Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 122 references

Relativistic frame rotation suppresses orbit-averaged tidal dissipation by up to ~50% in white dwarf–intermediate-mass black hole binaries, yet the residual dissipation still drives rapid circularization and measurable gravitational-wave de

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

2026-08-02 20:37 UTC pith:DSAVKQLU

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful first relativistic tidal-dissipation model for WD-IMBH binaries, but the paper's own explanation for the suppression is inconsistent with its local-damping assumption and the quantitative claims are shakier than the abstract suggests. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22688 v2 pith:DSAVKQLU submitted 2026-02-26 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Relativistic Tidal Dissipation and the Gravitational-wave Signal of a White Dwarf Orbiting an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole

Yang Yang , Leif Lui , Alejandro Torres-Orjuela , Xian Chen This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w95.30.Sf97.20.Rp
keywords tidal dissipationwhite dwarfintermediate-mass black holegravitational waveslocal inertial framegravity-mode oscillationsquasi-periodic eruptionsgeneral relativity
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 tries to establish that when a white dwarf orbits an intermediate-mass black hole in the strong-gravity regime, the rate at which tides sap orbital energy and angular momentum is roughly half of what Newtonian theory predicts. The reason is not a weaker tidal pull; near closest approach the relativistic field is actually stronger. Instead, parallel transport of the local inertial frame plus relativistic apsidal precession rotates the tidal axes between passages, so the forcing seen by the white dwarf loses phase coherence and the orbit-averaged transfer drops. Despite the suppression, the remaining dissipation still damps eccentricity faster than gravitational-wave emission alone, sometimes pushing the pericenter outward, and accumulates into gravitational-wave phase and amplitude mismatches of order 0.1 within months. A reader should care because current multi-messenger templates for these systems ignore this relativistic suppression, which affects both electromagnetic outburst models and space-based gravitational-wave searches.

Core claim

The central claim is that the orbit-averaged tidal dissipation rate in a white dwarf–intermediate-mass black hole binary is suppressed by up to ~50% relative to Newtonian calculations, owing to the rotation of the local inertial frame attached to the white dwarf. In the Keplerian limit the principal axes of the tidal tensor return to the same orientation every pericenter passage, so the stellar response builds coherently; in the curved spacetime of a spinning black hole the parallel-transported frame rotates and the orbit precesses, so the forcing phase at successive pericenters is shifted. The paper derives the relativistic quadrupole tidal tensor in a local free-fall frame, feeds it into a

What carries the argument

The central object is the relativistic quadrupole tidal tensor evaluated in a local free-fall frame comoving with the white dwarf, together with the parallel-transported frame rotation angle that enters the phase of the tidal forcing. The paper's key move is to identify that in a spinning-black-hole spacetime this angle does not return to itself modulo 2π at successive pericenter passages, so the tidal forcing loses coherence; this is quantified through a conserved combination of the black-hole spin and the orbit's angular momentum that appears in the tidal-tensor components. The dissipation rates are then computed from short-wavelength gravity-mode waves in the outer envelope, with a dimens

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the white dwarf's tidal response is well described as locally damped Newtonian gravity-mode waves, with a dimensionless dissipation coefficient around 10^2 imported from non-relativistic stellar models; if that calibration or the local-damping picture breaks down at pericenter distances of 2–3 tidal radii, or if fundamental-mode excitation is non-negligible there, the predicted suppression, outward pericenter migration, and waveform mismatch w

What would settle it

Run a fully relativistic hydrodynamical simulation of a 0.6-solar-mass white dwarf on an eccentric equatorial orbit around a spinning black hole, with pericenter at 2–3 tidal radii, for tens of pericenter passages, and measure the orbit-averaged energy transfer. If it does not fall roughly 30–50% below the Newtonian local-tide prediction for the same orbit, the coherence-loss mechanism is wrong. Alternatively, a space-based gravitational-wave observation of a white dwarf–black hole binary that shows no mismatch against no-tide templates at the predicted level within six months would falsify th

