Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 79 references

Neglecting first post-adiabatic gravity terms biases binary parameters but leaves scalar-charge recovery largely intact for LISA EMRIs.

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 03:58 UTC pith:WSFOMV62

load-bearing objection Solid first 1PA+scalar SF waveform for LISA scalar-charge inference; bias patterns are cleanly quantified and the secondary-spin correction of prior work is useful, all inside a clearly scoped quasi-circular Schwarzschild domain.

arxiv 2607.09310 v1 pith:WSFOMV62 submitted 2026-07-10 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-ph

The significance of first post-adiabatic contributions for scalar charge measurements with intermediate and extreme mass ratio inspirals

Susanna Barsanti , Ollie Burke , Andrea Maselli , Thomas P. Sotiriou , Andrew Spiers , Niels Warburton This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords extreme mass ratio inspiralsself-forcescalar chargepost-adiabaticLISAwaveform systematicsBayesian inferencescalar-tensor gravity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper builds the first self-force waveform model that mixes first post-adiabatic gravitational evolution with leading-order scalar-field radiation for intermediate- and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals. Using Bayesian injection-recovery on simulated LISA data for quasi-circular orbits into a non-spinning primary, the authors show that dropping the gravitational 1PA terms systematically shifts the recovered primary mass, secondary mass and initial radius by several standard deviations, yet the secondary's scalar charge stays essentially unbiased over a wide range of mass ratios. Pure-GR templates applied to charged signals, by contrast, produce large biases and understated error bars because the missing scalar flux is absorbed into correlated vacuum parameters. Secondary spin is found to be uncorrelated with the charge and remains unconstrained up to mass ratio 10^{-4}, even in pure GR. A simple leading-order dipolar post-Newtonian scalar flux is also shown to introduce negligible systematics relative to fully relativistic scalar fluxes for these orbits.

Core claim

For quasi-circular EMRIs and IMRIs into a Schwarzschild primary, gravitational first-post-adiabatic corrections are required to avoid multi-sigma biases on the intrinsic binary parameters, while the secondary scalar charge can still be recovered robustly from templates that keep only adiabatic scalar fluxes; pure-GR templates on charged signals fail because of unmodelled correlations, and secondary spin remains unconstrained up to mass ratio 10^{-4}.

What carries the argument

A modular two-timescale forcing-function decomposition that superposes a first-post-adiabatic gravitational self-force trajectory (including secondary spin) with a leading-order adiabatic scalar flux, implemented as interchangeable waveform models for Bayesian injection-recovery.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that every first-post-adiabatic correction involving the scalar field can be neglected and that the primary is non-spinning with a strictly circular equatorial orbit.

What would settle it

Repeat the injection-recovery campaign with a waveform that includes the omitted scalar 1PA terms (or a spinning primary) and check whether the recovered scalar-charge posterior then develops multi-sigma biases comparable to those already seen for the binary masses and radius.

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

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs the first self-force waveform model for intermediate- and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals that combines a first post-adiabatic (1PA) gravitational sector with leading-order scalar-field effects, restricted to quasi-circular equatorial orbits about a non-spinning primary. Using Bayesian injection–recovery studies with LISA TDI channels, the authors quantify waveform systematics for scalar-charge inference. They report that omitting gravitational 1PA corrections biases the intrinsic parameters (M, µ, r̂0) by several σ while the scalar charge Λ remains largely unbiased over mass ratios 5×10^{-5}–4×10^{-4}; pure-GR templates applied to charged signals produce large biases and underestimated uncertainties through unmodelled correlations; secondary spin is unconstrained up to ε=10^{-4} (even in pure GR) and does not correlate with Λ; and a leading-order dipolar (-1PN) scalar flux introduces negligible systematics relative to fully relativistic fluxes for non-spinning primaries.

