Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

This paper proposes a self-consistent effective-one-body theory in which scattering-angle-derived metric coefficients, continued to bound states by replacing p²∞ with |p²∞|, yield a Hamiltonian, a decoupled Teukolsky-like equation for ψ^B_4

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 23:39 UTC pith:5NX4VOMM

load-bearing objection Serious formal EOB machinery, but the advertised analytic continuation is not what is implemented, so the claimed NR agreement is not established. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.06448 v1 pith:5NX4VOMM submitted 2025-09-08 gr-qc hep-th

Effective one-body theory of spinless binary evolution dynamics

Jiliang Jing , Sheng Long , Weike Deng , Jieci Wang This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th PACS 04.25.Nx04.30.Db04.20.Cv
keywords effective one-body theorypost-Minkowskian approximationspinless binary dynamicsTeukolsky equationgravitational waveformsradiation reactionbinding energyanalytic continuation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proposes a self-consistent effective-one-body (EOB) description of a non-spinning binary black hole, built entirely from one effective metric. The metric is obtained from fourth-order post-Minkowskian scattering-angle data and is carried from unbound to bound orbits by the substitution p²∞ → |p²∞|. From that metric the authors derive a Hamiltonian, a decoupled and variable-separated Teukolsky-like equation for the outgoing radiation scalar ψ^B_4, and then the energy flux, radiation-reaction force, and plus/cross waveform modes. The paper's quantitative claim is that the resulting binding-energy vs angular-momentum curve agrees with numerical relativity simulations up to the innermost stable circular orbit to better than 5 per mille for equal masses, and to under 1 per mille for mass ratios 10 and 20. A sympathetic reader would care because a single metric, with no externally patched flux formulas, reproduces the conservative dynamics across the mass-ratio range used in gravitational-wave templates.

Core claim

The central claim is that the dynamics of a spinless binary can be mapped into a single effective spacetime (3.3), whose coefficients are fixed by analytic continuation of the 4PM scattering-angle results: p²∞ → |p²∞|. In this spacetime, the authors write a Hamiltonian (2.3) and, perturbing the metric, obtain a decoupled, variable-separated Teukolsky-like equation for ψ^B_4 (Eqs. 4.18, 4.23). Solving it by Green's functions gives the radiated energy flux, the radiation-reaction force (4.37), and the waveform modes (4.38), all from the same metric. The test of the theory is the gauge-invariant binding energy E_b(j); compared with numerical relativity data for mass ratios q=1, 10, 20, the curv

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective metric ds²_eff = (Δ/r²)dt² − (r²/Δ)dr² − r²(dθ² + sin²θ dφ²), with Δ = r² − 2GMr + Σ a_i (GM)^i / r^{i−2}. The coefficients a_i are built from the 4PM scattering-angle coefficients P_n, with the substitution p²∞ → |p²∞| that makes the metric real for bound states and gives it Type-D character. On this background, the paper derives a decoupled Teukolsky-like equation for ψ^B_4 (the null-tetrad component of the perturbed Weyl tensor that carries outgoing gravitational radiation) and separates it into ordinary differential equations in r and θ; the Green's-function solution of the radial equation supplies the flux, radiation reaction, and waveform. The T

Load-bearing premise

The whole calculation rests on one step: taking the scattering results, which are valid when the two bodies are unbound, and replacing the squared momentum p²∞ by its absolute value to get formulas for bound orbits; if that replacement is not the correct way to continue across the bound/unbound divide, the agreement with numerical relativity would be coincidence rather than prediction.

