Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

A hierarchical semi-coherent search pipeline recovers an injected Galactic-center XMRI from 90 days of simulated TianQin data with fractional errors below 10^-6 in orbital frequency and roughly 10^-3 in mass, spin, and eccentricity.

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

2026-08-03 06:32 UTC pith:NQA2MAH4

load-bearing objection First practical XMRI search pipeline—hierarchical semi-coherent F-statistic plus a harmonic-power eccentricity estimator—but the validation is a single loud injection and the precision numbers don't agree between abstract and body. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2601.22464 v2 pith:NQA2MAH4 submitted 2026-01-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc

Constructing a gravitational wave analysis pipeline for extremely large mass ratio inspirals

Tian-Xiao Wang , Yan Wang , Alejandro Torres-Orjuela , Yi-Ren Lin , Hui-Min Fan , Ver\'onica V\'azquez-Aceves , Yi-Ming Hu This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords extremely large mass-ratio inspiralsXMRI searchsemi-coherent F-statisticparticle swarm optimizationeccentricity estimationTianQinSgr A*space-based gravitational-wave detector
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 maintains that extremely large mass-ratio inspirals—brown dwarfs spiraling into a supermassive black hole such as Sgr A*—are detectable and precisely measurable, provided the search strategy is built for their near-monochromatic, multi-harmonic character. It proposes the first dedicated analysis pipeline for such XMRI signals in space-based detector data, combining a semi-coherent multi-harmonic F-statistic, particle swarm optimization, and a novel eccentricity estimate based on power balance among harmonics. Applied to 90 days of simulated TianQin data containing an injected Galactic-center XMRI, the pipeline recovers the orbital frequency with fractional error below 10^-6 and the black hole mass, eccentricity, and spin with fractional errors near 10^-3. The claim matters because XMRIs have been predicted to be excellent strong-gravity probes but were previously considered computationally prohibitive to search for.

Core claim

The central claim is that a hierarchical semi-coherent search—15-day segments to localize frequency and eccentricity, 30-day segments to break degeneracies, and a final 90-day fully coherent stage—can navigate the 10-dimensional, multimodal likelihood surface of an XMRI signal and converge on the true parameters. On a single simulated TianQin observation of a brown dwarf orbiting Sgr A* at eccentricity 0.7 and SNR about 132, the final stage recovers the injected parameters: orbital frequency with relative error below 10^-6, eccentricity with error around 10^-3, black hole mass with error around 2×10^-3, spin with error around 10^-3, spin orientation within 1.8 degrees, and companion mass wit

What carries the argument

The pipeline rests on three elements. (1) A semi-coherent multi-harmonic F-statistic: the data are split into K segments, a coherent matched-filter statistic is computed for each harmonic in each segment, and the sum 2F_semi = Σ_k Σ_n 2F_AE,n^(k) is the detection statistic, following a chi-squared distribution with 4KN degrees of freedom. (2) A harmonic-power eccentricity estimator: because the expected SNR of harmonic n is ρ_n²(e) = C g(n,e)/(n² S_n(n f0)), and because 2F_n − 4 estimates ρ_n², the paper fits the observed per-harmonic F-statistics to this profile to estimate e0; this estimate shrinks the e0 search range by about two orders of magnitude before the next stage. (3) Particle swa

Load-bearing premise

The entire pipeline depends on the assumption that the per-harmonic detection statistic 2F_n − 4 traces the intrinsic harmonic signal-to-noise profile predicted by eccentricity alone, with no reshaping from detector response, precession sidebands, or noise variation across harmonics; this has been verified for only one high-SNR injection, so a bias in the Stage I eccentricity estimate would propagate through every later stage.

What would settle it

Inject the same XMRI parameters (e0 = 0.7, SNR ≈ 132) into 20 independent TianQin noise realizations, run only Stage I (15-day semi-coherent search), and compare the recovered e0 values to the true value. If the mean offset exceeds the reported scatter, or if a lower-SNR injection (SNR ≈ 20) shows a systematic e0 bias, the harmonic-power eccentricity estimator is invalid and the hierarchy collapses.

