Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Post-Newtonian templates for phase evolution of spherical extreme mass ratio inspirals

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper extends PN phase templates for spherical EMRI orbits in Kerr spacetime to 12PN order and ranks the TaylorT1 approximant as the most convergent.

desk verdict Genuinely useful 12PN template extension for inclined spherical EMRIs, but the central coefficients live on a website and one displayed coefficient is internally inconsistent; referee it with requests for self-contained data. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09147 v3 pith:HYWCZCHU submitted 2024-11-14 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Norichika Sago , Ryuichi Fujita , Hiroyuki Nakano This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx04.70.Bw
keywords extrememassratioinspiralpost-NewtoniantemplatesKerrspacetimesphericalorbitsTaylorapproximantsdephasinggravitationalwavephaseblackholeperturbationtheory
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 derives post-Newtonian (PN) gravitational-wave phase templates for a compact object on a spherical orbit—constant radius but inclined relative to the black hole's equatorial plane—around a spinning black hole. Using 12PN analytic expressions for the orbital energy, angular momentum, and their radiation-driven rates of change, it constructs several Taylor families of phase approximants and measures how quickly successive PN orders converge. It finds that the TaylorT1 approximant converges fastest, that TaylorT2 and the frequency-domain TaylorF2 are close behind, and that the fully analytic T2/F2 forms remain practical for template banks and for studying deviations from general relativity. This matters for space-based gravitational-wave detectors, where a phase error of order one radian destroys the match between a signal and its template.

What carries the argument

The object that carries the argument is the Taylor approximant, built from the adiabatic equations dx/dt and dY/dt obtained by inverting the Jacobian between (E,L) and (x,Y) using the 12PN flux formulas. TaylorT1 leaves the inverse Jacobian unexpanded and integrates numerically; TaylorT4 expands the right-hand side in x before integrating; TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 series-expand and then integrate analytically to give closed-form phase expressions; TaylorT3 rewrites the phase as a function of remaining time. The convergence diagnostics are the order-by-order phase differences $\Delta$ Phi_X^(n) between successive PN orders and the frequency-domain mismatch M_F2^(n), with reference lines at 0.05 rad and $10^{{-3}}$ corresponding to SNR 20. The flux expansions contain log x terms, Euler's constant, and polygamma-based functions of the black hole spin, and the leading terms in dY/dt cancel so the inclination evolution effectively starts at 1.5PN.

