The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2607.05909 · v1 · pith:MT5RB43W · submitted 2026-07-07 · gr-qc

Probing near-zone magnetic fields with extreme mass-ratio inspirals

Jin-Lu Hu , Xin-Dong Du , Peng-Cheng Li , Tieguang Zi This is my paper

Reviewed by Pith T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 kernel 2026-07-08 20:42 UTCglm-5.2pith:MT5RB43Wrecord.jsonopen to challenge →

classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.70.Bw04.25.Nx
keywords magneticfieldsnear-zoneapproximationblackcircularinspiralmagnetized
0
0 comments X

The pith

Magnetic fields near black holes may bend gravitational-wave phases

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

This paper investigates whether magnetic fields in the near zone of a massive black hole can leave a detectable imprint on extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) gravitational-wave signals. The authors model the central black hole using the Ernst solution — an exact Einstein–Maxwell spacetime describing a Schwarzschild black hole immersed in a uniform magnetic field (the Melvin magnetic universe). Because this spacetime is not asymptotically flat, they treat it as an effective near-zone description, matched to a standard asymptotically flat exterior where gravitational-wave fluxes and detector response are defined. A stellar-mass compact object orbits on equatorial circular geodesics of this magnetized geometry, and the authors compute the magnetic corrections to orbital energy, angular momentum, azimuthal frequency, and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). They find the ISCO moves inward as the magnetic field strengthens.

Core claim

The central mechanism is the source-corrected Regge–Wheeler–Zerilli (RWZ) approximation. Rather than solving the full coupled gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation equations on the magnetized Ernst background — which is technically intractable because the background is non-spherical, non-asymptotically-flat, and involves gravitationally coupled electromagnetic fields — the authors keep the standard Schwarzschild wave-propagation potentials fixed and inject the magnetic field's influence only through the modified orbital trajectory and source term. This isolates the leading-order effect: the magnetic field changes how the secondary object moves, and that changed motion alters the emitted

What carries the argument

Ernst (magnetized Schwarzschild) solution; source-corrected Regge–Wheeler–Zerilli approximation; equatorial circular geodesics; ISCO shift; adiabatic inspiral evolution; LISA-noise-weighted mismatch

If this is right

  • If the source-corrected RWZ approximation captures the dominant magnetic effect, then EMRI observations by LISA could set upper bounds on near-zone magnetic field strengths around massive black holes, complementing electromagnetic observations of environments like M87* and Sagittarius A*.
  • The threshold field strength of ~10^9 G for a 10^6 solar-mass black hole is far above typical magnetic environments associated with accretion disks, suggesting that ordinary astrophysical magnetic fields are likely too weak to produce detectable EMRI waveform modifications within this approximation.
  • The inward shift of the ISCO with increasing magnetic field strength implies that magnetized environments could affect the final inspiral rate and plunge dynamics, which could be relevant for systems with unusually strong near-zone fields.
  • The partial cancellation in the dephasing signal — where the direct frequency shift and the orbital-radius-shift contribution have opposite signs — means that simple monotonic scaling of dephasing with field strength does not hold, and full waveform evolution is needed for accurate interpretation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dominant magnetic-field effect on EMRI waveforms enters through the modified orbital dynamics (the source term), while the magnetic deformation of the gravitational-wave propagation potentials, the gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation coupling, and the near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function can be neglected. The authors expect these omitted effects to scale as (B × L_near)^2 but do not quantitatively bound their magnitude relative

What would settle it

If the omitted radiative-sector corrections — magnetic modification of RWZ potentials, gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation coupling, or near-zone-to-far-zone transfer — turn out to contribute at the same order as the source correction for the relevant field strengths, then the quantitative dephasing and mismatch results could be substantially different, and the detectability threshold would shift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05909 by Jin-Lu Hu, Peng-Cheng Li, Tieguang Zi, Xin-Dong Du.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The radius of ISCO for various magnetic field pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Evolution of the orbital radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Difference in the azimuthal orbital frequency, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Accumulated dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the plus polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mismatch between EMRI waveforms with and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate whether weak near-zone magnetic fields can leave observable imprints on extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) waveforms. The central massive black hole is modeled by the magnetized Schwarzschild, or Ernst, solution, and the secondary compact object is treated as a neutral point particle on equatorial circular geodesics. We compute the magnetic corrections to the circular-orbit quantities and the innermost stable circular orbit, and then evolve the inspiral using a hybrid, source-corrected Regge--Wheeler--Zerilli approximation, in which the Schwarzschild wave-propagation potentials are kept fixed while the source is evaluated on the magnetized orbit. For a fiducial system with \(M=10^6M_\odot\) and \(\mu=10M_\odot\), a field strength \(B\simeq 4\times10^{-5}M^{-1}\), corresponding to \(B_{\rm phys}\sim10^9\,{\rm G}\), produces a one-year dephasing of about \(1.3\) rad and reaches the adopted LISA-noise-weighted mismatch threshold. Our results suggest that EMRIs can in principle probe extremely strong near-zone magnetic fields, whereas ordinary magnetic environments around massive black holes are likely too weak to produce detectable effects within the present approximation.

