pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05362 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Constraining Lorentz symmetry breaking in bumblebee gravity with extreme mass-ratio inspirals

Sheng Long , Zhong-wu Xia , Huajie Gong , Zhoujian Cao , Qiyuan Pan , Jiliang Jing
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-11 01:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords extreme mass-ratio inspiralsbumblebee gravityLorentz symmetry breakingLISAgravitational waveformsBayesian parameter estimationmodified black hole spacetime
0
0 comments X

The pith

Extreme mass-ratio inspirals allow LISA to constrain the bumblebee gravity parameter ell to an uncertainty of order 10 to the minus 4.

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

The paper studies extreme mass-ratio inspirals around a Schwarzschild-like black hole in bumblebee gravity, where Lorentz symmetry breaking is set by a dimensionless parameter ell. The authors adapt the Augmented Analytic Kludge waveform model by inserting ell-dependent orbital frequencies and energy fluxes, then generate the resulting gravitational wave signals. These signals deviate from general-relativity predictions, with the size of the deviation growing as ell increases and as orbital eccentricity rises. Bayesian analysis of simulated LISA data recovers the injected source parameters inside their one-sigma intervals and shows that ell itself can be measured to roughly 10 to the minus 4 precision.

Core claim

In bumblebee gravity a vector field breaks Lorentz symmetry and is parameterized by a dimensionless constant ell, producing a Schwarzschild-like black hole whose orbital dynamics differ from those of general relativity. The Augmented Analytic Kludge framework is extended to include the ell-modified frequencies and fluxes for extreme mass-ratio inspirals. The resulting waveforms accumulate phase and amplitude differences that scale with ell and with eccentricity. Bayesian parameter estimation on LISA-like data recovers all source parameters within 1-sigma credible intervals and constrains ell to an uncertainty of order 10 to the minus 4.

What carries the argument

The Augmented Analytic Kludge framework with ell-modified orbital frequencies and gravitational-wave fluxes.

If this is right

  • The bumblebee parameter ell alters orbital evolution and thereby changes both the phase and amplitude of the emitted waveform.
  • Deviations from general-relativity waveforms grow with increasing ell and become larger for more eccentric orbits.
  • Bayesian recovery of simulated LISA signals places all source parameters inside their one-sigma credible intervals.
  • The uncertainty on ell reaches order 10 to the minus 4 under LISA observations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar waveform modifications could be searched for in other strong-field observables such as black-hole shadows or ringdown signals.
  • The method could be applied to other vector-tensor theories that introduce a single dimensionless symmetry-breaking parameter.
  • Tighter constraints would follow if higher-order post-Newtonian corrections or self-force effects were added to the waveform model.

Load-bearing premise

The Augmented Analytic Kludge model with adjusted frequencies and fluxes accurately represents the true waveform in bumblebee gravity without important higher-order or unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

A LISA detection of an extreme mass-ratio inspiral whose accumulated phase deviates from the AAK prediction by more than the amount expected for ell equal to 10 to the minus 4 would falsify the reported constraint.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05362 by Huajie Gong, Jiliang Jing, Qiyuan Pan, Sheng Long, Zhong-wu Xia, Zhoujian Cao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The plus polarization view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the mismatch between the reference waveform (ℓ = 0) and the modified waveform (ℓ ̸= 0) as a function of ℓ for three representative initial orbital parameters (p, e). We find that the mismatch increases monotonically as ℓ increases, indicating that the accumulated imprint of the bumblebee gravity on the EMRI waveform becomes progressively more significant for larger ℓ. For fixed initial semi-latus rec… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Corner plot of the marginalized posterior distributions for the intrinsic parameter set (ln view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs), with their long-lived and highly relativistic orbital evolution, can probe strong-field spacetime geometry and provide an important means to test general relativity. In this work, we investigate EMRI waveforms in a Schwarzschild-like black hole spacetime arising in bumblebee gravity, where Lorentz symmetry breaking (LSB) is characterized by a dimensionless parameter $\ell$. We construct EMRI waveforms within the Augmented Analytic Kludge (AAK) framework using the modified orbital frequencies and fluxes. We find that $\ell$ significantly affects the orbital evolution and thereby modifies the waveform. These modifications grow with increasing $\ell$ and are further enhanced for more eccentric orbits. Furthermore, using Bayesian analysis, we obtain the posterior distributions of EMRI with the parameter $\ell$ included. Our results show that all injected source parameters are recovered within their $1\,\sigma$ credible intervals. We find that the bumblebee parameter $\ell$ can be constrained with an uncertainty of order $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$ by LISA.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper studies extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) in a Schwarzschild-like black hole spacetime in bumblebee gravity, where Lorentz symmetry breaking is parameterized by a dimensionless constant ℓ. It adapts the Augmented Analytic Kludge (AAK) waveform model by substituting modified orbital frequencies and energy fluxes derived from the bumblebee metric, examines how these changes affect the waveform (especially for eccentric orbits), and performs Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated LISA signals. The central result is that injected parameters, including ℓ, are recovered within 1σ credible intervals, with ℓ constrained at the O(10^{-4}) level.

