Nonlinear Gravitational Memory in the Post-Minkowskian Expansion

Alessandro Georgoudis; Carlo Heissenberg; Julio Parra-Martinez; Vasco Goncalves

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Nonlinear Gravitational Memory in the Post-Minkowskian Expansion

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper computes the nonlinear gravitational memory waveform for two-body scattering exactly in velocity at the leading post-Minkowskian order.

desk verdict First exact-in-velocity computation of the O(G^3) nonlinear gravitational memory multipoles; the result is credible and well cross-checked, but the core master-integral evaluation is deferred to a companion paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20733 v1 pith:JG3C2K3P submitted 2025-06-25 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Alessandro Georgoudis , Vasco Goncalves , Carlo Heissenberg , Julio Parra-Martinez This is my paper

classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph

keywords gravitationalmemorynonlinearpost-Minkowskianexpansionscatteringamplitudesreverseunitaritywaveformsoftgravitontheoremtwo-body

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 aims to establish the first exact-in-velocity computation of nonlinear gravitational memory in the post-Minkowskian expansion: the permanent displacement left after two compact objects scatter, sourced by gravitons emitted by the gravitational waves themselves. Working at third order in Newton's constant, the leading order at which nonlinear memory appears, the paper derives closed-form expressions for the memory multipoles for arbitrary relative speed. The expressions are checked against post-Newtonian slow-motion expansions up to 9PN relative order and against earlier leading-velocity results. If correct, this completes the non-analytic-in-frequency part of the $\mathcal{O}(G^3)$ multipolar waveform and supplies a benchmark for future waveform calculations in general relativity.

What carries the argument

Multipoles $\delta F^{\ell m}$ of the nonlinear memory tensor, defined by projecting $\delta F^{\mu\nu}$ onto spin-weighted spherical harmonics in the rest frame of one body, are the central objects. They are computed through the reverse-unitarity representation of $\delta F$ as a three-particle cut of a two-loop integral, Eq. (15), with the observer direction encoded by extra powers of $(k\cdot n)^{-1}$. The resulting integrals are reduced by integration-by-parts identities to a set of master integrals in the soft region, solved with canonical differential equations; the output is the velocity function $\mathcal{F}^{\ell m}(\sigma)=(f_1^{\ell m}+f_2^{\ell m}\log((\sigma+1)/2)+f_3^{\ell m}\arccosh\sigma/\sqrt{\sigma^2-1})/(\sigma^2-1)^{\ell/2}$, with $f_i^{\ell m}$ rational polynomials in $\sigma$.

What would settle it

Compute the same $\mathcal{O}(G^3)$ nonlinear memory multipoles by an independent classical method for a hyperbolic encounter at a nonzero velocity, for example by solving the relevant soft-graviton equations directly, at $\sigma=2$, and compare with Table I; any mismatch in the polynomial coefficients $f_i^{\ell m}$ would falsify the formula.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that the nonlinear gravitational memory multipoles for two-body scattering are exactly computable at $\mathcal{O}(G^3)$ in the post-Minkowskian expansion, for arbitrary relative velocity. The result takes the master form $\delta F^{\ell m}=G^3\pi^2 m_1^2 m_2^2 b^{-3}(\sigma^2-1)^{-3/2}\, i^\ell \mathcal{N}_2^{\ell m} \, \mathcal{F}^{\ell m}(\sigma)+O(G^4)$, with $\mathcal{F}^{\ell m}(\sigma)$ built from polynomials in $\sigma$ plus $\log((\sigma+1)/2)$ and $\arccosh\sigma/\sqrt{\sigma^2-1}$. The paper extracts $\delta F^{\ell m}$ from the soft-graviton limit of the two-loop amplitude using a reverse-unitarity cut representation, evaluates the master integrals by canonical differential equations, and tabulates the polynomial coefficients for $\ell\le5$. It reports that all odd $\ell+m$ multipoles vanish and that the small-velocity expansion reproduces the known 9PN and leading-velocity results. It further concludes that this soft-limit origin implies classical gravitational radiation is not fully captured by a non-squeezed coherent state, with possible classical correlations between detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the two-loop amplitude's leading low-frequency terms, combined with the reverse-unitarity cut representation, capture the full classical nonlinear memory at this order; the paper defers the detailed integral reduction and boundary conditions to a companion paper (after Eq. (23)), so the tabulated coefficients cannot be independently checked from the preprint alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The nonlinear memory multipoles at $\mathcal{O}(G^3)$ are now known as exact functions of velocity, not just as slow-motion expansions.
The gauge-invariant non-analytic-in-frequency part of the $\mathcal{O}(G^3)$ multipolar waveform is complete, so future amplitude or classical calculations of the waveform can be checked against these formulas.
The small-velocity expansion of the new formula reproduces the independent 9PN results and earlier leading-velocity results, providing a cross-check of both approaches.
Because nonlinear memory appears at $\mathcal{O}(G^3 v)$, it is suppressed relative to the leading quadrupole by 2.5 post-Newtonian orders in the scattering setup.
The soft-limit origin of the result implies classical radiation is not described by a non-squeezed coherent state, suggesting classical correlations between gravitational-wave detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