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • For black holes above roughly 10^5 solar masses, the tidal-disruption radius lies within about ten gravitational radii, so tidal interaction necessarily becomes relativistic and depends on black-hole spin.
  • Relativistic frame rotation suppresses orbit-averaged tidal dissipation by up to ~50% compared with Newtonian predictions, with stronger suppression for retrograde orbits.
  • Including this suppressed dissipation accelerates eccentricity damping so much that the pericenter distance can increase over time, a behavior gravitational-wave emission alone never produces.
  • The accumulated tidal dephasing changes gravitational-wave waveforms enough that space-based detectors could distinguish them, with mismatch reaching ~0.1 within six months.
  • Systems that would end in tidal disruption under gravitational-wave-only evolution may instead plunge into the black hole when tidal dissipation is included, altering electromagnetic counterpart predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the suppression mechanism is correct, Newtonian-tidal templates systematically overestimate the energy deposited into the white dwarf envelope by up to a factor of two, which would revise predicted heating and transient emission rates.
  • The same phase-coherence argument should apply to other eccentrically orbiting compact objects with internal oscillation modes, such as neutron stars around massive black holes, where the suppression could be tested independently.
  • A quantitative test could come from the measured period derivative of quasi-periodic eruptions: the model predicts a regime of secular period growth, and future multi-cycle observations could distinguish this from pure gravitational-wave-driven decay.
  • The reliance on an efficiency coefficient imported from non-relativistic stellar calculations suggests that a relativistic stellar-oscillation calculation or a direct hydrodynamical simulation across many pericenter passages would be the natural next step to confirm the factor-of-two suppression.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a relativistic model for tidal dissipation in a white-dwarf–intermediate-mass-black-hole (WD–IMBH) binary. The tidal forcing is computed from the quadrupole tidal tensor in Fermi normal coordinates (FNCs) along equatorial Kerr geodesics, and the WD response is treated as a Newtonian g-mode WKB wave problem with a calibrated dimensionless coefficient f_hat. The resulting energy and angular-momentum fluxes (Eqs. 15–17) are combined with black-hole perturbation theory GW fluxes to evolve the orbital elements, and the GW signal is constructed in the frequency domain. The main claims are: (i) orbit-averaged tidal dissipation can be suppressed by up to ~50% relative to Newtonian predictions because relativistic FNC frame rotation reduces phase coherence across pericenter passages; (ii) tidal dissipation drives rapid circularization, sometimes causing the pericenter distance to increase; (iii) the effect is spin-dependent; and (iv) the accumulated tidal effects produce LISA/TianQin waveform mismatches of order 0.1 within six months.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is an important step for WD–IMBH multi-messenger astronomy: it would affect QPE evolution models, LISA template construction, and the interpretation of GW phase/amplitude deviations as probes of WD structure. The paper has several genuine strengths: the FNC tidal tensor treatment is more rigorous than the Newtonian prescriptions used in most prior work; the two-step Mino-time Fourier method is technically careful; and the predictions are falsifiable (e.g., the pericenter-growth boundary in Fig. 4, the spin-dependent suppression in Fig. 5, and the mismatch curves in Fig. 8). That said, the central physical interpretation is internally in tension with the adopted local-damping model, and the calibrating coefficient f_hat is imported from Newtonian calculations with no uncertainty.