Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 35 references

By imposing two Lorentz-covariant frame conditions, the supertranslation ambiguity in angular momentum and mass dipole fluxes at null infinity is resolved.

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 10:01 UTC pith:C74J2RCN

load-bearing objection A competent, partially novel letter that gives a covariant endpoint frame-fixing for angular momentum flux; the point-particle example is less complete than the abstract suggests, but the core argument holds up. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2510.11849 v3 pith:C74J2RCN submitted 2025-10-13 gr-qc hep-th

Lorentz Covariant Supertranslation Frames for the Angular Momentum Aspect

Reza Javadinezhad , Massimo Porrati This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th PACS 04.20.-q04.30.-w
keywords supertranslationangular momentum aspectmass dipoleBMS symmetrynull infinityBondi gaugeLorentz covariancegravitational memory
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.

The paper claims that the long-standing ambiguity in defining angular momentum and mass dipole fluxes in general relativity — the fact that supertranslations (angle-dependent shifts of retarded time) change the angular momentum aspect without changing the energy flux — can be removed by fixing a Lorentz-covariant frame. The fixing uses two conditions: the l=0,1 harmonics of the mass aspect must be annihilated by the Lorentz transformation built from the initial angular momentum (δ^{3/2}_{Y(J)}M|_{lm}=0, equivalent to the center-of-mass condition J^{μν}P_ν=0), and the remaining constant-translation freedom in the final frame is fixed by P^i_μ P^f_ν J^{f μν}=0. If correct, the angular momentum aspect and its flux become unambiguous, transform covariantly under boosts and rotations, and can be measured in principle through the time delay of counter-propagating light rays. The authors demonstrate the frame conditions explicitly for the linearized metric of n point particles to first order in the Newton constant.

Core claim

The central discovery is a two-step prescription that eliminates the supertranslation freedom in Lorentz charges and their fluxes. In the nonradiative regions at the past and future ends of null infinity, supertranslations shift the angular momentum aspect by terms involving the mass aspect; the paper fixes the S- and P-wave harmonics of the supertranslation by requiring δ^{3/2}_{Y(J)}M|_{lm}=0 for l=0,1 — a condition that depends only on the total 4-momentum and is therefore Lorentz-covariant — and fixes the final-frame constant mode by P^i_μ P^f_ν J^{f μν}=0. The result is that a covariant tensor invariant under l>2 supertranslations is necessarily invariant under translations, so the fram

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the celestial-sphere description of null infinity: the mass aspect M is a primary of conformal weight 3/2, the boundary graviton C (which parametrizes the nonradiative shear) has weight -1/2, and Lorentz charges live in the dual of the conformal Killing vector space. The frame-fixing conditions (4.3) and (5.2) are the translation of the classical center-of-mass equations J^{μν}P_ν=0 and J^f_{μν}P^i_μ P^f_ν=0 into this language. Their covariance follows from the weight structure: an l=1 boost mixes supertranslations into l=1 translations, and the conditions depend only on the l=0,1 harmonics of M, i.e., the 4-momentum.

Load-bearing premise

The prescription requires that the spacetime has well-defined total 4-momenta at the past and future endpoints of null infinity, read from the l=0,1 harmonics of the mass aspect, and that endpoint frame choices exhaust the ambiguity; the paper does not analyze the radiative-regime supertransformation law, leaving open whether the flux is unique for realistic radiating histories.

What would settle it

A radiating solution whose Bondi mass aspect at future null infinity does not approach a time-independent configuration with finite l=0,1 harmonics (e.g., perpetual radiation with no asymptotic rest frame) would make P^f_μ in (5.2) undefined, and the frame-fixing prescription would not apply. A concrete check: search for two-body scattering solutions where the radiated energy diverges as the retarded time goes to +∞, and verify that (5.2) has no solution.