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

1 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates whether near-zone magnetic fields around massive black holes can leave observable imprints on extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) gravitational waveforms. The central black hole is modeled by the magnetized Schwarzschild (Ernst) solution, and the secondary is treated as a neutral point particle on equatorial circular geodesics. The authors compute magnetic corrections to orbital quantities (energy, angular momentum, azimuthal frequency) and the ISCO shift from the exact Ernst metric. The inspiral is then evolved adiabatically using a hybrid 'source-corrected' Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli (RWZ) approximation: Schwarzschild wave-propagation potentials are kept fixed while the source term is evaluated on the magnetically corrected orbit. For a fiducial system with M=10^6 M_sun and mu=10 M_sun, a dimensionless field B~4x10^-5 M^-1 (B_phys~10^9 G) produces a one-year dephasing of ~1.3 rad and reaches the LISA mismatch threshold (M~0.01 for rho=20, D=8). The conservative orbital dynamics are derived cleanly. The dissipative sector uses a hybrid approximation whose systematic error is acknowledged but not bounded, and the l=2 truncation, non-maximized overlap, and non-asymptotically-flat background treatment introduce additional uncontrolled uncertainties. The paper is explicitly framed as an order-of-magnitude estimate rather than a precision waveform model.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: whether LISA-band EMRIs can probe magnetic environments around massive black holes. The conservative-sector calculations (Eqs. 8-12, ISCO shift Eq. 27) are exact within the Ernst geometry and represent a useful contribution. The dephasing and mismatch results provide a concrete, falsifiable benchmark for the field strength (~10^9 G) at which magnetic effects might become relevant to EMRI phasing. The authors are commendably transparent about the limitations of the source-corrected RWZ approximation and explicitly frame their results as order-of-magnitude estimates. The work is a reasonable first step toward understanding magnetic-field effects on EMRIs, though its quantitative predictions carry uncontrolled systematic uncertainties that limit the precision of the claimed detectability threshold.