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III.A, III.B, Eq. (16)] The proposed mechanism for the ~50% suppression—relativistic FNC rotation reducing 'phase coherence across pericenter passages'—is inconsistent with the tidal-response model used in the paper. Sec. III.B states that g-modes 'dissipate their energy locally before reflecting to form normal-mode patterns', so there is no long-lived stellar mode whose phase can be remembered from one pericenter passage to the next. Moreover, the flux formula in Eq. (16) is quadratic in |F^S_{nlm}|, so the phase of Ψ cancels. Any suppression in Fig. 5 must therefore arise from the single-passage spectral content of r(τ) and Ψ(τ), not from cross-passage coherence. The abstract and Sec. III.A currently state a mechanism that the model itself rejects. Please reframe the mechanism or show explicitly how the orbit-averaged suppression survives when each pericenter passage is treated independently.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Sec. IV.A] The neglect of f-mode excitation is justified in Sec. II.A by saying that configurations with k≲5 are 'short-lived', with the demonstration deferred to Sec. IV. But Sec. IV uses the same g-mode-only tidal model to produce that evolution, making the argument circular. The f-mode dominance threshold k≲5 overlaps the region rp≲15rg where Fig. 5 shows the largest relativistic corrections. Without at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of f-mode energy transfer, or an explicit caveat that all conclusions are conditional on f-mode tides being negligible, the quantitative claims about circularization, pericenter growth, and waveform mismatch are not secure.
  3. [Eqs. (16)–(17), Sec. II.C] The overall amplitude of the tidal fluxes is set by the dimensionless coefficient f_hat≈10^2, quoted from Newtonian WD calculations [54,68,91] with no uncertainty or sensitivity study. This coefficient enters Eq. (16) directly and through Eq. (5) sets the pericenter distance at which tidal dissipation becomes dynamically important (rp≈15rg in the fiducial model). The ratios plotted in Fig. 5 cancel f_hat, but the absolute rates—and therefore the evolutionary tracks in Figs. 4 and 6 and the waveform mismatches in Figs. 7–8—do not. Please report the allowed range of f_hat and test the sensitivity of the main conclusions to it.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.B] Typo: 'Notice the different between r_TDE and r_t' should read 'the difference between'.
  2. [Fig. 8] The caption states a six-month observation period, but the x-axis is labeled '10^1 100 101 102', which appears to be 10^-1 to 10^2 days. Please clarify the time window and the plotted quantity (1−M vs M). The text says the mismatch 'can reach unity' while the abstract quotes O(0.1); reconcile these statements.
  3. [Eq. (18)] The conversion from proper-time averaged fluxes to coordinate-time averaged fluxes is only sketched. Please define all symbols (Λ_r, Υ_t, T_r) explicitly and state which averaging convention is used in Eqs. (14)–(17).
  4. [References] Reference [33] appears to be identical to Reference [16]; re-check the citation numbering and remove the duplicate.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor circularity in f-mode dismissal; central suppression/GW predictions are computed, not fitted.

