Connecting scattering, monodromy, and MST's renormalized angular momentum for the Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime

Zachary Nasipak

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Connecting scattering, monodromy, and MST's renormalized angular momentum for the Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the renormalized angular momentum ν of the MST expansions is exactly the logarithmic monodromy eigenvalue at infinity, and it turns this identity into a numerical algorithm.

desk verdict Solid methodological paper: exact link between MST renormalized angular momentum and monodromy eigenvalues for Kerr Teukolsky, with a workable numerical scheme; one key analytic step is asserted rather than derived and the half-integer spin branch deserves scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.06503 v2 pith:7MQ2BIPG submitted 2024-12-09 gr-qc

Zachary Nasipak This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C5734M3534M4033C15 PACS 04.70.-s04.30.-w02.30.Hq

keywords TeukolskyequationKerrspacetimerenormalizedangularmomentummonodromyStokesmultipliersMSTseriesblackholeperturbationtheoryquasinormalmodes

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper's central claim is that the auxiliary number $\nu$ that makes the MST series solutions to the radial Teukolsky equation converge is not a bookkeeping device: it is exactly the logarithmic monodromy eigenvalue of the equation's irregular singular point at infinity. The two building-block solutions $R^\nu_C$ and $R^{-\nu-1}_C$ diagonalize the monodromy matrix at $r=\infty$, with eigenvalues $e^{-2\pi i\nu}$ and $e^{2\pi i\nu}$, so the trace of the monodromy matrix equals $2\cos(2\pi\nu)$, which is also $2\cos(2\pi\nu_\infty)$ computed from Stokes data. The paper turns this identity into a numerical algorithm for $\nu$ that works where continued-fraction root-finding struggles, and it reports that $\cos(2\pi\nu)$ stays real for real Kerr parameters even when $\nu$ itself becomes complex. This matters because $\nu$ controls essentially all MST-based black-hole perturbation calculations, from transmission and reflection amplitudes to quasinormal-mode and gravitational-wave predictions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the monodromy matrix of the radial Teukolsky equation at its irregular singular point at infinity, whose eigenvalues are $e^{\pm 2\pi i\nu}$ in the diagonalizing basis provided by $R^\nu_C$ and $R^{-\nu-1}_C$. The central identity is the trace formula $\mathrm{Tr}\, M^S_I = 2\cos(2\pi\nu)=2\cos(2\pi\nu_\infty)$, where $\nu_\infty$ is obtained from the Stokes multipliers $C_1,C_2$ and the index difference $\lambda$ via $2\cos(2\pi\nu_\infty)=2\cos(2\pi\lambda)+e^{2\pi i\lambda}C_1C_2$. Stokes multipliers are connection coefficients describing how asymptotic solutions change across Stokes lines in the complex plane; the paper computes their product from the three-term recurrence coefficients of the confluent Heun expansions, then converts the eigenvalue into $\nu$ with the branch rule $\nu=l-\arccos(\cos 2\pi\nu_\infty)$.