major comments (1)
  1. Section II.D, Eqs. (37)-(39): The dephasing delta_Phi is decomposed into a conservative contribution (direct frequency shift at fixed radius, computed exactly from the Ernst metric) and a dissipative contribution (trajectory difference depending on the GW flux, computed via the source-corrected RWZ approximation). The paper states these two terms are comparable in magnitude and partially cancel, producing the zero-crossing in Fig. 3 at ~6 months. This means a substantial fraction of the headline 1.3 rad dephasing for B=4x10^-5 comes from the dissipative sector, which is precisely the part computed with the uncontrolled approximation. The source correction to the flux is O(B^2 r^2), and the omitted effects (RWZ potential modification, gravitational-electromagnetic perturbation coupling, near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function) are also O(B^2 r^2) — there is no parametric separation. The 1
minor comments (8)
  1. Section II.D, Eq. (28): The notation S(P)_lm(t, r; z^mu_B) uses a semicolon that could be confused with a covariant derivative; consider clarifying that this denotes functional dependence on the worldline.
  2. Section II.C, Eq. (25): The text states the ISCO condition is solved 'with Mathematica'; a brief mention of the numerical method (e.g., root-finding with specified precision) would improve reproducibility.
  3. Section III.A: The initial orbital radius r_0 = 9.2313 is stated without units; given that M=1 is set, this should be clarified as r_0/M = 9.2313 or r_0 = 9.2313 M.
  4. Figure 4: The logarithmic vertical axis with |delta_Phi| creates visual artifacts at the cancellation points (sharp dips to ~10^-7). A brief note in the caption that these dips are artifacts of the absolute value, not physical minima, would help readers. The text in Section III.A does explain this, but the figure caption itself does not.
  5. Section III.B, Eq. (43)-(45): The overlap is not maximized over intrinsic parameters or initial phase/time shift. While the text acknowledges this, the mismatch values reported should perhaps be compared against a maximized-over-extrinsic-parameters baseline to assess how conservative the threshold-crossing claims are.
  6. References: Several references appear to be from 2025-2026 (e.g., Refs. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [41], [42], [48], [49], [50], [64], [65], [66], [68], [69], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]). The citation of future-dated works should be verified for correctness.
  7. Section II.A: The physical magnetic field conversion formula B_phys = 2.36x10^19 x B x (M_sun/M) G is given in a footnote. For B=4x10^-5 and M=10^6 M_sun, this gives B_phys ~ 9.4x10^8 G, which is consistent with the stated ~10^9 G, but the rounding should be made explicit.
  8. Appendix A: The source term expressions use notation (Q_tt, Q_rr, Q_b, Q_r, Q_#, P, P_r) that, while standard in the Martel-Poisson formalism, could benefit from a brief glossary or cross-reference to the original definitions for readers unfamiliar with this notation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies that the conservative-sector results are exact within the Ernst geometry, while the dissipative sector relies on an uncontrolled approximation, and that the omitted radiative-sector corrections are of the same parametric order as the source correction we retain. We agree this is a genuine limitation that must be stated more prominently and quantitatively discussed. Below we address the major comment point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section II.D, Eqs. (37)-(39): The dephasing δΦ is decomposed into a conservative contribution (direct frequency shift at fixed radius, computed exactly from the Ernst metric) and a dissipative contribution (trajectory difference depending on the GW flux, computed via the source-corrected RWZ approximation). The paper states these two terms are comparable in magnitude and partially cancel, producing the zero-crossing in Fig. 3 at ~6 months. This means a substantial fraction of the headline 1.3 rad dephasing for B=4×10^-5 comes from the dissipative sector, which is precisely the part computed with the uncontrolled approximation. The source correction to the flux is O(B^2 r^2), and the omitted effects (RWZ potential modification, gravitational-electromagnetic perturbation coupling, near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function) are also O(B^2 r^2) — there is no parametric separation.

    Authors: The referee is correct on all substantive points, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly. We address each aspect in turn. (1) No parametric separation. We agree that the source correction to the flux and the omitted radiative-sector effects (RWZ potential modification, gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation coupling, near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function) all scale as O(B²r²) in the weak-field regime. There is indeed no parametric separation between the effects we retain and those we omit. Our current manuscript text acknowledges this qualitatively (Section II.D, paragraph following Eq. 31), but it does not state clearly enough that the retained and omitted dissipative-sector corrections are of the same order. We will revise this discussion to make the absence of parametric separation explicit. (2) Substantial dissipative contribution to the headline result. The referee is also correct that the dissipative contribution to δΦ is comparable to the conservative contribution, as shown by the decomposition in Eq. (39) and the zero-crossing in Fig. 3. This means the headline 1.3 rad dephasing at B=4×10⁻⁵ is not a purely conservative-sector result; it depends on the source-corrected flux, which carries an uncontrolled O(1) relative systematic uncertainty. We will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript, both in Section III.A and in the Abstract/Conclusions, by qualifying the 1.3 rad figure as an order-of-magnitude estimate with an uncontrolled systematic uncertainty of order unity in the dissipative sector. (3) What can be salvaged. The conservative-sector results — the magnetic corrections to E, Lz, Ωϕ [Eqs. (8)–(12)], the ISCO shift [Eq. (27)], and the direct frequency shift at fixed radius (the first term in Eq. 39) — are computed exactly from the Ernst revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the dephasing and mismatch are forward computations from stated physical assumptions, not fits or definitions restated as predictions.

