Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 88 references

In EMRIs, dark-matter phase shifts barely feel eccentricity while accretion-disk shifts are strongly suppressed by it, so a small e0 can help LISA separate the two.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-13 04:37 UTC pith:NST7ULDM

load-bearing objection Clean numerical comparison that gives a usable e0 diagnostic for DM-vs-disk EMRI dephasing; the disk-side eccentricity suppression is real within the model but rests on migration formulae pushed past their small-e/h calibration. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09214 v1 pith:NST7ULDM submitted 2026-07-10 gr-qc

Eccentricity-Modulated Phase Degeneracy and Distinguishability between Dark Matter and Accretion Disk Environmental Effects in EMRIs

Tan-hao Wu , Shu-jun Rong This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords extreme mass-ratio inspiralsdark matter halosaccretion disksgravitational-wave dephasingeccentricity diagnosticsLISA residual SNRNumerical Kludge waveforms
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.

Extreme mass-ratio inspirals accumulate tiny environmental forces into large gravitational-wave phase shifts, but dark-matter halos and thin accretion disks can produce similar-looking shifts and therefore risk being confused. This paper builds Numerical Kludge waveforms that include both effects and shows that their eccentricity dependence is different: DM dephasing changes only weakly when the initial eccentricity rises from 0 to 0.1, while disk dephasing is strongly suppressed. The observation time needed for the two phases to differ by 1 radian is longest for circular orbits and drops quickly once a small eccentricity appears. For the benchmark systems studied, the residual waveform difference already yields a LISA residual signal-to-noise ratio above 1, so eccentricity can serve as a practical auxiliary diagnostic alongside total observation duration.

Core claim

Dark-matter-induced dephasing in EMRI waveforms depends only weakly on initial eccentricity e0, whereas thin-disk dephasing is strongly suppressed as e0 increases; the time required for the DM–disk phase difference to reach 1 radian is longest for circular orbits and falls rapidly for slightly eccentric ones, and for the paper’s benchmark systems the LISA residual SNR of that difference exceeds 1, making e0 a usable auxiliary diagnostic.

What carries the argument

The eccentricity-response diagnostic S_env(e0) together with the distinguishability time T_dis(e0) (earliest time at which the accumulated DM–disk phase difference reaches 1 rad) and the LISA residual SNR of the waveform difference; these three quantities convert the differing radial and velocity sampling of eccentric orbits into a concrete, detector-level separation criterion.

Load-bearing premise

The whole separation rests on the disk torque being fully described by a particular set of inverse timescales that assume the secondary is fully embedded in a thin alpha-disk whose surface density and aspect ratio follow fixed power laws throughout the LISA-band inspiral.

What would settle it

Evolve the same benchmark systems (M = 10^6 solar masses, m = 10 solar masses, p0/M = 16) with an independent disk-migration model or with full hydrodynamical disk torques; if the resulting S_env(e0) for the disk no longer drops steeply with e0, or if the residual SNR stays below 1 for multi-year LISA observations, the claimed eccentricity diagnostic fails.

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

If this is right

  • A measured nonzero e0 of order 0.01–0.1 shortens the observation time needed to decide whether an environmental phase shift is DM-like or disk-like.
  • Circular EMRIs remain the hardest case for DM–disk separation and require the longest continuous observation.
  • Within the paper’s parameter range the residual SNR is largely insensitive to the choice between NFW and Beta halo profiles, so the diagnostic is not tied to one particular density shape.
  • Observation duration remains the dominant factor for residual detectability; eccentricity supplies auxiliary, not primary, discriminatory power.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same eccentricity dependence appears for other thin-disk prescriptions, e0 could become a standard flag in multi-environment EMRI template banks.
  • The rapid drop of T_dis once e0 leaves zero suggests that even a modest residual eccentricity left after circularization can still be scientifically useful.
  • Systems whose residual SNR is only marginally above 1 will still need multi-year baselines; eccentricity alone will not rescue short observations.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the phase degeneracy between dark-matter (DM) halo and thin α-disk environmental effects in eccentric EMRI waveforms. Using Numerical Kludge waveforms on a static spherical background, the authors include NFW and Beta DM metrics plus dynamical friction and Bondi accretion, and an α-disk via Ida-type inverse migration/damping timescales. They introduce an eccentricity-response diagnostic S_env(e0), a phase distinguishability time T_dis defined by a 1 rad DM–disk phase difference, and a LISA residual SNR between the two environmental waveforms. For benchmark systems (M=10^6 M_⊙, m=10 M_⊙, p0/M=16, e0∈[0,0.1]), they report that DM dephasing depends only weakly on e0 while disk dephasing is strongly suppressed as e0 increases; T_dis is longest for circular orbits and drops once a small eccentricity is introduced; and residual SNRs exceed unity, so that e0 can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic alongside observation duration.