What would settle it

Check the continued metric coefficients a_2, a_3, a_4 for p²∞ in (−1,0): since they contain 1/p²∞, square roots, arcsine/dilogarithm and elliptic-integral terms, an explicit branch analysis will either confirm the |p²∞| prescription is the real, single-valued sheet or reveal complex values and infinities that break the Hamiltonian. Alternatively, compare the E_b(j) curve from this Hamiltonian with an independent second-order self-force or 4PN calculation for q=1 near the innermost stable circular orbit; if the discrepancy substantially exceeds the claimed per-mille ranges, the continuation is

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • All pieces of the EOB model — Hamiltonian, energy flux, radiation-reaction force, and waveform modes — come from a single effective metric, so the model is internally consistent rather than assembled from separate post-Newtonian flux and waveform approximants.
  • The conservative E_b(j) curve matches numerical relativity to sub-percent accuracy through the innermost stable circular orbit, with errors dropping from 5 per mille at q=1 to below 1 per mille at q≥10; this is the paper's stated improvement of roughly half an order of magnitude over 4PN EOB.
  • The variable-separated Teukolsky-like equation allows each (l,m) waveform mode to be computed separately, a practical structure for building inspiral-merger-ringdown template banks.
  • Larger mass ratios work better in the adiabatic approximation, suggesting the framework is especially reliable in the extreme-mass-ratio regime relevant to future spaceborne detectors.
  • Because the same gauge conditions are reported to hold for spinning binaries, the construction gives a route to extend the self-consistent PM-EOB scheme to spin.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The p²∞→|p²∞| rule is a prescription, not a derivation; a rigorous treatment of the branch cuts of the square roots, arcsinh, dilogarithm, and elliptic functions in the appendix would show whether it is the unique physical continuation.
  • A sharper test of the continuation would compare the continued metric's Hamiltonian against an independent bound-state calculation in the regime where both are valid; agreement there would confirm the continuation rather than merely calibrating it to numerical relativity data.
  • The paper's E_b(j) test uses the adiabatic approximation and stops at the innermost stable circular orbit; evolving with the radiation-reaction force (4.37) through the plunge would test whether the same metric continues to predict merger and ringdown waveforms, not just the conservative inspiral.
  • If the continuation and Type-D separation extend to spin as the authors indicate, the same derivation chain would produce spin-dependent flux and waveform modes from a single metric, reducing the number of free calibration parameters in current EOB waveform models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a self-consistent effective-one-body (EOB) theory for spinless binaries at fourth post-Minkowskian (4PM) order. Starting from a scattering-state effective metric derived in the authors' earlier work, it introduces an analytic continuation from p∞² > 0 to p∞² < 0, claims this is achieved by replacing p∞² with |p∞²|, and constructs the bound-state effective metric (Eqs. 3.3–3.5). From that metric it derives a decoupled, variable-separated Teukolsky-like equation for ψ^B_4 (Eqs. 4.18 and 4.23), the source terms, a formal Green-function solution, the radiation-reaction force (Eq. 4.37), and plus/cross waveforms (Eq. 4.38). The quantitative headline is the comparison of the binding-energy–angular-momentum relation E_b(j) with SXS NR data for q = 1, 10, 20 in Sec. V, claiming agreement to 5‰, 1‰, and 0.8‰, respectively, up to ISCO.