Significance. If the AAK modifications accurately capture the bumblebee signals to the required precision, the work provides a concrete forecast for how LISA EMRIs could constrain Lorentz violation in the strong-field regime. The approach is practical for exploring deviations in orbital evolution over long inspirals and adds to the toolkit for testing alternatives to GR with future space-based detectors.

major comments (2)
  1. [waveform modeling / AAK adaptation] The waveform construction (AAK framework section) substitutes only the modified orbital frequencies and energy fluxes from the bumblebee Schwarzschild-like metric while leaving all other ingredients (quadrupole moments, higher multipoles, propagation, and radiation-reaction self-force) unchanged. This assumption is load-bearing for the O(10^{-4}) constraint claim, yet the bumblebee vector field can alter the effective stress-energy and geodesic deviation, potentially introducing additional phase and amplitude corrections not captured by frequency/flux rescaling alone.
  2. [Bayesian parameter estimation] The Bayesian analysis recovers injected parameters within the same approximate model (posterior distributions section). This tests internal self-consistency but does not quantify systematic bias from unmodeled bumblebee effects; no explicit error budget, comparison to full numerical relativity, or injection from an independent waveform model is provided to support that the reported uncertainty on ℓ is not dominated by modeling error.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and results] The abstract and results text state that 'all injected source parameters are recovered within their 1σ credible intervals' without listing the full set of parameters or quoting the actual 1σ widths for ℓ and other quantities.
  2. [metric and orbital quantities] Notation for the bumblebee parameter is introduced as ℓ but the precise definition (e.g., relation to the vector-field vacuum expectation value) is not restated when discussing the modified metric and fluxes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments. We address each major comment below and have made revisions to the manuscript to clarify the limitations of our approach and strengthen the discussion on potential systematic effects.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The waveform construction (AAK framework section) substitutes only the modified orbital frequencies and energy fluxes from the bumblebee Schwarzschild-like metric while leaving all other ingredients (quadrupole moments, higher multipoles, propagation, and radiation-reaction self-force) unchanged. This assumption is load-bearing for the O(10^{-4}) constraint claim, yet the bumblebee vector field can alter the effective stress-energy and geodesic deviation, potentially introducing additional phase and amplitude corrections not captured by frequency/flux rescaling alone.

    Authors: We agree that our waveform model is based on an approximation within the AAK framework, where we primarily modify the orbital frequencies and energy fluxes derived from the bumblebee metric. This captures the leading effects on the orbital evolution, which dominate the phase accumulation over the long EMRI inspiral. We have revised the manuscript to include a more detailed discussion of this approximation's validity, noting that for the small values of ℓ considered, corrections to higher multipoles and self-force are expected to be of higher order in ℓ. We also emphasize that the AAK model itself is an approximation even in GR, and our modifications are consistent with that level of accuracy. However, we acknowledge that a more complete treatment would be desirable in future work. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The Bayesian analysis recovers injected parameters within the same approximate model (posterior distributions section). This tests internal self-consistency but does not quantify systematic bias from unmodeled bumblebee effects; no explicit error budget, comparison to full numerical relativity, or injection from an independent waveform model is provided to support that the reported uncertainty on ℓ is not dominated by modeling error.

    Authors: The parameter estimation is indeed performed self-consistently within our model, which is appropriate for providing forecasts of LISA's capabilities. To address concerns about systematic bias, we have added an explicit error budget section in the revised manuscript, where we estimate the potential impact of neglected terms by scaling with the magnitude of ℓ and comparing to the statistical uncertainties. We note that a full comparison to numerical relativity is not currently possible, as no such simulations exist for bumblebee gravity EMRIs. Similarly, independent waveform models are not available. We have performed robustness tests by varying the eccentricity and other parameters to show that the constraint on ℓ remains stable. We believe the reported O(10^{-4}) level is a reasonable estimate given the current state of modeling. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: standard forecasting via modified AAK waveforms and Bayesian recovery

full rationale

The paper first computes modified orbital frequencies and energy fluxes from the bumblebee Schwarzschild-like metric, inserts only those quantities into the pre-existing Augmented Analytic Kludge framework, generates waveforms, and then runs Bayesian inference on signals injected with the identical model. This is a conventional self-consistency exercise for forecasting LISA constraints rather than any derivation that reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction. No self-definitional steps, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, load-bearing self-citations, or uniqueness theorems imported from the authors' prior work appear in the chain. The reported O(10^{-4}) uncertainty on ℓ follows directly from the phase information in the modified dynamics and is independent of the recovery procedure itself.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work rests on the bumblebee gravity metric as background spacetime and the validity of the AAK approximation for modified fluxes and frequencies; no new free parameters beyond ell are introduced in the abstract.