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

If this is right

  • If the pipeline works as demonstrated, a single 90-day TianQin observation of a Galactic-center XMRI could pin the orbital frequency to better than one part in a million and the Sgr A* mass to about one part in 500.
  • The eccentricity pre-estimator effectively removes the e0–(M, s) degeneracy, the main barrier to high-precision recovery; the same hierarchical design should transfer to other space-based detectors by replacing the PSD and response model.
  • The recovered companion-mass precision (~0.2%) would, for a population of detected XMRIs, constrain the mass function of low-mass objects near Sgr A* and probe the dynamical environment of the Galactic center.
  • The scheme is advertised as scalable: longer coherent baselines and eccentricities up to about 0.95 are within reach, so multi-year TianQin datasets can be analyzed without structural changes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper validates on a single high-SNR injection (SNR ≈ 132). An editor's extrapolation: the harmonic-power eccentricity estimator should degrade gracefully but needs validation at lower SNR and across noise realizations; a natural next test is a Monte Carlo campaign with 20+ realizations at SNR 20–30 to check bias and scatter of the recovered e0.
  • The analytic TDI factorization is the most likely point of failure for longer templates or higher eccentricities: if precession sidebands of adjacent harmonics overlap, the decoupling of precession modulation from detector response breaks, and the harmonic profile—and hence the eccentricity estimate—acquires a signal-dependent bias.
  • The hierarchical t-interval refinement treats the PSO sample as quasi-Gaussian; with only 5–10 retained candidates the tails are poorly resolved, so the reported 99.7% containment is optimistic. A bootstrap or multi-seed aggregation would give more honest search-range widths.
  • If confirmed on repeated realizations, the method implies that XMRIs are not only detectable but competitively precise: spin magnitude and direction from this single GW channel would rival or beat current electromagnetic constraints, a qualitative shift in what Sgr A* observations can deliver.

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 develops a three-stage hierarchical semi-coherent search pipeline for extremely large mass-ratio inspirals (XMRIs) in space-based gravitational-wave data, specifically TianQin. The pipeline combines a multi-harmonic F-statistic with particle swarm optimization and a novel harmonic-power-based eccentricity estimator. It is tested on one simulated 90-day Galactic Center XMRI injection (a 0.05 Msun brown dwarf around Sgr A*, e=0.7, SNR~132). The authors report recovery with fractional errors <1e-6 in orbital frequency, ~1e-3 in eccentricity, ~2e-3 in black-hole mass, and ~1e-3 in spin (Table IV), plus analytical reconstruction of the secondary mass and initial phase. The paper claims this is the first practical XMRI search framework for space-based detectors.