If correct, the exact-in-velocity polynomials can be expanded to arbitrary post-Newtonian order, yielding higher-order small-velocity data beyond the 9PN check reported in the paper.
If correct, the coherent-state remark can be turned into a quantitative prediction: a two-detector correlation function built from these multipoles would let detectors test the classical, nonlinear origin of the effect.
If correct, the same reverse-unitarity and master-integral machinery should apply to multipoles with spins, since the derivation does not appear to use spinlessness.

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 reading: this is the first all-orders-in-velocity result for the O(G^3) nonlinear memory multipoles in two-body scattering. The setup is standard for the amplitudes/PM program: the memory is traced to the low-frequency pole of the waveform, expressed through the Weinberg soft factor, and computed with reverse unitarity and IBP reduction. The final formula has a clean closed form with log and arccosh terms, and the low-velocity expansion is checked against an independent 9PN calculation [87] and against the leading small-v results [88,89]. Those checks are genuine and give me real confidence in the structure of the answer.

The main caveat is verifiability, not plausibility. The route from Eq. (15) to the polynomials in Table I and Appendix III relies on an IBP reduction and a canonical differential equation solution in the soft region, with details deferred to [82]. That reference is listed as “to appear,” and the diagrams in Eqs. (12)–(14) are not fully legible in this preprint, so the soft-limit input cannot be inspected directly. The small-v checks exercise the Taylor expansion around sigma=1, not the full finite-sigma functions; they would catch many but not all classes of error. I see no reason to suspect the coefficients are wrong — the method is mature and the authors have a strong track record — but the headline numbers are not independently checkable from this preprint alone.

One additional overreach: the conclusions claim the calculation shows that classical radiation is not described by a non-squeezed coherent state, contrary to previous expectations. That is a defensible inference only if the O(G^3) memory mode is connected to a specific coherence property of the quantum state. The paper does not show that connection; it shows the classical waveform has a nonlinear contribution. The discrepancy with [93,94] may be real, but the argument is sketched rather than demonstrated.

Overall, the physics is important, the method is sound, and the cross-checks are meaningful. The paper deserves a serious referee. The referee should insist on [82] being available with the full IBP and master-integral details, or on the authors including enough in a revised version that the finite-sigma evaluation can be checked. The coherent-state remark should be toned down or substantiated. With those changes, the result should be accepted. I would cite it in my own work.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a computation of the nonlinear gravitational memory multipoles at O(G^3) in the post-Minkowskian expansion for the scattering of two compact objects, keeping the relative velocity arbitrary. The authors use the scattering-amplitudes representation of the waveform, a multipolar decomposition, and the reverse-unitarity method to derive the master formula (23), with explicit polynomials f_i^{ℓm}(σ) given in Table I and Appendix III. The results are checked against the small-velocity expansion of a companion calculation [87] through 9PN and against earlier leading-order results [88,89]. The central claim is that this provides, for the first time, the exact-in-velocity nonlinear memory at O(G^3), completing the gauge-invariant non-analytic-in-frequency part of the multipolar waveform at this order.