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

If this is right

  • Angular momentum and mass dipole fluxes through future null infinity become unambiguous, resolving the oddity that angular momentum could be 'carried away by zero-energy gravitons' while energy flux is unchanged.
  • The frame-fixed angular momentum aspect is a measurable quantity: in nonradiative regions it is determined by the time delay of two counter-propagating light rays around a closed spatial loop, up to independently measurable mass and shear terms.
  • The explicit transformation laws for the boundary graviton's l=0,1 modes under boosts (eqs. 6.22–6.28) imply observers in different Lorentz frames can convert their measured aspects into a common covariant frame.
  • The two frame choices discussed (keeping vs discarding memory effects in the final frame) correspond to different measurement prescriptions, which accounts for the different O(G^2) vs O(G^3) flux results in the literature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending the construction, one could test whether the final-frame condition (5.2) removes the reported O(G^4) infrared divergence in the mass dipole flux by computing that flux with the frame fixed by P^i_μ P^f_ν J^{f μν}=0 in an explicit post-Minkowskian scattering setup.
  • The time-delay measurement is formulated for nonradiative regions; integrating the delay across a radiative burst might turn the flux itself, not only the aspect, into a directly observable quantity.
  • The conditions are essentially the classical center-of-mass frame transplanted onto null infinity; this suggests a physical picture of the supertranslation frame as the 'rest frame of the asymptotic system', which could unify the otherwise disparate prescriptions in the literature.
  • The point-particle example gives an explicit benchmark; using it to check the covariance of the flux at O(G^2) in boosted frames would be a clean consistency test.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the long-standing ambiguity in defining angular momentum and mass-dipole charges and their fluxes at null infinity in asymptotically flat spacetimes. It proposes to resolve this ambiguity by fixing a supertranslation and spacetime-translation frame through Lorentz-covariant conditions: equation (4.3), δ^{3/2}_{Y(J)}M|_{lm}=0 for l=0,1, fixes the initial frame; equation (5.2), P^i_μ P^f_ν J^{f μν}=0, fixes the final translation frame. The paper also discusses two concrete prescriptions for the flux (choice 1 vs. choice 2), relates them to memory effects, and proposes a measurement of the angular momentum aspect via the time delay of counter-propagating light rays in nonradiative regions. Section 6 and Appendix A present the linearized Bondi metric for n point particles at order O(G), the shear-zero supertranslation, and boost transformations of the mass aspect and boundary graviton. The central claim is that these conditions yield unambiguous, Lorentz-covariant angular momentum and mass-dipole fluxes.