What would settle it

Compute $\nu$ independently by solving the MST continued-fraction equations (24)–(25) with high-precision arithmetic for a parameter set where the monodromy trace formula suffers catastrophic cancellation, such as $(s,l,m,\chi,M\omega)=(-2,20,2,0.9)$ with $M\omega\approx 3$, and compare it with the value from Eqs. (48) and (71). Agreement would corroborate the identification; any disagreement beyond the calibrated branch error would show that the monodromy eigenvalue is not the same object as the MST convergence parameter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes an exact identification: the renormalized angular momentum $\nu$ used in the MST expansions is the logarithm of the monodromy eigenvalue at $r=\infty$ for the radial Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime. The author proves that $R^\nu_C(z)$ and $R^{-\nu-1}_C(z)$ diagonalize the monodromy matrix under the continuation $z\to e^{-2\pi i}z$, giving eigenvalues $e^{-2\pi i\nu}$ and $e^{2\pi i\nu}$, and hence $\mathrm{Tr}\, M^S_I = 2\cos(2\pi\nu)=2\cos(2\pi\nu_\infty)$ with $M^S_I$ the monodromy matrix at infinity in the up/down basis. The eigenvalue parameter $\nu_\infty$ is extracted from the Stokes multipliers through the trace identity $2\cos(2\pi\nu_\infty)=2\cos(2\pi\lambda)+e^{2\pi i\lambda}C_1C_2$, and $\nu$ is fixed relative to $\nu_\infty$ by $\nu=l-\arccos(\cos 2\pi\nu_\infty)$, with the principal branch and integer offset pinned down by the low-frequency limit $\nu\to l$. The numerical scheme computes $C_1C_2$ from confluent Heun asymptotic coefficients, reproduces benchmark monodromy eigenvalues for known quasinormal-mode frequencies, and includes an asymptotic expansion in inverse powers of $\sqrt{\lambda_C}$ to handle catastrophic cancellation at large $l$ and frequency.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the branch of the relation $\nu = l - \arccos(\cos 2\pi\nu_\infty)$ is chosen correctly, specifically that the principal-branch arccos plus the integer offset reproduces the low-frequency limit $\nu \to l$; if that calibration is wrong for some parameter region, the resulting $\nu$ will not make the MST series converge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The renormalized angular momentum $\nu$ no longer needs to be found by root-finding a continued fraction; it can be obtained from Stokes data via the monodromy trace formula.
Because $\cos(2\pi\nu)$ is real for real Teukolsky parameters, the monodromy formula gives a direct diagnostic for when $\nu$ leaves the real axis as frequency grows, the regime where older root-finding methods are unreliable.
All MST scattering amplitudes, including transmission, reflection, and incidence coefficients, depend on $\nu$, so the monodromy identification ties greybody factors and quasinormal-mode boundary conditions to the same complex-analytic data.
The exact relation $a=-\nu-1/2$ with the gauge-modulus parameter, previously verified only to ninth post-Minkowskian order, follows as an exact consequence of the monodromy identification.
The empirical observation that $\cos(2\pi\nu)$ remains bounded while the individual terms in Eq. (48) grow exponentially quantifies the precision loss and motivates the paper's large-$l$ asymptotic expansion for $\cos(2\pi\nu)$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper, the monodromy eigenvalue viewpoint suggests using isomonodromic deformation methods to compute $\nu$ from the accessory parameter of the confluent Heun equation, providing an independent route to the MST convergence parameter.
The branch calibration $\nu=l-\arccos(\cos 2\pi\nu_\infty)$ implies that tracking branch cuts in the frequency and spin plane could reveal discrete jumps in $\nu$; these would appear as avoided crossings in the real-frequency evolution of $\cos(2\pi\nu)$ and could be searched for numerically.
A testable consequence beyond the paper is that greybody factors computed from the MST amplitudes and directly from the monodromy eigenvalues should agree to all orders, including the high-frequency regime; a mismatch at any frequency would indicate an unaccounted Stokes phenomenon.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth a serious look. The paper's real contribution is the exact relation between MST's renormalized angular momentum ν and the monodromy eigenvalue at infinity for the Kerr radial Teukolsky equation, for arbitrary spin weight s. That closes a gap: prior work (Castro et al., Casals et al.) used monodromy or connected ν to scattering data only in restricted cases or to finite post-Minkowskian order, and Bautista et al.'s relation a = -ν - 1/2 was only checked to 9PM. The paper also verifies that relation is exact, which is nice, and it ships a numerical scheme for ν that avoids continued-fraction root-finding, with an honest treatment of catastrophic cancellation and an asymptotic expansion that works where machine precision fails. The validation against Ref. [19] and qnm data is genuine, not cosmetic: most fractional differences at 10^-5 level, and the two large disagreements are explained (one by a corrected QNM frequency, one by consistency with neighboring spins). Credit where due: this is reproducible, falsifiable work that a competent grad student could extend.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The central claim rests on Eq. (63), which is stated in a single sentence: R_ν_C and R_-ν-1_C diagonalize the monodromy at infinity with eigenvalues e^∓2πiν, 'because the series is analytic and convergent.' That is exactly the step that needs a derivation. The stress-test note worries that the explicit prefactors (z)^(ν+iε+) and (z-εκ)^(-s-iε+) in Eq. (21) acquire phases under z -> e^-2πi z, and for half-integer s the raw eigenvalue is e^2πi(s-ν), not e^-2πiν. On reading the text, I think the paper's own framing absorbs this: the trace is 2 cos 2πν and the integer branch freedom is acknowledged (Sec. V.B, Eq. 71 calibrates ν→l at low frequency). But the paper never shows the bookkeeping for s=±1/2, and all numerical validation uses s=-2 only. That is a fair referee request, not a fatal flaw. The fitted asymptotic coefficients ν1..ν7 are presented as an ansatz with no derivation of the scheme, which is fine as a numerical tool but should be labeled as such. No code or data files are shipped, which limits reproducibility but is not disqualifying for this subfield.