Significance. If the reported bias patterns hold, the work supplies concrete modelling guidance for LISA analyses of scalar-tensor EMRIs/IMRIs: adiabatic scalar fluxes plus 1PA gravitational self-force appear sufficient for unbiased scalar-charge recovery within the stated domain, while pure-GR templates are inadequate. The modular construction that re-uses existing second-order GR results, the systematic four-case injection–recovery campaign (Table II), the full MCMC posteriors, and the explicit re-analysis that identifies a waveform-model bug in earlier pure-GR secondary-spin claims are genuine strengths. The paper therefore advances both the beyond-GR self-force programme and the practical requirements for LISA parameter estimation.

minor comments (5)
  1. In §II after Eq. (12) and again in the Discussion the authors correctly flag the systematic neglect of all 1PA scalar contributions; a single sentence quantifying the expected size of those terms (or citing the forthcoming calculation [61]) would help readers gauge residual risk without altering the central claim.
  2. Table II lists dephasing, log-likelihoods and biases for all four cases; adding a column for the recovered SNR or the mismatch between injection and best-fit recovery would make the diagnostics self-contained.
  3. Fig. 1 normalises sub-leading forcing terms to F_GSF_0 at a single (ν,Λ,χ) point; a brief remark on how the relative importance of Λ F_0^Λ scales with mass ratio would clarify the domain of the robustness claim.
  4. Appendix C re-analyses the pure-GR secondary-spin results of Ref. [34] and attributes the discrepancy to a bug in FastSchwarzschildEccentricFlux. A short statement of which higher-mode content was spuriously present would strengthen the correction for future users of FEW.
  5. Notation: the scalar charge is introduced as d^{(0)} then used as d or Λ=d^{2}; a consistent symbol after Eq. (9) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: claims are empirical injection-recovery biases from independently generated waveforms, not tautological redefinitions or fitted predictions.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section IVC and Appendix C (comparison with Ref. [34])]
    "We can compare our result with those reported in [34] (see Fig. 4), in which, for the same mass ratio ϵ=10^{-4}, the secondary spin was found to be constrained. However, when repeating the same analysis using the latest FastKerrEccentricEquatorialFlux waveform model, the secondary spin is no longer constrained. ... We believe that this discrepancy originates from a bug in the FastSchwarzschildEccentricFlux waveform model ..."

    The claim that secondary spin remains unconstrained up to ϵ=10^{-4} (even in pure GR) rests on re-running the authors' own earlier analysis with a corrected waveform model. While the numerical re-assessment is transparent and falsifiable, the contrast with 'previous claims in the literature' is load-bearing only against a self-citation; no independent external benchmark is used for that particular statement. This is a minor, non-central circularity (score contribution ~1).