Significance. If the validation is robust, this is a useful and timely contribution: dedicated XMRI search pipelines for TianQin/LISA are largely missing, and the combination of a semi-coherent multi-harmonic F-statistic with PSO plus an independent eccentricity estimator is a sensible architecture. The noiseless 2F_n = rho_n^2 consistency check (Fig. 2) and the analytic TDI template acceleration (Sec. IV B2) are useful ingredients. The single-injection success is encouraging, but the paper's headline precision claims are not yet statistically supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V, Tables II–IV; Sec. IV A] The pipeline is validated on a single injected signal with SNR ~132 and no repeated noise realizations. Table IV reports one best-fit value per parameter and labels the difference from injection as a 'relative error'; the abstract re-labels these as 'fractional uncertainties.' There are no false-alarm/false-dismissal statistics, no distribution of recovered parameters, and no lower-SNR injections. Since the central claim is that the pipeline 'robustly recovers' parameters at the quoted precision, the absence of statistical characterization makes the headline precision unsupported. At minimum, run many noise realizations at the nominal SNR and at several lower SNRs, report bias and variance, and provide detection-statistic thresholds.
  2. [Abstract vs. Table IV; Sec. V C] The abstract's quoted fractional uncertainties (2.0e-6 in f0, 2.9e-4 in e, 2.5e-5 in M, 5.6e-4 in s) do not match Table IV (<1e-6, 1.1e-3, 1.9e-3, 1.0e-3) or the conclusion's O(1e-3). The full-text abstract itself uses yet different values (<1e-6 f0, roughly 1e-3 e, roughly 2e-3 M, roughly 1e-3 s). Moreover, Table IV's entries are single-realization recovery errors, not statistical uncertainties. This is not merely cosmetic: it misstates the precision actually demonstrated. The numbers must be reconciled and the distinction between error and uncertainty made explicit.
  3. [Sec. III C, Eqs. (31)–(33), (37)–(38); Eq. (40)] The eccentricity estimator uses rho_n^2(e) = C g(n,e)/(n^2 S_n(n f0)) as the expected per-harmonic F-statistic profile. This expression is the intrinsic strain SNR; it contains no detector-response or TDI transfer factor D(f_n, angles). If D(f_n) varies across the harmonic band—which it does for TianQin at low frequencies—the fitted e_hat is biased. The analytic TDI approximation in Eq. (40) is a time-domain factorization and says nothing about whether D(f) is constant across harmonics. The noiseless check in Fig. 2 is ambiguous: it does not state whether the numerical 2F_n was computed with the full numerical TDI response or with the same analytic templates. If the latter, the agreement is built into the template family and does not validate Eq. (31). Because Stage I's e0 refinement seeds Stages II and III, this is a load-bearing point; it must be tested against full-TDI injections with
  4. [Sec. IV C, Stage I; Table II] The five Stage-I PSO candidates have directly recovered e0 values spread around the true value by up to ~0.05 (0.691–0.754), yet the harmonic estimator returns eest = {0.6999, 0.6996, 0.6988, 0.7012, 0.6983} with an extremely narrow 99.7% interval [0.6963, 0.7028]. The paper does not explain why the estimator is so stable under substantial template mismatch, nor does it report the minimized chi^2 value or a fit-based uncertainty for e_hat. Since this interval is the basis for the Stage-II search range, the estimator's apparent precision needs direct validation (e.g., bias-vs-e curve and fit diagnostics), not just cross-candidate scatter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] Use 'recovery error' for single-realization differences and reserve 'uncertainty' for statistical quantities. Update the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III B, Fig. 2] State explicitly whether the noiseless 2F_n values are computed with the full numerical TDI response or with the analytic template; otherwise the check is uninterpretable.
  3. [Sec. IV C, Stage I; Table II] Table II lists direct PSO e0 values while the text's eest list comes from a separate estimator and is not in the table. Put both in the table or clearly separate them.
  4. [Sec. IV A, IV B] For reproducibility, include explicit PSD expressions, the harmonic range [n_min, n_max] values used for the simulated source, and PSO random seed handling. The text refers to GWSpace but does not give the formulas.
  5. [Various] Minor typographical/formatting issues: Ref. [10] has an odd title, Ref. [52] lacks journal details, and some inline math is inconsistently typeset.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the pipeline is a self-contained estimation/validation study; the eccentricity estimator is a fit, not a hidden re-use of the claimed result.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step where a claimed prediction is equivalent to an input by construction. The F-statistic is derived from the likelihood (Eqs. 10-27) in the standard way; the multi-harmonic eccentricity estimator (Eqs. 29-38) fits the observed per-harmonic statistic R_n=2F_n-4 to the theoretical profile C g(n,e)/(n^2 S_n(n f0)). This is parameter estimation from the same data used for validation, not circularity: the injected eccentricity is not encoded in the estimator except through the physical harmonic model, and the paper does not claim to predict e from information that already contains the answer. The analytic TDI factorization T[P(t)H_n(t)]≈P(t)T[H_n(t)] (Eq. 40) is an approximation, but it is checked against fully numerical GWSpace templates with FF≃0.998 (Fig. 3), so it is not smuggled in solely through self-citation. Self-citations to [3,4,7] and related works supply astrophysical source parameters, formation rates, and waveform inputs; they are not the load-bearing justification for the pipeline's central claim. The abstract's precision values differ from Table IV and the conclusion, and the validation is a single high-SNR injection with no repeated noise realizations; these are robustness/validation concerns, not circularity. Overall, the central derivation is self-contained against external waveform, noise, and statistical machinery, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard gravitational-wave data-analysis assumptions plus several modeling approximations: stationary eccentricity, analytic TDI response factorization, and a single high-SNR validation. No new physical entities are postulated. The main free parameters are the eccentricity-estimator normalization and search hyperparameters.

