement is proven by the coefficient identity (116), and the QNM frequencies are anchored to Leaver's external continued-fraction condition (84) rather than fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) a characteristic initial-value framework on a perturbed isolated horizon, with the tetrad/gauge setup imported from the same authors' Paper I; (ii) the horizon system (41), integrated explicitly in (54) to give Psi4 at H as a linear functional of Psi0 at H, with the constants b±, c± of (55) being algebraic prefactors of the free amplitudes a± at the same frequency; (iii) Teukolsky radial equations (50a,b) solved by confluent Heun series (59),(62); (iv) uniform convergence of the series, i.e. analyticity, forces the continued-fraction condition (84), whose roots are the standard Leaver QNM frequencies - an external benchmark, not fitted in this paper - and the identity (116) shows the same roots arise in the Psi0 and Psi4 channels; (v) the hyperboloidal-slicing limit sigma->0 yields the tomography formula (138), with F_lmn = sum_k a_k (137) computed from the convergent series and tabulated in Table I. No step defines its output in terms of its input: F_lmn is a computed series sum, the frequencies come from an external continued fraction, and the Psi0-to-Psi4 relation follows from the linearized equations rather than being assumed. The empirical premise (horizon radiation is a QNM superposition) comes from the authors' earlier numerical work [21,22], but is explained here analytically, not fitted to produce the claimed prediction. Per the review rule, an omitted proof is flagged explicitly: in Sec. VB the Walker-Will condition (ii) on Psi1 peeling at I- is asserted without showing the calculation ('we have indeed checked that the second condition is also satisfied', with the procedure 'presented explicitly elsewhere'), and Sec. V concedes that the Psi0 exponential terms 'diverge at i0 and at past-null infinity', with the paper 'tentatively' adopting polynomial fall-off as implementing no-incoming radiation from I-. This is a completeness gap in identifying the analyticity/stability-selected formal modes with the physical ringdown satisfying no-incoming-radiation boundary conditions; it is a correctness risk, not a circular step, and it does not raise the circularity score. Overall, the self-citation burden is minor and the central derivation is self-contained against the external Leaver benchmark, giving score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The QNM frequencies are taken from Leaver's external continued-fraction results; the perturbation amplitudes a±lm are arbitrary initial data; the transfer coefficients F_lmn are computed numerically by summing a convergent series, not fitted. The central result rests on four stated assumptions: Schwarzschild background, the deferred I^- peeling verification, analyticity selection of QNMs, and the Paper I gauge framework.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The background spacetime is Schwarzschild; the slowly-rotating case is deferred.
    Section III and Appendix A restrict the background spin coefficients to the Schwarzschild isolated horizon (a=0). The paper states that extension to Kerr is straightforward but does not perform it, so the central result is proven only for non-rotating backgrounds.
  • domain assumption The no-incoming-radiation condition from I^- is satisfied; the detailed verification is deferred.
    Sec. VB asserts that the Psi1 peeling condition at I^- holds after a lengthy calculation 'presented explicitly elsewhere'. This is a load-bearing physical boundary condition for identifying the solution as the ringdown.
  • standard math Analyticity of the radial solutions selects the QNM frequencies via uniform convergence of the Leaver-type series.
    Sec. VA and the Leaver method: the requirement of a uniformly convergent series from horizon to infinity yields the continued-fraction equation (84), whose roots are the standard Schwarzschild QNM frequencies.
  • domain assumption Gauge choices and phase-space setup of the perturbed isolated horizon framework from Paper I.
    Sections IIB and III adopt the tetrad gauge, coordinate system, and horizon perturbation framework constructed in the authors' companion paper (arXiv:2403.17114). The present paper builds on, rather than re-derives, this setup.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black Hole Tomography: Unveiling Black Hole Ringdown via Gravitational Wave Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WCIYFJ2I

@misc{pith2026250108964,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black Hole Tomography: Unveiling Black Hole Ringdown via Gravitational Wave Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WCIYFJ2I}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.08964}
}
abstract

