Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The AdS Perspective on the Nonlinear Tails in Black Hole Ringdown

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Late-time nonlinear tails of black hole ringdown follow from a hidden anti-de Sitter spacetime, with amplitudes fixed by conserved charges.

desk verdict AdS2 repackaging of a known nonlinear tail law, with a concrete amplitude error in the new Aretakis claim that a referee should catch. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14475 v1 pith:ONTRUBVR submitted 2025-06-17 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-phhep-th

Alex Kehagias , Antonio Riotto This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-phhep-th
keywords blackholeringdownnonlineartailsquasinormalmodesAdS2AretakisconstantsSchwarzschildspacetimelate-time
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 tries to establish that the recently observed nonlinear tails in Schwarzschild black hole ringdown are not an accident of perturbation theory but follow from a hidden symmetry. At large radius, the radial equation for a massless field on Schwarzschild coincides with the equation of a massive scalar on two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space ($AdS_2$) with mass squared $L(L+1)$. Using the $AdS_2$ Green function and a quadratic source built from two outgoing quasinormal modes, the paper derives the tail $\psi_L \simeq L!\,H_L\, r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2}$ and shows its amplitude is controlled by a conserved boundary charge, the Aretakis constant. If correct, this explains the numerical $t^{-10}$ tail for an $L=4$ mode sourced by two quadrupole modes and connects late-time ringdown to conserved charges.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the far-zone equivalence, $r_*\simeq r$, between the Schwarzschild radial equation and the massive-scalar equation on $AdS_2$ with mass squared $L(L+1)$, whose conformal weight is $\Delta=L+1$. This makes the relevant Green function the $AdS_2$ Green function $G_{\mathrm{AdS}_2}(\chi)=\frac{1}{2\pi}Q_L(\chi)$ with retarded part $\frac{1}{2}\theta(t-t')P_L(\chi)$, expressed in the invariant distance $\chi$. The argument then runs on the Legendre integral $\int_{-1}^{1} d\chi\, P_L(\chi)(a\chi+b)^n$, which vanishes for $n<L$; only the $n=L$ term in the expansion of $(1-2M/r')^{-1}$ survives, fixing both the $t^{-2L-2}$ power and the $(2M)^L$ amplitude. Finally, the Aretakis number $H_L=\partial_R^{L+1}\psi_L\big|_{R=0}$ in coordinates $R=1/r$, $v=t-1/R$ is conserved along $v$, tying the asymptotic tail amplitude to a boundary charge.