What would settle it

Recompute the 12PN flux coefficients for k=10 through 24 using an independent frequency-domain black-hole perturbation code and use them to evolve a two-year TaylorT1 inspiral for q=0.9, YI=0.9 in System1; if the resulting dephasing relative to a fully numerical self-force trajectory exceeds 0.1 rad, or if any coefficient disagrees with the online values, the paper's convergence claim would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for quasi-spherical EMRIs in Kerr spacetime, the 12PN adiabatic evolution equations produce usable phase templates, and that among them the TaylorT1 approximant has the best convergence. The paper writes the specific energy E and angular momentum L, together with their averaged dissipative rates, as PN series in x=(M omega_phi)^{1/3} and the inclination variable Y=cos iota, and checks consistency with numerical flux calculations. Solving the unexpanded evolution equations yields TaylorT1; expanding the right-hand sides yields TaylorT4; analytic integration yields TaylorT2, TaylorF2, and TaylorT3, with two alternatives (T1a, T4a) that eliminate Y through its series Y(x). For an early-inspiral system, the 8PN TaylorT1 keeps two-year dephasing below about 0.1 rad, while TaylorT2 needs 9PN for comparable accuracy and TaylorF2 behaves like TaylorT2. For a late-inspiral system, even the 12PN templates cannot hold dephasing below 0.1 rad, and the convergence worsens with larger black hole spin and larger initial inclination.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the 12PN flux coefficients above the printed 4.5PN order, which are taken from an online repository rather than derived in the paper, are correct, and that the adiabatic first-order dissipative self-force approximation describes the phase.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For early-inspiral EMRIs like System1, 8PN TaylorT1 templates keep the two-year dephasing below the O(0.1) rad threshold, so they can serve as accurate and inexpensive templates for matched filtering.
  • Fully analytic TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 templates need roughly 9PN to reach the same accuracy, but their closed forms make them convenient for template-bank construction and for adding beyond-GR corrections.
  • For late-inspiral systems near the last stable orbit, all current 12PN templates fail the 0.1 rad / 10^{-3} mismatch target over two years, implying at least 14PN or resummation is needed.
  • The closeness of TaylorT1a/T4a to TaylorT1/T4 indicates the PN series for the inclination Y(x) converges well in the tested range.
  • Convergence is slower for larger black hole spin q and larger initial inclination YI, so worst-case template performance should be assessed at q ~ 0.9 and YI ~ 0.9.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: Because the paper measures convergence by differences between successive PN orders rather than against an exact waveform, the claimed 'best performance' of TaylorT1 is a statement about series convergence; an independent numerical self-forced inspiral would quantify absolute phase error.
  • Editorial inference: The same adiabatic construction should extend to eccentric orbits, and the paper notes the T1/T4 extension is trivial; if the pattern holds, TaylorT1 would again be the safest time-domain family for generic EMRIs, but the analytic T2/F2 forms would be harder to obtain.
  • Editorial inference: The 12PN flux coefficients beyond the printed 4.5PN terms are supplied only through an online repository; an independent recomputation of those coefficients and a direct comparison of the resulting phase to numerical black-hole perturbation data would test whether the convergence ranking persists.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper constructs post-Newtonian (PN) template families for the gravitational-wave phase of a compact object on a quasi-spherical (e = 0, inclined) orbit in Kerr spacetime, using 12PN analytic formulas for the orbital energy, angular momentum, and their orbit-averaged rates of change. The authors build TaylorT1, TaylorT2, TaylorT3, TaylorT4, alternative T1a/T4a, and TaylorF2 approximants and assess convergence by the size of the last included PN correction: the dephasing between successive truncations for the TaylorT families and the mismatch between successive TaylorF2 truncations. They report that TaylorT1 (and T1a) converge fastest, TaylorT2 next, and TaylorF2 comparably to TaylorT2, and that for a reference 'System1' EMRI the 8PN TaylorT1 keeps the dephasing below O(0.1) over two years, whereas for the late-inspiral 'System2' even 12PN is insufficient. Only coefficients up to k <= 9 (4.5PN) are printed in Appendices A-I; the k = 10-24 coefficients, which drive all the 10PN/12PN results, are hosted on the unversioned Black Hole Perturbation Club website (Ref. [31]). No parameters are fitted to data.