Significance. If the result is correct, it is a significant step: it is the first exact-in-velocity determination of the nonlinear memory at O(G^3), and it provides a concrete benchmark against which future waveform calculations—particularly those based on worldline effective field theory, self-force, or numerical relativity—can be tested. The paper also connects the nonlinear memory to the low-frequency limit of a two-loop amplitude, strengthening the amplitude/classical-GR dictionary. The inclusion of the master formula, the accompanying polynomials up to ℓ=5, and the machine-readable ancillary file nlmMultipoles.m are valuable assets. The cross-checks against small-velocity results and the consistency with the Weinberg soft theorem are nontrivial and are appropriately highlighted. However, the exact-in-velocity evaluation itself is not fully exhibited in this preprint, which limits the degree to which the headline coefficients can be independently verified.

major comments (4)

[Eq. (14)] The central exact-in-velocity result rests on an IBP reduction to master integrals and their evaluation via canonical differential equations in the soft region, but none of these steps are shown. The text states after Eq. (23) that 'more details will be provided in [82]'. Consequently, the polynomials f_i^{ℓm}(σ) in Table I and Appendix III cannot be independently verified from this preprint alone. The small-velocity checks against Ref. [87] (through 9PN) and Refs. [88,89] (leading order) test only the Taylor expansion around σ=1 and do not fix the finite-σ log((σ+1)/2) and arccoshσ terms that appear in Eq. (24). Because an error in the master-integral boundary conditions or in the IBP reduction would change every entry in Table I and Appendix III, this is a load-bearing gap. The authors should either include the master-integral definitions, the IBP reduction master decomposition, and the boundary conditions, or provide a detailed ancillary derivation file, before the exact-in-velocity claim can be accepted as fully supported.
[Conclusions] The two-loop amplitude representation in Eq. (14) is the key input that identifies the nonlinear-memory contribution, but the diagrammatic content is not visible in the supplied text: the figures are missing or not rendered. Since the identification of which terms contribute to δF at leading order in ω depends on the detailed structure of these diagrams, the reader cannot inspect whether all relevant contributions (including the various cuts in the round parentheses) are accounted for. The authors should provide a legible version of these diagrams or, alternatively, a textual specification of the diagram topologies and their numerator factors. This is essential for the reproducibility of the central decomposition.
[Checks] The concluding paragraph makes a strong physical claim: that the way the nonlinear memory arises from the soft limit of a 2→4 amplitude shows that 'classical gravitational radiation is not completely described by a (non-squeezed) coherent state', which is stated without a derivation or a detailed argument in the manuscript. This goes beyond the computation presented here and would require an explicit analysis of the state or of the higher-order correlators. The authors should either provide that argument or soften the claim to a conjecture/future work.
[Summary] The validation against Ref. [87] is a comparison with a companion calculation by overlapping authorship, and both the present computation and Ref. [87] rely on the same scattering-amplitudes framework and the same expression for ρ(k). The agreement is a strong consistency check, but it is not a fully independent verification of the exact-in-velocity functions. The authors are encouraged to add an additional test that is sensitive to the finite-σ structure, for example a numerical evaluation of the phase-space integrals in Eqs. (15)-(20) at representative values of σ, or a comparison with an independent analytic method in the ultra-relativistic limit σ→∞.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (18)] The phrase 'the nonlinear memory f^{μν} in (3)' appears to be a typo: f^{μν} in Eq. (4) is the linear memory, while the nonlinear memory is δF^{μν}. Please correct this to 'linear memory' or 'memory'.
[Eq. (24)] In Eq. (18), the spin-weighted spherical harmonics Y^{ℓm}_{±2} are used for the multipole decomposition, but the notation Y^{ℓm*}_{±2} is not defined explicitly in the main text; the definition is deferred to Appendix I. This is acceptable, but a brief reminder in the main text would improve readability.
[Ancillary file] The functional form in Eq. (24) contains log((σ+1)/2) and arccoshσ/√(σ²−1); it would be helpful to state explicitly that these combinations are regular at σ=1 and to comment on their behavior as σ→∞, since these are the limits used in the checks.
[References] The ancillary file nlmMultipoles.m is a useful addition, but the main text does not specify the exact format of the data or the conventions (e.g., the normalization factor N^{ℓm}_2 and the prefactor in Eq. (23)). A short README or a comment in the file would make the file self-explanatory.
[Introduction] The companion papers [82] and [87] are listed as 'to appear'; this is understandable but makes it impossible for the reader to check the deferred details at the time of submission. Please provide arXiv numbers when available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exact-in-velocity nonlinear-memory multipoles are computed from amplitude/cut representations without fitting to the target result; deferred IBP/master-integral details create a verifiability gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain runs from the Weinberg soft-pole definition of memory, Eqs. (2)-(4), through the amplitude representation of the O(G^3) waveform, Eq. (14), the reverse-unitarity cut representation of delta-F, Eqs. (15)-(20), and finally the master formula (23)-(24) with the polynomials computed by IBP reduction and canonical differential equations. At no point is the final F^{ell m}(sigma) used to define delta-F^{ell m}, and no parameter is fitted to the O(G^3) memory: the target quantity enters only on the left-hand side of Eq. (23), while the right-hand side is obtained from the phase-space/master integrals. The linear memory part is fixed by the Weinberg soft theorem, but the nonlinear memory is the genuinely loop-computed piece, not a restatement of that theorem. The small-velocity checks, including the comparison with the companion paper [87] sharing an author, are consistency benchmarks and are not inputs to the master formula; agreement with Refs. [88,89] is external. The substantive caveat is that the IBP reduction and master-integral boundary conditions are omitted, with details deferred to the same-authors companion paper [82]; thus Table I cannot be independently verified from this preprint. That is an omitted proof and a verifiability risk, not a circular step: an error there would alter the final polynomials but would not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs. Score 1 reflects the minor self-referential validation details rather than any circular reduction.

