Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Dark matter minispike: a significant enhancement of eccentricity for intermediate-mass-ratio-inspirals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that dynamical friction from a dark matter minispike can dramatically increase the eccentricity of an intermediate-mass-ratio inspiral, keeping it above 0.95 into the LISA band.

desk verdict Useful new secular equations, but the quantitative eccentricity enhancement is unsupported because the drag law is applied outside its valid regime. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10241 v1 pith:NP2CNEOC submitted 2019-08-27 astro-ph.HE

Xiao-Jun Yue , Zhoujian Cao This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords darkmatterminispikedynamicalfrictioneccentricityintermediate-mass-ratioinspiralgravitationalwavesLISAglobularclusterChandrasekhardrag
topics Dark Matter
open problems Dark Matter
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 argues that the dark matter minispike thought to surround intermediate-mass black holes does more than drag an inspiraling stellar-mass black hole inward: its velocity-dependent drag reverses the usual circularizing effect of gravitational radiation and pumps up the orbit's eccentricity. With an initial semi-latus rectum of about 1 AU, even a moderate spike raises the eccentricity from 0.3 to 0.85, and in a globular-cluster setting the eccentricity stays above 0.95 when the binary enters the LISA band. A detectable consequence follows: the gravitational-wave signal would show periastron bursts and cusps rather than a smooth circularizing chirp, with amplitude enhanced by up to five orders of magnitude, so LISA could use eccentricity alone to distinguish the presence of a minispike.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dark matter minispike profile $\rho_{\rm DM}(r)=\rho_{\rm sp}(r_{\rm sp}/r)^{\alpha}$ with $1.5<\alpha<7/3$, combined with the Chandrasekhar dynamical friction force $F_{\rm DF}=4\pi G^2\mu^2\rho_{\rm DM}\ln\Lambda/v^2$. The argument runs through the orbit-averaged rates of energy and angular momentum loss: because the drag is $\propto v^{-2}$, the orbital average weights it most heavily at apastron, so the friction contributes a negative term to $\dot{e}$ that counteracts the Peters--Mathews gravitational-wave circularization. The decisive comparison is in Eq. (18): the friction term scales as $p^{3/2-\alpha}$ and the gravitational-wave term as $p^{-4}$, so for large $p$ the dark matter force wins and the eccentricity grows until the binary shrinks enough for gravitational waves to take over.

What would settle it

A self-consistent calculation of the energy deposited into the minispike during the inspiral: if that deposited energy exceeds the spike's binding energy at apocenter for the large initial separations used here (hundreds to thousands of AU), the spike erodes and the predicted $e>0.95$ in the LISA band fails. Observationally, LISA detecting an IMRI entering the band at low eccentricity would rule out the strong-enhancement scenario for that source.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper derives orbit-averaged adiabatic evolution equations for the semi-latus rectum $p$ and eccentricity $e$ that include both gravitational-wave back-reaction and dynamical friction from a power-law dark matter minispike with density $\rho_{\rm DM}(r)=\rho_{\rm sp}(r_{\rm sp}/r)^{\alpha}$. Its central finding is that the friction force, $\propto \rho/v^2$, is largest near apastron, so it removes more energy at apastron than at periastron and therefore increases eccentricity. In the $p$--$e$ evolution the friction term scales as $p^{3/2-\alpha}$ while the gravitational-wave term scales as $p^{-4}$, so at large separation friction dominates and $e$ grows; gravitational-wave circularization wins only at small $p$. With $\alpha=1.5$ and initial $p=1$ AU the eccentricity grows from 0.3 to 0.85, and for denser spikes it can approach 1. In a typical globular cluster, after dynamical hardening leaves the binary at $a_0\simeq 158$--$4253$ AU with $e_0\simeq 0.98$, the eccentricity remains above 0.95 at $10^{-4}$ Hz and above 0.9 at $10^{-3}$ Hz, whereas without dark matter it drops below 0.2 and then below 0.02; the corresponding waveforms show periastron cusps and amplitude gains of two to five orders.