Significance. If the proposed frame-fixing prescription is correct, it would provide a clean, parameter-free resolution of a well-known difficulty in classical general relativity, with implications for gravitational-wave physics and scattering problems. The paper's strengths include the explicit connection between the angular momentum aspect and observable time delays (Section 2), the covariant formulation of the frame conditions, and the concrete point-particle metric construction. However, the central claim about fluxes is not fully established: the radiative-region supertransformation law is omitted, and the point-particle example is computed at too low an order to actually test the frame-fixing conditions. These are load-bearing gaps rather than mere presentation issues.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 1, after eq. (1.3); Section 5, 'choice 1 vs. choice 2'] The paper explicitly leaves the radiative-region supertransformation law of N_A to reference [5]. The central claim—that the angular momentum and mass-dipole fluxes are made unambiguous—requires that the endpoint frame conditions (4.3) and (5.2) determine the flux through the entire radiative region. This is not shown. In particular, when memory effects are present, a single global supertranslation f(Θ) cannot in general set both D^A D^B C_AB(-∞)=0 and D^A D^B C_AB(+∞)=0; the two endpoint choices in Section 5 are therefore different frames, not a single frame. If the flux is defined as a difference of endpoint charges in different frames, the statement 'the ambiguity is resolved' is weaker than claimed and needs a precise formulation.
  2. [Section 6, eqs. (6.10)-(6.14)] The advertised explicit verification of the frame-fixing conditions is not carried out. The supertranslation f in (6.14) is O(G), and its effect on N_A through (1.3) is O(G^2), which the paper discards. The l=0,1 modes of f are precisely the modes that (4.3) and (5.2) are designed to fix, yet they are not determined from the point-particle metric. Thus the example does not demonstrate the main claim even at 'first nontrivial order'; it only fixes the l>1 shear. Please extend the computation to O(G^2) or explicitly state the limitation.
  3. [Eqs. (4.5)-(4.6)] The derivation of the explicit formula for f_{1-m} is too compressed. The step from (4.5) to (4.6) skips several angular integrations by parts and a harmonic decomposition; the cancellation of the l=2 mass-aspect contributions and the origin of the factor 6 in the denominator are not transparent. Since this formula is the concrete output of the frame-fixing condition, the intermediate steps should be supplied or a supplemental calculation provided.
  4. [Section 5, eq. (5.2)] The condition P^i_μ P^f_ν J^{f μν}=0 is stated as the covariant fix for the final translation frame, but its derivation from the shift formula (5.1) is not shown. In particular, the relation between the constant supertranslation f_00 and the shift in J^f_{0i} is not written explicitly, and the case P^f=0 (final rest frame) is not discussed. When P^f=0, the condition is vacuous, so the prescription is incomplete unless a separate rule is given.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.6)] The term containing dM/du vanishes in the stated nonradiative regime (where M is u-independent). It is confusing to include it; either delete it or explain why it is retained for a more general setting.
  2. [General presentation] There are several typos and notational slips: 'hamonics' should be 'harmonics', 'approximatec' should be 'approximated', 'the P sign' likely means 'the summation sign', and reference [9] is duplicated with a missing title. These should be corrected.
  3. [Eq. (3.4)] The usage of 'l' in 'for an l=2 supertranslation' is ambiguous: it is not clear whether l refers to the harmonic mode of f or to the eigenvalue of D^2 (which equals -l(l+1)). Clarify the notation.
  4. [Eq. (6.5)] The expression for g_uA has unbalanced parentheses; check the bracketing and ensure all terms are displayed consistently with (1.1).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; the frame-fixing conditions are derived or stipulated, not fitted and renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central frame-fixing condition (4.3) is attributed to the authors' own PRL [7] ('This is the new part of [7], which we interpret in a different but equivalent way here as a frame-fixing procedure'), but the load-bearing argument is reproduced in the text: the Jacobi-identity argument in eq. (3.6) shows that a supertranslation-invariant covariant tensor is also translation-invariant, and eqs. (4.7)-(4.10) show that (4.3) depends only on the l=0,1 harmonics of M. This is a parameter-free derivation, not a fit, so the self-citation is corroborative rather than circular. The final-translation condition (5.2) is explicitly introduced as a prescription ('This ambiguity can be fixed by choosing...'), i.e., a gauge convention rather than a quantity fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. The point-particle section independently computes M, N_A and C from the linearized metric (6.1)-(6.11) in Bondi gauge and then applies the frame choices, so no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The paper openly states that the supertransformation law in radiative regions is 'much more complicated' and refers to [5]; this is a completeness limitation for a fully global supertranslation-invariance proof, but since the flux is defined by fixing frames at the two nonradiative endpoints (choice 1 or choice 2), it is not a circular step. The admitted existence of two 'equally acceptable prescriptions' ('choice 1 vs. choice 2') is an honest statement about measurement conventions, not a circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained apart from a minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; masses, velocities, and positions in the point-particle example are physical inputs. The paper invokes two standard background assumptions (Bondi-Sachs expansion, primary weights) and one ad hoc modeling choice (integration constants set to zero in the Bondi-gauge transformation). No new entities are postulated.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Bondi-Sachs expansion (1.1) and the BMS transformation laws (1.2)-(1.3) apply to asymptotically flat spacetimes at null infinity.
    The entire construction uses Bondi-Sachs coordinates and the standard action of supertranslations on shear, mass aspect, and angular momentum aspect; cited to refs [1-4].
  • domain assumption In nonradiative regions the shear is parametrized as C_AB = -2(D_AD_B - 1/2 h_AB D^2)C and C is a scalar of conformal weight -1/2.
    Introduced in Sec. 2 and used to write the time-delay formula (2.6)-(2.7) and the frame-fixing equations; standard (see e.g. [15]).
  • domain assumption The supertranslation f and mass aspect M transform as SL(2,C) primaries of weights -1/2 and 3/2 respectively (eq. 3.3 and text after it).
    The covariance of the frame-fixing condition (4.3) rests on these representation-theoretic weights; the paper cites [20].
  • standard math The Jacobi identity argument (3.6) implies that a supertranslation-invariant, Lorentz-covariant tensor is invariant under translations.
    Derived in the text from the BMS algebra; used to prove that the l=0,1 harmonics of the frame must be fixed by a covariant condition.
  • ad hoc to paper For the point-particle example, the linearized metric at O(G) can be brought to Bondi gauge with integration constants set to zero, and the stress tensor of n straight-line particles with constant velocities describes the source.
    Sec. 6 and App. A; the authors acknowledge that setting constants to zero corresponds to a specific supertranslation frame, which is a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Matching conditions between past and future null infinity (antipodal identification) hold, so charges defined at I^+_- and I^+_+ can be compared.
    Used in Sec. 1 and Sec. 5 to define fluxes; cited to [13].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15037 in / 17937 out tokens · 140634 ms · 2026-08-04T10:01:11.897555+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this letter, we review the well known ambiguity in defining angular momentum (and mass dipole) fluxes in general relativity and we reinterpret recent works that resolve the ambiguity by defining invariant charges. We resolve the ambiguity by finding the conditions that fix a frame for supertranslation and for space-time translation. We also present an elementary method for measuring the angular momentum aspect and work out explicitly the supertranslation frame-fixing conditions for the metric created by point particles to first nontrivial order in the Newton constant.