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

All inputs are physical (G, m1, m2, σ, b) or standard mathematical facts; no parameters are fitted to the output and no new entities are introduced. The result depends on the amplitude-to-waveform dictionary, the Weinberg soft theorem with the balance law, and the reverse-unitarity evaluation of integrals, with the master-integral details deferred to a companion paper.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The two compact objects are described in the classical limit by massive point particles, and the gravitational field is expanded in the post-Minkowskian series in G around flat space.
Used throughout the PM impulse and waveform formulas, e.g. Eqs. (8)-(11); excludes spins, strong-field and bound-state effects.
domain assumption The low-frequency limit of the waveform is governed by the Weinberg soft theorem, with the memory tensor fixed by Eq. (3) and the nonlinear part by the phase-space integral (4)-(6).
Established soft-theorem results from refs. [67-70], invoked to identify the nonlinear memory with soft gravitons emitted by hard gravitons.
domain assumption The amplitude-based expression for the gravitational waveform (Eqs. (12)-(14)) reproduces the classical radiative field at O(G^3) after taking the classical limit.
Central dictionary from S-matrix elements to the waveform, from refs. [39,42,45-48,50,75]; the paper checks it at lower orders but relies on it at two loops.
standard math Reverse unitarity and the on-shell phase-space measure (Eq. (17)) allow the nonlinear memory integral to be computed as a cut of a two-loop integral, with master integrals evaluated by canonical differential equations in the soft region.
Methodological assumptions from refs. [16,17,78,90-92]; details of the IBP reduction are deferred to [82].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nonlinear Gravitational Memory in the Post-Minkowskian Expansion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JG3C2K3P