During the post-merger regime of a binary black hole merger, the gravitational wave signal consists of a superposition of quasi-normal modes (QNMs) of the remnant black hole. It has been observed empirically, primarily through numerical simulations and heuristic arguments, that the infalling radiation at the horizon is also composed of a superposition of QNMs. In this paper, we provide an analytic explanation for this observation in the perturbative regime. Our analysis is based on a characteristic initial value formulation where data is prescribed on the horizon (modeled as a perturbed isolated horizon), and on a transversal null-hypersurface which registers the outgoing radiation. This allows us to reformulate the traditional QNM problem in a fully 4-dimensional setting. Using a mode-decomposition, we demonstrate that the radiation modes crossing $\mathcal{H}$ are highly correlated with the outgoing modes crossing $\mathcal{I}$, and provide explicit expressions linking $\widetilde{\Psi}_0$ at the horizon with $\widetilde{\Psi}_4$ at null infinity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.08964 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. This figure shows a portion of the maximally ex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Here [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Ilustration of a portion of the horizon and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Convergence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Illustration of a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Ashtekar and B

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Living Rev. Rel. 7, 10 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407042

    arXiv 2004

  2. [2]

    Booth, Can

    I. Booth, Can. J. Phys. 83, 1073 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0508107

    work page arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    Gourgoulhon and J

    E. Gourgoulhon and J. L. Jaramillo, Phys. Rept.423, 159 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0503113

    arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    S. A. Hayward, in9th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Re- cent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental Gen- eral Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theo- ries (MG 9) (2000) pp. 568–580, arXiv:gr-qc/0008071

    arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    F. D. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D52, 5707 (1995)

    1995

  6. [6]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Engle, T. Pawłowski, and C. Van Den Broeck, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 2549 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0401114

    arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Kamaretsos, M

    I. Kamaretsos, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024018 (2012), arXiv:1107.0854 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2012

  8. [8]

    C. V. Vishveshwara, Nature227, 936 (1970)

    1970

Show all 91 references
  1. [9]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. Detweiler, Proceed- ings of the Royal Society of London. A. Math- ematical and Physical Sciences 344, 441 (1975), https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1975.0112

    1975

  2. [10]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  3. [11]

    Ringdown,

    E. Berti, “Ringdown,”https://pages.jh.edu/eberti2/ ringdown/, [Online; accessed 28-August-2024]

    2024

  4. [12]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel.2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058

    1999 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Giesler, M

    M. Giesler, M. Isi, M. A. Scheel, and S. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. X 9, 041060 (2019), arXiv:1903.08284 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Baibhav, M

    V. Baibhav, M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, W. Del Pozzo, and F. Duque, Phys. Rev. D108, 104020 (2023), arXiv:2302.03050 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  9. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 111102 (2019), arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. D. Capano, M. Cabero, J. Westerweck, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, A. H. Nitz, Y.-F. Wang, A. B. Nielsen, and B. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 221402 (2023), arXiv:2105.05238 [gr-qc]. 30

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mourier, X

    P. Mourier, X. Jiménez Forteza, D. Pook-Kolb, B. Krish- nan, and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. D103, 044054 (2021), arXiv:2010.15186 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Khera, A

    N. Khera, A. Ribes Metidieri, B. Bonga, X. Jiménez Forteza, B. Krishnan, E. Poisson, D. Pook- Kolb, E. Schnetter, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 231401 (2023), arXiv:2306.11142 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    A. D. Rendall, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don Series A427, 221 (1990)

    1990

  16. [24]

    P. T. Chrusciel and T.-T. Paetz, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 145006 (2012), arXiv:1203.4534 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Friedrich and J

    H. Friedrich and J. Stewart, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A A385, 345 (1983)

    1983

  18. [26]

    Friedrich and A

    H. Friedrich and A. D. Rendall, Lect.Notes Phys.540, 127 (2000), einstein’s Field Equations and their Physical Interpretation, ed. by B. G. Schmidt, Springer, Berlin, 2000, arXiv:gr-qc/0002074 [gr-qc]

    2000 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Tidal de- formations of slowly spinning isolated horizons,

    A. R. Metidieri, B. Bonga, and B. Krishnan, “Tidal de- formations of slowly spinning isolated horizons,” (2024), arXiv:2403.17114 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Lewandowski, Class