free parameters (4)
  • Eccentricity-estimator normalization constant C = profiled per harmonic set via Eq. (36)
    C absorbs chirp mass, distance, observation time, and PSD scale; it is fitted from the same data used to estimate e, so the eccentricity estimate is a fit to the harmonic power profile.
  • PSO inertia weight range = 0.92-0.5 (linearly decreasing)
    The paper says the range was 'slightly tuned' from the literature value 0.9-0.4 to suit the XMRI search (Sec. IV C); a hand-tuned hyperparameter.
  • Harmonic SNR threshold = 99% of total SNR
    Used to define the SNR-dominant harmonic range [n_e,min, n_e,max] (Sec. IV C); chosen by hand and affects both search cost and the eccentricity profile.
  • PSO swarm size and iteration count = 100 particles, 6000 iterations, 10 parallel runs
    Computational choices that the performance claims are contingent on; not derived from first principles.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption XMRI waveform is a superposition of Peters-Mathews harmonics with Bessel-function coefficients and phase Phi_n(t)=omega_{n,0}t + 0.5*omega_dot_n t^2 + n*Phi_0 (Eqs. 3-5).
    The entire likelihood and harmonic-power estimator assume this waveform model for a BD on a quasi-geodesic orbit around a Kerr BH; no self-force or higher-order PN corrections are included (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption Orbital parameters evolve linearly in time: x(t) = x0 + x_dot t (Eq. 7).
    Used to construct search templates; valid for short 90-day windows but not for all XMRI parameter space.
  • ad hoc to paper Eccentricity is quasi-stationary: de/dt approx 0 over T_c <= 90 days (Sec. IV B 1).
    Adopted to speed up waveform generation; the paper reports mismatch <= 1e-9 for moderate e and FF >= 0.9955 for e0=0.95, but no code or independent verification is provided.
  • ad hoc to paper Analytic TDI response factorization T[P(t)H_n(t)] approx P(t) * T[H_n(t)] (Eq. 40).
    Decouples precession modulation from the GW harmonic response; validated by FF approx 0.998 at 0.1 mHz in the paper, but this approximation could bias the harmonic power ratios used by the eccentricity estimator.
  • domain assumption Noise is stationary, Gaussian, and uncorrelated across arms; first-generation TDI with quasi-static arm lengths is adequate (Sec. II C).
    The chi-squared statistics and F-statistic distributions assume this; real TianQin noise may be nonstationary, and the T channel is ignored.
  • ad hoc to paper Harmonic range [n_min, n_max] is set by the 0.1 mHz-1 Hz detector band and a 99% total-SNR threshold (Sec. IV C).
    The 99% threshold and harmonic truncation affect both computational cost and the eccentricity profile; not derived from first principles.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 25231 in / 13287 out tokens · 130254 ms · 2026-08-03T06:32:23.132712+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Extremely large mass-ratio inspirals (XMRIs), consisting of a brown dwarf orbiting a supermassive black hole, emit long-lived and nearly monochromatic gravitational waves in the millihertz band and constitute a promising probe of strong-field gravity and black-hole properties. However, dedicated data-analysis pipelines for XMRI signals have not yet been established. In this work, we develop, for the first time, a hierarchical semi-coherent search pipeline for XMRIs tailored to space-based gravitational-wave detectors, with a particular focus on the TianQin mission. The pipeline combines a semi-coherent multi-harmonic $\mathcal{F}$-statistic with particle swarm optimization, and incorporates a novel eccentricity estimation method based on the relative power distribution among harmonics. We validate the performance of the pipeline using simulated TianQin data for a Galactic Center XMRI composed of a brown dwarf and Sgr A*. For a three-month observation, the pipeline successfully recovers the signal and achieves high-precision parameter estimation, including fractional uncertainties of $2.0\times10^{-6}$ in the orbital frequency, $2.9\times10^{-4}$ in the eccentricity, $2.5\times10^{-5}$ in the black-hole mass, and $5.6\times10^{-4}$ in the black-hole spin. Our framework establishes a practical foundation for future XMRI searches with space-based detectors and highlights the potential of XMRIs as precision probes of stellar dynamics and strong-field gravity in the vicinity of supermassive black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.22464 by Alejandro Torres-Orjuela, Hui-Min Fan, Tian-Xiao Wang, Ver\'onica V\'azquez-Aceves, Yan Wang, Yi-Ming Hu, Yi-Ren Lin.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Geometry of an eccentric XMRI system in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: compares the numerically evaluated 2Fn (red dots) with the corresponding theoretical values ρ 2 n (blue open circles) across all harmonics. The exact agreement ob￾served in the noiseless case confirms both the internal consistency of the F-statistic formalism and the correct￾ness of its numerical implementation. In practical ap￾plications, the statistic is evaluated on data containing instrumental noise, y… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic of the hierarchical semi-coherent search pipeline for XMRI signals. The top panels illustrate the foundational [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Recovered values of the orbital inclination angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution of the fully coherent 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Multistage parameter localization for the Sgr A* spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: presents the response of 2F to variations in indi￾vidual parameters while keeping other parameters fixed at their true values. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: illustrates the two-dimensional 2F surfaces in the e0-M and e0-s planes, revealing strong correlations between the initial eccentricity and other intrinsic pa￾rameters. As depicted in both panels of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.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