Who is this for: anyone computing MST Teukolsky solutions for EMRI waveforms, scattering amplitudes, or QNMs, especially at large l or complex frequency where continued-fraction methods struggle. A serious referee should be engaged; the paper deserves revision, not rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims an exact relation between MST's renormalized angular momentum parameter ν and the logarithmic monodromy eigenvalue at infinity for the radial Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime. The author derives that the solutions R^ν_C and R^{-ν-1}_C diagonalize the monodromy matrix at infinity with eigenvalues e^{∓2πiν}, so that 2cos(2πν) equals the normalized monodromy trace. A numerical method for computing ν from Stokes multipliers, via the Daalhuis-Olver connection formulae, is presented and tested against quasinormal-mode data from Castro et al. and the qnm package. The paper also discusses the numerical stability of the method, identifies catastrophic cancellation for large l and ω, and proposes an asymptotic expansion for cos(2πν) in terms of the spheroidal eigenvalue λ_C.

Significance. If the central identity holds, it establishes a clean and useful bridge between the MST machinery used in gravitational self-force and black-hole perturbation calculations and the monodromy/scattering approach of Castro et al. and related recent work. The numerical scheme is concrete, and the comparisons with independent QNM data give agreement at the ~10^-5 level for the cases shown, which is a genuine check. The observation that cos(2πν) is real for real Teukolsky parameters, and the asymptotic expansion for large λ_C, are potentially useful practical tools. The main reservation is that the derivation of the key monodromy eigenvalue statement is incomplete: the prefactor phases in Eq. (21) introduce a spin-dependent overall phase that is harmless for integer spin but not for the half-integer neutrino case, and this case is not tested numerically. The branch calibration of Eq. (71) is also load-bearing for the numerical method and is only validated for a limited part of parameter space.

major comments (3)