Significance. If the unpublished k <= 24 coefficients are correct, this is a valuable step toward accurate EMRI template banks for LISA: it is, to my knowledge, the first systematic high-order PN template construction for inclined spherical orbits in Kerr, and the fully analytic T2/F2 forms are well suited for fast searches and for parameterized beyond-GR extensions. The paper's strengths include the explicit display of a large set of coefficients through 4.5PN for the energy, fluxes, Y(x), and each template family; a parameter-free construction with no fitting to data; and a clear statement of the adiabatic, first-order dissipative approximation. Its weaknesses are that the load-bearing high-order coefficients are not in the manuscript, the asserted consistency with numerical data is not shown, one displayed low-order formula is internally inconsistent with another, and the 'best performance' ranking is based on a self-convergence diagnostic rather than an external accuracy reference. The central claims are plausible but cannot currently be verified independently from the paper's contents.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II B / Sec. IV / Apps. A-I / Ref. [31]] The central quantitative results -- the 12PN convergence curves in Figs. 1-12, the 12PN entries of Tables I-II, and the accuracy thresholds quoted in Sec. IV (e.g., '8PN TaylorT1 keeps the dephasing below O(0.1)') -- depend on the energy and flux coefficients for k = 10 through 24, but these coefficients are not derived, tabulated, or deposited in the manuscript: Appendices A-I stop at k <= 9, and the text refers to the unversioned 'Black Hole Perturbation Club' website (Ref. [31]) for the higher-order terms. A reader therefore cannot check the claimed 12PN accuracy from the paper alone. In addition, the Sec. II B assertion that the 12PN formulas are 'consistent with the numerical results [14,15] within numerical precision' is not backed by any plot, table, or quantitative measure shown in the paper. I ask that the k <= 24 coefficients be supplied in a versioned ancillary file or appendix, and that the comparison with Refs. [14,15] -- and ideally with the independent 12PN calculation of Ref. [34], which is cited but not used -- be presented explicitly.
  2. [Eqs. (26), (45), (47); App. D] The text states that Eq. (45) is equivalent to Eq. (26) with x replaced by x_f, but the displayed dY/dx formulas disagree at order x^4: Eq. (26) gives the coefficient -[81217/8064 + ((33 + 15Y^2)/128) q^2], while Eq. (45) gives -80209/8064 with no q^2 term. The x^5 coefficient shown in Eq. (47), 80209/40320, likewise differs from the 81217/40320 that appears both in the integral of Eq. (26) and in the coefficient tilde-Y5 printed in Appendix D, and the displayed x^4 term in Eq. (47) carries an extra power of q relative to a direct integration of Eq. (26). This is a concrete slip at 2PN order, far below the claimed 12PN reach, and it weakens confidence that the unchecked high-order coefficients are free of similar slips; please reconcile the displayed formulas and re-derive the Appendix G F2 coefficients from a single consistent integration.
  3. [Sec. IV A-C; Eqs. (58)-(61); Abstract; Sec. V] The family ranking and the headline thresholds are obtained from self-convergence diagnostics: Delta-Phi^(n) compares successive truncations of the same family (Eq. (59)), and the TaylorF2 mismatch in Eq. (61) compares adjacent orders of the same approximant. These quantities measure the size of the last included correction, not the distance of any template from the true waveform. Consequently the Abstract's 'best performance' and Sec. V's '8PN TaylorT1 template is expected to keep the dephasing less than O(0.1)' are statements about internal convergence that have not been calibrated against an external reference; the paper reports having the numerical flux data of Refs. [14,15] to hand but shows no such comparison. I recommend either qualifying the accuracy language throughout, or adding one external calibration (e.g., the fluxes of Refs. [14,15] or a self-forced inspiral such as Ref. [35]) to substantiate the claimed accuracy thresholds.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Footnote 1 / Ref. [34]] The paper cites but does not engage with the simultaneous 12PN flux calculation of Ref. [34]; since that work provides a direct check of the k = 10-24 coefficients, a short comparison would materially increase confidence in the headline results.
  2. [Sec. III D] Equation (36) and the surrounding text do not state the order at which the TaylorT3 variable inversion (Eq. (35)) is truncated; please state explicitly that the inversion is truncated at the same PN order as the underlying T2 expansion.
  3. [Apps. B-I] The definitions of the polygamma-based functions Psi_A and Psi_B appear only in Appendix B, although the same functions are used in Appendices D-I; add a pointer or repeat the definitions at first use in each appendix.
  4. [Sec. IV A] The 'spike bottoms' attributed to logarithmic terms in Figs. 1-2 are left unexplained; a sentence describing why the log terms produce cusps in Delta-E-dot and Delta-L-dot would help the reader assess the claimed convergence.
  5. [Sec. IV, Tables I-II] Tables I-II list x_fin values 'evaluated by solving the TaylorT1 equations at the 12PN order'; because these values inherit the unverified high-order coefficients, a footnote stating this dependence would be helpful.
  6. [Sec. IV B / Fig. 3] The reference line Delta-Phi = 0.05 (rho = 20) is introduced in the caption of Fig. 3 but not in the main text; move or repeat the definition at the first use in Sec. IV B.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the PN template construction is an analytic rearrangement of independent flux coefficients, and the convergence ranking is an internal diagnostic rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from PN-expanded energy, angular momentum, and their averaged rates of change (Eqs. 14-19), obtained from black-hole perturbation theory, and then forms the TaylorT and TaylorF families through Eqs. (20)-(25), (29)-(34), and (44)-(49). No parameter is fitted to the output quantities, and no 'prediction' is defined in terms of the result it is said to predict. The phase-difference and mismatch diagnostics (Eqs. 59 and 61) compare each approximant with its own lower-order truncation, which is a convergence check rather than a circular construction: the ranking of Taylor families is an outcome of those integrals, not an input. The 12PN coefficients for k>=10 are not displayed and are taken from the BHPC website [31], and the numerical consistency checks cited in Sec. II B include works with overlapping authors ([14,15,22]); however those numerical Teukolsky computations are externally falsifiable, independent support and do not feed back into the coefficient values used to build the templates. The apparent coefficient discrepancy between Eq. (26) and Eq. (45), and the absence of the high-order coefficients from the manuscript itself, are reproducibility and correctness concerns rather than circularity. Overall the central template construction is self-contained as a derivation once the input PN coefficients are accepted.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction rests on the adiabatic approximation and on 12PN coefficients supplied through an online repository rather than derived here. No parameters are fitted to data; the TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 integration constants are fixed by initial conditions. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation: the orbital evolution is driven only by the time-averaged first-order dissipative self-force, with conservative self-force and O(mu^2) effects neglected.
    Used at Eqs. (9)-(13) and throughout all Taylor families; standard for EMRI modeling but not validated within this paper.
  • domain assumption The flux and binding formulas are PN expansions of spherical (e=0) geodesics in Kerr spacetime; results do not automatically extend to eccentric or generic inclined orbits.
    Sec. II B explicitly restricts to e=0 and the {x,Y} parametrization, and Sec. V states extension to generic orbits is future work.
  • domain assumption The 12PN coefficients for k up to 24 are taken from an online repository and are assumed correct; the paper does not derive or tabulate them.
    Stated after Eq. (19) and in the appendix introductions; all numerical convergence results depend on these unseen coefficients.
  • domain assumption The PN expansion converges for the chosen x ranges, with slow convergence near the last stable orbit attributed to a pole in the inverse Jacobian.
    Discussed in Sec. IV B; this limits the claimed validity of the templates in the late inspiral.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Post-Newtonian templates for phase evolution of spherical extreme mass ratio inspirals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HYWCZCHU