free parameters (1)
  • ell
    Dimensionless Lorentz symmetry breaking parameter that modifies the metric and is the target of the constraint.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Bumblebee gravity yields a Schwarzschild-like black hole spacetime parameterized by ell
    Invoked as the starting point for waveform construction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5499 in / 1203 out tokens · 44796 ms · 2026-05-11T01:08:57.664199+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

91 extracted references · 91 canonical work pages · 15 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Wadekar, J

    D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    A. K. Mehta, S. Olsen, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D111, 024049 (2025), arXiv:2311.06061 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Olsen, T

    S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D106, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2201.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, Astrophys. J.946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Advanced LIGO

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Punturoet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    M. Punturoet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  12. [12]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observatory: The Science Book

    V. Kalogeraet al., (2021), arXiv:2111.06990 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Waveform Modelling for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    N. Afshordiet al.(LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), Living Rev. Rel.28, 9 (2025), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    L. S. Finn and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D62, 124021 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0007074

    work page arXiv 2000

  18. [18]

    C. P. L. Berry, R. H. Cole, P. Ca˜ nizares, and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D94, 124042 (2016), arXiv:1608.08951 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    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]

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    G. Fu, Y. Liu, B. Wang, J.-P. Wu, and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D111, 084066 (2025), arXiv:2409.08138 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Dotti, M

    M. Dotti, M. Colpi, S. Pallini, A. Perego, and M. Volonteri, Astrophys. J.762, 68 (2013), arXiv:1211.4871 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Black holes, gravitational waves and fundamental physics: a roadmap

    L. Baracket al., Class. Quant. Grav.36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Amaro-Seoane, Phys

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

    work page arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sopuerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Petiteau, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  25. [25]

    Vazquez-Aceves, Y

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Zi, P.-C

    T. Zi, P.-C. Li, B.-M. Gu, and F.-W. Shu, (2025), arXiv:2511.18435 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    X. Zou, X. Zhong, W.-B. Han, and S. D. Mohanty, Phys. Rev. D112, 084075 (2025), arXiv:2506.21955 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Zi and C.-Q

    T. Zi and C.-Q. Ye, (2025), arXiv:2512.21186 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Liu, L.-X

    M.-J. Liu, L.-X. Huang, Y.-Q. Wang, and K. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2512.19581 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    K. Meng, J. Zhao, M. Deng, C. Li, and N. Yang, Phys. Lett. B868, 139630 (2025)

    work page 2025

  31. [31]

    L. Zhao, M. Tang, and Z. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 980 (2025), arXiv:2506.04971 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    H. Guo, Y. Liu, C. Zhang, Y. Gong, W.-L. Qian, and R.-H. Yue, Phys. Rev. D106, 024047 (2022), arXiv:2201.10748 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Lianget al., Chin

    B. Lianget al., Chin. Phys. Lett.42, 081101 (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    J. R. Gair, M. Vallisneri, S. L. Larson, and J. G. Baker, Living Rev. Rel.16, 7 (2013), arXiv:1212.5575 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  36. [36]

    Gravitational wave signatures and periodic orbits of a charged black hole in a Hernquist dark matter halo

    N. Heidari, A. A. Araujo Filho, and I. P. Lobo, (2026), arXiv:2604.11863 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    K. Meng, H. Zhang, X.-L. Fan, Y. Yong, and F. Du, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 252 (2026), arXiv:2405.07113 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Assessing EMRI Detectability of the Rotating Quantum Oppenheimer-Snyder Black Hole

    D. Zhang, S. Li, G. Fu, and J.-P. Wu, (2026), arXiv:2604.23163 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    C. M. Will, Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  40. [40]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 451 (2010), arXiv:0805.1726 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  41. [41]

    Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev

    G. Amelino-Camelia, Living Rev. Rel.16, 5 (2013), arXiv:0806.0339 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D39, 683 (1989)

    work page 1989

  43. [43]

    Quantum Grav.30 133001 [arXiv:1304.5795]

    S. Liberati, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 133001 (2013), arXiv:1304.5795 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  44. [44]

    Relativ.8 5 [arXiv:gr-qc/0502097]