What would settle it

Compute the quadratic quasinormal-mode tail directly on a Schwarzschild background in a 3+1 numerical code and measure the amplitude as a function of $M$ and $L$: the paper predicts the tail $\psi_L \simeq L!\,H_L\, r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2}$ with mass dependence $(2M)^L$ set by the asserted measure factor; a different exponent in $M$, a different power of $t$, or a mismatch with the Aretakis-constant formula would falsify the construction. Alternatively, derive the measure factor $(1 - 2M/r')^{-1}$ from the full metric; if it is replaced by unity, the $(2M)^L$ prefactor disappears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the nonlinear quadratic $L$-mode sourced by the product of two linear quasinormal modes obeys $\left(\Box_{\mathrm{AdS}_2} - L(L+1)\right)\psi_L = A_L e^{-2i\omega_\ell u}$, the equation of a massive scalar on $AdS_2$ driven by a source localized in retarded time and spread over the advanced-time interval $v'\in(t-r,t+r)$. Integrating against the retarded $AdS_2$ Green function $\frac{1}{2}\theta(t-t')P_L(\chi)$, expanding the Schwarzschild measure factor $(1-2M/r')^{-1}$, and using the orthogonality of the Legendre polynomial $P_L$ leaves the first nonzero contribution at order $(2M)^L$. The result is $\psi_L \simeq L!\,H_L\, r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2}$, where $H_L$ is the conserved Aretakis constant; this reproduces the numerically observed $t^{-10}$ decay for the quartic mode made of two quadrupole modes.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the far-zone identification of the Schwarzschild perturbation equation with the massive-field equation on AdS2 and on treating the quadratic source as an infinitely thin outgoing null shell with the measure factor $(1 - 2M/r')^{-1}$; if either step is not exact, the derived power law and the $(2M)^L$ amplitude are not fixed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The nonlinear quadratic tail decays as $t^{-2L-2}$, giving $t^{-10}$ for the $L=4$ mode; because this is slower than the corresponding linear tail, the nonlinear tail can dominate at late times.
  • The tail amplitude is determined, not fitted: it is the product of the source's time integral, the factor $(2M)^L$, a combinatorial coefficient, and the conserved Aretakis constant.
  • The mechanism is distinct from the linear Price tail: the source is the outgoing quadratic quasinormal mode itself, so no backscattering off the potential at infinity is needed.
  • The power law and amplitude are fixed by $AdS_2$ isometries (dilations, time translations, conformal inversions) once the source is given, so the tail has a symmetry origin.
  • The same Green-function construction reproduces the known nonlinear tail results obtained earlier by direct computation, providing a cross-check of both methods.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same correspondence holds at higher orders in perturbation theory, every product of quasinormal modes should generate its own tail with a power set by the total multipole; a three-mode $L=6$ tail decaying as $t^{-14}$ would be a direct test that goes beyond the quadratic statement in the paper.
  • The amplitude-to-Aretakis-constant link suggests that a measured ringdown tail could be used to extract a boundary conserved charge from a gravitational-wave signal, giving waveform modelers and numerical relativists a new target.
  • The asserted measure factor $(1-2M/r')^{-1}$ controls the entire mass dependence of the amplitude; deriving it directly from the Schwarzschild metric at finite radius, rather than asserting it, would tighten the argument and sharpen the prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that nonlinear quadratic ringdown tails in Schwarzschild spacetime can be understood from an AdS2×S2 perspective. The authors show that the large-radius massive-scalar equation on the Schwarzschild background coincides with a massive scalar on AdS2, use the AdS2 Green function to integrate a quadratic source of the form A_L e^{-2iωℓ u}, and obtain a late-time tail scaling as t^{-2L-2}. They then claim that the amplitude of this tail is proportional to an Aretakis constant H_L, giving ψ_L ≈ L! H_L r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2}.

