Pith. sign in

REVIEW 7 minor 49 references

High-order WKB about the Kerr barrier peak, once Padé-resummed, matches numerical quasinormal frequencies for damped modes but breaks down near extremality when modes become zero-damped.

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

2026-07-30 12:51 UTC pith:EV36EUVL

load-bearing objection Solid Kerr WKB-resummation methods paper: high-order accuracy for damped modes, clean physical diagnosis of zero-damped breakdown near extremality.

arxiv 2607.27043 v1 pith:EV36EUVL submitted 2026-07-29 gr-qc

Resumming Kerr Quasinormal-Mode Frequencies: Accuracy and Breakdown Near Extremality

Jierui Hu , Kent Yagi , Nicolas Yunes This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords Kerr quasinormal modesWKB approximationPadé resummationBorel–PadéChandrasekhar–Detweiler potentialzero-damped modesnear-extremal black holesNHEK
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.

Kerr black-hole ringdown frequencies are usually found numerically. This paper asks whether the divergent high-order WKB series built from a local Taylor expansion of the Chandrasekhar–Detweiler potential about its peak can be turned into a predictive analytic tool by Padé and Borel–Padé resummation. Two constructions are developed: a slow-rotation expansion through 21st WKB order, and a fixed-spin iterative solution of the resummed frequency equation through 41st order. For ordinary damped modes the fixed-spin method tracks Leaver’s continued-fraction results to fractional errors below 10^{-7} in the real part even at spin 0.99. The same local strategy fails for modes that approach the zero-damped branch, because poles of the potential crowd the outer horizon on the throat scale set by the square root of one minus the spin, so a peak-centered expansion no longer captures the relevant region uniformly.

Core claim

Padé resummation of the high-order WKB expansion about the Chandrasekhar–Detweiler peak yields highly accurate Kerr quasinormal frequencies for damped-mode branches, including fractional errors below 10^{-7} for the real part of the fundamental m=0 mode through spin 0.99, but the identical local method breaks down for modes that approach the zero-damped branch near extremality because nearby poles generate rapid variation on the r−r_{+}=O(√(1−a)) throat scale that a Taylor expansion about the peak cannot uniformly approximate.

What carries the argument

Padé (and Borel–Padé) resummation of the asymptotic WKB series generated from the Taylor coefficients of the Chandrasekhar–Detweiler potential at its peak, implemented either as a joint slow-rotation series or as a fixed-spin fixed-point equation for the frequency.

Load-bearing premise

The quasinormal frequency is assumed to be controlled by a smooth, single-peaked barrier whose local shape near the peak is enough to fix the connection problem after resummation.

What would settle it

Compute the 41st-order Padé-WKB fixed-spin frequency for the (2,2,0) mode at spins above 0.9 and compare with Leaver’s method: if the fractional error remains above 10^{-3} while the (2,0,0) mode stays below 10^{-7}, the claimed throat-scale breakdown is confirmed; a throat-matched expansion that restores accuracy would falsify the claim that local peak data are insufficient.

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

If this is right

  • Slow-rotation analytic expansions of fundamental l=2 Kerr frequencies can be improved by more than an order of magnitude over ordinary fourth-order WKB once the WKB series and the spin series are both resummed.
  • For damped modes at high spin, a fixed-spin Padé-WKB iteration supplies a practical high-accuracy alternative to pure numerics when an effective potential is available.
  • Modes that become zero-damped near extremality require a separate near-horizon or NHEK-matched treatment; local peak WKB alone will not converge uniformly.
  • The same resummation pipeline can be tried on beyond-GR or coupled perturbation equations whenever they can be cast as a smooth effective-potential problem.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Ringdown template banks that rely on local WKB for rapidly spinning prograde modes will systematically misestimate frequencies once the zero-damped branch is approached, even if the method looks excellent for m=0.
  • A matched asymptotic construction that glues a peak-centered resummed WKB outer solution to an NHEK throat solution is the natural next analytic step suggested by the breakdown diagnosis.
  • If modified-gravity radial equations admit a Chandrasekhar–Detweiler-like real potential, the fixed-spin Padé-WKB route offers a spin-complete path to beyond-GR frequency shifts without a slow-rotation truncation.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether the divergent high-order WKB series for Kerr quasinormal frequencies, built from a local Taylor expansion of the Chandrasekhar–Detweiler potential about its peak, can be made predictive by Padé and Borel–Padé resummation. Two complementary constructions are developed: a semi-analytic slow-rotation expansion through 21st WKB order (with an optional second Padé resummation in spin), and a fixed-spin iterative solution of the Padé-resummed frequency equation through 41st WKB order. Validated against Leaver continued fractions, the slow-rotation results improve substantially on ordinary fourth-order WKB, while the fixed-spin method reaches fractional errors below 10^{-7} in Re(ω) for the damped (2,0,0) mode through a=0.99. The same local strategy fails for modes approaching the zero-damped branch (e.g. (2,2,0) for a≳0.9). The authors trace the breakdown to near-horizon poles of the Chandrasekhar–Detweiler potential that generate rapid variation on the throat scale r−r_+=O(√(1−a)), so that a peak-centered Taylor expansion is no longer uniform; the right-boundary constant of this near-horizon potential matches the NHEK boundary form.