    D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Rel.8, 5 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502097

    work page arXiv 2005

  45. [45]

    V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D69, 105009 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0312310

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  46. [46]

    Lorentz-violating extensio n of the standard model

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D58, 116002 (1998), arXiv:hep-ph/9809521

    work page arXiv 1998

  47. [47]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D40, 1886 (1989)

    work page 1989

  48. [48]

    Spontaneous Lorentz Violation, Nambu-Goldstone Modes, and Gravity

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D71, 065008 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0412320

    work page Pith review arXiv 2005

  49. [49]

    Q. Qi, Y. Sang, and X.-M. Kuang, (2026), arXiv:2601.06491 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Poisson, in17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation(2004) pp

    E. Poisson, in17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation(2004) pp. 119–141, arXiv:gr- qc/0410127

    work page arXiv 2004

  51. [51]

    R. M. Wald, Fundam. Theor. Phys.162, 253 (2011), arXiv:0907.0412 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    Self-force and radiation reaction in general relativity

    L. Barack and A. Pound, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 016904 (2019), arXiv:1805.10385 [gr-qc]. 11

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    The motion of point particles in curved spacetime

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, Living Rev. Rel.14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2011

  54. [54]

    Wei, X.-L

    Y.-X. Wei, X.-L. Zhu, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D112, 064048 (2025), arXiv:2504.09640 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gong, X. Lu, and W. Zhou, (2026), arXiv:2603.27284 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    "Kludge" gravitational waveforms for a test-body orbiting a Kerr black hole

    S. Babak, H. Fang, J. R. Gair, K. Glampedakis, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D75, 024005 (2007), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 77, 04990 (2008)], arXiv:gr-qc/0607007

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  57. [57]

    Barack and C

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

    work page arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

    A. J. K. Chua and J. R. Gair, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 232002 (2015), arXiv:1510.06245 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  59. [59]

    A. J. K. Chua, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.716, 012028 (2016), arXiv:1602.00620 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  60. [60]

    Zi and P.-C

    T. Zi and P.-C. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, 084001 (2023), arXiv:2306.02683 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    T. Zi, Z. Zhou, H.-T. Wang, P.-C. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, 023005 (2023), arXiv:2205.00425 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Zhang, C

    D. Zhang, C. Zhang, Q. Pan, G. Fu, and J.-P. Wu, (2026), arXiv:2602.07436 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  63. [63]

    Zhang and Y

    C. Zhang and Y. Gong, Phys. Rev. D110, 104052 (2024), arXiv:2407.07449 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gong, D. Liang, and B. Wang, JCAP06, 054, arXiv:2210.11121 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D104, 064047 (2021), arXiv:2104.04582 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    A. J. K. Chua, M. L. Katz, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 051102 (2021), arXiv:2008.06071 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Speri, M

    L. Speri, M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton, J. E. Thompson, C. E. A. Chapman-Bird, and J. R. Gair, Front. Appl. Math. Stat.9, 10.3389/fams.2023.1266739 (2024), arXiv:2307.12585 [gr-qc]

    work page doi:10.3389/fams.2023.1266739 2023

  68. [69]

    Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit, (bhptoolkit.org)

    work page

  69. [70]

    Kejriwal, L

    S. Kejriwal, L. Speri, and A. J. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D110, 084060 (2024), arXiv:2312.13028 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [71]

    Speri, S

    L. Speri, S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, N. Warburton, M. van de Meent, A. J. K. Chua, O. Burke, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D113, 023036 (2026), arXiv:2406.07607 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  71. [72]

    Z.-W. Xia, S. Long, Q. Pan, J. Jing, and W.-L. Qian, (2026), arXiv:2602.11039 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  72. [73]

    An exact Schwarzschild-like solution in a bumblebee gravity model

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, and E. B. Santos, Phys. Rev. D97, 104001 (2018), arXiv:1711.02273 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  73. [74]

    Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(1998)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(1998)

    work page 1998

  74. [75]

    Isoyamaet al., Phys

    S. Isoyamaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 231101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  75. [76]

    K. S. Thorne, Rev. Mod. Phys.52, 299 (1980)

    work page 1980

  76. [77]

    Maggiore,Gravitational waves, Vol

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational waves, Vol. 2 (Oxford university press, 2008)

    work page 2008

  77. [78]

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

    work page 1963

  78. [79]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

    work page 1964

  79. [80]

    Babak, H

    S. Babak, H. Fang, J. R. Gair, K. Glampedakis, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D75, 024005 (2007)

    work page 2007

  80. [81]

    S. A. Hugheset al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104014 (2021)

    work page 2021

Showing first 80 references.