Significance. If the advertised amplitude relation is correct, the paper provides a compact, symmetry-based derivation of a nonlinear tail law that has recently found numerical support, and it connects the tail amplitude to a conserved Aretakis charge. The derivation is essentially parameter-free: it uses a known AdS2 Green function and a source ansatz from prior work, and it reproduces the previously established power-law scaling. However, the central new quantitative formula contains an algebraic error that changes the numerical coefficient of the tail amplitude, so the claim as written is not yet reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Relating the nonlinear quadratic ringdown tails to the Aretakis constants, Eqs. (40), (46), (47), (49), (50)] The (L+1)-th derivative at R=0 is computed incorrectly. From Eq. (40), I2 ≈ (−)^{L+1} B_L (2M)^L R^{L+1}/(Rv+1)^{2L+2} with B_L = 2^L L!(L−1)!/[(2L+1)(2L−1)!!]. The derivative of R^{L+1}/(Rv+1)^{2L+2} at R=0 equals (L+1)!, not L!. Therefore Eq. (47) is missing a factor (L+1), and the corrected relations are I2 ≈ H_L/[(L+1)! I1] r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2} and ψ_L ≈ H_L/(L+1)! r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2}. The paper's Eq. (50), ψ_L ≈ L! H_L r^{L+1}/t^{2L+2}, is off by a factor (L+1)(L!)^2 for L≥1. The qualitative relation to Aretakis constants survives, but the central quantitative formula must be corrected.
  2. [The nonlinear quadratic source, Eq. (33)] The measure factor (1 − 2M/r')^{-1} in the source integral is asserted without derivation. This factor is load-bearing because it controls the (2M)^L dependence of the tail amplitude. The authors should derive it explicitly from the change of variables r*' → r', including the relation d r*' = (1 − 2M/r')^{-1} d r', and state whether v' is t' + r*' or t' + r' in the integration. Without that derivation, the amplitude claim is not fully supported.
  3. [The nonlinear quadratic source, Eq. (46)] The denominator in Eq. (46) appears to have the wrong sign relative to the coordinate definition in Eq. (41). With v = t − 1/R, one has t = v + 1/R and hence R t = Rv + 1, so the denominator should be (Rv + 1)^{2L+2}, not (Rv − 1)^{2L+2}. Since the exponent is even, this does not affect the R=0 derivative, but the inconsistency should be clarified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (18) and surrounding text] Q_ℓ(χ) is the Legendre function of the second kind, not a Legendre polynomial; the text should say so explicitly.
  2. [Eq. (30)] The symbol P_L is used for the Legendre polynomial P_ℓ appearing in the discontinuity relation; the multipole index should be written consistently as ℓ (or the subscript L should be defined).
  3. [Abstract and text] The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'amplitude diminish' should be 'amplitudes diminish' or 'the amplitude diminishes'.
  4. [Text after Eq. (32)] There is a duplicated article in 'from the the AdS2×S2 perspective'; it should read 'from the AdS2×S2 perspective'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AdS2 Green-function derivation is independent, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular in the sense of predicting an input by construction. The identification of the large-radius Schwarzschild equation with the AdS2 massive-scalar equation (Eqs. (4) and (12)) is an independent leading-order rewriting; the Green function (Eq. (14)) is an external standard result; and the nonlinear tail is computed from an assumed quadratic source via the Green-function integral (Eqs. (33)-(40)), not fitted to the output. The source ansatz A_L e^{-2i omega_l u} in Eq. (32) is imported from prior work including the authors' own Ref. [71], but the present computation reproduces, rather than presupposes, the tail law of Refs. [70,71], so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The Aretakis relation (Eqs. (43)-(50)) is definitional: H_L is defined as the (L+1)-th R-derivative of psi_L at R=0, so expressing the tail amplitude through H_L is a rewriting rather than a fitted prediction; this is harmless because H_L is also computed independently from I2 in Eq. (47). The algebraic mismatch between Eqs. (40) and (47) (a missing factor (L+1) in the derivative) is a correctness risk, not circularity. No parameters are fitted and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters and no new entities. It relies on the far-zone AdS2 identification, a cited Green function, and a phenomenological quadratic source model from prior work. The main unstated load is the measure factor in Eq. (33) and the (incorrectly evaluated) Aretakis derivative.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption At large r, the tortoise coordinate satisfies r* ≈ r and the Schwarzschild potential reduces to ℓ(ℓ+1)/r^2 (Eq. 4).
    This is the standard far-zone approximation; it is the basis for identifying the problem with AdS2.
  • standard math The Green function of the massive scalar on AdS2 (Eq. 14) is taken from Refs. [72,73] and is used as the propagator for the tail problem.
    The paper cites prior derivations; it does not re-derive the invariant distance Green function.
  • domain assumption The quadratic source is modeled as a thin outgoing null shell: S = A_L e^{-2iωℓ u}, confined to u' ∈ [u0-δ, u0+δ], with amplitude decaying as 1/r^2 at infinity.
    This source ansatz is imported from prior nonlinear QNM analyses (Refs. [40,65,70,71]) and is not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The factor (1 - 2M/r')^{-1} in the source integral (Eq. 33) correctly accounts for the coordinate change from r* to r in the measure.
    The paper introduces this factor with the comment 'we have gone back to the variable r' but gives no derivation; it is responsible for the (2M)^L amplitude.
  • domain assumption The Aretakis number H_L (Eq. 43) is conserved (∂_v H_L = 0) and can be identified with the boundary tail amplitude.
    Appendix B derives the conservation law; the identification with the tail amplitude requires the (L+1)-th derivative calculation, which contains an algebraic error in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The AdS Perspective on the Nonlinear Tails in Black Hole Ringdown." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ONTRUBVR