    J. Lewandowski, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, L53 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9907058

    2000 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Lewandowski and C

    J. Lewandowski and C. Li, (2018), arXiv:1809.04715 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Lewandowski and T

    J. Lewandowski and T. Pawłowski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D11, 739 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0101008

    2002 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Dobkowski-Ryłko, J

    D. Dobkowski-Ryłko, J. Lewandowski, and T. Pawłowski, Phys. Rev. D 98, 024008 (2018), arXiv:1803.05463 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Lewandowski and T

    J. Lewandowski and T. Pawlowski, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 175012 (2014), arXiv:1404.7836 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Flandera, D

    A. Flandera, D. Kofroň, and T. Ledvinka, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024020 (2025), arXiv:2409.10423 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Scholtz, A

    M. Scholtz, A. Flandera, and N. Gürlebeck, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064024 (2017), arXiv:1708.06383 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Flandera, (2016), arXiv:1611.02215 [gr-qc]

    A. Flandera, (2016), arXiv:1611.02215 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ashtekar, N

    A. Ashtekar, N. Khera, M. Kolanowski, and J. Lewandowski, JHEP02, 066 (2022), arXiv:2112.05608 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rezzolla, R

    L. Rezzolla, R. P. Macedo, and J. L. Jaramillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 221101 (2010), arXiv:1003.0873 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. P. Macedo, P. Moesta, and L. Rez- zolla, Phys. Rev. D85, 084031 (2012), arXiv:1108.0061 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, P. Moesta, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 85, 084030 (2012), arXiv:1108.0060 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    D. Alic, P. Mosta, L. Rezzolla, O. Zanotti, and J. L. Jaramillo, Astrophys. J.754, 36 (2012), arXiv:1204.2226 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. P. Macedo, P. Moesta, and L. Rez- zolla, AIP Conf. Proc.1458, 158 (2012), arXiv:1205.3902 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Dyatlov and M

    S. Dyatlov and M. Zworski, Mathematical theory of scattering resonances, Vol. 200 (American Mathematical Soc., 2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Vishveshwara, Physical Review D1, 2870 (1970)

    C. Vishveshwara, Physical Review D1, 2870 (1970)

    1970

  36. [44]

    Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes (Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences, 1985)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes (Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences, 1985)

    1985

  37. [45]

    Sarbach and M

    O. Sarbach and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D 64, 084016 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0104061

    2001 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Preston and E

    B. Preston and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064010 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0606094

    2006 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Zenginoglu, Class

    A. Zenginoglu, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 145002 (2008), arXiv:0712.4333 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Panosso Macedo and A

    R. Panosso Macedo and A. Zenginoglu, (2024), arXiv:2409.11478 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Zenginoğlu, Am

    A. Zenginoğlu, Am. J. Phys. 92, 965 (2024), arXiv:2404.01528 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Panosso Macedo, J

    R. Panosso Macedo, J. L. Jaramillo, and M. Ansorg, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124005 (2018), arXiv:1809.02837 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Panosso Macedo, Phil

    R. Panosso Macedo, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A382, 20230046 (2024), arXiv:2307.15735 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mongwane, S

    B. Mongwane, S. Nkele, D. G. A. Duniya, and N. T. Bishop, (2024), arXiv:2407.06636 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A269, 21 (1962)

    1962

  46. [54]

    E. T. Newman and T. W. J. Unti, J. Math. Phys.3, 891 (1962)

    1962

  47. [55]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104003 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502028

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    S. W. Hawking and J. B. Hartle, Commun. Math. Phys. 27, 283 (1972)

    1972

  49. [57]

    S. A. Hayward, Classical and Quantum Gravity10, 773 (1993)

    1993

  50. [58]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  51. [59]

    J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D9, 2749 (1974)

    1974

  52. [60]

    O’Sullivan and S

    S. O’Sullivan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D90, 124039 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 109901 (2015)], arXiv:1407.6983 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    O’Sullivan and S

    S. O’Sullivan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D94, 044057 (2016), arXiv:1505.03809 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    P. P. Fiziev, Phys. Rev. D80, 124001 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    Classes of exact solutions to regge-wheeler and teukolsky equations,

