Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 8 minor 93 references

Probing near-zone magnetic fields with extreme mass-ratio inspirals

T0 review · 1 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-07-08 · glm-5.2

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

Pith's one-line read Magnetic fields near black holes may bend gravitational-wave phases

desk verdict Clean conservative dynamics in Ernst geometry; dissipative sector uses an uncontrolled hybrid approximation that the paper honestly frames as order-of-magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.05909 v1 pith:MT5RB43W submitted 2026-07-07 gr-qc

Jin-Lu Hu , Xin-Dong Du , Peng-Cheng Li , Tieguang Zi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.70.Bw04.25.Nx
keywords magneticfieldsnear-zoneapproximationblackcircularinspiralmagnetized
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

This paper investigates whether magnetic fields in the near zone of a massive black hole can leave a detectable imprint on extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) gravitational-wave signals. The authors model the central black hole using the Ernst solution — an exact Einstein–Maxwell spacetime describing a Schwarzschild black hole immersed in a uniform magnetic field (the Melvin magnetic universe). Because this spacetime is not asymptotically flat, they treat it as an effective near-zone description, matched to a standard asymptotically flat exterior where gravitational-wave fluxes and detector response are defined. A stellar-mass compact object orbits on equatorial circular geodesics of this magnetized geometry, and the authors compute the magnetic corrections to orbital energy, angular momentum, azimuthal frequency, and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). They find the ISCO moves inward as the magnetic field strengthens.

What carries the argument

Ernst (magnetized Schwarzschild) solution; source-corrected Regge–Wheeler–Zerilli approximation; equatorial circular geodesics; ISCO shift; adiabatic inspiral evolution; LISA-noise-weighted mismatch

What would settle it

If the omitted radiative-sector corrections — magnetic modification of RWZ potentials, gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation coupling, or near-zone-to-far-zone transfer — turn out to contribute at the same order as the source correction for the relevant field strengths, then the quantitative dephasing and mismatch results could be substantially different, and the detectability threshold would shift.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central mechanism is the source-corrected Regge–Wheeler–Zerilli (RWZ) approximation. Rather than solving the full coupled gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation equations on the magnetized Ernst background — which is technically intractable because the background is non-spherical, non-asymptotically-flat, and involves gravitationally coupled electromagnetic fields — the authors keep the standard Schwarzschild wave-propagation potentials fixed and inject the magnetic field's influence only through the modified orbital trajectory and source term. This isolates the leading-order effect: the magnetic field changes how the secondary object moves, and that changed motion alters the emitted

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dominant magnetic-field effect on EMRI waveforms enters through the modified orbital dynamics (the source term), while the magnetic deformation of the gravitational-wave propagation potentials, the gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation coupling, and the near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function can be neglected. The authors expect these omitted effects to scale as (B × L_near)^2 but do not quantitatively bound their magnitude relative

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the source-corrected RWZ approximation captures the dominant magnetic effect, then EMRI observations by LISA could set upper bounds on near-zone magnetic field strengths around massive black holes, complementing electromagnetic observations of environments like M87* and Sagittarius A*.
  • The threshold field strength of ~10^9 G for a 10^6 solar-mass black hole is far above typical magnetic environments associated with accretion disks, suggesting that ordinary astrophysical magnetic fields are likely too weak to produce detectable EMRI waveform modifications within this approximation.
  • The inward shift of the ISCO with increasing magnetic field strength implies that magnetized environments could affect the final inspiral rate and plunge dynamics, which could be relevant for systems with unusually strong near-zone fields.
  • The partial cancellation in the dephasing signal — where the direct frequency shift and the orbital-radius-shift contribution have opposite signs — means that simple monotonic scaling of dephasing with field strength does not hold, and full waveform evolution is needed for accurate interpretation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