@misc{pith2026250614475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The AdS Perspective on the Nonlinear Tails in Black Hole Ringdown},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ONTRUBVR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14475}
}
abstract

Black holes gradually settle into their static configuration by emitting gravitational waves, whose amplitude diminish over time according to a power-law decay at fixed spatial locations. We show that the nonlinear tails in the presence of a quadratic source, which have been recently found to potentially dominate over the linear ones, can be simply derived from the AdS$_2$$\times$S$^2$ spacetime perspective with their amplitudes being related to the Aretakis constants.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The causality diagram concerning an outgoing sig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Nonlinearities in Kerr Black Hole Ringdown from the Penrose Limit

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Kerr quadratic quasi-normal mode amplitudes and phases are computed analytically in the eikonal limit via the Penrose limit, giving an explicit spin-dependent nonlinearity ratio.

  2. The Nonlinear Tails in Black Hole Ringdown: the Scattering Perspective

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Nonlinear ringdown tails in the transverse-traceless gauge decay as t^{-(2ℓ+1)}, and this paper rederives that law from in-in scattering diagrams.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [71]

    S. Ling, S. Shah, and S. S. C. Wong, (2025), arXiv:2503.19967 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Berti et al., Class

    E. Berti et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [2]

    (A.6) One quantity that appears frequently is χ = 1 + σ = −(t − t′)2 + r2 + r′2 2rr′

    is σ(X, X′) = 1 2 ηM N(X − X ′)M (X − X ′)N , (A.5) which, by using the parametrization (A.3) is written as σ = −(t − t′)2 + (r − r′)2 2rr′ . (A.6) One quantity that appears frequently is χ = 1 + σ = −(t − t′)2 + r2 + r′2 2rr′ . (A.7) Both σ and χ are invariant under the SL(2) isometry group of AdS 2 corresponding to the invariance of the metric (A.4) und...

  4. [3]

    Berti, K

    E. Berti, K. Yagi, H. Yang, and N. Yunes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, 49 (2018), arXiv:1801.03587 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [4]

    Franciolini, L

    G. Franciolini, L. Hui, R. Penco, L. Santoni, and E. Trincherini, JHEP 02, 127 (2019), arXiv:1810.07706 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0512160

    arXiv 2006

  8. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel. 19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 81 references
  1. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    A. G. Abac et al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. 973, 132 (2024), arXiv:2308.03822 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [11]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2419 (1972)

    1972

  6. [13]

    R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D 5, 2439 (1972)

    1972

  7. [14]

    E. W. Leaver, Phys. Rev. D 34, 384 (1986)

    1986

  8. [15]

    Gundlach, R

    C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 883 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9307009

    1994 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Gundlach, R

    C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 890 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9307010

    1994 arXiv

  10. [17]

    E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, W. M. Suen, and K. Young, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2118 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9507035

    1995

  11. [18]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 344, 441 (1975)

    1975

  12. [19]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104003 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502028

    2005 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Barack, Phys

    L. Barack, Phys. Rev. D 59, 044017 (1999), arXiv:gr- qc/9811028

    1999

  14. [21]

    Berti, V

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

    2009 arXiv

  15. [22]

    E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, W. M. Suen, and K. Young, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2414 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9410044

    1995

  16. [23]

    Krivan, P

    W. Krivan, P. Laguna, and P. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4728 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9606003

    1996 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Krivan, P

    W. Krivan, P. Laguna, P. Papadopoulos, and N. An- dersson, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3395 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9702048

    1997

  18. [25]