Significance. If the eccentricity asymmetry between disk and DM dephasing is robust, the work provides a concrete, observationally usable handle for breaking a known environmental degeneracy in LISA EMRIs. The combination of phase-level diagnostics with a noise-weighted residual-SNR analysis is a clear strength, and the Numerical Kludge plus standard Chandrasekhar/Bondi/α-disk ingredients are assembled in a transparent way. The result is falsifiable against more accurate disk–orbit models and against broader parameter surveys. The paper is a solid incremental contribution to environmental EMRI modeling rather than a foundational methodological advance, but the diagnostic framing is useful for the LISA community.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III.B, Eqs. (42)–(44)] Section III.B, Eqs. (42)–(44c): The central claim that disk-induced dephasing is strongly suppressed with e0 (while DM is not) rests on the Ida et al. inverse timescales applied with ι_sd=0 and h0=0.05. For e0 up to 0.1 one has e/h ≳ 2, outside the small-e/h, small-ι/h regime in which those formulae were calibrated. Because S_env, T_dis, and the residual-SNR trends are driven by this differential eccentricity response, the paper needs either (i) a restricted e0 range where e/h ≲ 1, (ii) a validation or replacement of (44a–c) for moderate e/h, or (iii) a clear quantitative caveat that the diagnostic may be an artifact of the small-e/h migration model. Without this, the eccentricity-as-diagnostic conclusion is not yet load-bearing.
  2. [Section IV, Table I] Section IV and Table I: The weak/medium/strong pairings (k/M = 1000,5000,10000 with Σ0 = 10^3,10^4,10^5 g cm^{-2}) are presented as comparable environmental strengths, but no matching criterion is given (e.g., equal one-year vacuum dephasing at e0=0, equal energy-loss rates at p0, or equal residual SNR against vacuum). Fair comparison of S_env and T_dis requires an explicit strength-matching procedure; otherwise the reported eccentricity asymmetry could partly reflect unequal baseline environmental amplitudes rather than a robust physical difference between DM drag and disk migration.
  3. [Section IV.B.2, Conclusion] Section IV.B.2 and Conclusion: The residual-SNR analysis (Fig. 4) shows only mild e0 dependence in the weak and medium cases, while T_dis and S_env show a sharp circular-to-eccentric transition. The abstract and conclusion still present e0 as an “auxiliary diagnostic” on roughly equal footing with observation duration. The manuscript should reconcile these: either quantify how much e0 improves residual distinguishability relative to T_obs (e.g., Δρ_Δ per Δe0 vs per year), or soften the claim so that e0 is primarily a phase-response diagnostic and residual detectability is dominated by T_obs, as the SNR results themselves suggest.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (46)] Eq. (46): S_env is defined with a percentage relative to the circular case; for environments where ΔΦ_env(0) is itself small, the ratio can amplify numerical noise. A short note on numerical stability of S_env when |ΔΦ_env(0)| is small would help.
  2. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1: Waveforms are shown only over a ~2-hour window after one year of evolution. A companion panel or inset of the accumulated phase difference ΔΦ(t) over the full year would make the dephasing claim easier to read without relying solely on visual waveform offset.
  3. [Section IV.B.1, Eq. (49)] The 1 rad threshold for T_dis is conventional but arbitrary. A brief sensitivity check (e.g., 0.5 rad and 2 rad) would show that the e0 trend is not an artifact of that choice.
  4. [Section III.A, Eqs. (18), (25)] Notation: f_DM(r) in Eq. (18) is called a “metric function contribution” but for NFW/Beta it is not unity at infinity in the usual sense after the exponential construction; a sentence clarifying asymptotic flatness (or the large-r limit) would avoid confusion.
  5. [Figs. 2–4] Several figure labels in the extracted text appear garbled (“-disk”, missing α). Ensure final production figures use consistent “α-disk” labeling and readable legends.
  6. [References] References: a few arXiv-only items with future-looking dates appear; verify final bibliographic entries and DOIs where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: diagnostics (Senv, Tdis, residual SNR) are computed from independent orbital integrations of two distinct physical models, not forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s central claims are numerical outcomes of evolving Numerical-Kludge trajectories under two separately specified environmental models (DM: NFW/Beta metric + dynamical friction + Bondi accretion; disk: thin α-disk with Ida et al. inverse timescales), then comparing the resulting phases and LISA residual SNRs. Senv(e0) is defined as a normalized ratio of one-year dephasings and is evaluated after the integrations; Tdis is defined as the first time the DM–disk phase difference reaches 1 rad and is likewise read off the computed phase histories; residual SNR is the standard noise-weighted inner product of the residual waveforms. None of these quantities is algebraically identical to an input parameter, nor is any free parameter fitted to a subset of the same observables and then re-presented as a prediction. The authors do not invoke a self-citation uniqueness theorem or smuggle an ansatz from their own prior work; the load-bearing formulae (Chandrasekhar drag, Bondi–Hoyle accretion, Ida migration rates, Robson LISA noise curve) are external literature. Model-validity concerns (e.g., applicability of the small-e/h Ida formulae when e0/h0 ≳ 2) affect correctness risk, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained and non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on a stack of standard astrophysical and GR ingredients plus a handful of hand-chosen benchmark strengths; no new particles or forces are postulated. The free parameters are the environmental normalizations that set the overall dephasing amplitude, while the axioms are the usual geodesic, quadrupole, dynamical-friction and thin-disk migration assumptions.