full rationale

The paper computes EMRI dephasing and mismatch from a magnetically corrected Ernst metric, standard RWZ perturbation theory, and a source-corrected approximation. The dimensionless magnetic field parameter B is an input, not a fitted constant. The orbital frequencies (Eq. 10), ISCO shift (Eq. 25), GW fluxes (Eqs. 30-31), dephasing (Eq. 37), and mismatch (Eqs. 43-45) are all derived through forward computation from the Ernst geometry and standard RWZ formalism. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction. The source-corrected RWZ approximation (Section II.D) is an explicitly stated physical approximation with acknowledged systematic uncertainties, not a circular definition. Self-citations to prior work by the authors (Refs. 11-13) provide the dephasing criterion of ~1 radian, which is a standard threshold from the broader EMRI literature (also citing Refs. 86, 92, 93 by other authors), not a self-defined target. The mismatch threshold M ~ 0.01 follows from standard formulas (D=8, rho=20) via external citations (Refs. 92, 93). The central result — that B ~ 4×10^-5 M^-1 produces ~1.3 rad dephasing — is a numerical output of the computation, not a quantity fitted to or defined in terms of the target. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and the derivation chain is not circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The Ernst solution is a known exact solution of Einstein-Maxwell equations. The free parameters are fiducial astrophysical choices and a scanned magnetic field strength, not fitted constants.

free parameters (5)
  • B (dimensionless magnetic field parameter) = varied: 10^-6 to 10^-2; threshold at 4×10^-5
    Input parameter of the Ernst metric, not fitted but scanned. Converted to physical units via B_phys = 2.36×10^19 × B × (M_sun/M) G.
  • M (mass of central black hole) = 10^6 M_sun
    Fiducial choice for a LISA-band EMRI.
  • mu (mass of secondary) = 10 M_sun
    Fiducial choice giving mass ratio eta=10^-5.
  • r_0 (initial orbital radius) = 9.2313 M
    Chosen so that the Schwarzschild reference inspiral lasts one year before ISCO.
  • Source orientation angles (theta_S, phi_S, theta_K, phi_K) = pi/3, pi/2, pi/4, pi/4
    Fixed fiducial values for detector response computation.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The Ernst (magnetized Schwarzschild) metric is a valid effective near-zone description of the spacetime around a MBH with a surrounding magnetic field.
    Section II.A: the metric is not asymptotically flat, so it is treated as a near-zone model matched to an asymptotically flat exterior at large radii.
  • ad hoc to paper The dominant magnetic-field effect on EMRI waveforms enters through the orbital dynamics (source term), not through modification of the RWZ propagation potentials.
    Section II.D: the Schwarzschild RWZ potentials are kept fixed while the source is evaluated on the magnetized orbit. The authors state this isolates the leading orbital effect but do not prove the omitted radiative-sector corrections are subdominant.
  • domain assumption The secondary compact object is a neutral point particle.
    Section I: the secondary is treated as a neutral point particle on equatorial circular geodesics, ignoring finite-size effects and possible charge.
  • domain assumption The l=2 multipole truncation captures the dominant GW flux.
    Section II.D: only the leading quadrupolar sector l=2 is retained in the flux sum.
  • standard math An accumulated dephasing of ~1 radian indicates potential distinguishability by LISA for SNR~20.
    Section II.D, citing Refs. [13, 86]: standard criterion in EMRI studies.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 19967 in / 2901 out tokens · 512690 ms · 2026-07-08T20:42:55.717881+00:00 · methodology

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

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages · 49 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Meiet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021)

    J. Meiet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Taiji Program: Gravitational-Wave Sources

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Mapping spacetimes with LISA: inspiral of a test-body in a `quasi-Kerr' field

    K. Glampedakis and S. Babak, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 4167 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0510057

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D75, 042003 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  9. [9]

    Testing the nature of dark compact objects: a status report

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel.22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Science with the TianQin Observatory: Preliminary Results on Testing the No-hair Theorem with EMRI

    T.-G. Zi, J.-D. Zhang, H.-M. Fan, X.-T. Zhang, Y.-M. Hu, C. Shi, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D104, 064008 (2021), arXiv:2104.06047 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Gravitational waves from extreme-mass-ratio inspirals in the semiclassical gravity spacetime

    T. Zi and P.-C. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, 064089 (2024), arXiv:2311.07279 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Gravitational waves from extreme mass ratio inspirals around a hairy Kerr black hole

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Detecting the tidal heating with the generic extreme-mass-ratio inspirals

    T. Zi, C.-Q. Ye, and P.-C. Li, JCAP10, 066, arXiv:2311.15532 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  14. [14]

    Tidal heating as a discriminator for horizons in equatorial eccentric extreme mass ratio inspirals