specific steps
  1. other [Sec. II.A (f-mode dismissal), relying on Sec. IV.A results; limitation also acknowledged in Sec. VI]
    "However, as will be demonstrated in Sec. IV, we find that such configurations are short-lived: once the pericenter enters this regime, rapid tidal dissipation efficiently circularizes the orbit and drives outward migration of the pericenter, quickly suppressing the resonance condition. Therefore, g-mode excitation captures the WD response over the majority of the parameter space considered in this work."

    The assumption that f-mode tides can be neglected is justified by the paper's own g-mode-only evolution, which shows rapid circularization and outward pericenter migration. That evolution is computed using the very g-mode WKB flux model whose validity is being assumed. Thus the model's output is used to set the model's input (response channel). Sec. VI later admits f-mode excitation is 'still missing', so the assumption is not supported by an independent calculation or external benchmark.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular in the statistical or definitional sense. No observable is fitted and renamed as a prediction: the coefficient f_hat ~ 10^2 in Eq. (16) is imported from external non-relativistic stellar calculations (Fuller & Lai; Vick, Lai & Fuller), and the GR/Newtonian suppression ratio cancels it, so the ~50% suppression is a computed output of the relativistic tidal tensor and orbital Fourier analysis, not a tuned parameter. The waveform mismatch (Fig. 8) is a forward calculation from GW+TD fluxes with no QPE or GW data fitting. Author self-citations (refs 42, 45, 52) provide context (QPE interpretation, MT eccentricity) and are not load-bearing for the tidal model. The flagged f-mode dismissal is a genuine but minor circularity, because the g-mode model is used to argue that orbits leave the f-mode resonance quickly; this narrows the model's scope but does not make the main suppression/waveform predictions equivalent to their inputs. Separately, the paper's explanation that frame rotation reduces 'phase coherence across pericenter passages' sits in tension with its own local-damping/WKB assumption that normal modes do not form (Sec. III.B). In Eq. (16) the flux depends on |F|^2, so the suppression is better described as a change in the per-passage forcing spectrum from Psi(tau), not a memory effect across orbits. That is an internal-consistency/correctness concern, not a circular reduction, and is outweighed by the independence of the numerical predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on an externally calibrated coefficient f_hat, the validity of g-mode WKB response in strong-field encounters, and the neglect of f-modes/MT. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • f_hat = ~10^2
    Dimensionless coefficient in Eqs. (16)-(17) setting the tidal dissipation rate. Calibrated using earlier Newtonian numerical WD models (refs. 54, 68, 91); no uncertainty propagated.
  • eR_a = R_a/R* = ~0.8
    Location of the composition-gradient/reflection radius where the angular-momentum flux is evaluated. Chosen from WD structure models; rates depend on this choice.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Kerr metric and equatorial geodesic constants define FNCs via Marck/Ishii parallel transport.
    Sec. III.A; basis of the relativistic tidal tensor in Eq. (8).
  • domain assumption Only the quadrupole (l=2) tidal component is needed; higher multipoles are <5% in the parameter space considered.
    Sec. II.A and Fig. 1 justify quadrupole truncation.
  • domain assumption The WD's tidal response is governed by Newtonian internal gravity waves under the WKB approximation, with waves locally damped before reflection.
    Sec. III.B, following Fuller & Lai 2012; requires omega^2 << N^2, L_l^2 and nonlinear wave breaking.
  • domain assumption f-mode excitation is negligible because configurations with pericenter near the TDE radius are short-lived and quickly circularize/outward-migrate.
    Sec. II.A and IV.A; this is argued using the g-mode-only model, a mild internal circularity.
  • domain assumption GW fluxes from BHPT codes (FastEMRIWaveforms, pybhpt) are accurate for the strong-field eccentric orbits.
    Sec. IV.A; used for secular orbital evolution and waveform construction.
  • domain assumption Equatorial orbits, no WD spin, and no mass transfer during the modeled evolution.
    Sec. II.B and Sec. VI explicitly acknowledge these as limitations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21347 in / 15019 out tokens · 139076 ms · 2026-08-02T20:37:49.606369+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Relativistic Tidal Dissipation and the Gravitational-wave Signal of a White Dwarf Orbiting an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DSAVKQLU

@misc{pith2026260222688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Relativistic Tidal Dissipation and the Gravitational-wave Signal of a White Dwarf Orbiting an Intermediate-Mass Black Hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DSAVKQLU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.22688}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Finding intermediate-mass black holes (IMBHs) and measuring their masses and spins are key to understanding massive black hole formation. White dwarf (WD)-IMBH binaries provide a unique probe because they emit both electromagnetic radiation and gravitational waves (GWs), thereby conveying richer information. However, such multi-messenger sources often enter the regime of strong gravity, where existing models fail to capture their relativistic dynamics. Here, we develop a fully relativistic model for the tidal response of a WD close to an IMBH and use it to study the secular orbital evolution as well as the GW signal. We find that for IMBHs more massive than 10^5 solar masses, tidal interaction becomes relativistic and sensitive to IMBH spin. The interaction generally dissipates binary orbital energy and angular momentum, but due to relativistic frame rotation, which reduces phase coherence across pericenter passages, the orbit-averaged tidal dissipation rate can be suppressed by up to about 50% relative to Newtonian predictions. Including tidal dissipation leads to more rapid damping of the orbital eccentricity, to the extent that the pericenter distance may even increase over time, potentially explaining quasi-periodic eruptions and secular orbital period growth. Such tidal effects accumulate into measurable phase and amplitude deviations in the GW signal. For typical space-based observations, the GW waveform mismatch can reach values of order 0.1 within 6 months. Our results indicate that relativistic tidal dissipation is both dynamically important and observationally essential for reliably predicting the multi-messenger signals of WD-IMBH systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22688 by Alejandro Torres-Orjuela, Leif Lui, Xian Chen, Yang Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Ratio of the Newtonian TDE radius of a WD, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Orientation of the Fermi normal coordinates for a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Orbital evolution streamlines in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the TD-induced angular-momentum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time evolution of the mismatch between the wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Time-domain waveforms at early (top panel) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Schematic illustration of WD orbital evolution in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_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