    Krivan, Phys

    W. Krivan, Phys. Rev. D 60, 101501 (1999), arXiv:gr- qc/9907038

    1999

  19. [26]

    L. M. Burko and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D 67, 081502 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0209107

    2003 arXiv

  20. [27]

    L. M. Burko and G. Khanna, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 015014 (2009), arXiv:0711.0960 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Hod, Class

    S. Hod, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 028001 (2009), arXiv:0902.0237 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  22. [29]

    L. M. Burko and G. Khanna, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 025012 (2011), arXiv:1001.0541 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Racz and G

    I. Racz and G. Z. Toth, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 195003 (2011), arXiv:1104.4199 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Zengino˘ glu, G

    A. Zengino˘ glu, G. Khanna, and L. M. Burko, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1672 (2014), arXiv:1208.5839 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [32]

    L. M. Burko and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D 89, 044037 (2014), arXiv:1312.5247 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Baibhav, M

    V. Baibhav, M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, W. Del Pozzo, and F. Duque, (2023), arXiv:2302.03050 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    R. J. Gleiser, C. O. Nicasio, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, L117 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9510049

    1996 arXiv

  28. [35]

    R. J. Gleiser, C. O. Nicasio, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rept. 325, 41 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9807077

    2000 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Campanelli and C

    M. Campanelli and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 59, 124022 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811019

    1999 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Garat and R

    A. Garat and R. H. Price, Phys. Rev. D 61, 044006 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9909005

    2000 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Zlochower, R

    Y. Zlochower, R. Gomez, S. Husa, L. Lehner, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 68, 084014 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0306098

    2003

  32. [39]

    Brizuela, J

    D. Brizuela, J. M. Martin-Garcia, and G. A. Mena Marugan, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044039 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0607025

    2006 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Brizuela, J

    D. Brizuela, J. M. Martin-Garcia, and G. A. M. Marugan, Phys. Rev. D 76, 024004 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0703069

    2007

  34. [41]

    Nakano and K

    H. Nakano and K. Ioka, Phys. Rev. D 76, 084007 (2007), arXiv:0708.0450 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Brizuela, J

    D. Brizuela, J. M. Martin-Garcia, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D 80, 024021 (2009), arXiv:0903.1134 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  36. [43]

    J. L. Ripley, N. Loutrel, E. Giorgi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104018 (2021), arXiv:2010.00162 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Loutrel, J

    N. Loutrel, J. L. Ripley, E. Giorgi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104017 (2021), arXiv:2008.11770 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Pazos, D

    E. Pazos, D. Brizuela, J. M. Martin-Garcia, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D 82, 104028 (2010), arXiv:1009.4665 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Sberna, P

    L. Sberna, P. Bosch, W. E. East, S. R. Green, and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064046 (2022), arXiv:2112.11168 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Redondo-Yuste, G

    J. Redondo-Yuste, G. Carullo, J. L. Ripley, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 109, L101503 (2024), arXiv:2308.14796 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Mitman et al., Phys

    K. Mitman et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 081402 (2023), arXiv:2208.07380 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 081401 (2023), arXiv:2208.07374 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Ioka and H

    K. Ioka and H. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D 76, 061503 (2007), arXiv:0704.3467 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Kehagias, D

    A. Kehagias, D. Perrone, A. Riotto, and F. Riva, Phys. Rev. D 108, L021501 (2023), arXiv:2301.09345 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Khera, A

    N. Khera, A. Ribes Metidieri, B. Bonga, X. Jim´ enez Forteza, B. Krishnan, E. Poisson, D. Pook-Kolb, E. Schnetter, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 231401 (2023), arXiv:2306.11142 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Bucciotti, A

    B. Bucciotti, A. Kuntz, F. Serra, and E. Trincherini, JHEP 12, 048 (2023), arXiv:2309.08501 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Spiers, A

    A. Spiers, A. Pound, and J. Moxon, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064002 (2023), arXiv:2305.19332 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Ma and H