1 major / 8 minor

Summary. This manuscript investigates whether near-zone magnetic fields around massive black holes can leave observable imprints on extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) gravitational waveforms. The central black hole is modeled by the magnetized Schwarzschild (Ernst) solution, and the secondary is treated as a neutral point particle on equatorial circular geodesics. The authors compute magnetic corrections to orbital quantities (energy, angular momentum, azimuthal frequency) and the ISCO shift from the exact Ernst metric. The inspiral is then evolved adiabatically using a hybrid 'source-corrected' Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli (RWZ) approximation: Schwarzschild wave-propagation potentials are kept fixed while the source term is evaluated on the magnetically corrected orbit. For a fiducial system with M=10^6 M_sun and mu=10 M_sun, a dimensionless field B~4x10^-5 M^-1 (B_phys~10^9 G) produces a one-year dephasing of ~1.3 rad and reaches the LISA mismatch threshold (M~0.01 for rho=20, D=8). The conservative orbital dynamics are derived cleanly. The dissipative sector uses a hybrid approximation whose systematic error is acknowledged but not bounded, and the l=2 truncation, non-maximized overlap, and non-asymptotically-flat background treatment introduce additional uncontrolled uncertainties. The paper is explicitly framed as an order-of-magnitude estimate rather than a precision waveform model.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely question: whether LISA-band EMRIs can probe magnetic environments around massive black holes. The conservative-sector calculations (Eqs. 8-12, ISCO shift Eq. 27) are exact within the Ernst geometry and represent a useful contribution. The dephasing and mismatch results provide a concrete, falsifiable benchmark for the field strength (~10^9 G) at which magnetic effects might become relevant to EMRI phasing. The authors are commendably transparent about the limitations of the source-corrected RWZ approximation and explicitly frame their results as order-of-magnitude estimates. The work is a reasonable first step toward understanding magnetic-field effects on EMRIs, though its quantitative predictions carry uncontrolled systematic uncertainties that limit the precision of the claimed detectability threshold.

major comments (1)
  1. Section II.D, Eqs. (37)-(39): The dephasing delta_Phi is decomposed into a conservative contribution (direct frequency shift at fixed radius, computed exactly from the Ernst metric) and a dissipative contribution (trajectory difference depending on the GW flux, computed via the source-corrected RWZ approximation). The paper states these two terms are comparable in magnitude and partially cancel, producing the zero-crossing in Fig. 3 at ~6 months. This means a substantial fraction of the headline 1.3 rad dephasing for B=4x10^-5 comes from the dissipative sector, which is precisely the part computed with the uncontrolled approximation. The source correction to the flux is O(B^2 r^2), and the omitted effects (RWZ potential modification, gravitational-electromagnetic perturbation coupling, near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function) are also O(B^2 r^2) — there is no parametric separation. The 1
minor comments (8)
  1. Section II.D, Eq. (28): The notation S(P)_lm(t, r; z^mu_B) uses a semicolon that could be confused with a covariant derivative; consider clarifying that this denotes functional dependence on the worldline.
  2. Section II.C, Eq. (25): The text states the ISCO condition is solved 'with Mathematica'; a brief mention of the numerical method (e.g., root-finding with specified precision) would improve reproducibility.
  3. Section III.A: The initial orbital radius r_0 = 9.2313 is stated without units; given that M=1 is set, this should be clarified as r_0/M = 9.2313 or r_0 = 9.2313 M.
  4. Figure 4: The logarithmic vertical axis with |delta_Phi| creates visual artifacts at the cancellation points (sharp dips to ~10^-7). A brief note in the caption that these dips are artifacts of the absolute value, not physical minima, would help readers. The text in Section III.A does explain this, but the figure caption itself does not.
  5. Section III.B, Eq. (43)-(45): The overlap is not maximized over intrinsic parameters or initial phase/time shift. While the text acknowledges this, the mismatch values reported should perhaps be compared against a maximized-over-extrinsic-parameters baseline to assess how conservative the threshold-crossing claims are.
  6. References: Several references appear to be from 2025-2026 (e.g., Refs. [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [41], [42], [48], [49], [50], [64], [65], [66], [68], [69], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79]). The citation of future-dated works should be verified for correctness.
  7. Section II.A: The physical magnetic field conversion formula B_phys = 2.36x10^19 x B x (M_sun/M) G is given in a footnote. For B=4x10^-5 and M=10^6 M_sun, this gives B_phys ~ 9.4x10^8 G, which is consistent with the stated ~10^9 G, but the rounding should be made explicit.
  8. Appendix A: The source term expressions use notation (Q_tt, Q_rr, Q_b, Q_r, Q_#, P, P_r) that, while standard in the Martel-Poisson formalism, could benefit from a brief glossary or cross-reference to the original definitions for readers unfamiliar with this notation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for a careful and constructive report. The referee correctly identifies that the conservative-sector results are exact within the Ernst geometry, while the dissipative sector relies on an uncontrolled approximation, and that the omitted radiative-sector corrections are of the same parametric order as the source correction we retain. We agree this is a genuine limitation that must be stated more prominently and quantitatively discussed. Below we address the major comment point by point.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Section II.D, Eqs. (37)-(39): The dephasing δΦ is decomposed into a conservative contribution (direct frequency shift at fixed radius, computed exactly from the Ernst metric) and a dissipative contribution (trajectory difference depending on the GW flux, computed via the source-corrected RWZ approximation). The paper states these two terms are comparable in magnitude and partially cancel, producing the zero-crossing in Fig. 3 at ~6 months. This means a substantial fraction of the headline 1.3 rad dephasing for B=4×10^-5 comes from the dissipative sector, which is precisely the part computed with the uncontrolled approximation. The source correction to the flux is O(B^2 r^2), and the omitted effects (RWZ potential modification, gravitational-electromagnetic perturbation coupling, near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function) are also O(B^2 r^2) — there is no parametric separation.