    S. Datta, R. Brito, S. A. Hughes, T. Klinger, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D110, 024048 (2024), arXiv:2404.04013 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Testing gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals

    A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C. F. Sopuerta, Test- ing Gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals (2024) arXiv:2401.08085 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Zi, Phys

    T. Zi, Phys. Lett. B850, 138538 (2024)

    work page 2024

  17. [17]

    Eccentric extreme mass-ratio inspirals: A gateway to probe quantum gravity effects

    T. Zi and S. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 592 (2025), arXiv:2409.17765 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Testing disformal non-circular deformation of Kerr black holes with LISA

    E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, D. D. Doneva, G. N. Gyulchev, and S. S. Yazadjiev, JCAP06, 065, arXiv:2403.16192 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [19]

    Extreme mass-ratio inspirals and extra dimensions: Insights from modified Teukolsky framework

    S. Kumar, T. Zi, and A. Bhattacharyya, (2025), arXiv:2507.03380 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    S. Zare, T. Zhu, L. M. Nieto, S. Lu, and H. Hassanabadi, JCAP01, 059, arXiv:2510.05166 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    LaHaye, C

    M. LaHaye, C. Weller, D. Li, P. Bourg, Y. Chen, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 024069 (2026), arXiv:2510.16102 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    L. Zhao, M. Tang, and Z. Xu, JCAP10, 002, arXiv:2503.06503 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  23. [23]

    Gravitational radiations from periodic orbits around a black hole in the effective field theory extension of general relativity

    S. Lu, H.-J. Lin, T. Zhu, Y.-X. Liu, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 283 (2026), arXiv:2512.11911 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

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

    work page arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

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

    S. Long, Z.-w. Xia, H. Gong, Z. Cao, Q. Pan, and J. Jing, (2026), arXiv:2605.05362 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    P. F. Muguruza and C. F. Sopuerta, (2026), arXiv:2604.06053 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Observable Signatures of EMRI Black Hole Binaries Embedded in Thin Accretion Disks

    B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  28. [28]

    Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, 063007 (2021), arXiv:2104.01208 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    K. G. Arunet al.(LISA), Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    Gravitational waves from extreme-mass-ratio systems in astrophysical environments

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Probing Accretion Physics with Gravitational Waves

    L. Speri, A. Antonelli, L. Sberna, S. Babak, E. Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. X13, 021035 (2023), arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    N. Dai, Y. Gong, Y. Zhao, and T. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084080 (2024), arXiv:2301.05088 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    T. Zi, Z. Zhou, H.-T. Wang, P.-C. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, 023005 (2023)

    work page 2023

  35. [35]

    Y. Zhao, N. Dai, and Y. Gong, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.543, 2326 (2025), arXiv:2410.06882 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Jiang and W.-B

    Y. Jiang and W.-B. Han, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 270411 (2024)

    work page 2024

  37. [37]

    Extreme mass ratio inspirals in rotating dark matter spikes

    S. Mitra, N. Speeney, S. Chakraborty, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D112, 044030 (2025), arXiv:2505.04697 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Vicente, T

    R. Vicente, T. K. Karydas, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 211401 (2025), arXiv:2505.09715 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Y. Wang, R. Tang, W. Han, and E. Liang, Symmetry17, 1878 (2025)

    work page 2025

  40. [40]

    Polcar and V

    L. Polcar and V. Witzany, Phys. Rev. D112, 104003 (2025), arXiv:2507.15720 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Kejriwal, E

    S. Kejriwal, E. Barausse, and A. J. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D113, 064001 (2026), arXiv:2510.17398 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Fundamental Physics and Cosmology with TianQin

    J. Luoet al., Living Rev. Rel.29, 1 (2026), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [43]

    Environmental effects in extreme mass ratio inspirals: perturbations to the environment in Kerr

    C. Dyson, T. F. M. Spieksma, R. Brito, M. van de Meent, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 211403 (2025), arXiv:2501.09806 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Periodic orbits and their gravitational wave radiations in black hole with dark matter halo

    S. Haroon and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D112, 044046 (2025), arXiv:2502.09171 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    S. Das, S. Dalui, B.-H. Lee, and Y.-F. Cai, (2025), arXiv:2512.04848 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Rahman and T

    M. Rahman and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D113, 044033 (2026), arXiv:2507.06923 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Hegade K