    S. Ma and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104070 (2024), arXiv:2401.15516 [gr-qc]. 7

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    Zhu et al

    H. Zhu et al. , Phys. Rev. D 109, 104050 (2024), arXiv:2401.00805 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Redondo-Yuste, D

    J. Redondo-Yuste, D. Pere˜ niguez, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044048 (2024), arXiv:2312.04633 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Bourg, R

    P. Bourg, R. Panosso Macedo, A. Spiers, B. Leather, B. Bonga, and A. Pound, (2024), arXiv:2405.10270 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Lagos, T

    M. Lagos, T. Andrade, J. Rafecas-Ventosa, and L. Hui, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024018 (2025), arXiv:2411.02264 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Perrone, T

    D. Perrone, T. Barreira, A. Kehagias, and A. Riotto, Nucl. Phys. B 999, 116432 (2024), arXiv:2308.15886 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Kehagias and A

    A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D 111, L041506 (2025), arXiv:2411.07980 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Bucciotti, V

    B. Bucciotti, V. Cardoso, A. Kuntz, D. Pere˜ niguez, and J. Redondo-Yuste, (2025), arXiv:2501.17950 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Quadratic quasinormal modes at null infinity on a schwarzschild spacetime,

    P. Bourg, R. P. Macedo, A. Spiers, B. Leather, B. B´ eatrice, and A. Pound, “Quadratic quasinormal modes at null infinity on a schwarzschild spacetime,” (2025), arXiv:2503.07432 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Ben Achour and H

    J. Ben Achour and H. Roussille, JCAP 07, 085 (2024), arXiv:2406.08159 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Kehagias, D

    A. Kehagias, D. Perrone, and A. Riotto, (2025), arXiv:2503.09350 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Okuzumi, K

    S. Okuzumi, K. Ioka, and M.-a. Sakagami, Phys. Rev. D 77, 124018 (2008), arXiv:0803.0501 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Lagos and L

    M. Lagos and L. Hui, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044040 (2023), arXiv:2208.07379 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Cardoso, G

    V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, M. De Amicis, F. Duque, T. Katagiri, D. Pereniguez, J. Redondo-Yuste, T. F. M. Spieksma, and Z. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D 109, L121502 (2024), arXiv:2405.12290 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [69]

    De Amicis et al., (2024), arXiv:2412.06887 [gr-qc]

    M. De Amicis et al., (2024), arXiv:2412.06887 [gr-qc]

    2024

  63. [70]

    S. Ma, M. A. Scheel, J. Moxon, K. C. Nelli, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, (2024), arXiv:2412.06906 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Kehagias and A

    A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, (2025), arXiv:2504.06224 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    C. P. Burgess and C. A. Lutken, Phys. Lett. B 153, 137 (1985)

    1985

  66. [74]

    Satoh and J

    Y. Satoh and J. Troost, JHEP 01, 027 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0212089

    2003 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Andersson, Phys

    N. Andersson, Phys. Rev. D 55, 468 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9607064

    1997

  68. [76]

    Spradlin and A

    M. Spradlin and A. Strominger, JHEP 11, 021 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9904143

    1999 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Handbook of mathematical functions,

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, eds., “Handbook of mathematical functions,” (NBS, Washington, DC, USA, 1964) pp. 32–33

    1964

  70. [78]

    Aretakis, Commun

    S. Aretakis, Commun. Math. Phys. 307, 17 (2011), arXiv:1110.2007 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Aretakis, Annales Henri Poincare 12, 1491 (2011), arXiv:1110.2009 [gr-qc]

    S. Aretakis, Annales Henri Poincare 12, 1491 (2011), arXiv:1110.2009 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Aretakis, Adv

    S. Aretakis, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 19, 507 (2015), arXiv:1206.6598 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Lucietti, K

    J. Lucietti, K. Murata, H. S. Reall, and N. Tanahashi, JHEP 03, 035 (2013), arXiv:1212.2557 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.