Significance. If the construction were fully justified, this would be a significant advance: one effective metric would control both the conservative Hamiltonian and the gravitational radiation sector at 4PM order, with sub-percent agreement against independent SXS NR data. The paper has genuine strengths: the E_b(j) comparison is against external NR data without curve fitting, and the 4PM scattering input comes from independent amplitude calculations (Bern et al.). However, the central claim is conditional on an unsupported analytic-continuation step and on numerics that are not reproducible from the text. The quantitative agreement is therefore not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5), after Eq. (3.2)] The substitution p∞² → |p∞²| is not the advertised analytic continuation. For non-even functions of p∞², replacing the argument by its absolute value is not equivalent to continuing p∞² through the branch point at p∞² = 0. This is load-bearing because the Hamiltonian (2.3) and all subsequent quantities are built from the metric (3.3)–(3.5). A concrete example: the scattering coefficient P2 in Appendix A contains the combination 4 + 5p∞²; in Eq. (3.5) this becomes 4 + 5|p∞²|. For a bound state with p∞² = −y, the absolute-value prescription gives 4 + 5y, whereas any genuine analytic continuation of the expression 4 + 5p∞² must deal with the linear term as −5y. At y ~ 0.1 this is a several-percent change in the metric coefficient, not a per-mille effect. The same issue propagates through a3, a4, and the functions in Appendices A and B, which contain sqrt(p∞²+1), arcsinh, Li2, and elliptic i
  2. [Sec. V and Fig. 1] The claimed numerical agreement is not verifiable from the manuscript. The text does not specify how Eq. (2.3) was solved, what the quartic term Q_4(p) is, how the adiabatic approximation and the ISCO location were defined, or how the SXS data were processed. No data or code are released, and NR error bars are not displayed. For sub-permille claims this information is essential. In addition, the q = 20 SXS identifier is inconsistent: the text says SXS:BBH:2156, while the caption of Fig. 1 says SXS:BBH:2516. The comparison must be made reproducible before the headline accuracy numbers can be assessed.
  3. [Eqs. (2.3) and (4.18)] Two quantities that enter the formal framework are left unspecified. The Hamiltonian (2.3) contains Q_4(p), a quartic-momentum term, but its explicit form is not given; since E_b(j) is computed from this Hamiltonian, the numerical result depends on a hidden choice. Likewise, the master equation (4.18) contains a free factor f that the text says 'should be fixed in the specific physical systems,' but no fixing prescription is given. If these are set to zero or to standard EOB values, that must be stated explicitly, and the sensitivity of the results to them should be quantified.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The decoupling of the ψ^B_4 equation relies on the gauge condition G^B_4 = 0, which the authors claim can always be enforced by a Class I rotation. However, the required function o* must solve the partial differential equation (C4) in the effective spacetime. The manuscript does not establish existence, uniqueness, or regularity of solutions to this equation, nor does it provide a closed-form o* or a numerical construction. Since the Teukolsky-like equation (4.18) and all radiation formulas depend on this gauge, this is a gap in the derivation of the radiative sector of the claimed self-consistent theory.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Keywords] The keyword 'Effecitve' should read 'Effective'.
  2. [Sec. III, after Eq. (3.2)] The text first says p∞² is replaced by p∞²e^{-iπ} and then says 'by substituting p∞² with |p∞²|' the metric applies to bound states. These two prescriptions are not mathematically equivalent; the distinction should be clarified or removed.
  3. [Sec. V] The phrase 'to the innermost stable circular orbit' should be accompanied by the criterion used to determine the ISCO from the EOB Hamiltonian, since different prescriptions (turning point of the radial effective potential, minimum of E_b(j), etc.) can lead to different comparison ranges.
  4. [Eq. (4.37)] The factor 'p/p_φ' is not defined; identify p as the momentum magnitude and clarify the notation.
  5. [References] Reference [49] is Hawking's particle-creation paper; the analogy with the bound-state continuation should be explained more carefully or supported by a reference that performs the PM-to-bound-state analytic continuation explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central E_b(j) comparison is against external SXS data and the 4PM input comes from Bern et al.; self-citations are pointers, not circular load-bearing steps.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The 4PM conservative input is imported from Bern et al.'s independent amplitude computation (Eqs. 3.1–3.2 and Appendix A), and the effective metric (3.3)–(3.5) is built from those P_n coefficients. The analytic continuation p_∞^2 → |p_∞^2| is an ansatz, and the paper itself flags the scattering-state limitation ('the metric constructed in reference [44] was derived directly from the results related to scattering angles, resulting in parameters applicable only to scattering states'); however, this is a validity/correctness assumption, not a circular reduction, because the SXS binding-energy data are not used to choose or fit the continuation or any parameter. The Teukolsky-like equation (4.18)/(4.23), source terms, formal solution (4.36), RRF (4.37), and waveform (4.38) are derived in the paper from the Newman-Penrose formalism and the stated metric; the self-citations to the authors' earlier works [39,41,43,44] point to results that are either re-derived or explicitly re-displayed here, and the gauge existence claim is proven in Appendix C rather than merely imported. Finally, the headline quantitative claim is a direct comparison of E_b(j) from the EOB Hamiltonian (2.3) with SXS NR data (Section V), with no calibration to those data. Thus the prediction does not reduce by construction to its inputs; the main weakness is the unproven branch structure of the analytic continuation, which is a correctness risk, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on that the reader did not pay for upstream. The dominant external inputs are the 4PM Hamiltonian coefficients from Bern et al. (ref [36], via the P_n in Appendix A) and the authors' own prior EOB derivations (refs [39,41,43,44]). The genuinely new load-bearing inventions are the |p²∞| continuation and the G^B_4=0 gauge, both asserted. The effective metric itself is a construction with a falsifiable handle (the E_b vs j comparison), but it is built to reproduce the 4PM scattering angle, so it is partially input rather than prediction. The unfixed constant f in the master equation prevents the RRF and waveform from being uniquely determined.