@misc{pith2026250620733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nonlinear Gravitational Memory in the Post-Minkowskian Expansion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JG3C2K3P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20733}
}

abstract

We present the first computation of the nonlinear gravitational memory waveform for the scattering of two compact objects in General Relativity at leading order in the post-Minkowskian expansion. We use the scattering-amplitudes-based representation of the gravitational waveform, which naturally expresses the nonlinear memory as the contribution of soft gravitons emitted by the gravitational waves themselves. We perform the calculation by applying a multipolar decomposition to the waveform and using the reverse unitarity method to obtain explicit exact-in-velocity predictions. We validate the results by calculating the corresponding velocity-expanded post-Newtonian multipoles, finding perfect agreement. Our results complete the knowledge of the gauge-invariant non-analytic-in-frequency part of the $\mathcal{O}(G^3)$ multipolar waveform, thus providing a useful benchmark for future calculations of this quantity.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

Kerr Soft Dressing and the $w_{1+\infty}$ Frame Algebra at Null Infinity
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The Kerr soft exponent generates a parity-alternating hierarchy of null-infinity frame generators—displacement memory at s=0, spin memory at s=1, and higher moments alternating by Kerr multipole parity—realized as the...
Conservative Black Hole Scattering at Fifth Post-Minkowskian and Second Self-Force Order
hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The conservative black-hole scattering angle at fifth post-Minkowskian and second self-force order is computed in terms of K3 periods, but contains a coefficient fixed only by an ad hoc 'γ-3' prescription.
Generalized Unitarity Method for Worldline Field Theory
hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Worldline gravitational observables can be bootstrapped from locality, unitarity, gauge invariance, and a soft theorem once worldline energies are complexified, reproducing the known O(G^5/2) waveform and O(G^3) on-sh...
Radiated Energy Spectrum, Radiated Angular Distribution and Non-linear Memory from the One-loop Gravitational Bremsstrahlung Waveform
gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

One-loop gravitational bremsstrahlung yields the GW energy spectrum, angular distribution to G^4, and nonlinear memory multipoles to G^5 at 7.5PN accuracy in the CM frame.
$w_{1+\infty}$ as the Frame Algebra of Kerr Soft Dressing
hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Kerr soft dressing exponentiates into a parity-alternating tower of frame shifts whose chiral-projected composition law is the w1+∞ bracket, solved in closed form for aligned spin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

[87]

Heissenberg and R

C. Heissenberg and R. Russo, to appear
[82]

Georgoudis, V

A. Georgoudis, V. Goncalves, C. Heissenberg, and J. Parra-Martinez, to appear
[1]

Pretorius, Phys

F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 121101 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507014

arXiv 2005
[2]

Gourgoulhon,3+1 Formalism in General Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 2012)

E. Gourgoulhon,3+1 Formalism in General Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 2012)

2012
[3]

Blanchet, Living Rev

L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel.17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2014
[4]

Barack and A

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

arXiv 2019
[5]

Damour, Phys

T. Damour, Phys. Rev.D97, 044038 (2018), arXiv:1710.10599 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018
[6]

Cheung, I

C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 251101 (2018), arXiv:1808.02489 [hep-th]

arXiv 2018

Show all 99 references

[7]

Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201603 (2019), arXiv:1901.04424 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[8]

Koemans Collado, P

A. Koemans Collado, P. Di Vecchia, and R. Russo, Phys. Rev. D100, 066028 (2019), arXiv:1904.02667 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[9]

Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, JHEP10, 206 (2019), arXiv:1908.01493 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Damour, Phys

T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D102, 024060 (2020), arXiv:1912.02139 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[11]

Cristofoli, P

A. Cristofoli, P. H. Damgaard, P. Di Vecchia, and C. Heissenberg, JHEP07, 122 (2020), arXiv:2003.10274 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[12]

Damour, Phys

T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D102, 124008 (2020), arXiv:2010.01641 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[13]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171601 (2021), arXiv:2101.07254 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Herrmann, J

E. Herrmann, J. Parra-Martinez, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 201602 (2021), arXiv:2101.07255 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[15]

Di Vecchia, C

P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B818, 136379 (2021), arXiv:2101.05772 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[16]

Di Vecchia, C

P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, JHEP07, 169 (2021), arXiv:2104.03256 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[17]

Herrmann, J

E. Herrmann, J. Parra-Martinez, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, JHEP10, 148 (2021), arXiv:2104.03957 [hep- th]. 6

2021 arXiv
[18]