85 extracted references · 54 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Stationary eccentricity approximation For XMRIs observed over a relatively short duration (Tc ≤90 days), the secular orbital evolution driven by radiation reaction is expected to be weak. In particular, the cumulative change in eccentricity over the observa- tion time is well below the effective resolution of Tian- Qin, which motivates treating the eccent...

  2. [2]

    Analytic TDI response The second computational bottleneck arises from the numerical evaluation of the TDI response. Using GWSpace[59], which performs time-domain integration of the constellation motion and individual inter-satellite link responses, generating a three-month-long template for a single harmonic typically requires several seconds. For a repre...

    2000

  3. [3]

    8 presents the response of 2Fto variations in indi- vidual parameters while keeping other parameters fixed at their true values

    Parameter insensitivity tomandγ 0 Fig. 8 presents the response of 2Fto variations in indi- vidual parameters while keeping other parameters fixed at their true values. As shown in Fig. 8 (a), the 2Fdis- tribution is remarkably flat across the mass range. Phys- ically, the BD massmenters the signal evolution primar- ily through the frequency derivative ˙f....

  4. [4]

    degeneracy tracks

    Correlations and degeneracies ofe 0 withMands Fig. 9 illustrates the two-dimensional 2Fsurfaces in thee 0-Mande 0-splanes, revealing strong correlations between the initial eccentricity and other intrinsic pa- rameters. As depicted in both panels of Fig. 9, the high-2Fre- gions do not appear as isolated points but rather as elon- gated, tilted ridges. The...

  5. [5]

    Estimation of the BD mass For then-th harmonic, the two extrinsic amplitude parameters obtained from theF-statistic can be written as A1 n =h 0 cos Φ0,n,A 2 n =h 0 sin Φ0,n,(B1) where the harmonic phase satisfies Φ0,n =nΦ 0.(B2) The overall amplitude factorh 0 is given by h0 =− Gµ ω2 n dLc4 ≃ G m(2πnf0)2 dLc4 ,(B3) 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 e0 3.60 3.80 4.00 4.20 4...