full rationale

The paper's central results (Table II, Figs. 2-6, Cases I-IV) are numerical statements about parameter biases obtained by injecting one waveform model and recovering with another that systematically omits selected forcing terms. The orbital evolution (Eqs. 14-18), phase expansion (Eq. 17), and waveform construction (Eq. 19 + FEW) are assembled from external SF fluxes and known GR 1PA results; the scalar charge Λ and secondary spin χ enter as free parameters that are either injected or sampled, not fitted to produce a 'prediction'. Self-citations supply modular building blocks (scalar fluxes, 1PA GR trajectories, secondary-spin MPD terms) that are used as inputs rather than as the quantities being claimed. The only mild self-referential element is the re-assessment of secondary-spin measurability against the authors' own prior work [34], which is presented as a correction of a bug rather than a load-bearing uniqueness claim. Within the openly stated domain (quasi-circular, non-spinning primary, neglect of scalar 1PA terms), the derivation chain does not reduce by construction to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper inherits the entire self-force and two-timescale formalism, the scalar-tensor action of Refs. [35,36], and the existing 1PA gravitational fluxes. The only free choices that affect the reported biases are the injected mass ratios, scalar charges, SNRs and observation time; these are experimental design parameters rather than fitted constants. No new dynamical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • injected scalar charge d (or Λ=d²)
    Chosen by hand (0.025, 0.05, 1.0) to span weak-to-strong scalar regimes; the robustness claim is demonstrated only for these discrete values.
  • injected mass ratios ε
    Three discrete values (5×10^{-5}, 10^{-4}, 4×10^{-4}) selected for the study; conclusions about “wide range” rest on these points.
  • SNR and T_obs
    Fixed to 50–200 and 1 yr (1.5 yr for pure-GR spin test); longer observations or different SNRs could alter the bias magnitudes.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Background geometry remains Schwarzschild to leading order in mass ratio because the dimensionless coupling ζ=α/M^n is O(ε^n)≪1
    Stated after Eq. (5); allows the metric sector to be taken from pure GR while the scalar charge of the secondary sources the leading deviation.
  • ad hoc to paper All 1PA contributions that involve the scalar field (including slow-time derivatives of the scalar and scalar stress-energy at second order) may be neglected
    Explicitly declared after Eq. (12) and in §II; this truncation is what makes the model computationally feasible but is also the principal modelling assumption whose validity is not yet verified.
  • domain assumption Secondary spin effects can be imported from the GR Mathisson–Papapetrou–Dixon equations without scalar corrections
    Justified by the small-coupling assumption (§II); a complete scalar-tensor spin treatment is deferred to future work.
  • domain assumption 1PA corrections to waveform amplitudes are negligible for the SNRs considered
    Cited from Ref. [34] and used to keep only 0PA amplitudes in FEW.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 27845 in / 2958 out tokens · 37524 ms · 2026-07-13T03:58:18.271981+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the first self-force-based beyond-GR waveform model incorporating post-adiabatic orbital evolution for intermediate- and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals in theories of gravity with additional scalar fields. Focusing on quasi-circular inspirals into a non-spinning primary, we combine a first post-adiabatic (1PA) gravitational sector with leading-order scalar field effects and use Bayesian injection-recovery studies to assess the impact of waveform systematics on the inference of scalar charges with LISA. We find that neglecting 1PA effects in the gravitational sector can bias the inference of intrinsic binary parameters, while scalar-charge measurements remain robust across a wide range of mass ratios. In contrast, analysing signals from binaries in which the secondary carries a scalar charge using pure-GR templates leads to significant biases and underestimated uncertainties due to unmodelled correlations between the scalar charge and the binary parameters. We also investigate the role of secondary spin and find no significant correlation between the secondary spin and the scalar charge. Notably, up to a mass ratio of $10^{-4}$, the secondary spin itself remains unconstrained even in the pure-GR case, in contrast with previous claims in the literature. Finally, we show that modelling scalar emission with a leading-order dipolar post-Newtonian approximation -- for quasi-circular inspirals into a non-spinning primary -- introduces negligible systematic errors relative to fully relativistic scalar fluxes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09310 by Andrea Maselli, Andrew Spiers, Niels Warburton, Ollie Burke, Susanna Barsanti, Thomas P. Sotiriou.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Ratio between the sub-leading forcing terms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Corner plots of the intrinsic parameters, showing the posterior distributions obtained by injecting the 1PAScalar model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Corner plot of the binary parameters, obtained by injecting a 1PAScalar waveform and recovering with the 1PAScalar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Corner plot of the intrinsic parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Ratio between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Corner plot of the ten binary parameters for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Corner plot of the binary parameters obtained by injecting a 1PASpinScalar model and recovering with the same [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Corner plots showing the posterior distributions obtained by injecting a 0PAScalar waveform template and recovering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Corner plots showing the posterior distributions obtained by injecting a 1PASpinGR waveform template and recovering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Corner plots showing the posterior distributions obtained by injecting a 1PASpinGR waveform template and recovering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Corner plots showing the posterior distributions obtained by injecting a 1PASpinGR waveform template and recovering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_15.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

79 extracted references · 55 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Testing Gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals,

    A. Cárdenas-Avendaño and C. F. Sopuerta, “Testing Gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals,” (2024) arXiv:2401.08085 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Baracket al., Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Barausseet al., Gen

    E. Barausseet al., Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Barausse, N

    E. Barausse, N. Yunes, and K. Chamberlain, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241104 (2016), arXiv:1603.04075 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, C. F. B. Macedo, V. Cardoso, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, F. S. Khoo, J. Kunz, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D94, 104024 (2016), arXiv:1609.01286 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Glampedakis and S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Barack and C

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  8. [8]

    Cardoso, G

    V. Cardoso, G. Castro, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251103 (2018), arXiv:1809.00673 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Datta, R

    S. Datta, R. Brito, S. Bose, P. Pani, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D101, 044004 (2020), arXiv:1910.07841 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Pani and A