N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, L. Plant´ e, and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. D104, 026009 (2021), arXiv:2104.04510 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[19]

N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, L. Plant´ e, and P. Vanhove, JHEP08, 172 (2021), arXiv:2105.05218 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[20]

Dlapa, G

C. Dlapa, G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Lett. B831, 137203 (2022), arXiv:2106.08276 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[21]

Brandhuber, G

A. Brandhuber, G. Chen, G. Travaglini, and C. Wen, JHEP10, 118 (2021), arXiv:2108.04216 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[22]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 161103 (2022), arXiv:2112.10750 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Dlapa, G

C. Dlapa, G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 161104 (2022), arXiv:2112.11296 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[24]

A. V. Manohar, A. K. Ridgway, and C.-H. Shen, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 121601 (2022), arXiv:2203.04283 [hep- th]

2022 arXiv
[25]

Z. Bern, J. Parra-Martinez, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, C.- H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, PoSLL2022, 051 (2022)

2022
[26]

Dlapa, G

C. Dlapa, G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, J. Neef, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 101401 (2023), arXiv:2210.05541 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Baracket al., Phys

L. Baracket al., Phys. Rev. D108, 024025 (2023), arXiv:2304.09200 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[28]

Dlapa, G

C. Dlapa, G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, JHEP08, 109 (2023), arXiv:2304.01275 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[29]

P. H. Damgaard, E. R. Hansen, L. Plant´ e, and P. Van- hove, JHEP09, 183 (2023), arXiv:2307.04746 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[30]

Cheung, J

C. Cheung, J. Parra-Martinez, I. Z. Rothstein, N. Shah, and J. Wilson-Gerow, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 091402 (2024), arXiv:2308.14832 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Driesse, G

M. Driesse, G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, B. Sauer, and J. Usovitsch, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 241402 (2024), arXiv:2403.07781 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[32]

Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, A. V. Smirnov, V. A. Smirnov, and M. Zeng, JHEP10, 023 (2024), arXiv:2406.01554 [hep-th]

2024
[33]

Cheung, J

C. Cheung, J. Parra-Martinez, I. Z. Rothstein, N. Shah, and J. Wilson-Gerow, JHEP10, 005 (2024), arXiv:2406.14770 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Driesse, G

M. Driesse, G. U. Jakobsen, A. Klemm, G. Mogull, C. Nega, J. Plefka, B. Sauer, and J. Usovitsch, Nature 641, 603 (2025), arXiv:2411.11846 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[35]

Heissenberg, Phys

C. Heissenberg, Phys. Rev. D111, 126012 (2025), arXiv:2501.02904 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[36]

P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

1964
[37]

S. J. Kovacs and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.217, 252 (1977)

1977
[38]

S. J. Kovacs and K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J.224, 62 (1978)

1978
[39]

D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, JHEP 02, 137 (2019), arXiv:1811.10950 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[40]

G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 201103 (2021), arXiv:2101.12688 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[41]

Mougiakakos, M

S. Mougiakakos, M. M. Riva, and F. Vernizzi, Phys. Rev. D104, 024041 (2021), arXiv:2102.08339 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[42]

Cristofoli, R

A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, D. A. Kosower, and D. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D106, 056007 (2022), arXiv:2107.10193 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[43]

Caron-Huot, M

S. Caron-Huot, M. Giroux, H. S. Hannesdottir, and S. Mizera, JHEP01, 139 (2024), arXiv:2308.02125 [hep- th]

2024 arXiv
[44]

Biswas and J

S. Biswas and J. Parra-Martinez, (2024), arXiv:2411.09016 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[45]

Brandhuber, G

A. Brandhuber, G. R. Brown, G. Chen, S. De Ange- lis, J. Gowdy, and G. Travaglini, JHEP06, 048 (2023), arXiv:2303.06111 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[46]

Herderschee, R

A. Herderschee, R. Roiban, and F. Teng, JHEP06, 004 (2023), arXiv:2303.06112 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[47]

Elkhidir, D

A. Elkhidir, D. O’Connell, M. Sergola, and I. A. Vazquez-Holm, JHEP07, 272 (2024), arXiv:2303.06211 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[48]