free parameters (2)
  • Constant f in the master equation = unfixed
    Appears in Eq. (4.18) as the coefficient of (2 - Δ''); the text after Eq. (4.15) says the factor f should be fixed in the specific physical systems. It enters the radial equation (4.23) and therefore the RRF (4.37) and waveform (4.38).
  • Q_4(p) quartic-momentum term = coefficient imported from Ref. [11]
    Eq. (2.3) appends Q_4(p), introduced in Ref. [11], to the Hamiltonian built from the PM metric; it is a 3PN input not derived from the effective metric, so the self-consistent Hamiltonian mixes orders.
axioms (6)
  • ad hoc to paper Scattering-state PM data can be analytically continued to bound states by substituting p²∞ with |p²∞|, ignoring branch choices.
    Load-bearing step in Sec. III after Eq. (3.2). The Appendix A expressions contain sqrt(p²∞+1), arcsinh, Li2, K and E integrals with arguments that become complex for p²∞ less than 0; no branch analysis is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper A null tetrad satisfying G^B_4 = 0 exists via a Class I rotation.
    Eq. (4.16) and Appendix C. The central decoupling (4.17) and separation (4.23)-(4.24) rest on this gauge condition, but Appendix C only writes the differential equation (C4) for o* without proving solvability.
  • domain assumption The effective Hamiltonian requires adding Q_4(p) from the PN literature to the Hamiltonian built from the PM metric.
    Eq. (2.3). This imports a 3PN quartic-momentum term into a 4PM construction; the paper does not show the combined Hamiltonian preserves the 4PM scattering-angle matching.
  • domain assumption The source of gravitational radiation in the effective spacetime is a point test particle of mass m0 = m1m2/(m1+m2) orbiting the effective black hole.
    Sec. IV.B, Eq. (4.26). This is the standard EOB radiation-reaction procedure, but it approximates a comparable-mass binary by an extreme-mass-ratio-like source.
  • domain assumption The effective metric (3.3) is Petrov Type D, so Newman-Penrose perturbation theory with Ψ4 decoupling applies.
    Stated at the end of Sec. III. Standard for spherically symmetric diagonal metrics, but the paper does not verify the type-D property explicitly for the deformed Δ(r).
  • domain assumption The 4PM coefficients P_1 through P_4 from Bern et al. [36] are correct and valid as inputs.
    The metric coefficients (3.5) are built from the Appendix A/B expressions; any error in these inputs propagates directly into the E_b(j) prediction.
invented entities (1)
  • Effective deformed-Schwarzschild metric g^eff (Eqs. 3.3-3.5) independent evidence
    purpose: Maps the two-body problem to an effective test particle on a deformed black-hole background; determines the Hamiltonian, the Teukolsky-like equation, the flux, the RRF, and the waveforms.
    The metric is a model construction, not a new physical force or particle. It has a falsifiable handle: the E_b(j) curve implied by its Hamiltonian is compared to SXS NR data in Sec. V, and the RRF/waveforms (4.37)-(4.38) are testable against NR waveforms in principle. Its coefficients are constrained to reproduce the 4PM scattering angle, so part of its content is input rather than prediction.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23817 in / 33090 out tokens · 353285 ms · 2026-08-04T23:39:12.582423+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effective one-body theory of spinless binary evolution dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NX4VOMM