  6. [6]

    In theF- statistic framework, the orbital phase Φ 0,n of each indi- vidual harmonic can be analytically recovered, but re- mains subject to a constant shift dependent onγ 0

    Estimation of the initial orbital phase As detailed in Appendix A, the phase resolved directly from the extrinsic parameters represents a combined ef- fect of the initial orbital phase Φ 0,n and an offset in- troduced by the argument of pericenterγ 0. In theF- statistic framework, the orbital phase Φ 0,n of each indi- vidual harmonic can be analytically r...

  7. [7]

    Amaro-Seoane, Phys

    P. Amaro-Seoane, Phys. Rev. D99, 123025 (2019), arXiv:1903.10871 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Gourgoulhon, A

    E. Gourgoulhon, A. Le Tiec, F. H. Vincent, and N. Warburton, Astron. Astrophys.627, A92 (2019), arXiv:1903.02049 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Vazquez-Aceves, Y

    V. Vazquez-Aceves, Y. Lin, and A. Torres-Orjuela, As- trophys. J.952, 139 (2023), arXiv:2206.14399 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    V´ azquez-Aceves, Y

    V. V´ azquez-Aceves, Y. Lin, and A. Torres-Orjuela, As- trophys. J.987, 208 (2025), arXiv:2412.20738 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Amaro-Seoane, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20898 (2025), arXiv:2510.20898 [astro-ph.HE]

    P. Amaro-Seoane, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20898 (2025), arXiv:2510.20898 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    P. A. Seoane and S.-D. Zhao, JCAP11, 015, arXiv:2504.20147 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  13. [13]

    H.-M. Fan, A. Torres-Orjuela, V. V´ azquez-Aceves, T.- X. Wang, and T.-F. Feng, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2511.08221 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Amaro-Seoane, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C

    P. Amaro-Seoane, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer Singapore, 2020)

    2020

  15. [15]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. R. Gair, M. Freitag, M. Cole- man Miller, I. Mandel, C. J. Cutler, and S. Babak, Class. Quant. Grav.24, R113 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0703495

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  16. [16]

    Eckart, R

    A. Eckart, R. Genzel, T. Ott, and R. Sch¨ odel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, v.331, 917-934 (2002)331(2002)

    2002

  17. [17]

    Genzel, F

    R. Genzel, F. Eisenhauer, and S. Gillessen, Reviews of Modern Physics82, 3121 (2010), arXiv:1006.0064 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    Genzel, C

    R. Genzel, C. Pichon, A. Eckart, O. E. Gerhard, and T. Ott, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.317, 348 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0001428

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  19. [19]

    Kroupa, C

    P. Kroupa, C. Weidner, J. Pflamm-Altenburg, I. Thies, J. Dabringhausen, M. Marks, and T. Maschberger, in Planets, Stars and Stellar Systems. Volume 5: Galac- tic Structure and Stellar Populations, Vol. 5, edited by T. D. Oswalt and G. Gilmore (2013) p. 115

    2013

  20. [20]

    Baumgardt, P

    H. Baumgardt, P. Amaro-Seoane, and R. Sch¨ odel, As- tron. Astrophys.609, A28 (2018), arXiv:1701.03818 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    Sch¨ odel, A

    R. Sch¨ odel, A. Feldmeier, N. Neumayer, L. Meyer, and S. Yelda, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 244007 (2014), arXiv:1411.4504 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    Bartkoet al., Astrophys

    H. Bartkoet al., Astrophys. J.708, 834 (2010), arXiv:0908.2177 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  23. [23]