122 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Volonteri, Astron

    M. Volonteri, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.18, 279 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    M. A. Latif and A. Ferrara, Publications of the Astro- nomical Society of Australia33, e051 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Inayoshi, E

    K. Inayoshi, E. Visbal, and Z. Haiman, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys.58, 27 (2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.51, 511 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Silk, Astrophys

    J. Silk, Astrophys. J. Lett.839, L13 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    J. E. Greene, J. Strader, and L. C. Ho, Annual Review of Astron and Astrophysis58, 257 (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    A. E. Reines and A. Comastri, Publications of the As- tron. Soc. of Australia33, e054 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Mezcua, International Journal of Modern Physics D 26, 1730021 (2017)

    M. Mezcua, International Journal of Modern Physics D 26, 1730021 (2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    Abbott, H

    R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal,et al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D106, 102008 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, Open data from ligo, virgo, and kagra through the first part of the fourth observing run (2025), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    D. J. Reardon, A. Zic, R. M. Shannon, G. B. Hobbs, M. Bailes, V. Di Marco, A. Kapur, A. F. Rogers, E. Thrane, J. Askew,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters951, L6 (2023)

    2023

  12. [12]

    H. Xu, S. Chen, Y. Guo, J. Jiang, B. Wang, J. Xu, Z. Xue, R. Nicolas Caballero, J. Yuan, Y. Xu,et al., Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics23, 075024 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA), Astron. Astrophys. 678, A49 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    M. T. Miles, R. M. Shannon, D. J. Reardon, M. Bailes, D. J. Champion, M. Geyer, P. Gitika, K. Grunthal, M. J. Keith, M. Kramer,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society536, 1489–1500 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Agazie, A

    G. Agazie, A. Anumarlapudi, A. M. Archibald, Z. Ar- zoumanian, J. G. Baier, P. T. Baker, B. B´ ecsy, L. Blecha, A. Brazier, P. R. Brook,et al.(NANOGrav Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D111, 042011 (2025)

    2025

  16. [17]

    Baumgardt, J

    H. Baumgardt, J. Makino, and T. Ebisuzaki, The As- trophysical Journal613, 1143–1156 (2004)

    2004

  17. [18]

    Blecha, N

    L. Blecha, N. Ivanova, V. Kalogera, K. Belczynski, J. Fregeau, and F. Rasio, The Astrophysical Journal 642, 427–437 (2006)

    2006

  18. [19]

    M. A. G¨ urkan, J. M. Fregeau, and F. A. Rasio, The Astrophysical Journal640, L39–L42 (2006)

    2006

  19. [20]

    Amaro-Seoane and M

    P. Amaro-Seoane and M. Freitag, The Astrophysical Journal653, L53–L56 (2006)

    2006

  20. [21]

    Luo, L.-S

    J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y.-G. Gong, S. Hu, J. Ji, Q. Liu, J. Mei, V. Milyukov, M. Sazhin,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

  21. [22]

    Z. Luo, Y. Wang, Y. Wu, W. Hu, and G. Jin, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A108 (2021)

    2021

  22. [23]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. Andrews, M. Arca Sedda, A. Askar, Q. Baghi, R. Balasov, I. Bartos, S. S. Bav- era, J. Bellovary,et al., Living Reviews in Relativity26, 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y (2023)

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  23. [24]

    Ajith, P

    P. Ajith, P. A. Seoane, M. A. Sedda, R. Arcodia, F. Badaracco, B. Banerjee, E. Belgacem, G. Benetti, S. Benetti, A. Bobrick,et al., Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2025(01), 108

  24. [25]

    P. B. Ivanov and J. C. B. Papaloizou, Astron. Astro- phys.476, 121 (2007)

    2007

  25. [26]

    Menou, Z

    K. Menou, Z. Haiman, and B. Kocsis, New Astronomy Reviews51, 884 (2008), jean-Pierre Lasota, X-ray Bi- naries, Accretion Disks and Compact Stars

    2008

  26. [27]

    Sesana, A

    A. Sesana, A. Vecchio, M. Eracleous, and S. Sigurdsson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.391, 718 (2008)