@misc{pith2026250906448,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effective one-body theory of spinless binary evolution dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NX4VOMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.06448}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The effective one-body (EOB) theory provides an innovative framework for analyzing the dynamics of binary systems, as articulated by Hamilton's equations. This paper investigates a self-consistent EOB theory specifically tailored for the dynamics of such systems. Our methodology begins by emphasizing how to effectively utilize the metrics derived from scattering angles in the analysis of binary black hole mergers. We then construct an effective Hamiltonian and formulate a decoupled, variable-separated Teukolsky-like equation for $\psi^B_4$. Furthermore, we present the formal solution to this equation, detailing the energy flux, radiation-reaction force (RRF), and waveforms for the ``plus" and ``cross" modes generated by spinless binaries. Finally, we carry out numerical calculations using the EOB theory and compare the results with numerical relativity (NR) data from the SXS collaboration. The results indicate that to the innermost stable circular orbit, the binding energy -- angular momentum relation differs from the NR results by less than $5$\textperthousand, with a larger mass ratio yielding better agreement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.06448 by Jieci Wang, Jiliang Jing, Sheng Long, Weike Deng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    plus” and “cross

    We identified the sources in the Teukolsky-like equation forψ B 4 , which relate to Eq. (4.26); 3) We derived the formal solution of the Teukolsky-like equation presented in Eq. (4.36); and 4) We present the RRF shown by Eq. (4.37), and the waveform described by Eq. (4.38) for the “plus” and “cross” modes of GWs generated by the spinless binaries. It is n...

    work page 2095

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Gw151226: Observation of gravita- tional waves from a 22-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241103 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Gw170104: Observation of a 50-solar- mass binary black hole coalescence at redshift 0.2, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 221101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Gw170814: A three-detector observa- tion of gravitational waves from a binary black hole coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 141101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Gw170817: Observation of gravita- tional waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Gwtc-1: A gravitational-wave tran- sient catalog of compact binary mergers observed by ligo and virgo during the first and second ob- serving runs, Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Gwtc-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Search for intermediate mass black hole binaries in the third observing run of advanced ligo and advanced virgo, Astronomy and Astrophysics A84, 659 (2022)

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations) (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), All-sky, all-frequency directional search for persistent gravitational waves from advanced ligo’s and advanced virgo’s first three observing runs, Phys. Rev. D105, 122001 (2022). 25

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999)

    work page 1999

  12. [12]

    Damour, P

    T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Sch ¨afer, Determination of the last stable orbit for circular general relativistic binaries at the third post-newtonian approximation, Phys. Rev. D62, 084011 (2000)

    work page 2000

  13. [13]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Faithful effective-one-body waveforms of small-mass-ratio coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D76, 064028 (2007)

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    Damour, B

    T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and A. Nagar, Improved resummation of post-newtonian multipolar waveforms from circularized compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D79, 064004 (2009)

    work page 2009

  15. [15]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D62, 064015 (2000)

    work page 2000

  16. [16]

    Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: An effective one-body approach, Phys

    T. Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: An effective one-body approach, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001)

    work page 2001

  17. [17]

    Damour, P

    T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Sch ¨afer, Effective one body approach to the dynamics of two spin- ning black holes with next-to-leading order spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. D78, 024009 (2008)

    work page 2008

  18. [18]

    Buonanno, Y

    A. Buonanno, Y . Pan, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, L. T. Buchman, and L. E. Kidder, Effective-one- body waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity simulations: Coalescence of nonspinning, equal- mass black holes, Phys. Rev. D79, 124028 (2009)

    work page 2009

  19. [19]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Improved analytical description of inspiralling and coalescing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D79, 081503 (2009)

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    Taracchini, A

    A. Taracchini, A. Buonanno, Y . Pan, T. Hinderer, M. Boyle, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, G. Lovelace, A. H. Mrou´e, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, B. Szil´agyi, N. W. Taylor, and A. Zenginoglu, Effective-one-body model for black-hole binaries with generic mass ratios and spins, Phys. Rev. D89, 061502 (2014)

    work page 2014

  21. [21]