[Sec. IV, Eq. (63)] Equation (63) is asserted without a derivation, and the prefactor phases in Eq. (21) do not give the displayed result for half-integer spin. Under the monodromy loop z → e^{-2πi}z, the leading factors transform as z^{ν+iε+} → e^{-2πi(ν+iε+)}z^{ν+iε+} and (z−εκ)^{-s−iε+} → e^{2πi(s+iε+)}(z−εκ)^{-s−iε+}, so the eigenvalue of R^ν_C is e^{2πi(s−ν)}, not e^{-2πiν}; for R^{-ν-1}_C one obtains e^{2πi(s+ν)}. For integer s the extra factor e^{2πis}=1 and Eq. (63) is recovered, but for s=±1/2 it is −1. The later trace statement in Eq. (64) can still be rescued if Eq. (63) is interpreted as an eigenvalue statement for the determinant-one normalized monodromy matrix \widehat{M} rather than for R^ν_C itself, but the paper does not make this distinction explicit. Please correct Eq. (63) to include the overall monodromy phase, re-derive Eqs. (64)–(65) from the normalized matrix, and state precisely whether the claimed identity ν=±ν∞+N holds for half-integer spin or only up to a spin-dependent offset.
[Sec. V B, Tables I and II] The numerical validation does not state the spin weight s used for each quasinormal-mode table. The a/M=0, l=0 rows use the scalar l=0 frequency, while the near-extremal l=2, m=2 rows use the gravitational (2,2,n) frequencies; these are different spin sectors, and no half-integer spin case is tested. Because the central claim is made for arbitrary s, the tables should list s explicitly, and the method should be validated for at least one half-integer spin case, where the monodromy phase in Eq. (63) differs from the integer-spin case. Without such a check, the manuscript's claim that the method works for neutrino perturbations is not supported by the numerical evidence presented.
[Sec. V B, Eq. (71)] The branch calibration ν = l − arccos(cos 2πν∞) is load-bearing for the numerical method: it resolves the periodicity and reflection ambiguities of the cosine and fixes the integer offset in ν=±ν∞+N. The paper states that choosing the wrong branch would prevent the MST series from converging. The only justification offered is matching to the low-frequency limit ν→l, and the plotted checks are all for s=−2. For half-integer s, once the phase in Eq. (63) is corrected, the low-frequency limit of cos(2πν∞) becomes cos(2π(s−l)), so the principal-branch offset in Eq. (71) may require a spin-dependent modification. Please provide an explicit branch-continuation rule for general (s,l,m,χ,ω), or prove that the principal-branch formula with the l offset remains valid for all spin weights, including s=±1/2.

minor comments (5)

[Introduction, Sec. II] There are several typos: "Sukuzi" should be "Suzuki", "auxilliary" should be "auxiliary", and "Mano, Sukuzi, and Takasugi" appears in the introduction. These should be corrected throughout.
[Table I] The table contains two rows with identical parameters (a/M=0, l=0, m=0, n=2) but different frequencies, 0.075742−0.600080i and 0.075742−0.601080i. The text explains this is a replacement of the frequency, but the table should distinguish the two rows, for example by labeling the second as a corrected value or using a different overtone label.
[Eqs. (46)–(48) and (62)–(64)] The notation conflates the full monodromy matrix M∞ with the determinant-one normalized matrix \widehat{M}_∞. In Eq. (46), M^S_∞ has determinant e^{-2πi(λ1+λ2)}, while Eq. (64) presents a matrix with determinant 1 under the same symbol M^S_I. Please consistently mark the normalized matrix, e.g., as \widehat{M}, and state which matrix is meant in Eq. (62).
[Eq. (73a)] The formula for ν1 appears garbled in the typeset equation: "1 8 + (mχ)ǫ 2 − 1 4 ( 15 +χ2)ǫ2 4" should be written with explicit fractions and parentheses so that the reader can verify the coefficient against the PN literature.
[Appendix E, Eq. (E1)] In the expression for ν(6)_7, the term "a6" appears to be a typo and should presumably read χ^6. Please check and correct all such notation in the appendix.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the monodromy-to-nu derivation is self-contained and validated against independent data.