    P. Pani and A. Maselli, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D28, 1944001 (2019), arXiv:1905.03947 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    Maggio, M

    E. Maggio, M. van de Meent, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104026 (2021), arXiv:2106.07195 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Destounis, A

    K. Destounis, A. G. Suvorov, and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D102, 064041 (2020), arXiv:2009.00028 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    G. A. Piovano, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, Phys. Lett. B 811, 135860 (2020), arXiv:2003.08448 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Sago and T

    N. Sago and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D104, 064009 (2021), arXiv:2106.07123 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    G. A. Piovano, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024021 (2023), arXiv:2207.07452 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    L. G. Collodel, D. D. Doneva, and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D105, 044036 (2022), arXiv:2108.11658 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    Babak, J

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Speri, F

    L. Speri, F. Duque, S. Barsanti, A. Santini, S. Kejri- wal, O. Burke, and C. E. A. Chapman-Bird, (2026), arXiv:2603.17072 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026), arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    E. M. Sängeret al., (2024), arXiv:2406.03568 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Corman, L

    M. Corman, L. Aresté Saló, and K. Clough, (2025), arXiv:2511.19073 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Wardell, A

    B. Wardell, A. Pound, N. Warburton, J. Miller, L. Durkan, and A. Le Tiec, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 241402 (2023), arXiv:2112.12265 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Mathews, B

    J. Mathews, B. Wardell, A. Pound, and N. Warburton, Phys. Rev. D113, 064034 (2026), arXiv:2510.16113 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Honet, L

    L. Honet, L. Küchler, A. Pound, and G. Compère, Phys. Rev. D113, 044051 (2026), arXiv:2510.13958 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Küchler, G

    L. Küchler, G. Compère, L. Durkan, and A. Pound, SciPost Phys.17, 056 (2024), arXiv:2405.00170 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Küchler, G

    L. Küchler, G. Compère, and A. Pound, Class. Quant. Grav.43, 015018 (2026), arXiv:2506.02189 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Compère and L

    G. Compère and L. Küchler, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 241106 (2021), arXiv:2102.12747 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    Honet, J

    L. Honet, J. Mathews, G. Compère, A. Pound, B. Wardell, G. A. Piovano, M. van de Meent, and N. Warburton, (2025), arXiv:2510.16112 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Honet, A

    L. Honet, A. Pound, and G. Compère, Phys. Rev. D113, 064035 (2026), arXiv:2510.16114 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  32. [32]

    Miller and A

    J. Miller and A. Pound, Phys. Rev. D103, 064048 (2021), arXiv:2006.11263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Pound and B

    A. Pound and B. Wardell, (2021), 10.1007/978-981-15- 4702-7_38-1, arXiv:2101.04592 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-981-15- 2021

  34. [34]

    Burke, G

    O. Burke, G. A. Piovano, N. Warburton, P. Lynch, L. Speri, C. Kavanagh, B. Wardell, A. Pound, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Phys. Rev. D109, 124048 (2024), arXiv:2310.08927 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141101 (2020), arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    Spiers, A

    A. Spiers, A. Maselli, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064022 (2024), arXiv:2310.02315 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Barsanti, N

    S. Barsanti, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D106, 044029 (2022), arXiv:2203.05003 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  38. [38]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y. Gong, D. Liang, and B. Wang, JCAP06, 054 (2023), arXiv:2210.11121 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Della Rocca, S

    M. Della Rocca, S. Barsanti, L. Gualtieri, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D109, 104079 (2024), arXiv:2401.09542 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Zi and S

    T. Zi and S. Kumar, (2025), arXiv:2508.00516 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Gliorio, M

    S. Gliorio, M. Della Rocca, S. Barsanti, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli, and T. P. Sotiriou, (2026), arXiv:2603.10116 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Barsanti, A

    S. Barsanti, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotiriou, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 051401 (2023), arXiv:2212.03888 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    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

  44. [44]

    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]

    arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    T. P. Sotiriou and V. Faraoni, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 081103 (2012), arXiv:1109.6324 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  46. [46]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.25, 167 (1972)

    1972

  47. [47]