Significance. If the reported accuracies and the near-extremal diagnosis hold, the work cleanly delineates what local resummed WKB can and cannot do for Kerr QNMs. The high-order constructions (21st and 41st WKB order), external validation against independent Leaver data, and the explicit near-horizon expansion of V (Eqs. 47–49 and App. B) with the NHEK boundary match are concrete strengths. The result is useful both as a practical semi-analytic tool for damped modes and as a physically grounded explanation of the failure near zero-damped modes, with a clear outlook toward beyond-GR and coupled systems. The paper does not overclaim global Stokes or exact-WKB territory; it isolates the local peak expansion.

minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract / Sec. I / Fig. 1] Throughout (title page, abstract, Secs. I, IIIA, IVA): replace “21th” / “41st-order” inconsistencies with standard ordinals (“21st”, “41st”). Related typos include “Nontheless” (p. 2), “abouty10 6” (p. 3), and “asympotic” in Fig. 1 labels.
  2. [Fig. 1 / Sec. I] Fig. 1 (right) and Fig. 2 captions would be clearer if the definition of “optimal asymptotic order” and the precise meaning of the improvement ratio |Δω_Optimal WKB,FS / Δω_P,FS| were stated once in the main text near the first use, not only in the caption.
  3. [Sec. IIA] Sec. IIA: the four signature choices for β² and κ² are said to yield the same QNMs; a one-sentence numerical check (or citation) that the high-order resummed frequencies are signature-independent at the quoted precision would remove a residual ambiguity for readers implementing the method.
  4. [Sec. IIIB] Sec. IIIB / Fig. 2: the statement that Borel–Padé underperforms Padé above 12th order because of Borel-integration noise is plausible; briefly specifying the quadrature (cutoff, path deformation if any) would make the fixed-spin preference for pure Padé fully reproducible.
  5. [Sec. IVB / Fig. 9] Sec. IVB and Fig. 9: the potentials are normalized so that the maximum is 1, but it is not stated whether this is |V|_max or Re(V)_max. A short clarification would help interpretation of the “well-approximated region.”
  6. [Sec. IVA] Eqs. (41)–(46) and the supplemental notebook are valuable; consider stating in the text the spin order Na and WKB order used for each displayed series so that the printed coefficients can be matched to the notebook without ambiguity.
  7. [References] References: Tang et al. is cited as Phys. Rev. D 113, 104052 (2026); confirm final bibliographic details at proof stage. A few arXiv-only items (e.g. [8], [26], [44], [46]) may need updating if published versions exist.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: resummed WKB frequencies are validated against independent Leaver benchmarks, not against quantities fitted from the same series.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and externally falsifiable. High-order WKB coefficients are obtained from the Taylor data of the Chandrasekhar–Detweiler potential at its peak via Bender–Wu recursion; Padé/Borel–Padé approximants are fixed by matching that asymptotic series in the bookkeeping parameter ξ̄, not by fitting to target QNM frequencies. Slow-rotation frequencies follow by coefficient matching in a; fixed-spin frequencies solve the implicit Padé–WKB fixed-point equation iteratively. Accuracy claims (e.g. fractional Re(ω) errors below 10^{-7} for (2,0,0) through a=0.99) are established by direct comparison to Leaver continued-fraction data, an independent numerical method. The documented breakdown for zero-damped branches is likewise not circular: it is diagnosed by comparing the peak-centered Taylor series of V to the full potential and by an algebraic near-horizon expansion that exhibits poles on the √(1−a) throat scale and a right-boundary constant matching the NHEK boundary equation. Self-citations are to standard tools (Leaver, CD transformation, Bender–Wu, prior Schwarzschild resummation) or to outlook applications; none supply a uniqueness theorem or fitted input that forces the central Kerr accuracy/breakdown claims. No step reduces a claimed prediction to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work sits on standard GR perturbation theory and classical asymptotic-analysis tools. No new physical entities are postulated. Load-bearing modeling choices are the Chandrasekhar-Detweiler real-potential transformation (analytically continued to complex ω), the assumption that peak-local WKB data control the QNM, and the use of diagonal Padé/Borel-Padé as the resummation map. Free parameters are essentially absent: WKB order and Padé degree are truncation choices checked against Leaver, not fitted couplings.