full rationale

The central claim (Eq. 63) relates the MST parameter nu to the monodromy eigenvalue at infinity through the analytic structure of the MST solutions themselves, not by fitting nu to monodromy data. The numerical route is independent of the MST continued-fraction equation: the Stokes multipliers C1 and C2 are computed from asymptotic series coefficients of the confluent Heun solutions (Eqs. 66-69), which do not depend on nu, and Eq. (48) then gives cos(2*pi*nu_infinity). The branch convention in Eq. (71) is resolved by matching the known low-frequency limit nu -> l from post-Newtonian literature; this is a calibration of the arccos branch and integer offset, not a fitted prediction of the quantity being derived. Tables I and II validate the eigenvalues against Castro et al. [19] and the independent qnm package, so the check is external rather than circular. The only self-citation, Ref. [17], is contextual mention of an algorithm and is not load-bearing. The terseness of Eq. (63) and the possible s-dependent prefactor phase for half-integer spin is a derivation-detail/correctness concern, not circularity, because the argument does not presuppose the claimed equality as an input.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the MST convergence theorem, the validity of the monodromy framework for the Teukolsky equation, and the branch choice in Eq. (71). The only fitted quantities are the higher-order asymptotic coefficients in Eq. (72). No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Asymptotic expansion coefficients nu1, nu3, nu5, nu7 = Given in Eq. (73) and Appendix E
These coefficients in Eq. (72) are extracted by numerical fitting to the exact calculation of cos(2*pi*nu) from Eq. (48), not derived from first principles.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption The MST series solutions converge for nu satisfying the continued fraction equations (24)/(25)
The paper relies on the MST formalism; convergence is asserted based on the theory of minimal solutions, not proven in this paper.
domain assumption The monodromy framework of Castro et al. and Daalhuis-Olver applies to the radial Teukolsky equation in the form used
The paper builds on Refs [18,19,26] for Stokes multipliers and connection formulae.
ad hoc to paper The branch of arccos in Eq. (71) is chosen to match the low-frequency limit nu to l
This choice fixes the integer and reflection ambiguity; it is not derived from monodromy data alone.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Connecting scattering, monodromy, and MST's renormalized angular momentum for the Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7MQ2BIPG

@misc{pith2026241206503,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Connecting scattering, monodromy, and MST's renormalized angular momentum for the Teukolsky equation in Kerr spacetime},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7MQ2BIPG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.06503}
}

abstract

The Teukolsky equation describes perturbations of Kerr spacetime and is central to the study of rotating black holes and gravitational waves. In the frequency domain, the Teukolsky equation separates into radial and angular ordinary differential equations. Mano, Suzuki, and Takasugi (MST) found semi-analytic solutions to the homogeneous radial Teukolsky equation in terms of series of analytic special functions. The MST expansions hinge on an auxiliary parameter known as the renormalized angular momentum $\nu$, which one must calculate to ensure the convergence of these series solutions. In this work, we present a method for calculating $\nu$ via monodromy eigenvalues, which capture the behavior of ordinary differential equations and their solutions in the complex domain near their singular points. We directly relate the monodromy data of the radial Teukolsky equation to the parameter $\nu$ and provide a numerical scheme for calculating $\nu$ based on monodromy. With this method we evaluate $\nu$ in different regions of parameter space and analyze the numerical stability of this approach. We also highlight how, through $\nu$, monodromy data are linked to scattering amplitudes for generic (linear) perturbations of Kerr spacetime.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.06503 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The monodromy eigenvalue as a function of (normalized) fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The monodromy eigenvalue as a function of (normalized) fre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The left panel plots 2 cos 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The same as Figure 4 but for the Teukolsky parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparing exact calculations of cos 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The absolute error between an exact calculation of cos 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Dynamical Love Numbers for Black Holes and Beyond from Shell Effective Field Theory
hep-th 2025-12 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

A shell-based EFT computes scalar Love numbers for Schwarzschild black holes through O(G^9) and conjectures an all-orders Riemann-zeta structure.
From the confluent Heun equation to a new factorized and resummed gravitational waveform for circularized, nonspinning, compact binaries
gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A new resummation absorbs all test-mass logarithms and transcendental numbers into closed-form factors, leaving rational polynomial waveform corrections up to 10PN.
Metric reconstruction and the Hamiltonian for eccentric, precessing binaries in the small-mass-ratio limit
gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

First-order metric perturbations and the generalized redshift invariant are computed for eccentric, precessing orbits in Kerr spacetime using four metric reconstruction methods, with open-source code provided.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[19]

Throwe, High precision calculation of generic extreme mass ra tio inspirals (2010), http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/61270

W. Throwe, High precision calculation of generic extreme mass ra tio inspirals (2010), http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/61270

work page 2010
[1]