    Authors: The referee is correct on all substantive points, and we will revise the manuscript accordingly. We address each aspect in turn. (1) No parametric separation. We agree that the source correction to the flux and the omitted radiative-sector effects (RWZ potential modification, gravitational–electromagnetic perturbation coupling, near-zone-to-far-zone transfer function) all scale as O(B²r²) in the weak-field regime. There is indeed no parametric separation between the effects we retain and those we omit. Our current manuscript text acknowledges this qualitatively (Section II.D, paragraph following Eq. 31), but it does not state clearly enough that the retained and omitted dissipative-sector corrections are of the same order. We will revise this discussion to make the absence of parametric separation explicit. (2) Substantial dissipative contribution to the headline result. The referee is also correct that the dissipative contribution to δΦ is comparable to the conservative contribution, as shown by the decomposition in Eq. (39) and the zero-crossing in Fig. 3. This means the headline 1.3 rad dephasing at B=4×10⁻⁵ is not a purely conservative-sector result; it depends on the source-corrected flux, which carries an uncontrolled O(1) relative systematic uncertainty. We will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript, both in Section III.A and in the Abstract/Conclusions, by qualifying the 1.3 rad figure as an order-of-magnitude estimate with an uncontrolled systematic uncertainty of order unity in the dissipative sector. (3) What can be salvaged. The conservative-sector results — the magnetic corrections to E, Lz, Ωϕ [Eqs. (8)–(12)], the ISCO shift [Eq. (27)], and the direct frequency shift at fixed radius (the first term in Eq. 39) — are computed exactly from the Ernst revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dephasing and mismatch are forward computations from stated physical assumptions, not fits or definitions restated as predictions.

full rationale

The paper computes EMRI dephasing and mismatch from a magnetically corrected Ernst metric, standard RWZ perturbation theory, and a source-corrected approximation. The dimensionless magnetic field parameter B is an input, not a fitted constant. The orbital frequencies (Eq. 10), ISCO shift (Eq. 25), GW fluxes (Eqs. 30-31), dephasing (Eq. 37), and mismatch (Eqs. 43-45) are all derived through forward computation from the Ernst geometry and standard RWZ formalism. No step reduces to its own inputs by construction. The source-corrected RWZ approximation (Section II.D) is an explicitly stated physical approximation with acknowledged systematic uncertainties, not a circular definition. Self-citations to prior work by the authors (Refs. 11-13) provide the dephasing criterion of ~1 radian, which is a standard threshold from the broader EMRI literature (also citing Refs. 86, 92, 93 by other authors), not a self-defined target. The mismatch threshold M ~ 0.01 follows from standard formulas (D=8, rho=20) via external citations (Refs. 92, 93). The central result — that B ~ 4×10^-5 M^-1 produces ~1.3 rad dephasing — is a numerical output of the computation, not a quantity fitted to or defined in terms of the target. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and the derivation chain is not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The Ernst solution is a known exact solution of Einstein-Maxwell equations. The free parameters are fiducial astrophysical choices and a scanned magnetic field strength, not fitted constants.