free parameters (5)
  • DM halo strength k/M = 1000 / 5000 / 10000
    Hand-chosen values 1000, 5000, 10000 that set the overall magnitude of DM dephasing; results are shown for three discrete strengths rather than derived from first principles.
  • Disk surface-density normalization Σ0 = 10^3 / 10^4 / 10^5 g cm^{-2}
    Hand-chosen values 10^3, 10^4, 10^5 g cm^{-2} that control disk-induced dephasing amplitude.
  • Disk aspect-ratio normalization h0 = 0.05
    Fixed at 0.05; enters the Mach number and migration timescales.
  • Initial semi-latus rectum p0/M = 16
    Fixed at 16; sets the starting frequency of the LISA-band inspiral.
  • Phase-distinguishability threshold = 1 rad
    Conventional 1 rad used to define Tdis; not derived from LISA noise or Fisher information.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Secondary motion is geodesic in a static spherically symmetric metric modified only by the enclosed DM mass (Eqs. 1–5, 18–25).
    Standard for Numerical-Kludge EMRIs; neglects frame-dragging and non-spherical halo distortions.
  • domain assumption Gravitational radiation is given by the flat-space quadrupole formula applied to the curved-space trajectory (Eqs. 15–17).
    Core of the Numerical-Kludge approximation; known to be inaccurate at high post-Newtonian order.
  • domain assumption DM drag is Chandrasekhar dynamical friction with ln Λ ≃ 3 plus Bondi–Hoyle accretion with isotropic angular-momentum transfer (Eqs. 27–33).
    Standard collisionless-medium formulae; Coulomb logarithm and sound-speed approximations are conventional.
  • domain assumption Disk torques are given by the inverse timescales of Ida et al. (Eqs. 44) under ιsd < h and the relative-velocity prescription of Eq. 42.
    Adopted without re-derivation; validity for the eccentric, LISA-band regime is assumed rather than demonstrated.
  • domain assumption Alpha-disk surface density and aspect ratio follow the power-law forms of Eqs. 40–41 with Σp = −3/2.
    Standard thin-disk approximation retaining the inner-boundary correction.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21493 in / 3221 out tokens · 40698 ms · 2026-07-13T04:37:50.406030+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) are sensitive probes of weak environmental effects around massive black holes, since such effects can accumulate into observable gravitational-wave phase shifts. In this work, we study the phase degeneracy between dark matter halos and accretion disks in eccentric EMRI waveforms. We model the dark matter (DM) environment with NFW and Beta halo profiles, and describe the disk using a thin $\alpha$-disk model. Their distinguishability is quantified through eccentricity-dependent phase diagnostics and residual signal-to-noise ratios in the LISA band. Our results show that DM-induced dephasing depends only weakly on the initial eccentricity $e_0$, whereas disk-induced dephasing is strongly suppressed as $e_0$ increases. The distinguishability time is longest for circular orbits and decreases rapidly for slightly eccentric orbits. For the benchmark systems considered here, the DM--disk waveform difference can be detectable by LISA, and $e_0$ can serve as an auxiliary diagnostic in addition to the observation duration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09214 by Shu-Jun Rong, Tan-hao Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. 1 year waveform comparison for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Normalized eccentricity response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Observation time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Residual SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.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

88 extracted references · 63 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Phase-Based Distinguishability We further investigate the phase distinguishability between the DM and accretion disk en- vironmental effects. Since waveform phase differences accumulate over time, a sufficiently long observation is expected to make the phase discrepancy between the two environmental models distinguishable. Therefore, instead of only compa...