Load-bearing premise

That the dark matter minispike is not substantially eroded or heated by the very dynamical friction that drives the inspiral; if the spike unbinds as it gives up energy to the orbit, the eccentricity enhancement could largely disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • IMRIs with a surviving minispike can enter the LISA band on highly eccentric orbits, so the emitted signal is a train of periastron bursts rather than a quasi-circular chirp.
  • Eccentricity at $10^{-4}$ Hz becomes a dark-matter diagnostic: with a spike $e>0.95$, without a spike $e<0.2$.
  • The gravitational-wave amplitude at $10^{-3}$ Hz is amplified by two to five orders of magnitude in the spiky cases, improving the chance of detection.
  • The minispike shifts the separation at which hardening hands over to gravitational waves from $\simeq 3.5$ AU to $\simeq 158$--$4253$ AU depending on $\alpha$, which changes the expected IMRI population and merger rate.
  • Even when gravitational waves eventually dominate at small $p$, a moderate spike still substantially slows the rate of circularization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same apastron-drag mechanism should operate for extreme-mass-ratio inspirals around supermassive black holes if a dark matter spike survives there; the effect should scale with $\rho_{\rm sp}$ and $\alpha$, so LISA eccentricity measurements could constrain spike density profiles.
  • The feedback caveat the authors flag may be especially severe in their globular-cluster scenario: at apocenter separations of hundreds to thousands of AU the orbital velocity is only a few km/s, where the $v^{-2}$ drag is strongest and the spike's binding energy is smallest, so self-consistent spike erosion could cut the eccentricity enhancement substantially.
  • If scattering processes replenish the minispike even as friction heats it, the high-eccentricity prediction could survive feedback; whether the cusp can be regenerated on the inspiral timescale is a testable question.
  • The competition criterion $p^{3/2-\alpha}$ versus $p^{-4}$ implies a threshold initial separation above which eccentricity grows; mapping that threshold as a function of $\alpha$ and $\rho_{\rm sp}$ would let population studies predict which IMRIs should show cusped waveforms.
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, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives adiabatic secular evolution equations for an eccentric intermediate-mass-ratio inspiral (IMRI) under gravitational-wave back-reaction and dynamical friction against a power-law dark-matter minispike around an intermediate-mass black hole. The central claim is that dynamical friction, being inversely proportional to velocity squared, dissipates more energy near apastron than near periastron and therefore increases the eccentricity; for a moderate minispike the eccentricity can grow from 0.3 to 0.85, and in a globular-cluster model the eccentricity can remain above 0.95 when the system enters the LISA band. The paper also presents waveforms and argues that the DM-induced eccentricity is distinguishable by LISA.