free parameters (5)
  • B (dimensionless magnetic field parameter) = varied: 10^-6 to 10^-2; threshold at 4×10^-5
    Input parameter of the Ernst metric, not fitted but scanned. Converted to physical units via B_phys = 2.36×10^19 × B × (M_sun/M) G.
  • M (mass of central black hole) = 10^6 M_sun
    Fiducial choice for a LISA-band EMRI.
  • mu (mass of secondary) = 10 M_sun
    Fiducial choice giving mass ratio eta=10^-5.
  • r_0 (initial orbital radius) = 9.2313 M
    Chosen so that the Schwarzschild reference inspiral lasts one year before ISCO.
  • Source orientation angles (theta_S, phi_S, theta_K, phi_K) = pi/3, pi/2, pi/4, pi/4
    Fixed fiducial values for detector response computation.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Ernst (magnetized Schwarzschild) metric is a valid effective near-zone description of the spacetime around a MBH with a surrounding magnetic field.
    Section II.A: the metric is not asymptotically flat, so it is treated as a near-zone model matched to an asymptotically flat exterior at large radii.
  • ad hoc to paper The dominant magnetic-field effect on EMRI waveforms enters through the orbital dynamics (source term), not through modification of the RWZ propagation potentials.
    Section II.D: the Schwarzschild RWZ potentials are kept fixed while the source is evaluated on the magnetized orbit. The authors state this isolates the leading orbital effect but do not prove the omitted radiative-sector corrections are subdominant.
  • domain assumption The secondary compact object is a neutral point particle.
    Section I: the secondary is treated as a neutral point particle on equatorial circular geodesics, ignoring finite-size effects and possible charge.
  • domain assumption The l=2 multipole truncation captures the dominant GW flux.
    Section II.D: only the leading quadrupolar sector l=2 is retained in the flux sum.
  • standard math An accumulated dephasing of ~1 radian indicates potential distinguishability by LISA for SNR~20.
    Section II.D, citing Refs. [13, 86]: standard criterion in EMRI studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing near-zone magnetic fields with extreme mass-ratio inspirals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MT5RB43W

@misc{pith2026260705909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing near-zone magnetic fields with extreme mass-ratio inspirals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MT5RB43W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.05909}
}
abstract

We investigate whether weak near-zone magnetic fields can leave observable imprints on extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) waveforms. The central massive black hole is modeled by the magnetized Schwarzschild, or Ernst, solution, and the secondary compact object is treated as a neutral point particle on equatorial circular geodesics. We compute the magnetic corrections to the circular-orbit quantities and the innermost stable circular orbit, and then evolve the inspiral using a hybrid, source-corrected Regge--Wheeler--Zerilli approximation, in which the Schwarzschild wave-propagation potentials are kept fixed while the source is evaluated on the magnetized orbit. For a fiducial system with \(M=10^6M_\odot\) and \(\mu=10M_\odot\), a field strength \(B\simeq 4\times10^{-5}M^{-1}\), corresponding to \(B_{\rm phys}\sim10^9\,{\rm G}\), produces a one-year dephasing of about \(1.3\) rad and reaches the adopted LISA-noise-weighted mismatch threshold. Our results suggest that EMRIs can in principle probe extremely strong near-zone magnetic fields, whereas ordinary magnetic environments around massive black holes are likely too weak to produce detectable effects within the present approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.05909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The radius of ISCO for various magnetic field pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the orbital radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Difference in the azimuthal orbital frequency, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Accumulated dephasing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of the plus polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Mismatch between EMRI waveforms with and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 93 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Meiet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021)

    J. Meiet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A107 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Taiji Program: Gravitational-Wave Sources

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Science with the space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme mass-ratio inspirals

    S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Mapping spacetimes with LISA: inspiral of a test-body in a `quasi-Kerr' field

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    Using LISA EMRI sources to test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive black holes

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel.22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zi, J.-D

    T.-G. Zi, J.-D. Zhang, H.-M. Fan, X.-T. Zhang, Y.-M. Hu, C. Shi, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D104, 064008 (2021), arXiv:2104.06047 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Zi and P.-C

    T. Zi and P.-C. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, 064089 (2024), arXiv:2311.07279 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Zi and P.-C

    T. Zi and P.-C. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, 084001 (2023), arXiv:2306.02683 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Zi, C.-Q

    T. Zi, C.-Q. Ye, and P.-C. Li, JCAP10, 066, arXiv:2311.15532 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Datta, R

    S. Datta, R. Brito, S. A. Hughes, T. Klinger, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D110, 024048 (2024), arXiv:2404.04013 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C

    A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C. F. Sopuerta, Test- ing Gravity with Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals (2024) arXiv:2401.08085 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Zi, Phys

    T. Zi, Phys. Lett. B850, 138538 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Zi and S

    T. Zi and S. Kumar, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 592 (2025), arXiv:2409.17765 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Charmousis, D. D. Doneva, G. N. Gyulchev, and S. S. Yazadjiev, JCAP06, 065, arXiv:2403.16192 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kumar, T