    P. P. Fiziev, “Classes of exact solutions to regge-wheeler and teukolsky equations,” (2009), arXiv:0902.1277 [gr- qc]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    E. W. Leaver, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  57. [65]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Struc- ture of Space-Time , Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- matical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  59. [67]

    Starobinsky and S

    A. Starobinsky and S. Churilov, Journal of Experimen- tal and Theoretical Physics - J EXP THEOR PHYS38 (1974)

    1974

  60. [68]

    Black hole perturbation the- ory and gravitational self-force,

    A. Pound and B. Wardell, “Black hole perturbation the- ory and gravitational self-force,” in Handbook of Gravi- tational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore, 2021) p. 1–119

    2021

  61. [69]

    E. W. Leaver, Journal of Mathematical Physics 27, 1238 (1986), https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jmp/article- pdf/27/5/1238/19245696/1238_1_online.pdf

    1986

  62. [70]

    Walker and C

    M. Walker and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D19, 3495 (1979)

    1979

  63. [71]

    Ashtekar and S

    A. Ashtekar and S. Speziale, Phys. Rev. D109, L061501 (2024), arXiv:2401.15618 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ashtekar and S

    A. Ashtekar and S. Speziale, Phys. Rev. D110, 044048 (2024), arXiv:2402.17977 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Ashtekar and S

    A. Ashtekar and S. Speziale, Phys. Rev. D110, 044049 (2024), arXiv:2407.03254 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Gupta, B

    A. Gupta, B. Krishnan, A. Nielsen, and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084028 (2018), arXiv:1801.07048 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Chen et al

    Y. Chen et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 124045 (2022), arXiv:2208.02965 [gr-qc]. 31

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    X. J. Forteza and P. Mourier, Phys. Rev. D104, 124072 (2021), arXiv:2107.11829 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Schinkel, M

    D. Schinkel, M. Ansorg, and R. Panosso Macedo, Class. Quant. Grav.31, 165001 (2014), arXiv:1301.6984 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Ansorg and R

    M. Ansorg and R. P. Macedo, Physical Review D 93 (2016), 10.1103/physrevd.93.124016

    2016 doi

  71. [79]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  72. [80]

    J. L. Jaramillo, R. Panosso Macedo, and L. Al Sheikh, (2020), arXiv:2004.06434 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Destounis, R

    K. Destounis, R. P. Macedo, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and J. L. Jaramillo, Phys. Rev. D104, 084091 (2021), arXiv:2107.09673 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    J. L. Jaramillo, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 217002 (2022), arXiv:2206.08025 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Boyanov, K

    V. Boyanov, K. Destounis, R. Panosso Macedo, V. Car- doso, and J. L. Jaramillo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064012 (2023), arXiv:2209.12950 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Cardoso, S

    V. Cardoso, S. Kastha, and R. Panosso Macedo, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024016 (2024), arXiv:2404.01374 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Booth, Phys

    I. Booth, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024008 (2013), arXiv:1207.6955 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Booth and S

    I. Booth and S. Fairhurst, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 011102 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0307087

    2004 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Penrose and W

    R. Penrose and W. Rindler,Spinors and Spacetime: 1. Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields (Cambridge, Uk: Univ. Pr. ( 1984) 458 P. ( Cambridge Monographs On Mathematical Physics), 1984)

    1984

  80. [88]

    Stewart, Advanced General Relativity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 1991)

    J. Stewart, Advanced General Relativity (Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics, 1991)

    1991

  81. [89]

    J. N. Goldberg, A. J. MacFarlane, E. T. Newman, F. Rohrlich, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 8, 2155 (1967). Appendix A: The Newman-Penrose formalism and our coordinate system

    1967

  82. [90]

    The Newman-Penrose formalism in a nutshell The results discussed in the main text are expressed in the language of the Newman-Penrose formalism, which we summarize in the following. Given that we want to exhaust the null structures of our spacetime (given by the quasi-isolated...

  83. [91]

    Summary of our gauge choices In this work, we restrict ourselves to perturbations of a Schwarzschild isolated horizon. However, the framework we detail in the main text can in principle be applied to spacetimes that arenot of type D, as long as they contain an isolated horizon...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.