    Preto and P

    M. Preto and P. Amaro-Seoane, Astrophys. J. Lett.708, L42 (2010), arXiv:0910.3206 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  24. [24]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Colpiet al.(LISA), arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Colpiet al.(LISA), arXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Meiet al.(TianQin), PTEP2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    J. Meiet al.(TianQin), PTEP2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Y. Gong, J. Luo, and B. Wang, Nature Astron.5, 881 (2021), arXiv:2109.07442 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    H.-T. Wang, Z. Jiang, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, S.-J. Huang, Y.-F. Wang, W.-F. Feng, Y. Wang, Y.-M. Hu, J. Mei, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. D100, 043003 (2019), arXiv:1902.04423 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  30. [30]

    Huang, Y.-M

    S.-J. Huang, Y.-M. Hu, V. Korol, P.-C. Li, Z.-C. Liang, Y. Lu, H.-T. Wang, S. Yu, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D102, 063021 (2020), arXiv:2005.07889 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Liu, Y.-M

    S. Liu, Y.-M. Hu, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103027 (2020), arXiv:2004.14242 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Fan, Y.-M

    H.-M. Fan, Y.-M. Hu, E. Barausse, A. Sesana, J.-d. Zhang, X. Zhang, T.-G. Zi, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063016 (2020), arXiv:2005.08212 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Liang, Y.-M

    Z.-C. Liang, Y.-M. Hu, Y. Jiang, J. Cheng, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D105, 022001 (2022), arXiv:2107.08643 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Ye, H.-M

    C.-Q. Ye, H.-M. Fan, A. Torres-Orjuela, J.-d. Zhang, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D109, 124034 (2024), arXiv:2310.03520 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Lyu, E.-K

    X. Lyu, E.-K. Li, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D108, 083023 (2023), arXiv:2307.12244 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Chen, X.-Y

    H.-Y. Chen, X.-Y. Lyu, E.-K. Li, and Y.-M. Hu, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy67, 279512 (2024), arXiv:2309.06910 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Zhang, N

    X.-T. Zhang, N. Korsakova, M. L. Chan, C. Messen- ger, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D110, 103034 (2024), 19 arXiv:2406.07336 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    P. A. Seoaneet al.(LISA), Living Rev. Rel.26, 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Liet al., Rept

    E.-K. Liet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 056901 (2025), arXiv:2409.19665 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    R. A. Daly, M. Donahue, C. P. O’Dea, B. Sebastian, D. Haggard, and A. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 428 (2023), arXiv:2310.12108 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    A. M. Ghezet al., Astrophys. J.689, 1044 (2008), arXiv:0808.2870 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Gillessen, F

    S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, S. Trippe, T. Alexander, R. Genzel, F. Martins, and T. Ott, Astrophys. J.692, 1075 (2009), arXiv:0810.4674 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    Fragione and A

    G. Fragione and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett.901, L32 (2020), arXiv:2008.11734 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L13 (2022), arXiv:2311.08679 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L16 (2022), arXiv:2311.09478 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  47. [47]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L14 (2022), arXiv:2311.09479 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L15 (2022), arXiv:2311.08697 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.964, L25 (2024)

    2024

  50. [50]

    Ciurlo and M

    A. Ciurlo and M. R. Morris, arXiv e-prints (2025), arXiv:2503.20081 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  52. [52]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev.131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  53. [53]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D69, 082005 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310125

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  54. [54]

    Moreno-Garrido, E

    C. Moreno-Garrido, E. Mediavilla, and J. Buitrago, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.274, 115 (1995)

    1995

  55. [55]

    Abuter, A

    GRA VITY Collaboration, R. Abuter, A. Amorim, M. Baub¨ ock, J. P. Berger, H. Bonnet, W. Brandner, Y. Cl´ enet, V. Coud´ e Du Foresto, P. T. de Zeeuw, J. Dex- ter, G. Duvert, A. Eckart, F. Eisenhauer, N. M. F¨ orster Schreiber, P. Garcia, F. Gao, E. Gendron, R. Genzel, O. Gerhard, S. Gillessen, M. Habibi, X. Haubois, T. Hen- ning, S. Hippler, M. Horrobin, ...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    M. J. Reid, K. M. Menten, A. Brunthaler, X. W. Zheng, T. M. Dame, Y. Xu, J. Li, N. Sakai, Y. Wu, K. Im- mer, B. Zhang, A. Sanna, L. Moscadelli, K. L. J. Rygl, A. Bartkiewicz, B. Hu, L. H. Quiroga-Nu˜ nez, and H. J. van Langevelde, Astrophys. J.885, 131 (2019), arXiv:1910.03357 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  57. [57]

