Captured are circularized: A relativistic treatment of extreme mass ratio inspirals crossing accretion disks

Yuhe Zeng; Zhen Pan

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Captured are circularized: A relativistic treatment of extreme mass ratio inspirals crossing accretion disks

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Under a fully relativistic Schwarzschild treatment, repeated disk crossings always align an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral, and disk-captured orbiters are effectively circularized.

desk verdict The relativistic framework is a genuine step forward, but the paper's headline claim that captured EMRIs are circularized is extrapolated across the very regime where the authors concede their adiabatic averaging may break down. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.11925 v3 pith:WQ3OJE5R submitted 2026-01-17 astro-ph.HE

Yuhe Zeng , Zhen Pan This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords extrememassratioinspiralaccretiondiskcrossingsorbitalalignmentcircularizationSchwarzschildspacetimeaero-dragdynamicalfrictionwetEMRI

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 in a fully relativistic Schwarzschild description, a stellar-mass object orbiting a supermassive black hole and repeatedly crossing a thin accretion disk always has its orbital inclination reduced by the collisions, regardless of whether the orbit is prograde or retrograde. It further finds that objects the disk captures end up with very low orbital eccentricity, even though the eccentricity may temporarily grow during the capture process. This matters because earlier Newtonian-based work suggested disk crossings could drive eccentricity up for retrograde orbits, motivating searches for eccentric 'wet' EMRIs as gravitational-wave sources. If the paper is right, there is little parameter space for forming such eccentric wet retrograde EMRIs through disk collisions alone; instead, only a small fraction of objects initially close to the black hole and disk are captured within typical AGN disk lifetimes, so random two-body scatterings are needed to boost capture rates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the double-phase adiabatic averaging scheme (Eq. 28 and its equivalent Eq. C1) applied to the osculating-orbit equations for the orbital elements (p, e, z1 = cos θ_min) in Schwarzschild spacetime. It averages the perturbing four-force from disk crossings over the fast radial and polar phases, converting the instantaneous impulse per crossing into secular rates for the semi-major axis, eccentricity, and inclination. The two force models enter through a damping coefficient γ: aero-drag (∝ R*^2 ρ_g v_rel) for stars, and dynamical friction (∝ (G m)^2 ρ_g v_rel^{-3}) for stellar-mass black holes.

What would settle it

Integrate the full forced-geodesic equations for an sBH with initial inclination around 60–90° and p ~ 300 M•, running through the near-aligned phase, and check whether the final eccentricity is indeed small and the capture time matches the adiabatic scaling. If the final eccentricity is not small or the capture time differs by orders of magnitude, the central claim fails for that regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Working with forced geodesics in Schwarzschild spacetime and a double-phase adiabatic average over the radial and polar orbital phases, the paper shows that the disk-induced secular rates satisfy <da/dτ> < 0 and <dι/dτ> < 0 for all initial inclinations under both aero-drag (stars) and dynamical-friction (stellar-mass black holes) forces. Eccentricity always damps for stars; for stellar-mass black holes it can be temporarily excited when inclination is large (ι ≳ 60–90°), but as the inclination decreases into the regime where capture occurs, the eccentricity is damped and reaches near zero by the time the orbit aligns with the disk. From the derived scaling relations, the capture timescale gr

Load-bearing premise

The double-phase adiabatic average is assumed accurate up to the near-aligned, low-inclination stage where the paper's circularized-capture conclusion lives; the paper itself terminates its sBH runs there because change rates grow large enough that the adiabatic approximation is 'potentially invalidat[ed]'.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For both stars and stellar-mass black holes, and for both prograde and retrograde orbits, the disk-induced secular inclination rate is always negative, so the disk acts to align the orbiter.
Although dynamical-friction encounters can transiently grow the eccentricity of a high-inclination sBH, the eccentricity is damped as the inclination falls below roughly 60–90°, so objects captured by the disk are effectively circularized.
This leaves little parameter space for forming eccentric wet retrograde EMRIs through disk collisions alone, contrary to earlier suggestions.
The derived scaling laws (capture time ∝ p^(3/2) for stars, ∝ p^(-1/2) for sBHs) together with a standard AGN disk model imply that only a small fraction of sBHs initially near the SMBH and the disk are captured within about 1 Myr.
Random two-body scatterings in the nuclear stellar cluster are essential to kick sBHs onto disk-crossing orbits and raise the capture rate.

Reading between the lines

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

A direct test of the circularized-capture conclusion would be full non-averaged integrations through the near-aligned phase, because the paper itself stops its sBH runs once the adiabatic approximation may fail; if the final eccentricity there is not small, the headline claim would need qualification.
If future space-based gravitational-wave observatories detect a population of eccentric retrograde wet EMRIs, that would conflict with this paper's prediction, making the claim testable rather than merely interpretive.
The same double-phase secular framework could be applied to other thin-disk environments, such as circumplanetary disks or white-dwarf debris disks, to see whether the 'align and circularize' behavior is universal or specific to the AGN disk assumptions.