    D. M. Eardley, Astrophys. J.196(1975), 10.1086/181744

    doi:10.1086/181744 1975

  48. [48]

    Damour and G

    T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Class. Quant. Grav. 9, 2093 (1992)

    2093

  49. [49]

    Julié, Phys

    F.-L. Julié, Phys. Rev. D97, 024047 (2018), arXiv:1709.09742 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Julié, JCAP01, 026 (2018), arXiv:1711.10769 [gr- qc]

    F.-L. Julié, JCAP01, 026 (2018), arXiv:1711.10769 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    S. L. Detweiler and B. F. Whiting, Phys. Rev. D67, 024025 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0202086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  52. [52]

    Pound, B

    A. Pound, B. Wardell, N. Warburton, and J. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 021101 (2020), arXiv:1908.07419 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Warburton, A

    N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, J. Miller, and L. Durkan, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 151102 (2021), arXiv:2107.01298 [gr-qc]. 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Schmidt, Class

    W. Schmidt, Class. Quant. Grav.19, 2743 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0202090

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  55. [55]

    C. E. A. Chapman-Birdet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 104023 (2025), arXiv:2506.09470 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Albertini, A

    A. Albertini, A. Nagar, A. Pound, N. Warburton, B. Wardell, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084061 (2022), arXiv:2208.01049 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Martel, Phys

    K. Martel, Phys. Rev. D69, 044025 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0311017

    arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  59. [59]

    A. I. Harte, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 055012 (2012), arXiv:1103.0543 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    Poisson, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    Lestingi, A

    J. Lestingi, A. Maselli, T. P. Sotoriou, and A. Spiers, “ t.b.c.” in preparation

  62. [62]

    Mathews, A

    J. Mathews, A. Pound, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084031 (2022), arXiv:2112.13069 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Mathisson, Gen

    M. Mathisson, Gen. Rel. Grav.42, 1011 (2010)

    2010

  64. [64]

    Papapetrou, Proc

    A. Papapetrou, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A209, 248 (1951)

    1951

  65. [65]

    W. G. Dixon, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314, 499 (1970)

    1970

  66. [66]

    Rahman, M

    M. Rahman, M. Shahzadi, A. Pound, and J. Mathews, (2026), arXiv:2606.28937 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    van de Meent, A

    M. van de Meent, A. Buonanno, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Os- sokine, L. Pompili, N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Phys. Rev. D108, 124038 (2023), arXiv:2303.18026 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    P. I. Jefremov, O. Y. Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D91, 124030 (2015), arXiv:1503.07060 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  69. [69]

    Le Tiec, E

    A. Le Tiec, E. Barausse, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 131103 (2012), arXiv:1111.5609 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  70. [70]

    Fastemriwaveforms,

    C. Chapman-Bird, A. J. K. Chua, S. Hughes, M. Katz, Z. Nasipak, M. Pigou, L. Speri, and N. Warburton, “Fastemriwaveforms,” (2025)

    2025

  71. [71]

    M. L. Katz, J.-B. Bayle, A. J. K. Chua, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D106, 103001 (2022), arXiv:2204.06633 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    mikekatz04/eryn: first full release,

    M. Katz, N. Karnesis, and N. Korsakova, “mikekatz04/eryn: first full release,” (2023)

    2023

  73. [73]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125, 306–312 (2013)

    2013

  74. [74]

    Whittle, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)19, 38 (1957)

    P. Whittle, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology)19, 38 (1957)

    1957

  75. [75]

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

    arXiv 1992

  76. [76]

    Technical Report 1.0, Tech

    LISA Science Study Team,LISA Science Requirements Document, ESA-L3-EST-SCI-RS-001. Technical Report 1.0, Tech. Rep. (ESA, 2018)

    2018

  77. [77]

    Julié and E

    F.-L. Julié and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D100, 104061 (2019), arXiv:1909.05258 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Ohashi, H

    A. Ohashi, H. Tagoshi, and M. Sasaki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 96, 713 (1996)

    1996

  79. [79]

    J. C. Castillo, C. R. Evans, C. Kavanagh, J. Neef, B. Wardell, and A. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D112, 104001 (2025), arXiv:2507.07303 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025