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

35 extracted references · 25 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Gravitational Waves in General Relativity,

    H. Bondi, “Gravitational Waves in General Relativity,” Nature186, no.4724, 535-535 (1960)

    1960

  2. [2]

    Gravitational waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems,

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg and A. W. K. Metzner, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A269, 21-52 (1962)

    1962

  3. [3]

    Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,

    R. Sachs, “Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory,” Phys. Rev.128, 2851-2864 (1962)

    1962

  4. [4]

    Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times,

    R. K. Sachs, “Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A270, 103-126 (1962)

    1962

  5. [5]

    Transformation of mass-angular momentum aspect under BMS transformations,

    P. N. Chen, M. T. Wang, Y. K. Wang and S. T. Yau, “Transformation of mass-angular momentum aspect under BMS transformations,” [arXiv:2305.04617 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Conformal treatment of infinity,

    R. Penrose, “Conformal treatment of infinity,” inRelativity, Groups and Topology, eds. C. DeWitt, B. DeWitt (Gordon and Breach, 1964) p. 565

    1964

  7. [7]

    Three Puzzles with Covariance and Supertranslation Invariance of Angular Momentum Flux and Their Solutions,

    R. Javadinezhad and M. Porrati, “Three Puzzles with Covariance and Supertranslation Invariance of Angular Momentum Flux and Their Solutions,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, no.15, 151604 (2024) [arXiv:2312.02458 [hep-th]]. 17

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    The Poincar´ e and BMS flux-balance laws with application to binary systems,

    G. Comp` ere, R. Oliveri and A. Seraj, “The Poincar´ e and BMS flux-balance laws with application to binary systems,” JHEP10(2020), 116 [arXiv:1912.03164 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Supertranslation invariance of angular momentum,

    P. N. Chen, M. T. Wang, Y. K. Wang and S. T. Yau, “Supertranslation invariance of angular momentum,” Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.25, no.3, 777-789 (2021) [arXiv:2102.03235 [gr-qc]].P. N. Chen, M. T. Wang, Y. K. Wang and S. T. Yau,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    BMS Charges Without Supertrans- lation Ambiguity,

    P. N. Chen, M. T. Wang, Y. K. Wang and S. T. Yau, “BMS Charges Without Supertrans- lation Ambiguity,” Commun. Math. Phys.393, no.3, 1411-1449 (2022) [arXiv:2107.05316 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Supertranslation-invariant dressed Lorentz charges,

    R. Javadinezhad, U. Kol and M. Porrati, “Supertranslation-invariant dressed Lorentz charges,” JHEP04, 069 (2022) [arXiv:2202.03442 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [12]

    Supertranslation-Invariant Formula for the Angular Momentum Flux in Gravitational Scattering,

    R. Javadinezhad and M. Porrati, “Supertranslation-Invariant Formula for the Angular Momentum Flux in Gravitational Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.1, 011401 (2023) [arXiv:2211.06538 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Semiclassical Virasoro symmetry of the quantum gravityS-matrix,

    D. Kapec, V. Lysov, S. Pasterski and A. Strominger, “Semiclassical Virasoro symmetry of the quantum gravityS-matrix,” JHEP08, 058 (2014) [arXiv:1406.3312 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    New Gravitational Memories,

    S. Pasterski, A. Strominger and A. Zhiboedov, “New Gravitational Memories,” JHEP12, 053 (2016) [arXiv:1502.06120 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [15]

    On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering,

    A. Strominger, “On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering,” JHEP07, 152 (2014) [arXiv:1312.2229 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  16. [16]

    ´Uber den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralkoerper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,

    J. Lense and H. Thirring, “ ´Uber den Einfluss der Eigenrotation der Zentralkoerper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Phys. Z. 19, 156-163 (1918)

    1918

  17. [17]

    Gravitation,

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne and J. A. Wheeler, “Gravitation,” W. H. Freeman, 1973, ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0, 978-0-691-17779-3

    1973

  18. [18]

    Gyroscopic gravitational memory,

    A. Seraj and B. Oblak, “Gyroscopic gravitational memory,” JHEP11, 057 (2023) [arXiv:2112.04535 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Precession Caused by Gravitational Waves,