Significance. If the central claim were correct, the paper would provide a concrete way to infer the presence of DM minispikes from the eccentricity of IMRI signals, which would be of genuine interest for LISA, Taiji, and Tianqin. The derivation of Eqs. (15)-(18) is compact and the adiabatic averaging is standard, and the paper explicitly acknowledges the competing roles of GW circularization and dynamical friction. However, the quantitative predictions rest on the velocity dependence of the drag law, and that dependence is used outside its domain of validity in exactly the regime that produces the headline eccentricity enhancement. The claimed effect is therefore not established by the present analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (13); Sec. III, GC parameters] Equation (13) is the high-velocity (or zero-dispersion) limit of the Chandrasekhar drag formula, but the paper neither states this nor specifies the velocity dispersion sigma of the DM spike. The full formula is F = (4*pi*G^2*mu^2*rho*ln(Lambda)/v^2) * [erf(X) - (2X/sqrt(pi))*exp(-X^2)] with X = v/(sqrt(2)*sigma), and for X << 1 the force scales as F proportional to v, not v^{-2}. In the globular-cluster case of Sec. III, the alpha = 7/3 run starts at a0 = 4253 AU and e0 = 0.98, giving p ~ 168 AU and an apocenter speed of roughly 2 km/s, while the local circular speed of the spike is of order 15 km/s, so X ~ 0.1 at apocenter. In this subsonic regime the apocenter drag is suppressed by orders of magnitude relative to the v^{-2} formula, and the energy-loss rate F*v is proportional to v^2, so it is largest near periastron rather than apastron. This reverses the sign of the dynamical-friction contribution to the eccentricity evolution in Eq. (18), or at minimum eliminates the claimed enhancement. The central results in Figs. 1-3 are therefore not supported by the adopted drag law.
  2. [Sec. III, static-spike assumption] The calculations assume a fixed minispike profile rho(r) of Eq. (1), but the final paragraph before the Summary correctly notes that dynamical friction heats and can unbind part of the spike. For the large initial semi-major axes used in the globular-cluster model (hundreds to thousands of AU), the DM binding energy within the orbital radius is small and the secondary's apocenter speed is only a few km/s, so the back-reaction of the inspiraling body on the spike is likely to be significant. Unless the density profile is evolved self-consistently or a quantitative argument is given that the spike survives, the eccentricity curves and waveform predictions should be regarded as upper limits rather than robust predictions.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (31) and Fig. 4] The Bessel expansion of the eccentric anomaly is printed incorrectly: the standard expansion is u = Omega*t + sum_s (2/s) J_s(s e) sin(s Omega*t), but Eq. (31) has sin(Omega*t) inside the sum, which drops the harmonic index and would give an incorrect time series for r(t), phi(t), and the waveforms in Fig. 4. Relatedly, the claimed amplitude enhancement of up to five orders of magnitude is difficult to reconcile with Eq. (24): at the quoted eccentricities the pericenter radius is roughly a factor 1/(1-e) smaller than apastron, which gives amplitude ratios of order 10-100 for the eccentricities reported at 10^{-3} Hz, not 10^5. The waveform and detectability claims need to be recomputed from a correct Keplerian expansion.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III and Fig. 3 caption] The text gives the alpha = 7/3 initial semi-major axis as 4253 AU, while the Fig. 3 caption states a0 = 5253 AU; one of these is a typo and should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (16)] The denominator contains '2e cos alpha + 1', which should read '2e cos phi + 1'.
  3. [Abstract and Summary] There are minor typographical errors, including 'easly' in the abstract and 'minislike' and 'DM minislike cases' in the Summary.
  4. [Sec. III, discussion of harmonics] The statement that for highly eccentric orbits 'the most powerful harmonic should be n = 1' is not correct in general; for high eccentricity the gravitational-wave spectrum peaks at high harmonics, n ~ (1-e^2)^{-3/2}. The text should be revised to be consistent with the standard harmonic decomposition.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the eccentricity enhancement is a derived consequence of the adopted v^-2 dynamical-friction law, not an input reused as a conclusion.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from Newtonian orbital elements, the paper computes the time-averaged energy and angular momentum losses from Peters-Mathews GW emission (Eqs. 11-12) and from Chandrasekhar dynamical friction (Eq. 13, parameterized by the independent minispike model of Eda et al. 2015 with r_sp = 0.54 pc, rho_sp = 226 Msun/pc^3 and alpha in [1.5, 7/3]). These are substituted into the identities for dp/dt and de/dt (Eqs. 7-8) to obtain Eqs. 17-18 and 19-20; the reported eccentricities (e.g. 0.3 to 0.85, e > 0.95 at 10^-4 Hz) are outputs of numerical integration of those coupled equations. No parameter entering the target result is fitted to that result; the GC initial conditions are fixed by equating the hardening and DM timescales, not by requiring the final e. The only self-citations ([10], [11], [29]) are used as routine support for the dominance of dynamical friction and for standard harmonic decomposition; they do not supply the eccentricity prediction or a uniqueness theorem that forces it. The authors' explicit caveat that minispike heating may erode the spike is a stated limitation, not a circular reduction. The physical validity of using the high-velocity v^-2 form at subsonic apocenter velocities is a legitimate correctness concern, but it concerns the input force law, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. It relies on the standard Chandrasekhar drag law, a fixed power-law spike profile with parameters from prior work, and several domain assumptions about the GC hardening process and the survival of the spike. The free parameters are mostly taken from literature or scanned, not fitted to the target eccentricity enhancement.