Regular singular points Consider solutions to Eq. (27). Based on Fuchs–Frobenius th eory [28], one can deﬁne the behavior of these solutions near a regular singular point zr in terms of the indices λr 1,2, given by, 2λr 1 = 1 −f r 0 − √ (1 −f r 0 )2 − 4gr 0, 2λr 2 = 1 −f r 0 + √ (1 −f r 0 )2 − 4gr 0, (34a) f r 0 = lim z→zr (z −zr)∂zU (z) U (z) , g r 0 = l...

work page
[2]

(39) 11 Again, j = {1, 2} for our two independent homogeneous solutions

Irregular singular points Near an irregular singular point at inﬁnity, we characteriz e the asymptotic behavior of solutions in terms of the characteristic roots µ∞ j and the indices λ∞ j , given by, 2µ∞ 1 = −f ∞ 0 − √ (f ∞ 0 )2 − 4g∞ 0 , 2µ∞ 2 = −f ∞ 0 + √ (f ∞ 0 )2 − 4g∞ 0 , λ ∞ j = − f ∞ 1 µ∞ j +g∞ 1 f ∞ 0 + 2µ∞ j , (38) with, f ∞ i = lim z→∞ ∂i z [ ∂z...

work page
[3]

Standard solutions to Eq

Monodromy data of conﬂuent hypergeometric functions Now we apply these methods to extract the monodromy data of th e conﬂuent hypergeometric equation,6 zd2w dz2 + (b −z)dw dz −aw = 0, (49) which possesses a regular singular point at z = 0 and irregular point at z = ∞. Standard solutions to Eq. (49) include the regular and irregular conﬂuent hyper geometri...

work page
[4]

Teukolsky, Perturbations of a rotating black hole

S. Teukolsky, Perturbations of a rotating black hole. I. Fundam ental equations for gravitational, electro- magnetic, and neutrino-ﬁeld perturbations, Astrophys. J. 185, 635 (1973)

work page 1973
[5]

D. R. Brill, P. L. Chrzanowski, C. M. Pereira, E. D. Fackerell, and J . R. Ipser, Solution of the Scalar Wave Equation in a Kerr Background by Separation of Variables, Phy s. Rev. D 5, 1913 (1972)

work page 1972
[6]

S. A. Teukolsky, Rotating black holes: Separable wave equations for gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1114 (1972)

work page 1972
[7]

E. W. Leaver, Solutions to a generalized spheroidal wave equatio n: Teukolsky’s equa- tions in general relativity, and the two-center problem in molecular q uantum mechanics, Journal of Mathematical Physics 27, 1238 (1986)

work page 1986

Show all 36 references

[8]

S. A. Hughes, Evolution of circular, nonequatorial orbits of Ker r black holes due to gravitational-wave emission, Phys. Rev. D 61, 084004 (2000), gr-qc/9910091

2000 arXiv
[9]

Wardell, N

B. Wardell, N. Warburton, K. Fransen, S. Upton, K. Cunningham , A. Ottewill, and M. Casals, Spinweightedspheroidalharmonics (2023)

2023
[10]

Gourgoulhon, A

E. Gourgoulhon, A. L. Tiec, F. Vincent, and N. Warburton, BlackHolePerturbationToolkit/kerrgeodesic gw
[11]

Park, syp2001/spheroidal: spheroidal v0.1.1 (2023)

S. Park, syp2001/spheroidal: spheroidal v0.1.1 (2023)

2023
[12]

R. K. L. Lo, ricokaloklo/spinweightedspheroidalharmonics (2023 )

2023
[13]

Sasaki and T

M. Sasaki and T. Nakamura, A class of new perturbation equat ions for the kerr geometry, Physics Letters A 89, 68 (1982)

1982
[14]

S. Mano, H. Suzuki, and E. Takasugi, Analytic Solutions of the Te ukolsky Equation and Their Low Frequency Expansions, Progress of Theoretical Physics 95, 1079 (1996), gr-qc/9603020

1996 arXiv
[15]