free parameters (2)
  • WKB truncation order N and Padé degree N_P = N_max/2 = N up to 21 (slow-rot), 41 (fixed-spin); diagonal Padé
    Chosen by hand (21st slow-rotation, 41st fixed-spin; even N_max only). Not fitted to data; accuracy is reported vs Leaver as a function of order. Still a discrete method choice that affects quoted errors.
  • Signature choice for β² and κ² in CD potential = +/+ for β² and κ²
    Four discrete branches; paper adopts plus/plus. Stated that QNM frequencies agree across choices because all satisfy the Teukolsky equation, but this is an assumption checked only by that equivalence claim.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Linear Teukolsky perturbation theory on Kerr is the correct description of ringdown QNMs in GR.
    Background of entire paper (Sec. I–II); standard but unproved within the manuscript.
  • domain assumption Chandrasekhar-Detweiler transformation yields a Schrödinger-like problem whose complex-ω analytic continuation has a usable peak for WKB.
    Sec. IIA; required because raw Teukolsky potential is complex even for Schwarzschild.
  • domain assumption The formal WKB series in ξ-bar about the potential peak is an asymptotic series whose high-order coefficients can be productively resummed by diagonal Padé or Borel-Padé.
    Sec. IIB; imported from Schwarzschild literature and tested empirically for Kerr.
  • standard math Bender-Wu recursion correctly generates the anharmonic-oscillator eigenvalue coefficients ε_k from potential Taylor data V_k.
    Sec. IIB; standard, implemented via cited package [34].
  • domain assumption Angular separation constant sA_lm is accurately given by continued fractions (fixed-spin) or the known small-aω power series (slow-rotation).
    Secs. IIA, IIIA–B; standard Kerr technology (Leaver, Fackerell-Crossman, etc.).
  • domain assumption Near-extremal ZDM frequency shift scales as √(1−a), so poles at r_ω+ approach the horizon on the same scale.
    Sec. IVB.1, citing Yang et al.; used to derive the throat scaling of V.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-daily-grok45 · 31015 in / 3478 out tokens · 78351 ms · 2026-07-30T12:51:53.390001+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Kerr black-hole quasinormal modes are usually computed with numerical methods, but analytic approximations remain useful for identifying the physics that controls different parts of the spectrum. In this paper, we ask whether the divergent, high-order Wentzel-Kramers-Brillouin (WKB) expansion about the peak of the Chandrasekhar-Detweiler potential can be made predictive through Pad\'e and Borel-Pad\'e resummation. We develop two complementary implementations: a semi-analytic slow-rotation expansion in the dimensionless spin $a$ (carried out through 21th WKB order), and a fixed-spin Pad\'e-WKB implementation for the resummed frequency equation (carried out through 41st WKB order). In the slow-rotation regime, the 21th-order resummed expansion is significantly more accurate than the fourth-order approximation found previously. For damped modes at larger spins, the fixed-point iteration agrees well with Leaver's method, reaching fractional errors below $10^{-7}$ in the real part of the fundamental $m=0$ mode at $a=0.99$. The same strategy fails for modes that approach the zero-damped branch near extremality. We trace this breakdown to the near-horizon structure of the Chandrasekhar-Detweiler potential. As the extremal limit is approached, nearby poles produce rapid variation on the throat scale, so a local Taylor expansion about the potential peak no longer uniformly captures the relevant region.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27043 by Jierui Hu, Kent Yagi, Nicolas Yunes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left: accuracy of different approximation schemes when computing the fundamental [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Accuracy of different fixed-spin approximation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Semi-analytic resummed WKB results expanded to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Semi-analytic, resummed WKB results expanded to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fractional differences between the semi-analytic, double-resummed WKB frequencies and numerical results from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of the QNM frequencies between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of the QNM frequencies between iterative resummed WKB and numerical values obtained from Leaver’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The Taylor-expanded (in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.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

49 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The positive roots of∆and¯ρarer ± = 1± √ 1−a 2 and rω+ = p am/ω−a 2, respectively

    Near-horizon Poles of the Chandrasekhar-Detweiler Potential The rapid variation of the Chandrasekhar-Detweiler potential for modes near the zero-damped limit is due to the potential’s poles near the outer horizon. The positive roots of∆and¯ρarer ± = 1± √ 1−a 2 and rω+ = p am/ω−a 2, respectively. For the modes with zero-damped limits,r + andr ω+ both appro...

  2. [2]

    In particular, the right-boundary constantV R matches the boundary form of the radial equation for gravitational perturbations in the NHEK geometry, as we now show

    Connection to the NHEK Boundary Equation The boundary behavior of this near-horizon oscillating region can be naturally compared with the throat re- gion of extremal Kerr. In particular, the right-boundary constantV R matches the boundary form of the radial equation for gravitational perturbations in the NHEK geometry, as we now show. In the NHEK geometry...