Georgoudis, C

A. Georgoudis, C. Heissenberg, and I. Vazquez-Holm, JHEP06, 126 (2023), arXiv:2303.07006 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[49]

Georgoudis, C

A. Georgoudis, C. Heissenberg, and R. Russo, JHEP03, 089 (2024), arXiv:2312.07452 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[50]

Georgoudis, C

A. Georgoudis, C. Heissenberg, and I. Vazquez-Holm, JHEP2024, 161 (2024), arXiv:2312.14710 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[51]

D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D108, 124052 (2023), arXiv:2309.14925 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[52]

Georgoudis, C

A. Georgoudis, C. Heissenberg, and R. Russo, Phys. Rev. D109, 106020 (2024), arXiv:2402.06361 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[53]

D. Bini, T. Damour, S. De Angelis, A. Geralico, A. Herderschee, R. Roiban, and F. Teng, Phys. Rev. D109, 125008 (2024), arXiv:2402.06604 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[54]

Y. B. Zel’dovich and A. G. Polnarev, Sov. Astron.18, 17 (1974)

1974
[55]

V. B. Braginsky and L. P. Grishchuk, Sov. Phys. JETP 62, 427 (1985)

1985
[56]

V. B. Braginsky and K. S. Thorne, Nature327, 123 (1987)

1987
[57]

Christodoulou, Phys

D. Christodoulou, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1486 (1991)

1991
[58]

K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D45, 520 (1992)

1992
[59]

Strominger and A

A. Strominger and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP01, 086 (2016), arXiv:1411.5745 [hep-th]

2016 arXiv
[60]

P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, Y. Levin, J. Blackman, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1605.01415 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[61]

H¨ ubner, C

M. H¨ ubner, C. Talbot, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D101, 023011 (2020), arXiv:1911.12496 [astro- ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[62]

O. M. Boersma, D. A. Nichols, and P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D101, 083026 (2020), arXiv:2002.01821 [astro- ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[63]

A. M. Grant and D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D107, 064056 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 029901 (2023)], arXiv:2210.16266 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[64]

Goncharov, L

B. Goncharov, L. Donnay, and J. Harms, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 241401 (2024), arXiv:2310.10718 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[65]

Gasparotto, R

S. Gasparotto, R. Vicente, D. Blas, A. C. Jenkins, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D107, 124033 (2023), arXiv:2301.13228 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[66]

Inchausp´ e, S

H. Inchausp´ e, S. Gasparotto, D. Blas, L. Heisenberg, J. Zosso, and S. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D111, 044044 (2025), arXiv:2406.09228 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[67]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.135, B1049 (1964)

1964
[68]

Weinberg, Phys

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev.140, B516 (1965)

1965
[69]

A. P. Saha, B. Sahoo, and A. Sen, JHEP06, 153 (2020), arXiv:1912.06413 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[70]

Sahoo and A

B. Sahoo and A. Sen, JHEP01, 077 (2022), arXiv:2105.08739 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[71]

Alessio, P

F. Alessio, P. Di Vecchia, and C. Heissenberg, JHEP11, 124 (2024), arXiv:2407.04128 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[72]

Fucito, J

F. Fucito, J. F. Morales, and R. Russo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044054 (2025), arXiv:2408.07329 [hep-th]. 7

2025 arXiv
[73]

Aoude, K

R. Aoude, K. Haddad, C. Heissenberg, and A. Helset, Phys. Rev. D109, 036007 (2024), arXiv:2310.05832 [hep- th]

2024 arXiv
[74]

Di Vecchia, C

P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Rept.1083, 1 (2024), arXiv:2306.16488 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[75]

P. H. Damgaard, L. Plante, and P. Vanhove, JHEP11, 213 (2021), arXiv:2107.12891 [hep-th]

2021 arXiv
[76]

W. D. Goldberger and A. K. Ridgway, Phys. Rev. D95, 125010 (2017), arXiv:1611.03493 [hep-th]

2017 arXiv
[77]