    S. Kumar, T. Zi, and A. Bhattacharyya, (2025), arXiv:2507.03380 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. Zare, T. Zhu, L. M. Nieto, S. Lu, and H. Hassanabadi, JCAP01, 059, arXiv:2510.05166 [gr-qc]

  13. [21]

    LaHaye, C

    M. LaHaye, C. Weller, D. Li, P. Bourg, Y. Chen, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D113, 024069 (2026), arXiv:2510.16102 [gr-qc]

    2026

  14. [22]

    L. Zhao, M. Tang, and Z. Xu, JCAP10, 002, arXiv:2503.06503 [gr-qc]

  15. [23]

    Lu, H.-J

    S. Lu, H.-J. Lin, T. Zhu, Y.-X. Liu, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 283 (2026), arXiv:2512.11911 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Z.-W. Xia, S. Long, Q. Pan, J. Jing, and W.-L. Qian, (2026), arXiv:2602.11039 [gr-qc]

    2026

  17. [25]

    Long, Z.-w

    S. Long, Z.-w. Xia, H. Gong, Z. Cao, Q. Pan, and J. Jing, (2026), arXiv:2605.05362 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    P. F. Muguruza and C. F. Sopuerta, (2026), arXiv:2604.06053 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Kocsis, N

    B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

    2011 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, 063007 (2021), arXiv:2104.01208 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. G. Arunet al.(LISA), Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Speri, A

    L. Speri, A. Antonelli, L. Sberna, S. Babak, E. Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. X13, 021035 (2023), arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N. Dai, Y. Gong, Y. Zhao, and T. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084080 (2024), arXiv:2301.05088 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    T. Zi, Z. Zhou, H.-T. Wang, P.-C. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, 023005 (2023)

    2023

  27. [35]

    Y. Zhao, N. Dai, and Y. Gong, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.543, 2326 (2025), arXiv:2410.06882 [gr-qc]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Jiang and W.-B

    Y. Jiang and W.-B. Han, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 270411 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Mitra, N

    S. Mitra, N. Speeney, S. Chakraborty, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D112, 044030 (2025), arXiv:2505.04697 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vicente, T

    R. Vicente, T. K. Karydas, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 211401 (2025), arXiv:2505.09715 [gr-qc]

    2025

  31. [39]

    Y. Wang, R. Tang, W. Han, and E. Liang, Symmetry17, 1878 (2025)

    2025

  32. [40]

    Polcar and V

    L. Polcar and V. Witzany, Phys. Rev. D112, 104003 (2025), arXiv:2507.15720 [gr-qc]

    2025

  33. [41]

    Kejriwal, E

    S. Kejriwal, E. Barausse, and A. J. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D113, 064001 (2026), arXiv:2510.17398 [gr-qc]

    2026

  34. [42]

    Luoet al., Living Rev

    J. Luoet al., Living Rev. Rel.29, 1 (2026), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Dyson, T

    C. Dyson, T. F. M. Spieksma, R. Brito, M. van de Meent, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 211403 (2025), arXiv:2501.09806 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Haroon and T

    S. Haroon and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D112, 044046 (2025), arXiv:2502.09171 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. Das, S. Dalui, B.-H. Lee, and Y.-F. Cai, (2025), arXiv:2512.04848 [gr-qc]

    2025

  38. [46]

    Rahman and T

    M. Rahman and T. Takahashi, Phys. Rev. D113, 044033 (2026), arXiv:2507.06923 [gr-qc]

    2026

  39. [47]

    Hegade K

    A. Hegade K. R., C. F. Gammie, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D112, 124012 (2025), arXiv:2509.20457 [gr-qc]

    2025

  40. [48]

    Zhao and Y

    Y. Zhao and Y. Gong, (2026), arXiv:2602.12022 [gr-qc]

    2026

  41. [49]

    T. Zi, M. Rahman, and S. Kumar, (2026), arXiv:2601.03374 [gr-qc]

    2026

  42. [50]

    Azreg-A¨ ınou, M

    M. Azreg-A¨ ınou, M. Jamil, and E. N. Saridakis, (2026), arXiv:2602.19541 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    G. W. Gibbons, Commun. Math. Phys.44, 245 (1975)

    1975

  44. [52]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society179, 433 (1977)

    1977

  45. [53]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L12 (2021), arXiv:2105.01169 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L13 (2021), arXiv:2105.01173 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    R. P. Eatoughet al., Nature501, 391 (2013), arXiv:1308.3147 [astro-ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Del Santo, J

    M. Del Santo, J. Malzac, R. Belmont, L. Bouchet, and G. De Cesare, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.430, 209 (2013), arXiv:1212.2040 [astro-ph.HE]. 11