@misc{pith2026241109147,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Post-Newtonian templates for phase evolution of spherical extreme mass ratio inspirals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HYWCZCHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09147}
}
read the original abstract

We present various post-Newtonian (PN) models for the phase evolution of compact objects moving along quasi-spherical orbits in Kerr spacetime derived by using the 12PN analytic formulas of the energy, angular momentum and their averaged rates of change calculated in the framework of the black hole perturbation theory. To examine the convergence of time-domain PN models (TaylorT families), we evaluate the dephasing between approximants with different PN orders. We found that the TaylorT1 model shows the best performance and the performance of the TaylorT2 is the next best. To evaluate the convergence of frequency-domain PN models (TaylorF families), we evaluate the mismatch between approximants with different orders. We found that the performance of the TaylorF2 model is comparable with the TaylorT2 model. Although the TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 models are not so accurate as the TaylorT1, the fully analytical expressions give us easy-to-handle templates and are useful to discuss effects beyond general relativity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09147 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Contribution of each correction term in the PN expansion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contribution of each correction term in the PN expansion of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Difference of the phase evolution, ∆Φ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Mismatch between different PN order TaylorF2 approximants, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Mismatch between different PN order TaylorF2 approximants, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Contribution of each correction term in the PN expansion of the specific energy. We plot ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Contribution of each correction term in the PN expansion of the specific angular momentum. We plot ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Post-Newtonian expansion of gravitational energy and angular momentum fluxes: inclined spherical orbits about a Kerr black hole

    gr-qc 2024-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The paper derives 12PN flux formulas for inclined spherical Kerr orbits, exact in spin and inclination.

  2. Secular evolution of orbital parameters for general bound orbits in Kerr spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Analytic formulas for the orbit-averaged gravitational-wave fluxes of energy, angular momentum, and Carter constant for generic bound Kerr orbits are extended to 6PN order and O(e^16) in eccentricity, with numerical T...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [34]

    J. C. Castillo, C. R. Evans, C. Kavanagh, J. Neef, A. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, (2024), arXiv:2411.09700 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [31]

    Black Hole Perturbation Club (B.H.P.C.), https://sites.google.com/view/bhpc1996/home

    work page

  3. [35]

    Lynch, M

    P. Lynch, M. van de Meent, and N. Warburton, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084072 (2024), arXiv:2305.10533 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), arXiv e-prints (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [2]

    Luo et al

    J. Luo et al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]. 27 10 15 10 12 10 9 10 6 10 3 100 ∆ E (n)/EN q = 0.10 Y = 0.90 q = 0.10 Y = 0.50 q = 0.10 Y = 0.10 10 15 10 12 10 9 10 6 10 3 100 ∆ E (n)/EN q = 0.50 Y = 0.90 q = 0.50 Y = 0.50 q = 0.50 Y = 0.10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 x 10 15 10 12 10 9 10 6 10 3 100 ∆ E (n)/EN q ...

    arXiv 2016

  6. [3]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [4]

    Gravitational Waves Notes, Issue #2 : "A probe of spacetime and astrophysics: EMRIs"

    P. Amaro-Seoane, B. F. Schutz, and N. Yunes, arXiv e-prints (2010), arXiv:1003.5553 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

  8. [5]

    Babak, J

    S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sopuerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Petiteau, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D 95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 51 references
  1. [6]

    Berry, S

    C. Berry, S. Hughes, C. Sopuerta, A. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. Mihaylov, C. Miller, and A. Sesana, 28 Bulletin of the AAS 51, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.03686 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [7]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, Journal of Mathematical Physics 3, 566 (1962)