free parameters (6)
  • Spike power-law index α = 1.5, 2.0, 7/3 (scanned)
    Sets the density profile ρ∝r^{-α}; the paper scans three values rather than fitting, but the enhancement magnitude depends strongly on α.
  • Spike density normalization ρ_sp = 226 M_sun/pc^3
    Adopted from Eda et al. (2015); fixed across α, though internal consistency would scale it with α for a fixed spike mass.
  • Spike radius r_sp = 0.54 pc
    Adopted from Eda et al. (2015); the power law is assumed valid for all r below r_sp.
  • Coulomb logarithm lnΛ = 10
    Chosen constant; the standard DF integral over impact parameters is reduced to a constant.
  • GC hardening parameters (H, σ, n, m*) = H=15, σ=10 km/s, n=10^5.5/pc^3, m*=0.5 M_sun
    Used to set the initial semi-major axis for the globular cluster case via timescale equality.
  • Initial eccentricity after hardening e0 = 0.98
    Taken from Gultekin et al. (2006) as a typical value; the same e0 is used for all DM profiles even though the hardening history differs.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Newtonian orbital mechanics and Peters-Mathews leading-order GW fluxes
    Used in Eqs. (11)-(12) and the Keplerian orbit average; well-established background.
  • domain assumption Chandrasekhar dynamical friction with F ∝ 1/v^2 and constant lnΛ
    Eq. (13) assumes a cold background where the object moves much faster than the medium's velocity dispersion; not justified at large orbital radii.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation
    Assumes the orbit remains Keplerian over each period, with dissipation timescales much longer than the orbital period.
  • domain assumption The DM minispike has a single power law down to the central IMBH and is not eroded by the inspiral
    The paper's last paragraph of Sec. III explicitly flags that heating may unbind parts of the spike and could change the results.
  • domain assumption The gravitational potential of the DM spike is neglected
    Only dynamical friction is included, justified by citing Yue & Han (2018) that DF predominates.
  • domain assumption Dynamical hardening terminates when its timescale equals the DM inspiral timescale, and the final eccentricity is 0.98
    Used in Sec. III to set initial conditions for the globular cluster case; the eccentricity value comes from Gultekin et al. (2006).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark matter minispike: a significant enhancement of eccentricity for intermediate-mass-ratio-inspirals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NP2CNEOC

@misc{pith2026190810241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark matter minispike: a significant enhancement of eccentricity for intermediate-mass-ratio-inspirals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NP2CNEOC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10241}
}
abstract

When a stellar massive compact object, such as a black hole (BH), inspirals into an intermediate massive black hole (IMBH), an intermediate-mass-ratio-inspiral (IMRI) system forms. Such kind of systems are important sources for space-based gravitational wave detectors including LISA, Taiji and Tianqin. Dark matter (DM) minispikes may form around IMBHs. We study the effect of dynamical friction against DM minispike on the evolution of eccentric IMRI. For such investigation we construct the dynamical equations which describes the evolution of eccentric IMRI under the effect of dynamical friction. As dynamical friction is large for small velocity, the dissipation of energy near apastron is more than that near periastron. This will greatly enhance the eccentricity. For instance, with an initial semi-latus rectum of $1\rm AU$, even a moderate DM minispike can make the eccentricity grow from $0.3$ to $0.85$. In the extremal case the eccentricity could be enhanced to near $1$. We also study a specific case which corresponds to an IMRI in the center of a globular cluster (GC) and find the eccentricity can keep its value above $0.95$ until the IMRI enters LISA band. These gravitational wave with enhanced eccentricity by DM minispikes can be easly distinguished from that without DM at $10^{-3}\rm Hz$ due to the eccentricity difference. These anticipations can be tested by future space-based GW detectors such as LISA.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10241 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The evolution of eccentricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The evolution of eccentricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The evolution of eccentricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The GW waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Black hole spacetimes with dark matter spikes: Energy-momentum tensor and backreaction effects

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dark-matter spike built from the full orbital motion of its particles has ~50% more energy density near the black hole and produces metric deviations ~2.5 times larger than mass-only models.

  2. Extreme mass ratio inspirals in rotating dark matter spikes

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Spin of the central black hole raises the dark matter spike density and the gravitational-wave dephasing it produces, so LISA can detect the dark matter effect more easily.

  3. Dynamical friction can flip the hierarchical three-body system

    gr-qc 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Dynamical friction from a dark matter spike can restore orbital flips in hierarchical triple systems that Brown's Hamiltonian would otherwise suppress.

  4. Probing vector gravitational atoms with eccentric intermediate mass-ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2024-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Eccentric intermediate-mass-ratio inspirals around vector gravitational atoms acquire faster decay, stronger circularization, and negative periastron precession, making the cloud visible to LISA-like detectors.

  5. On Equation of State of Dark Matter around Massive Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Static dark matter halos around Schwarzschild black holes are viable only if the dark matter pressure is negative, under two toy equations of state and a vanishing horizon-density boundary condition.