S. A. Hughes, Computing radiation from Kerr black holes: Gener alization of the Sasaki-Nakamura equa- tion, Phys. Rev. D 62, 044029 (2000), gr-qc/0002043. 32

2000 arXiv
[16]

Fujita and H

R. Fujita and H. Tagoshi, New Numerical Methods to Evaluate Ho mogeneous Solutions of the Teukolsky Equation, Progress of Theoretical Physics 112, 415 (2004), gr-qc/0410018

2004 arXiv
[17]

Fujita and H

R. Fujita and H. Tagoshi, New Numerical Methods to Evaluate Ho mogeneous Solu- tions of the Teukolsky Equation. II —Solutions of the Continued Fra ction Equation —, Progress of Theoretical Physics 113, 1165 (2005), arXiv:0904.3818 [gr-qc]

2005 arXiv
[18]

Sasaki and H

M. Sasaki and H. Tagoshi, Analytic Black Hole Perturbation Appr oach to Gravitational Radiation, Living Reviews in Relativity 6, 6 (2003), gr-qc/0306120

2003 arXiv
[20]

Wardell, N

B. Wardell, N. Warburton, K. Cunningham, L. Durkan, B. Leath er, Z. Nasipak, C. Kavanagh, T. Torres, A. Ottewill, and M. Casals, Teukolsky (2023)

2023
[21]

Castro, J

A. Castro, J. M. Lapan, A. Maloney, and M. J. Rodriguez, Black hole monodromy and conformal ﬁeld theory, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044003 (2013), arXiv:1303.0759 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[22]

Castro, J

A. Castro, J. M. Lapan, A. Maloney, and M. J. Rodriguez, Black hole scattering from monodromy, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 165005 (2013), arXiv:1304.3781 [hep-th]

2013 arXiv
[23]

Kavanagh, A

C. Kavanagh, A. C. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, Analytical high-orde r post-Newtonian expansions for spinning extreme mass ratio binaries, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124038 (2016), arXiv:1601.03394 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[24]

Casals and P

M. Casals and P. Zimmerman, Perturbations of an extremal Ker r spacetime: Analytic framework and late-time tails, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124027 (2019), arXiv:1801.05830 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[25]

Casals and L

M. Casals and L. F. Longo Micchi, Spectroscopy of extremal an d near-extremal Kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084047 (2019), arXiv:1901.04586 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[26]

Y. F. Bautista, G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, A. Tanzini, and Z. Zhou, Blac k hole perturbation theory meets CFT2: Kerr-Compton amplitudes from Nekrasov-Shatashvili functions, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084071 (2024), arXiv:2312.05965 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[27]

Carneiro da Cunha and F

B. Carneiro da Cunha and F. Novaes, Kerr–de Sitter greybody factors via isomonodromy, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024045 (2016), arXiv:1508.04046 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[28]

Novaes, C

F. Novaes, C. Marinho, M. Lencs´ es, and M. Casals, Kerr-de S itter Quasinormal Modes via Accessory Parameter Expansion, JHEP 2019 (05), 033, arXiv:1811.11912 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[29]

A. B. O. Daalhuis and F. W. J. Olver, On the calculation of stokes m ultipliers for linear diﬀerential equations of the second order, Methods Appl. Anal. , 348 (1995)

1995
[30]

Misner, K

C. Misner, K. Thorne, and J. Wheeler, Gravitation (Freeman, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A., 1973)

1973
[31]

DLMF, NIST Digital Library of Mathematical Functions , https://dlmf.nist.gov/, Release 1.2.1 of 2024-06-15, f. W. J. Olver, A. B. Olde Daalhuis, D. W. Lozier, B. I. S chneider, R. F. Boisvert, C. W. Clark, B. R. Miller, B. V. Saunders, H. S. Cohl, and M. A. McClain, eds

2024
[32]

A. B. O. Daalhuis and F. W. J. Olver, Exponentially improved asymp totic so- lutions of ordinary diﬀerential equations. ii. irregular singularities of rank one, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematic al and Physical Sciences 445, 39 (1994), https://ro...