    1962

  3. [8]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  4. [9]

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

    1973

  5. [10]

    Barack and A

    L. Barack and A. Pound, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 016904 (2019), arXiv:1805.10385 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [11]

    Pound and B

    A. Pound and B. Wardell, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer, Singapore, 2022) p. 38

    2022

  7. [12]

    Drasco and S

    S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024027 (2006), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 88, 109905 (2013), Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 90, 109905 (2014)], arXiv:gr-qc/0509101

    2006 arXiv

  8. [13]

    Drasco, Phys

    S. Drasco, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104016 (2009), arXiv:0711.4644 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  9. [14]

    Fujita, W

    R. Fujita, W. Hikida, and H. Tagoshi, Prog. Theor. Phys. 121, 843 (2009), arXiv:0904.3810 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [15]

    Fujita and M

    R. Fujita and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064005 (2020), arXiv:2008.13554 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [16]

    Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, M. Shibata, H. Tagoshi, and T. Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.128, 1 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9712057

    1997 arXiv

  12. [17]

    Sasaki and H

    M. Sasaki and H. Tagoshi, Living Rev. Rel. 6, 6 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0306120

    2003 arXiv

  13. [18]

    N. Sago, T. Tanaka, W. Hikida, K. Ganz, and H. Nakano, Prog. Theor. Phys. 115, 873 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511151

    2006 arXiv

  14. [19]

    K. Ganz, W. Hikida, H. Nakano, N. Sago, and T. Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. 117, 1041 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702054

    2007 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Sago and R

    N. Sago and R. Fujita, PTEP 2015, 073E03 (2015), arXiv:1505.01600 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Fujita, Prog

    R. Fujita, Prog. Theor. Phys. 128, 971 (2012), arXiv:1211.5535 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [22]

    Fujita, PTEP 2015, 033E01 (2015), arXiv:1412.5689 [gr-qc]

    R. Fujita, PTEP 2015, 033E01 (2015), arXiv:1412.5689 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Munna, Phys

    C. Munna, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124001 (2020), arXiv:2008.10622 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Munna, C

    C. Munna, C. R. Evans, S. Hopper, and E. Forseth, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024047 (2020), arXiv:2005.03044 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Munna, C

    C. Munna, C. R. Evans, and E. Forseth, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044039 (2023), arXiv:2306.12481 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Kavanagh, A

    C. Kavanagh, A. C. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D 92, 084025 (2015), arXiv:1503.02334 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Kavanagh, A

    C. Kavanagh, A. C. Ottewill, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124038 (2016), arXiv:1601.03394 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Munna and C

    C. Munna and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044004 (2022), arXiv:2203.13832 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [29]

    Munna, Phys

    C. Munna, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084012 (2023), arXiv:2307.11158 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Shibata, M

    M. Shibata, M. Sasaki, H. Tagoshi, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 51, 1646 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9409054

    1995 arXiv

  26. [32]

    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

    2007 arXiv

  27. [33]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. R. Gair, A. Pound, S. A. Hughes, and C. F. Sopuerta, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012002 (2015), arXiv:1410.0958 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Damour, B

    T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044023 (2001), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 72, 029902 (2005)], arXiv:gr-qc/0010009

    2001 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Buonanno, B

    A. Buonanno, B. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0907.0700 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Varma, R

    V. Varma, R. Fujita, A. Choudhary, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 88, 024038 (2013), arXiv:1304.5675 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Boyle, D

    M. Boyle, D. A. Brown, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mroue, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, G. B. Cook, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124038 (2007), arXiv:0710.0158 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  32. [40]

    A. H. Mroue, L. E. Kidder, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044004 (2008), arXiv:0805.2390 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  33. [41]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4566 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710129

    1998 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Maggio, M

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

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Damour, B

    T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 57, 885 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9708034

    1998 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Damour, B

    T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064004 (2009), arXiv:0811.2069 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 105011 (2019), arXiv:1803.01944 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Datta, Class

    S. Datta, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 225016 (2022), arXiv:2107.07258 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064028 (2007), arXiv:0705.2519 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024043 (2008), arXiv:0711.2628 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, R. Fujita, E. Racine, and H. Tagoshi, Phys. Rev. D 83, 064003 (2011), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 87, 109901 (2013)], arXiv:1006.0431 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Isoyama, R

    S. Isoyama, R. Fujita, N. Sago, H. Tagoshi, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024010 (2013), arXiv:1210.2569 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.