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

The headline finding is that the disk always aligns the orbiter, and that captured EMRIs are circularized. The alignment result is robust and consistent with earlier Newtonian work. The new contribution is the fully relativistic secular framework: osculating elements in Schwarzschild, a double-phase adiabatic average, and complete coefficients in the appendices. That machinery is substantial, and the derived scalings (t_cap ~ p^{3/2} for aero-drag, p^{-1/2} for dynamical friction) are clean and useful. The paper also does an honest job comparing with prior work, including the tension with [23].

The soft spot is exactly where the stress-test note lands. The authors stop the sBH integrations once the orbit nears the disk plane because the change rates become large and, in their words, 'potentially invalidates the adiabatic approximation.' That is the regime where the final eccentricity is supposed to be small. So the 'captured are circularized' claim is read off from runs that are terminated before full alignment, and no alternative integration is supplied for that stage. The full-versus-adiabatic check in Fig. 2 is for a star under aero-drag only; it does not cover dynamical friction for sBHs, nor the near-aligned regime. For the highest retrograde case (iota_ini=170°), the run is stopped before the orbit even reaches the disk, so the capture claim is not demonstrated there. The paper's own sentence about 'tracking full orbital evolution' for sBHs is also inaccurate: they used the adiabatic equations, not a full numerical integration.

None of this undermines the alignment result or the derivation itself, but it means the title claim overreaches the computed domain. The authors should either extend the evolution into the near-aligned regime with a method that remains valid there (direct integration, at minimum for representative cases) or soften the conclusion to 'captured EMRIs are expected to circularize based on the trend before the averaging breaks down.'

The paper deserves a serious referee. The framework is a genuine step forward, and the scalings are likely to be cited. With the circularization claim fixed, it would be a solid contribution to the LISA/EMRI literature. I'd bring it to a reading group focused on wet EMRIs, and I'd cite the framework even while treating the final eccentricity claim with caution.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a relativistic (Schwarzschild) osculating-orbit treatment of EMRIs whose stellar-mass companions periodically cross a thin equatorial accretion disk. It derives adiabatic, double-phase-averaged evolution equations for the orbital elements p, e, and inclination ι under two force models: aero drag for stars and dynamical friction for stellar-mass black holes (sBHs). The main claims are: (1) disk collisions always decrease orbital inclination, for both prograde and retrograde orbits; (2) orbits captured by the disk arrive with low final eccentricity, even though dynamical friction can transiently excite eccentricity at high inclination; and (3) capture by the disk alone is inefficient within typical AGN disk lifetimes, so two-body scattering is needed to supply eccentric EMRIs. The paper also derives power-law capture timescales and compares them with previous Newtonian studies.

Significance. If fully established, the paper would provide a useful relativistic upgrade of previous Newtonian disk-crossing treatments, with complete osculating-orbit coefficient formulas and a falsifiable astrophysical prediction: little parameter space for forming eccentric wet retrograde EMRIs via disk collisions. The explicit appendix formulas, the single full-vs-adiabatic comparison, and the scaling relations are genuine strengths. However, the central astrophysical conclusion—'captured are circularized'—is extrapolated from a regime that the authors themselves identify as potentially outside the validity of their adiabatic approximation, and the retrograde case is not actually integrated to capture. The paper is technically solid in its derivation but currently overreaches its computed domain; the main claims can likely be repaired with additional targeted integrations and more cautious wording.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III B and Sec. III D] The headline claim that 'captured EMRIs are effectively circularized' is not actually computed through the final near-aligned stage for sBHs. The text states, before Figs. 9–10, that 'the calculation is terminated once the orbit approaches the near-aligned configuration' because the change rates become 'sufficiently large and potentially invalidates the adiabatic approximation.' No alternative integration is provided for that regime, yet Sec. III D and the abstract read off low final eccentricities from runs stopped before full alignment. The conclusion therefore rests on an extrapolation through exactly the unvalidated regime. Please either integrate the full E.O.M. through the near-aligned stage for representative sBH cases, or explicitly restrict the claim to the computed regime and characterize the residual uncertainty.
[Sec. II C, Appendices A–B, Eq. (13)] The osculating element set {p,e,z1} does not encode the sign of the orbital angular momentum component L_z. Since z1 = sinι is symmetric under ι → π−ι, the same values of p,e,z1 describe both a prograde orbit with inclination ι and a retrograde orbit with inclination π−ι. The force components in Appendix A (especially f^φ) and the coefficients in Appendix B contain no sign variable. The paper distinguishes prograde and retrograde in Figs. 5–10, so some additional element or sign convention must be used in the numerical implementation, but it is not defined in the averaged equations. Please specify how the sign of L_z (or the direction of orbital motion relative to the disk) is carried through the osculating and adiabatic averages, and verify that the printed coefficient formulas are correct for both signs. This is load-bearing for the claimed 'always aligns' result covering retrograde or
[Sec. III B, Fig. 9, ι_ini = 170°] For the high-inclination retrograde case ι_ini = 170°, the run is terminated before the stability condition p−6−2e>0 is violated, meaning the sBH has not been captured by the disk; it is on a trajectory toward the SMBH. The eccentricity is still being excited by dynamical friction at the termination point. This case therefore does not demonstrate capture, let alone circularization. It is used in Sec. III D to argue that eccentricity excitation does not lead to eccentric wet EMRIs because the eccentricity is damped 'when the orbiter is captured by the disk.' That inference is not supported by the presented numerical evolution. Please show capture for this case with a valid integration, or remove this case from the circularization claim.
[Sec. II D and Fig. 2] The adiabatic approximation is validated against a full E.O.M. integration only for a star under aero drag (Fig. 2), with a constant damping coefficient. The sBH/dynamical-friction model has a strongly velocity-dependent coefficient γ ∝ v_rel^{-3}, which grows sharply as the relative velocity decreases near alignment. No full-vs-adiabatic comparison is provided for this model, even in the regime before the stated breakdown. Given that the paper's main astrophysical conclusion concerns sBH capture, a direct comparison for at least one sBH case (or a quantitative error estimate for Eq. (28)/(C1) in this force model) is needed to support the claim that the secular equations accurately track the orbital evolution.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (9) and Eq. (11)] The numerical prefactors have garbled units in the text, e.g., 'ρg 105 g·cm −2/3M•' appears to be a missing fraction bar. Please clarify whether ρ_g is a volume density and what the intended normalization is.
[Sec. III B] The statement that the calculation is terminated near alignment because the adiabatic approximation is 'potentially invalidated' appears only in the results section. This limitation should be stated in Sec. II D, where the adiabatic approximation is introduced, and reflected in the abstract's claims.
[Sec. III C] The conclusion that 'only a small fraction of sBHs... can be captured' is not quantified in terms of an initial distribution or a phase-space fraction. The paper shows timescales for representative p_ini and ι_ini values; 'small fraction' is a qualitative interpretation. Please either quantify or soften the wording.
[General] Minor typographical issues: Table I uses 'vvel' instead of 'v_rel'; the legend descriptions in Figs. 4 and 8 are confusing ('solid dotted line' vs 'solid line'); and the phrase 'wet EMRIs' is used without a formal definition after the introduction.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the alignment/circularization claims are computed from stated equations, not fitted; self-citations [32-35] are contextual. The paper's own adiabatic-validity caveat in Sec. III B is a validity risk, not a circular reduction.