    2008

  27. [28]

    Zalamea, K

    I. Zalamea, K. Menou, and A. M. Beloborodov, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters409, L25 (2010)

    2010

  28. [29]

    Luminet and B

    J.-P. Luminet and B. Pichon, Astron. Astrophys.209, 103 (1989)

    1989

  29. [30]

    Rosswog, E

    S. Rosswog, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and W. R. Hix, Astro- phys. J.695, 404 (2009)

    2009

  30. [31]

    MacLeod, J

    M. MacLeod, J. Goldstein, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, J. Guillo- chon, and J. Samsing, The Astrophysical Journal794, 9 (2014)

    2014

  31. [32]

    Chen, R.-F

    J.-H. Chen, R.-F. Shen, and S.-F. Liu, The Astrophysi- cal Journal947, 32 (2023)

    2023

  32. [33]

    Hils and P

    D. Hils and P. L. Bender, Astrophys. J. Lett.445, L7 (1995)

    1995

  33. [34]

    Kocsis, N

    B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011)

    2011

  34. [35]

    Pfister, M

    H. Pfister, M. Toscani, T. H. T. Wong, J. L. Dai, G. Lodato, and E. M. Rossi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 510, 2025 (2022)

    2025

  35. [36]

    Kejriwal, V

    S. Kejriwal, V. Witzany, M. Zajaˇ cek, D. R. Pasham, and A. J. K. Chua, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.532, 2143 (2024)

    2024

  36. [37]

    L. Dai, S. V. Fuerst, and R. Blandford, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 1614 (2010)

    2010

  37. [38]

    Dai and R

    L. Dai and R. D. Blandford, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.434, 2948 (2013)

    2013

  38. [39]

    J. Xian, F. Zhang, L. Dou, J. He, and X. Shu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L32 (2021)

    2021

  39. [40]

    M. Wang, J. Yin, Y. Ma, and Q. Wu, The Astrophysical Journal933, 225 (2022)

    2022

  40. [41]

    King, Mon

    A. King, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.515, 4344 (2022)

    2022

  41. [42]

    X. Chen, Y. Qiu, S. Li, and F. K. Liu, The Astrophysical Journal930, 122 (2022)

    2022

  42. [43]

    Y., Wang, Y

    Zhao, Z. Y., Wang, Y. Y., Zou, Y. C., Wang, F. Y., and Dai, Z. G., Astron. Astrophys.661, A55 (2022)

    2022

  43. [44]

    Suzuguchi, H

    T. Suzuguchi, H. Omiya, and H. Takeda, Possibil- ity of multi-messenger observations of quasi-periodic eruptions with x-rays and gravitational waves (2025), arXiv:2505.10488 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [45]

    L. Lui, A. Torres-Orjuela, R. K. Chowdhury, and L. Dai, Gravitational wave signatures of quasi-periodic erup- tions: LISA detection prospects for rx j1301.9+2747 (2025), arXiv:2508.07961 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Neights, O

    E. Neights, O. J. Roberts, E. Burns, P. Veres, E. Bissaldi, and Fermi-GBM Team, GRB Coordinates Network40931, 1 (2025)

    2025

  46. [47]

    D. Li, W. Zhang, J. Yang, J.-H. Chen, W. Yuan, H. Cheng, F. Xu, X. Shu, R.-F. Shen, N. Jiang,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.25877 (2025). 14

    arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    A. J. Levan, A. Martin-Carrillo, T. Laskar, R. A. J. Eyles-Ferris, A. Sneppen, M. E. Ravasio, J. C. Rastine- jad, J. S. Bright, F. Carotenuto, A. A. Chrimes,et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.990, L28 (2025)

    2025

  48. [49]

    R. A. J. Eyles-Ferris, A. King, R. L. C. Starling, P. G. Jonker, A. J. Levan, A. Martin-Carrillo, T. Laskar, J. C. Rastinejad, N. Sarin, N. R. Tanvir,et al., Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society , stag005 (2026)

    2026

  49. [50]

    King, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters493, L120 (2020)

    A. King, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters493, L120 (2020)

    2020

  50. [51]