  2. [2]

    1 + 6 10 f f∗ 2# ,(54) where f∗ = c 2πL , L= 2.5×10 9 m.(55) The optical metrology noise and acceleration noise are given by POMS(f) = 1.5×10 −11 m 2

    LISA Residual SNR for DM–Disk Distinguishability To simulate the distinguishability of the two environmental effects in a realistic future detector, we take LISA as a representative example and evaluate their detectability under the LISA noise power spectral density. The residual signal-to-noise ratio is adopted as the quantitative measure of the DM–disk ...

  3. [3]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 131103 (2016), arXiv:1602.03838 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Karnesiset al., Int

    N. Karnesiset al., Int. J. Mod. Phys. D33, 2450027 (2024), arXiv:2209.04358 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [10]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]. 23

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    Liu, Y.-M

    S. Liu, Y.-M. Hu, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D101, 103027 (2020), arXiv:2004.14242 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  15. [15]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Baibhavet al., Exper

    V. Baibhavet al., Exper. Astron.51, 1385 (2021), arXiv:1908.11390 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  18. [18]

    C. P. L. Berry, S. A. Hughes, C. F. Sopuerta, A. J. K. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. P. Mihaylov, M. C. Miller, and A. Sesana, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.03686 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    P. A. Seoaneet al., Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 3 (2022), arXiv:2107.09665 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  20. [20]

    Laghi, N

    D. Laghi, N. Tamanini, W. Del Pozzo, A. Sesana, J. Gair, S. Babak, and D. Izquierdo-Villalba, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508, 4512 (2021), arXiv:2102.01708 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    McGee, A

    S. McGee, A. Sesana, and A. Vecchio, Nature Astron.4, 26 (2020), arXiv:1811.00050 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Barausse, V

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  23. [23]

    Cardoso, K

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Zi and S

    T. Zi and S. Kumar, JCAP04, 074 (2026), arXiv:2508.00516 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Yang, Y.-P

    S. Yang, Y.-P. Zhang, T. Zhu, L. Zhao, and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP01, 091 (2025), arXiv:2407.00283 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Zi and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Battista and V

    E. Battista and V. De Falco, Phys. Rev. D104, 084067 (2021), arXiv:2109.01384 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Yunes, B

    N. Yunes, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and Z. Haiman, Physical Review Letters107, 171103 (2011), arXiv:1103.4609 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  29. [31]

    G.-L. Li, Y. Tang, and Y.-L. Wu, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy65, 100412 (2022), arXiv:2112.14041 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  30. [32]

    Rahman, S

    M. Rahman, S. Kumar, and A. Bhattacharyya, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2024, 035 (2024), arXiv:2306.14971 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [33]

    Speeney, A

    N. Speeney, A. Antonelli, V. Baibhav, and E. Berti, Physical Review D106, 044027 (2022), arXiv:2204.12508 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [34]

    Cardoso and A

    V. Cardoso and A. Maselli, Astronomy & Astrophysics644, A147 (2020), arXiv:1909.05870 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [35]

    P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astronomy7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]. 24

    arXiv 2023

  34. [36]

    Becker and L

    N. Becker and L. Sagunski, Physical Review D107, 083003 (2023), arXiv:2211.05145 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  35. [37]

    M. I. B. Rivera and R. C. Reyes, New Astronomy112, 102263 (2024), arXiv:2406.15971 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [38]

    Li, C.-K

    G.-H. Li, C.-K. Qiao, and J. Tao, (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2603.02414, arXiv:2603.02414 [gr-qc]

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.02414 2026

  37. [39]

    Gliorio, E

    S. Gliorio, E. Berti, A. Maselli, and N. Speeney, Physical Review D112, 124050 (2025), arXiv:2503.16649 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  38. [40]

    Barausse and L

    E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Physical Review D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [41]

    A. M. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society486, 2754 (2019), arXiv:1810.03623 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [42]

    Derdzinski, D

    A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society501, 3540 (2021), arXiv:2005.11333 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [44]

    Duque, S

    F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Physical Review D111, 084006 (2025), arXiv:2411.03436 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [45]

    Liu, W.-B

    J.-D. Liu, W.-B. Han, and H. Tagawa, (2026), arXiv:2604.10942 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  43. [46]