    Abuteret al.(GRA VITY), Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(GRA VITY), Astron. Astrophys.615, L15 (2018), arXiv:1807.09409 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  58. [58]

    P. C. Peters, Physical Review (U.S.) Superseded in part by Phys. Rev. A, Phys. Rev. B: Solid State, Phys. Rev. C, and Phys. Rev. DV ol: 136, 10.1103/Phys- Rev.136.B1224 (1964)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 1964

  59. [59]

    Lin,Identifying Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals at the Galactic Center, Bachelor’s thesis, Peking University, Beijing, China (2022)

    Y. Lin,Identifying Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals at the Galactic Center, Bachelor’s thesis, Peking University, Beijing, China (2022)

    2022

  60. [60]

    Stroeer and A

    A. Stroeer and A. Vecchio, Class. Quant. Grav.23, S809 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  61. [61]

    T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D66, 122002 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0209039

    arXiv 2002

  62. [62]

    N. J. Cornish and L. J. Rubbo, Phys. Rev. D67, 022001 (2003), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 67, 029905 (2003)], arXiv:gr-qc/0209011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  63. [63]

    J. W. Armstrong, F. B. Estabrook, and M. Tinto, Astro- phys. J.527, 814 (1999)

    1999

  64. [64]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Rev. Rel.24, 1 (2021)

    2021

  65. [65]

    Liet al., Class

    E.-K. Liet al., Class. Quant. Grav.42, 165005 (2025), arXiv:2309.15020 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Wang and C.-G

    P.-P. Wang and C.-G. Shao, Springer Proc. Phys.428, 103 (2025)

    2025

  67. [67]

    Jaranowski, A

    P. Jaranowski, A. Krolak, and B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D58, 063001 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9804014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  68. [68]

    N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, Phys. Rev. D67, 103001 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301548

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  69. [69]

    Cutler and B

    C. Cutler and B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D72, 063006 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0504011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  70. [70]

    Prix, Gravitational waves from spinning neutron stars, inNeutron Stars and Pulsars, edited by W

    R. Prix, Gravitational waves from spinning neutron stars, inNeutron Stars and Pulsars, edited by W. Becker (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009) pp. 651–685

    2009

  71. [71]

    Prix and B

    R. Prix and B. Krishnan, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 204013 (2009), arXiv:0907.2569 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  72. [72]

    P. B. Covas and R. Prix, Phys. Rev. D105, 124007 (2022), arXiv:2203.08723 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Y. Fu, Y. Wang, and S. D. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. D111, 043026 (2025), arXiv:2407.10797 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Bandopadhyay and C

    D. Bandopadhyay and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. D110, 103026 (2024)

    2024

  75. [75]

    Bratton and J

    D. Bratton and J. Kennedy, in2007 IEEE Swarm Intel- ligence Symposium(2007) pp. 120–127

    2007

  76. [76]

    Mohanty,Swarm Intelligence Methods for Statistical Regression(CRC Press)

    S. Mohanty,Swarm Intelligence Methods for Statistical Regression(CRC Press)

  77. [77]

    L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D46, 5236 (1992), arXiv:gr- qc/9209010

    arXiv 1992

  78. [78]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  79. [79]

    B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. D53, 6749 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9511032

    arXiv 1996

  80. [80]

    T. Wagg, T. Wagg, K. Breivik, K. Breivik, S. E. de Mink, and S. E. de Mink, Astrophys. J. Supp.260, 52 (2022), [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Supp. 262, 35 (2022)], arXiv:2111.08717 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.