    Wang, Astron

    D. Wang, Astron. Astrophys.687, A295 (2024)

    2024

  51. [52]

    Y. Yang, J. Yang, X. Chen, and Z.-H. Zhang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.543, 3503 (2025)

    2025

  52. [53]

    Lai, The Astrophysical Journal490, 847 (1997)

    D. Lai, The Astrophysical Journal490, 847 (1997)

    1997

  53. [54]

    M. Vick, D. Lai, and J. Fuller, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society468, 2296 (2017)

    2017

  54. [55]

    S. Y. Lau and H. Yu, Phys. Rev. D112, 103024 (2025)

    2025

  55. [56]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. R. Gair, M. Freitag, M. C. Miller, I. Mandel, C. J. Cutler, and S. Babak, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, R113 (2007)

    2007

  56. [57]

    J. a. Marck, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences385, 431 (1983)

    1983

  57. [58]

    Ishii, M

    M. Ishii, M. Shibata, and Y. Mino, Phys. Rev. D71, 044017 (2005)

    2005

  58. [59]

    R. M. Cheng and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. D87, 104010 (2013)

    2013

  59. [60]

    Miniutti, R

    G. Miniutti, R. D. Saxton, M. Giustini, K. D. Alexan- der, R. P. Fender, I. Heywood, I. Monageng, M. Coriat, A. K. Tzioumis, A. M. Read,et al., Nature (London) 573, 381 (2019)

    2019

  60. [61]

    Giustini, G

    M. Giustini, G. Miniutti, and R. D. Saxton, Astron. Astrophys.636, L2 (2020)

    2020

  61. [62]

    Arcodiaet al., Nature592, 704 (2021)

    R. Arcodiaet al., Nature592, 704 (2021)

    2021

  62. [63]

    Chakraborty, E

    J. Chakraborty, E. Kara, M. Masterson, M. Giustini, G. Miniutti, and R. Saxton, Astrophys. J. Lett.921, L40 (2021)

    2021

  63. [64]

    O. G. Benvenuto and L. G. Althaus, Mon. Not. R. As- tron. Soc.303, 30 (1999)

    1999

  64. [65]

    L. S. Finn and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D62, 124021 (2000)

    2000

  65. [66]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D70, 122002 (2004)

    2004

  66. [67]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, The Astrophysical Journal213, 183 (1977)

    1977

  67. [68]

    Fuller and D

    J. Fuller and D. Lai, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society421, 426 (2012)

    2012

  68. [69]

    P. B. Ivanov and J. C. B. Papaloizou, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society347, 437 (2004)

    2004

  69. [70]

    C. M. Will, inGravity: Where Do We Stand?, edited by R. Peron, M. Colpi, V. Gorini, and U. Moschella (2016) p. 9

    2016

  70. [71]

    J. G. Hills, Nature (London)254, 295 (1975)

    1975

  71. [72]

    M. J. Rees, Nature (London)333, 523 (1988)

    1988

  72. [73]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, As- trophys. J.178, 347 (1972)

    1972

  73. [74]

    Glampedakis and D

    K. Glampedakis and D. Kennefick, Phys. Rev. D66, 044002 (2002)

    2002

  74. [75]

    Levin and G

    J. Levin and G. Perez-Giz, Phys. Rev. D79, 124013 (2009)

    2009

  75. [76]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, J. A. Wheeler, and D. I. Kaiser,Gravitation(2018)

    2018

  76. [77]

    L. C. Stein and N. Warburton, Phys. Rev. D101, 064007 (2020)

    2020

  77. [78]

    Kesden, Phys

    M. Kesden, Phys. Rev. D85, 024037 (2012)

    2012

  78. [79]

    E. M. Rossi, N. C. Stone, J. A. P. Law-Smith, M. Macleod, G. Lodato, J. L. Dai, and I. Mandel, Space Science Reviews217, 40 (2021)

    2021

  79. [80]

    Xin and A

    W. Xin and A. Mummery, The relativistic tidal tensor: general solutions for stationary axisymmetric space- times and the hills mass of naked singularities (2025), arXiv:2511.21499 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

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

    1963

Showing first 80 references.