1994
[33]

C. Munna, Analytic post-Newtonian expansion of the energy an d angular momentum radi- ated to inﬁnity by eccentric-orbit nonspinning extreme-mass-rat io inspirals to the 19th order, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124001 (2020), arXiv:2008.10622 [gr-qc]. 33

2020 arXiv
[34]

L. C. Stein, qnm: A Python package for calculating Kerr quasino rmal modes, separation constants, and spherical-spheroidal mixing coeﬃcients, J. Open Source Softw. 4, 1683 (2019), arXiv:1908.10377 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[35]

Carneiro da Cunha and F

B. Carneiro da Cunha and F. Novaes, Kerr Scattering Coeﬃcien ts via Isomonodromy, JHEP 2015 (11), 144, arXiv:1506.06588 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[36]

Aminov and P

G. Aminov and P. Arnaudo, Black hole scattering amplitudes via an alytic small-frequency expansion and monodromy, ArXiv e-prints (2024), arXiv:2409.06681 [hep-th]. 34

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [19]

Throwe, High precision calculation of generic extreme mass ra tio inspirals (2010), http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/61270

W. Throwe, High precision calculation of generic extreme mass ra tio inspirals (2010), http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/61270

work page 2010

[2] [1]

Regular singular points Consider solutions to Eq. (27). Based on Fuchs–Frobenius th eory [28], one can deﬁne the behavior of these solutions near a regular singular point zr in terms of the indices λr 1,2, given by, 2λr 1 = 1 −f r 0 − √ (1 −f r 0 )2 − 4gr 0, 2λr 2 = 1 −f r 0 + √ (1 −f r 0 )2 − 4gr 0, (34a) f r 0 = lim z→zr (z −zr)∂zU (z) U (z) , g r 0 = l...

work page

[3] [2]

(39) 11 Again, j = {1, 2} for our two independent homogeneous solutions

Irregular singular points Near an irregular singular point at inﬁnity, we characteriz e the asymptotic behavior of solutions in terms of the characteristic roots µ∞ j and the indices λ∞ j , given by, 2µ∞ 1 = −f ∞ 0 − √ (f ∞ 0 )2 − 4g∞ 0 , 2µ∞ 2 = −f ∞ 0 + √ (f ∞ 0 )2 − 4g∞ 0 , λ ∞ j = − f ∞ 1 µ∞ j +g∞ 1 f ∞ 0 + 2µ∞ j , (38) with, f ∞ i = lim z→∞ ∂i z [ ∂z...

work page

[4] [3]

Standard solutions to Eq

Monodromy data of conﬂuent hypergeometric functions Now we apply these methods to extract the monodromy data of th e conﬂuent hypergeometric equation,6 zd2w dz2 + (b −z)dw dz −aw = 0, (49) which possesses a regular singular point at z = 0 and irregular point at z = ∞. Standard solutions to Eq. (49) include the regular and irregular conﬂuent hyper geometri...

work page

[5] [4]

Teukolsky, Perturbations of a rotating black hole

S. Teukolsky, Perturbations of a rotating black hole. I. Fundam ental equations for gravitational, electro- magnetic, and neutrino-ﬁeld perturbations, Astrophys. J. 185, 635 (1973)

work page 1973

[6] [5]

D. R. Brill, P. L. Chrzanowski, C. M. Pereira, E. D. Fackerell, and J . R. Ipser, Solution of the Scalar Wave Equation in a Kerr Background by Separation of Variables, Phy s. Rev. D 5, 1913 (1972)

work page 1972

[7] [6]

S. A. Teukolsky, Rotating black holes: Separable wave equations for gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1114 (1972)

work page 1972

[8] [7]

E. W. Leaver, Solutions to a generalized spheroidal wave equatio n: Teukolsky’s equa- tions in general relativity, and the two-center problem in molecular q uantum mechanics, Journal of Mathematical Physics 27, 1238 (1986)

work page 1986