    A. Hegade K. R., C. F. Gammie, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D112, 124012 (2025), arXiv:2509.20457 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Zhao and Y

    Y. Zhao and Y. Gong, (2026), arXiv:2602.12022 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    T. Zi, M. Rahman, and S. Kumar, (2026), arXiv:2601.03374 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Chaotic imprints of dark matter in extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    M. Azreg-A¨ ınou, M. Jamil, and E. N. Saridakis, (2026), arXiv:2602.19541 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  51. [51]

    G. W. Gibbons, Commun. Math. Phys.44, 245 (1975)

    work page 1975

  52. [52]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society179, 433 (1977)

    work page 1977

  53. [53]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L12 (2021), arXiv:2105.01169 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VIII. Magnetic Field Structure near The Event Horizon

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L13 (2021), arXiv:2105.01173 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    R. P. Eatoughet al., Nature501, 391 (2013), arXiv:1308.3147 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  56. [56]

    The magnetic field in the X-ray corona of Cygnus X-1

    M. Del Santo, J. Malzac, R. Belmont, L. Bouchet, and G. De Cesare, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 209 (2013), arXiv:1212.2040 [astro-ph.HE]. 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  57. [57]

    F. J. Ernst, J. Math. Phys.17, 54 (1976)

    work page 1976

  58. [58]

    M. A. Melvin, Phys. Lett.8, 65 (1964)

    work page 1964

  59. [59]

    B. K. Harrison, J. Math. Phys.9, 1744 (1968)

    work page 1968

  60. [60]

    F. J. Ernst and W. J. Wild, J. Math. Phys.17, 182 (1976)

    work page 1976

  61. [61]

    L. Liu, Ø. Christiansen, W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and S. P. Kim, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1048 (2021), arXiv:2011.13586 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Orbits of particles with magnetic dipole moment around magnetized Schwarzschild black holes: Applications to S2 star orbit

    U. Uktamov, M. Fathi, J. Rayimbaev, and A. Ab- dujabbarov, Phys. Rev. D110, 084084 (2024), arXiv:2406.03371 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    Podolsky and H

    J. Podolsky and H. Ovcharenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181401 (2025), arXiv:2507.05199 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    X. Wang, Y. Hou, X. Wan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, JCAP 02, 050, arXiv:2507.22494 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  65. [65]

    Li, H.-P

    X.-Q. Li, H.-P. Yan, and X.-J. Yue, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 176 (2026), arXiv:2512.02921 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    H. M. Siahaan, (2026), arXiv:2603.00653 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Energy Extraction From the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Hole via Magnetic Reconnection under Circular Plasma and Plunging Plasma

    X.-X. Zeng and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 064032 (2025), arXiv:2507.21777 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    R. Tang, L. Liu, and W.-B. Han, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 201 (2026), arXiv:2512.04806 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Wang, X.-C

    C.-H. Wang, X.-C. Meng, and S.-W. Wei, (2026), arXiv:2602.03161 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    W. Liu, Y. Liu, D. Wu, and Y.-X. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2511.06017 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Zhang and S.-W

    Y.-K. Zhang and S.-W. Wei, Phys. Rev. D113, 104024 (2026), arXiv:2510.07914 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Distinguishability of magnetic massive black holes from environmental mimics with inspiral gravitational waves

    X. Yuan and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2603.05084 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    Vachher, A

    A. Vachher, A. Kumar, and S. G. Ghosh, JCAP11, 021, arXiv:2508.21100 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  74. [74]

    H. M. Siahaan, Nucl. Phys. B1028, 117514 (2026), arXiv:2512.12533 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, Q. Wu, and T. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2602.09453 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Rehman, S

    H. Rehman, S. Shaymatov, S. Hussain, and T. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2603.18129 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  77. [77]

    Optical Appearance of the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Hole with a Magnetically Driven Synchrotron Emissivity Model

    Z.-Y. Zhang, X.-Q. Li, H.-P. Yan, and X.-J. Yue, (2026), arXiv:2605.09593 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  78. [78]

    Hu, R.-G

    L. Hu, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2603.18821 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    X. Wan, Z. Zhang, F.-S. Wei, Y. Hou, and B. Chen, (2026), arXiv:2603.25049 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D10, 1680 (1974)

    work page 1974

Showing first 80 references.