A. Luna, I. Nicholson, D. O’Connell, and C. D. White, JHEP03, 044 (2018), arXiv:1711.03901 [hep-th]

2018 arXiv
[78]

Parra-Martinez, M

J. Parra-Martinez, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, JHEP11, 023 (2020), arXiv:2005.04236 [hep-th]

2020 arXiv
[79]

Blanchet and T

L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D46, 4304 (1992)

1992
[80]

Favata, Astrophys

M. Favata, Astrophys. J. Lett.696, L159 (2009), arXiv:0902.3660 [astro-ph.SR]

2009 arXiv
[81]

Favata, Phys

M. Favata, Phys. Rev. D80, 024002 (2009), arXiv:0812.0069 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[83]

Sahoo and A

B. Sahoo and A. Sen, JHEP02, 086 (2019), arXiv:1808.03288 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[84]

Blanchet, Class

L. Blanchet, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 113 (1998), [Er- ratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 22, 3381 (2005)], arXiv:gr- qc/9710038

1998
[85]

W. D. Goldberger and A. Ross, Phys. Rev. D81, 124015 (2010), arXiv:0912.4254 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[86]

M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and Z. Zhou, (2025), arXiv:2504.07862 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[88]

A. G. Wiseman and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D44, R2945 (1991)

1991
[89]

Favata, Phys

M. Favata, Phys. Rev. D84, 124013 (2011), arXiv:1108.3121 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[90]

Anastasiou, L

C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, and K. Melnikov, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.116, 193 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0211141

2003 arXiv
[91]

Anastasiou, L

C. Anastasiou, L. J. Dixon, K. Melnikov, and F. Petriello, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 182002 (2003), arXiv:hep-ph/0306192

2003 arXiv
[92]

Anastasiou, C

C. Anastasiou, C. Duhr, F. Dulat, E. Furlan, F. Her- zog, and B. Mistlberger, JHEP08, 051 (2015), arXiv:1505.04110 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[93]

Britto, R

R. Britto, R. Gonzo, and G. R. Jehu, JHEP03, 214 (2022), arXiv:2112.07036 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[94]

Cristofoli, R

A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, N. Moynihan, D. O’Connell, A. Ross, M. Sergola, and C. D. White, JHEP06, 181 (2024), arXiv:2112.07556 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[95]

Di Vecchia, C

P. Di Vecchia, C. Heissenberg, R. Russo, and G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B843, 138049 (2023), arXiv:2210.12118 [hep-th]

2023 arXiv
[96]

Aoude, A

R. Aoude, A. Cristofoli, A. Elkhidir, and M. Sergola, JHEP05, 136 (2025), arXiv:2411.02294 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[97]

Alessio, R

F. Alessio, R. Gonzo, and C. Shi, (2025), arXiv:2506.03249 [hep-th]

2025
[98]

Blanchet and T

L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A320, 379 (1986)

1986
[99]

triple integrals

L. Blanchet, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A409, 383 (1987). Supplemental Material I. SPIN-WEIGHTED SPHERICAL HARMONICS In this appendix, we collect our conventions for spherical harmonics and recall some useful properties [3, 98, 99]. We start by constructing a basis of symmetric tra...

1987

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [87]

Heissenberg and R

C. Heissenberg and R. Russo, to appear

[2] [82]

Georgoudis, V

A. Georgoudis, V. Goncalves, C. Heissenberg, and J. Parra-Martinez, to appear

[3] [1]

Pretorius, Phys

F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 121101 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507014

arXiv 2005

[4] [2]

Gourgoulhon,3+1 Formalism in General Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 2012)

E. Gourgoulhon,3+1 Formalism in General Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, 2012)

2012

[5] [3]

Blanchet, Living Rev

L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel.17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2014

[6] [4]

Barack and A

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

arXiv 2019

[7] [5]

Damour, Phys

T. Damour, Phys. Rev.D97, 044038 (2018), arXiv:1710.10599 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018

[8] [6]

Cheung, I

C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 251101 (2018), arXiv:1808.02489 [hep-th]

arXiv 2018