    Babak, H

    S. Babak, H. Fang, J. R. Gair, K. Glampedakis, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D75, 024005 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0607007 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  44. [47]

    A. J. K. Chua, C. J. Moore, and J. R. Gair, Physical Review D96, 044005 (2017), arXiv:1705.04259 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  45. [48]

    Z.-Y. Tu, T. Zhu, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D108, 024035 (2023), arXiv:2304.14160 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [49]

    Z. Xu, X. Hou, X. Gong, and J. Wang, JCAP09, 038 (2018), arXiv:1803.00767 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [50]

    Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, 1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford University Press, 1983)

    1983

  48. [51]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Gravitation(W. H. Freeman, 1973)

    1973

  49. [52]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Physical Review D70, 122002 (2004)

    2004

  50. [53]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  51. [54]

    Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, and General Relativistic,

    C. M. Will, “Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, and General Relativistic,” inGravity: Where Do We Stand?, edited by R. Peron, M. Colpi, V. Gorini, and U. Moschella (2016) pp. 9–72

    2016

  52. [55]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, S. Barsanti, and P. Pani, Nature Astron.6, 464 (2022), arXiv:2106.11325 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [56]

    Liang, R

    D. Liang, R. Xu, Z.-F. Mai, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D107, 044053 (2023), arXiv:2212.09346 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [57]

    Matos, F

    T. Matos, F. S. Guzman, and D. Nunez, Phys. Rev. D62, 061301 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0003398

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  55. [58]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.275, 720 (1995), arXiv:astro-ph/9408069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  56. [59]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  57. [60]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J.490, 493 (1997), arXiv:astro-ph/9611107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  58. [61]

    Cavaliere and R

    A. Cavaliere and R. Fusco-Femiano, Astron. Astrophys.49, 137 (1976). 25

    1976

  59. [62]

    Li, C.-K

    G.-H. Li, C.-K. Qiao, and J. Tao, (2025), arXiv:2510.24989 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [63]

    Qiao and P

    C.-K. Qiao and P. Su, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1032 (2024), arXiv:2403.05682 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [64]

    Liu, C.-K

    Y.-G. Liu, C.-K. Qiao, and J. Tao, JCAP10, 075 (2024), arXiv:2312.15760 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  62. [65]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

    S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J.97, 255 (1943)

    1943

  63. [66]

    Cardoso, C

    V. Cardoso, C. F. B. Macedo, and R. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D103, 023015 (2021), arXiv:2010.15151 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [67]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D91, 044045 (2015), arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [68]

    Bondi, Mon

    H. Bondi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.112, 195 (1952)

    1952

  66. [69]

    C. F. B. Macedo, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. C. B. Crispino, Astrophys. J.774, 48 (2013), arXiv:1302.2646 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  67. [70]

    Bondi and F

    H. Bondi and F. Hoyle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.104, 273 (1944)

    1944

  68. [71]

    R. G. Edgar, New Astron. Rev.48, 843 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0406166

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  69. [72]

    S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D100, 064001 (2019), arXiv:1806.09022 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [73]

    Blachier, A

    B. Blachier, A. Barrau, K. Martineau, and C. Renevey, Gen. Rel. Grav.56, 20 (2024), arXiv:2306.09069 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [74]

    Frank, A

    J. Frank, A. King, and D. Raine,Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  72. [75]

    Jiang, O

    Y.-F. Jiang, O. Blaes, J. Stone, and S. W. Davis, (2019), 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00, arXiv:1904.01674 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00 2019

  73. [76]

    N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astronomy and Astrophysics24, 337 (1973)

    1973

  74. [77]

    Frank, A

    J. Frank, A. King, and D. J. Raine,Accretion Power in Astrophysics, 3rd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2002)

    2002

  75. [78]

    Liu, W.-B

    J.-D. Liu, W.-B. Han, and H. Tagawa, (2026), 10.48550/arXiv.2604.10942, arXiv:2604.10942 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.10942 2026

  76. [79]

    Kocsis, N

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  77. [80]

    Pan and H

    Z. Pan and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, 103018 (2021), arXiv:2101.09146 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [81]

    P. Basu, S. Chatterjee, and S. Mondal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531, 1506 (2024)

    2024

  79. [82]

    S. Ida, T. Muto, S. Matsumura, and R. Brasser, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 494, 5666 (2020), arXiv:2004.07481 [astro-ph.EP]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [83]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

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

    2007

Showing first 80 references.