  3. [3]

    Branchesiet al., JCAP07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., JCAP07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    semi-analytic method

    The improvements by resumming the WKB series are more significant at the 3rd and 5th WKB order, com- pared to the non-rotating results in Fig. 1. However, the Borel-Padé resummed WKB approach has larger er- rors than the Padé resummed WKB approach above the 12th WKB order, which is due to the numerical error introduced by the Borel integration, and this e...

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]. 20

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Colpiet al.(LISA), (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Colpiet al.(LISA), (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  9. [9]

    Berti, A

    E. Berti, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and K. Belczynski, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 101102 (2016), arXiv:1605.09286 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  10. [10]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  11. [11]

    Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    E. Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  13. [13]

    G. B. Cook and M. Zalutskiy, Phys. Rev. D90, 124021 (2014), arXiv:1410.7698 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [14]

    B. F. Schutz and C. M. Will, Astrophys. J. Lett.291, L33 (1985)

    1985

  15. [15]

    Iyer and C

    S. Iyer and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D35, 3621 (1987)

    1987

  16. [16]

    Seidel and S

    E. Seidel and S. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D41, 374 (1990)

    1990

  17. [17]

    K. D. Kokkotas, Class. Quant. Grav.8, 2217 (1991)

    1991

  18. [18]

    R. Tang, N. Franchini, S. H. Völkel, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D113, 104052 (2026), arXiv:2512.17786 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D68, 024018 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0303052

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, and A. F. Zinhailo, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 155002 (2019), arXiv:1904.10333 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Telecka, Phys. Rev. D100, 124006 (2019), arXiv:1908.09389 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Hatsuda, Phys

    Y. Hatsuda, Phys. Rev. D101, 024008 (2020), arXiv:1906.07232 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    Matyjasek and M

    J. Matyjasek and M. Opala, Phys. Rev. D96, 024011 (2017), arXiv:1704.00361 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A350, 165 (1976)

    1976

  25. [25]

    Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes, The International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press, 1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes, The International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press, 1983)

    1983

  26. [26]

    J. M. Bardeen and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D60, 104030 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  27. [27]

    A. J. Amsel, G. T. Horowitz, D. Marolf, and M. M. Roberts, JHEP09, 044 (2009), arXiv:0906.2376 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Miyachi, R

    T. Miyachi, R. Namba, H. Omiya, and N. Oshita, Phys. Rev. D111, 124045 (2025), arXiv:2503.17245 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Hatsuda and T

    Y. Hatsuda and T. Shiga, (2026), arXiv:2605.01321 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  31. [31]

    E. D. Fackerell and R. G. Crossman, J. Math. Phys.18, 1849 (1977)

    1977

  32. [32]

    Seidel, Class

    E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav.6, 1057 (1989)

    1989

  33. [33]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and M. Casals, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024013 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 73, 109902 (2006)], arXiv:gr-qc/0511111

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  35. [35]

    T.ReggeandJ.A.Wheeler,Phys.Rev.108,1063(1957)

    1957

  36. [36]

    C.M.BenderandT.T.Wu,Phys.Rev.184,1231(1969)

    1969

  37. [37]

    Sulejmanpasic and M

    T. Sulejmanpasic and M. Ünsal, Comput. Phys. Com- mun.228, 273 (2018), arXiv:1608.08256 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    L. C. Stein, J. Open Source Softw.4, 1683 (2019), arXiv:1908.10377 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    H. Yang, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, D. A. Nichols, E. Berti, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D87, 041502 (2013), arXiv:1212.3271 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  40. [40]

    H. Yang, A. Zimmerman, A. Zenginoğlu, F. Zhang, E. Berti, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D88, 044047 (2013), arXiv:1307.8086 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  41. [41]

    H. Yang, D. A. Nichols, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, Z. Zhang, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D86, 104006 (2012), arXiv:1207.4253 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  42. [42]

    O. J. C. Dias, H. S. Reall, and J. E. Santos, JHEP08, 101 (2009), arXiv:0906.2380 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    D. Li, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021029 (2023), arXiv:2206.10652 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Wagle, D

    P. Wagle, D. Li, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104029 (2024), arXiv:2311.07706 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, C. F. B. Macedo, V. Car- doso, 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

  46. [46]

    Cardoso and L

    V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D80, 064008 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 089903 (2010)], arXiv:0907.5008 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Karikos, J

    G. Karikos, J. A. Saes, P. Wagle, and N. Yunes, (2026), arXiv:2604.18680 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    L. Hui, A. Podo, L. Santoni, and E. Trincherini, JHEP 03, 060 (2023), arXiv:2210.10788 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    S. J. B. Husken, T. van der Steen, S. Maenaut, K. K.- H. Lam, M. D. Jockwer, A. K.-W. Chung, T. Hertog, T. G. F. Li, and N. Yunes, (2026), arXiv:2604.02214 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026