    Boh ´e, L

    A. Boh ´e, L. Shao, A. Taracchini, A. Buonanno, S. Babak, I. W. Harry, I. Hinder, S. Ossokine, M. P¨urrer, V . Raymond, T. Chu, H. Fong, P. Kumar, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, G. Lovelace, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szil´agyi, Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational...

    work page 2017

  22. [22]

    Damour, Gravitational scattering, post-minkowskian approximation, and effective-one-body theory, Phys

    T. Damour, Gravitational scattering, post-minkowskian approximation, and effective-one-body theory, Phys. Rev. D94, 104015 (2016). 26

    work page 2016

  23. [23]

    Bini and T

    D. Bini and T. Damour, Gravitational spin-orbit coupling in binary systems, post-minkowskian ap- proximation, and effective one-body theory, Phys. Rev. D96, 104038 (2017)

    work page 2017

  24. [24]

    Bini and T

    D. Bini and T. Damour, Gravitational spin-orbit coupling in binary systems at the second post- minkowskian approximation, Phys. Rev. D98, 044036 (2018)

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    Damour, High-energy gravitational scattering and the general relativistic two-body problem, Phys

    T. Damour, High-energy gravitational scattering and the general relativistic two-body problem, Phys. Rev. D97, 044038 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    Antonelli, A

    A. Antonelli, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, M. van de Meent, and J. Vines, Energetics of two-body hamiltonians in post-minkowskian gravity, Phys. Rev. D99, 104004 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    Damour, Classical and quantum scattering in post-minkowskian gravity, Phys

    T. Damour, Classical and quantum scattering in post-minkowskian gravity, Phys. Rev. D102, 024060 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Scattering of tidally interacting bodies in post-minkowskian gravity, Phys. Rev. D101, 044039 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    He and W

    G. He and W. Lin, Second-order time delay by a radially moving kerr-newman black hole, Phys. Rev. D94, 063011 (2016)

    work page 2016

  30. [30]

    X. He, J. Jing, and Z. Cao, Generalized gravitomagnetic field and gravitational waves, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.62, 110422 (2019)

    work page 2019

  31. [31]

    Blanchet and A

    L. Blanchet and A. S. Fokas, Equations of motion of self-gravitatingn-body systems in the first post- minkowskian approximation, Phys. Rev. D98, 084005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  32. [32]

    Cheung, I

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, From scattering amplitudes to classical potentials in the post-minkowskian expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 251101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  33. [33]

    Vines, J

    J. Vines, J. Steinhoff, and A. Buonanno, Spinning-black-hole scattering and the test-black-hole limit at second post-minkowskian order, Phys. Rev. D99, 064054 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Cristofoli, N

    A. Cristofoli, N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, and P. Vanhove, Post-minkowskian hamiltonians in general relativity, Phys. Rev. D100, 084040 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    Koemans Collado, P

    A. Koemans Collado, P. Di Vecchia, and R. Russo, Revisiting the second post-minkowskian eikonal and the dynamics of binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D100, 066028 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Scattering amplitudes and the conservative hamiltonian for binary systems at third post-minkowskian order, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201603 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Black hole binary dynamics from the double copy and effective theory, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 206 (2019). 27

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Plefka, C

    J. Plefka, C. Shi, J. Steinhoff, and T. Wang, Breakdown of the classical double copy for the effective action of dilaton-gravity at nnlo, Phys. Rev. D100, 086006 (2019)

    work page 2019

  39. [39]

    Cheung and M

    C. Cheung and M. P. Solon, Tidal effects in the post-minkowskian expansion, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 191601 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    J. Jing, S. Chen, M. Sun, X. He, M. Wang, and J. Wang, Self-consistent effective-one-body theory for spinless binaries based on post-minkowskian approximation i: Hamiltonian and decoupled equation forψ 4, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy65, 260411 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    J. E. Thompson, H. Chen, and B. F. Whiting, Gauge invariant perturbations of the schwarzschild spacetime, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 174001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  42. [42]