    A. Seraj and B. Oblak, “Precession Caused by Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.6, 061101 (2022) [arXiv:2203.16216 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theories,

    A. Strominger, “Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theories,” [arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Angular momentum loss in gravitational scattering, radiation reaction, and the Bondi gauge ambiguity,

    G. Veneziano and G. A. Vilkovisky, “Angular momentum loss in gravitational scattering, radiation reaction, and the Bondi gauge ambiguity,” Phys. Lett. B834, 137419 (2022) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137419 [arXiv:2201.11607 [gr-qc]]. 18

    arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Angular momentum balance in gravitational two-body scattering: Flux, memory, and supertranslation invariance,

    M. M. Riva, F. Vernizzi and L. K. Wong, “Angular momentum balance in gravitational two-body scattering: Flux, memory, and supertranslation invariance,” [arXiv:2302.09065 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Angular momentum and memory effect,

    P. Mao, J. B. Wu and X. Wu, “Angular momentum and memory effect,” Phys. Rev. D 107, no.10, L101501 (2023) [arXiv:2301.08032 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    ADM, BMS, and some puzzling interconnections,

    G. Veneziano, “ADM, BMS, and some puzzling interconnections,” J. Phys. A58, no.20, 205402 (2025) [arXiv:2505.11937 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Superrotation Charge and Supertrans- lation Hair on Black Holes,

    S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry and A. Strominger, “Superrotation Charge and Supertrans- lation Hair on Black Holes,” JHEP05, 161 (2017) [arXiv:1611.09175 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    Radiative contribution to classical gravitational scattering at the third or- der inG,

    T. Damour, “Radiative contribution to classical gravitational scattering at the third or- der inG,” Phys. Rev. D102, no.12, 124008 (2020) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124008 [arXiv:2010.01641 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Gravitational radiation reaction along general or- bits in the effective one-body formalism,

    D. Bini and T. Damour, “Gravitational radiation reaction along general or- bits in the effective one-body formalism,” Phys. Rev. D86, 124012 (2012) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.124012 [arXiv:1210.2834 [gr-qc]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  28. [28]

    Radiation Reaction from Soft Theorems,

    P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo and G. Veneziano, “Radiation Reaction from Soft Theorems,” Phys. Lett. B818, 136379 (2021) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136379 [arXiv:2101.05772 [hep-th]]

    arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    The eikonal op- erator at arbitrary velocities I: the soft-radiation limit,

    P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo and G. Veneziano, “The eikonal op- erator at arbitrary velocities I: the soft-radiation limit,” JHEP07, 039 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP07(2022)039 [arXiv:2204.02378 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Radiative classical grav- itational observables atO(G 3) from scattering amplitudes,

    E. Herrmann, J. Parra-Martinez, M. S. Ruf and M. Zeng, “Radiative classical grav- itational observables atO(G 3) from scattering amplitudes,” JHEP10, 148 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)148 [arXiv:2104.03957 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    The amplitude for classical gravitational scattering at third Post-Minkowskian order,

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, L. Plant´ e and P. Vanhove, “The amplitude for classical gravitational scattering at third Post-Minkowskian order,” JHEP08, 172 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2021)172 [arXiv:2105.05218 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Classical gravitational scattering from a gauge-invariant double copy,

    A. Brandhuber, G. Chen, G. Travaglini and C. Wen, “Classical gravitational scattering from a gauge-invariant double copy,” JHEP10, 118 (2021) doi:10.1007/JHEP10(2021)118 [arXiv:2108.04216 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Radiated Angular Momentum and Dissipative Effects in Classical Scattering,

    A. V. Manohar, A. K. Ridgway and C. H. Shen, “Radiated Angular Momentum and Dissipative Effects in Classical Scattering,” Phys. Rev. Lett.129, no.12, 121601 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.121601 [arXiv:2203.04283 [hep-th]]. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Angular momentum of zero-frequency gravi- tons,

    P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg and R. Russo, “Angular momentum of zero-frequency gravi- tons,” JHEP08, 172 (2022) doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)172 [arXiv:2203.11915 [hep-th]]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Revisiting gravitational angular momentum and mass dipole losses in the eikonal framework,

    C. Heissenberg and R. Russo, “Revisiting gravitational angular momentum and mass dipole losses in the eikonal framework,” Class. Quant. Grav.42, no.4, 045014 (2025) [arXiv:2406.03937 [gr-qc]]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025