    2013 arXiv

  49. [57]

    F. J. Ernst, J. Math. Phys.17, 54 (1976)

    1976

  50. [58]

    M. A. Melvin, Phys. Lett.8, 65 (1964)

    1964

  51. [59]

    B. K. Harrison, J. Math. Phys.9, 1744 (1968)

    1968

  52. [60]

    F. J. Ernst and W. J. Wild, J. Math. Phys.17, 182 (1976)

    1976

  53. [61]

    L. Liu, Ø. Christiansen, W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and S. P. Kim, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1048 (2021), arXiv:2011.13586 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Uktamov, M

    U. Uktamov, M. Fathi, J. Rayimbaev, and A. Ab- dujabbarov, Phys. Rev. D110, 084084 (2024), arXiv:2406.03371 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Podolsky and H

    J. Podolsky and H. Ovcharenko, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181401 (2025), arXiv:2507.05199 [gr-qc]

    2025

  56. [64]

    X. Wang, Y. Hou, X. Wan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, JCAP 02, 050, arXiv:2507.22494 [gr-qc]

  57. [65]

    Li, H.-P

    X.-Q. Li, H.-P. Yan, and X.-J. Yue, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 176 (2026), arXiv:2512.02921 [gr-qc]

    2026

  58. [66]

    H. M. Siahaan, (2026), arXiv:2603.00653 [gr-qc]

    2026

  59. [67]

    Zeng and K

    X.-X. Zeng and K. Wang, Phys. Rev. D112, 064032 (2025), arXiv:2507.21777 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  60. [68]

    R. Tang, L. Liu, and W.-B. Han, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 201 (2026), arXiv:2512.04806 [gr-qc]

    2026

  61. [69]

    Wang, X.-C

    C.-H. Wang, X.-C. Meng, and S.-W. Wei, (2026), arXiv:2602.03161 [gr-qc]

    2026

  62. [70]

    W. Liu, Y. Liu, D. Wu, and Y.-X. Liu, (2025), arXiv:2511.06017 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Zhang and S.-W

    Y.-K. Zhang and S.-W. Wei, Phys. Rev. D113, 104024 (2026), arXiv:2510.07914 [gr-qc]

    2026

  64. [72]

    Yuan and X

    X. Yuan and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2603.05084 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Vachher, A

    A. Vachher, A. Kumar, and S. G. Ghosh, JCAP11, 021, arXiv:2508.21100 [gr-qc]

  66. [74]

    H. M. Siahaan, Nucl. Phys. B1028, 117514 (2026), arXiv:2512.12533 [gr-qc]

    2026

  67. [75]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, Q. Wu, and T. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2602.09453 [gr-qc]

    2026

  68. [76]

    Rehman, S

    H. Rehman, S. Shaymatov, S. Hussain, and T. Zhu, (2026), arXiv:2603.18129 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  69. [77]

    Zhang, X.-Q

    Z.-Y. Zhang, X.-Q. Li, H.-P. Yan, and X.-J. Yue, (2026), arXiv:2605.09593 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Hu, R.-G

    L. Hu, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, (2026), arXiv:2603.18821 [gr-qc]

    2026

  71. [79]

    X. Wan, Z. Zhang, F.-S. Wei, Y. Hou, and B. Chen, (2026), arXiv:2603.25049 [gr-qc]

    2026

  72. [80]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D10, 1680 (1974)

    1974

  73. [81]

    F. D. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D52, 5707 (1995)

    1995

  74. [82]

    D. D. Doneva, S. S. Yazadjiev, N. Stergioulas, K. D. Kokkotas, and T. M. Athanasiadis, Phys. Rev. D90, 044004 (2014), arXiv:1405.6976 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Kluzniak, Astrophysics300, 127 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0411709

    2005 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D71, 104003 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502028

    2005 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Martel, Phys

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

    2004

  78. [86]

    Datta, R

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

    2020 arXiv

  79. [87]

    J. N. Goldberg, A. J. MacFarlane, E. T. Newman, F. Rohrlich, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, J. Math. Phys. 8, 2155 (1967)

    1967

  80. [88]

    Cutler, Phys

    C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D57, 7089 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9703068

    1998

  81. [89]

    T. A. Apostolatos, C. Cutler, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D49, 6274 (1994)

    1994

  82. [90]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D69, 082005 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310125

    2004 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Robson, N

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

    2019 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  85. [93]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4566 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710129

    1998 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.