    J. Jing, S. Long, W. Deng, M. Wang, and J. Wang, New self-consistent effective one-body theory for spinless binaries based on the post-Minkowskian approximation, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy65, 100411 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black hole(Oxford University Press, New York, Ox- ford, 1993)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black hole(Oxford University Press, New York, Ox- ford, 1993)

    work page 1993

  44. [44]

    J. Jing, W. Deng, S. Long, and J. Wang, Self-consistent effective-one-body theory for spinning binaries based on post-minkowskian approximation, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy66, 270411 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    J. Jing, W. Deng, S. Long, and J. Wang, Effective metric of spinless binaries with radiation-reaction ef- fect up to fourth post-minkowskian order in effective-one-body theory, The European Physical Journal C83, 608 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Taracchini, Y

    A. Taracchini, Y . Pan, A. Buonanno, E. Barausse, M. Boyle, T. Chu, G. Lovelace, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Prototype effective-one-body model for nonprecessing spinning inspiral-merger- ringdown waveforms, Phys. Rev. D86, 024011 (2012)

    work page 2012

  47. [47]

    Barausse, E

    E. Barausse, E. Racine, and A. Buonanno, Hamiltonian of a spinning test particle in curved spacetime, Phys. Rev. D80, 104025 (2009)

    work page 2009

  48. [48]

    Barausse and A

    E. Barausse and A. Buonanno, Improved effective-one-body hamiltonian for spinning black-hole bi- naries, Phys. Rev. D81, 084024 (2010)

    work page 2010

  49. [49]

    Barausse and A

    E. Barausse and A. Buonanno, Extending the effective-one-body hamiltonian of black-hole binaries to include next-to-next-to-leading spin-orbit couplings, Phys. Rev. D84, 104027 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. math. Phys.43, 199 (1975). 28

    work page 1975

  51. [51]

    Buonanno, Y

    A. Buonanno, Y . Chen, and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in precessing binaries of spinning black holes, Phys. Rev. D74, 104005 (2006)

    work page 2006

  52. [52]

    Poisson, Gravitational radiation from a particle in circular orbit around a black hole

    E. Poisson, Gravitational radiation from a particle in circular orbit around a black hole. i. analytical results for the nonrotating case, Phys. Rev. D47, 1497 (1993)

    work page 1993

  53. [53]

    Tagoshi and M

    H. Tagoshi and M. Sasaki, Post-newtonian expansion of gravitational waves from a particle in circular orbit around a schwarzschild black hole, Progress of Theoretical Physics92, 745 (1994)

    work page 1994

  54. [54]

    L. E. Kidder, Using full information when computing modes of post-newtonian waveforms from in- spiralling compact binaries in circular orbit, Phys. Rev. D77, 044016 (2008)

    work page 2008

  55. [55]

    Carmeli,Classical fields: general relativity and gauge theory(A Wiley-intersclence Publication, New York, 1982)

    M. Carmeli,Classical fields: general relativity and gauge theory(A Wiley-intersclence Publication, New York, 1982)

    work page 1982

  56. [56]

    Nagar, T

    A. Nagar, T. Damour, C. Reisswig, and D. Pollney, Energetics and phasing of nonprecessing spinning coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D93, 044046 (2016)

    work page 2016

  57. [57]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Nagar, D. Pollney, and C. Reisswig, Energy versus angular momentum in black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 131101 (2012)

    work page 2012

  58. [58]

    Ossokine, T

    S. Ossokine, T. Dietrich, E. Foley, R. Katebi, and G. Lovelace, Assessing the energetics of spinning binary black hole systems, Phys. Rev. D98, 104057 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    Damour, P

    T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Sch¨afer, Fourth post-newtonian effective one-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D91, 084024 (2015)

    work page 2015

  60. [60]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estell ´es, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and A. Ramos-Buades, Theoretical groundwork supporting the precessing-spin two-body dynamics of the effective-one-body waveform models seobnrv5 (2023), arXiv:2303.18143 [gr-qc]. 29

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023