  6. Classical Black Hole Scattering to Celestial Amplitudes in Effective Theories of Gravity

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A doctoral thesis reproduces the author's published post-Newtonian and post-Minkowskian two-body observables and celestial amplitudes in scalar-tensor, Chern-Simons, Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton, and quadratic gravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages · cited by 6 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    dynamical hardening

    95 at the gravitational wave frequency 10 −4Hz, which is the lower side of LISA band. Such a large eccentricity will result in a series of cusps in GW waveforms, which can be used to distinguish the existence of DM minispike. This paper is organized as following. In the Sec. II we will derive the dynamical equations for an eccentric IMRI affected by a DM m...

    work page

  2. [2]

    J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, The Astrophysical Journal 490, 493 (1997)

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Gondolo and J

    P. Gondolo and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 1719 (1999)

    1999

  4. [4]

    Ullio, H

    P. Ullio, H. Zhao, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043504 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Merritt, M

    D. Merritt, M. Milosavljevi´ c, L. Verde, and R. Jimenez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 191301 (2002)

    work page 2002

  6. [6]

    Merritt, Phys

    D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 201304 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Bertone and D

    G. Bertone and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103502 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104059 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 221101 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044045 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Yue and W.-B

    X.-J. Yue and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064003 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    X. J. Yue, W. B. Han and X. Chen, Astrophysical. J 874, 34 (2019), 1802.03739

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Kavanagh, Daniele Gaggero, and Gian- franco Bertone, Phys

    Bradley J. Kavanagh, Daniele Gaggero, and Gian- franco Bertone, Phys. Rev. D 98, 023536 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    Gultekin, M

    K. Gultekin, M. C. Miller, and D. P. Hamilton, The As- trophysical Journal 640, 156 (2006)

    2006

  7. [15]

    Matsubayashi, J

    T. Matsubayashi, J. Makino, and T. Ebisuzaki, The As- trophysical Journal 656, 879 (2007)

    2007

  8. [16]

    M. A. G¨ urkan, J. M. Fregeau, and F. A. Rasio, The As- trophysical Journal 640, L39 (2006)

    2006

  9. [17]

    G. D. Quinlan, L. Hernquist, and S. Sigurdsson, Astro- phys. J. 440, 554 (1995), astro-ph/9407005

    1995 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007)

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press, New York, 2007)

    2007

  11. [19]

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

    1964

  12. [20]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. 131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  13. [21]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

    S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 97, 255 (1943)

    1943

  14. [22]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. R. Gair, M. Freitag, M. C. Miller, I. Mandel, C. J. Cutler, and S. Babak, Classical and Quantum Gravity 24, R113 (2007)

    2007

  15. [23]

    Feng and R

    H. Feng and R. Soria, New Astron. Rev. 55, 166 (2011), 1109.1610

    2011 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. A. Farrell, N. A. Webb, D. Barret, O. Godet, and J. M. Rodrigues, Nature (London) 460, 73 (2009), 1001.0567

    2009 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Zhao and J

    H. Zhao and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 011301 (2005)

    2005

  18. [26]

    Bertone, A

    G. Bertone, A. R. Zentner, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 72, 103517 (2005)

    2005

  19. [27]

    D. C. Heggie, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 173, 729 (1975)

    1975

  20. [28]

    Mandel, D

    I. Mandel, D. A. Brown, J. R. Gair, and M. C. Miller, Astrophys. J. 681, 1431 (2008), 0705.0285

    2008 arXiv

  21. [29]

    50 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series edited by S

    Structure and dynamics of globular clusters , vol. 50 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series edited by S. G. Djorgovski and G. Meylan, (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, 1993)

    1993

  22. [30]

    W. B. Han, Z. Cao, and Y. Hu, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34 225010(2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Gopakumar, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 70, 064028 (2004)

    2004

  24. [32]

    Gopakumar and B

    A. Gopakumar and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084011 (2002)

    2002

  25. [33]

    Preto, D

    M. Preto, D. Merritt, R. Spurzem, Astrophysical. J 613, L109 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    LISA official website: https://www.lisamission.org/

  27. [35]

    X. Gong, S. Xu, S. Bai, Z. Cao, G. Chen, Y. Chen, X. He, G. Heinzel, Y.-K. Lau, C. Liu, et al., Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 28, 094012 (2011)

    2011

  28. [36]

    Luo, L.-S

    J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y.-G. Gong, S. Hu, J. Ji, Q. Liu, J. Mei, V. Milyukov, M. Sazhin, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.