self citation load bearing [Section IV (Conclusion), final paragraph; cf. Sec. I]
"Therefore, two-body scatterings between sBHs and stars in the nuclear stellar cluster play an essential role in randomly kicking EMRIs towards the disk and boosting the capture rate [35]."

This sentence completes the abstract's third claim, and its only citation is the authors' own prior work [35]. The citation is minor and not load-bearing: the 'small fraction captured within 1 Myr' part is computed here (Table I, Figs. 11-14, SG disk model [49]), and the central claims (alignment and circularization) rest on this paper's own osculating-orbit + adiabatic-average equations, cross-checked against external Refs. [18, 19, 23]. No derivation reduces to the self-citation, so it is noted at the mildest level rather than raised further.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. ⟨dp/dτ⟩, ⟨de/dτ⟩, ⟨dι/dτ⟩ are computed by applying the double-phase adiabatic average (Eqs. 28/C1, justified from Ref. [44]) to the osculating-orbit E.O.M. (Eq. 26; Appendix B) under the two stated force models (aero-drag Eq. 8; dynamical friction Eq. 10). No parameter is tuned to produce alignment or circularization: γ₀ = 2×10⁻⁶ and 4×10⁻¹³ M⁻¹ are adopted constants matching Ref. [19]'s conventions; H_disk, the ι_crit thresholds (3H_disk/p_ini; 1.5×10⁻²), and the SG disk model are specified inputs. The results are genuinely non-tautological outputs — e.g., ⟨de/dτ⟩ is positive for high-inclination sBHs (Fig. 7), so the 'captured are circularized' conclusion emerges from the ι-dependence of ⟨de/dτ⟩, not from the sign of the force. Flagged limitation (Sec. III B, before Figs. 9-10): sBH runs are terminated when 'the change rate of the orbital parameters becomes sufficiently large and potentially invalidates the adiabatic approximation,' and the ι_ini = 170° case is 'terminated before the condition p−6−2e>0 is violated,' i.e., before capture. This is a validity/extrapolation risk for the headline claim in the near-aligned regime, not a circularity: no prediction reduces by construction to an input. The capture threshold defines t_cap but does not determine the sign or magnitude of the reported final e. Self-citations [32-35] supply wet-EMRI context and the two-body-scattering conclusion; they do not carry the derivation, which is independently checked against external Refs. [18, 19, 23] with order-of-magnitude agreement. Score 2 reflects the single minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Central claims rest on standard osculating-orbit/adiabatic machinery and on a set of disk and force-model choices (thin Keplerian disk, linear damping four-force, I=1, constant Σ_g) that are reasonable but not independently validated. The listed free parameters are representative normalizations and thresholds, not fitted to the target conclusion; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)

γ₀ (aero-drag reference damping) = 2×10^-6 M_•^-1
Chosen representative value for star–disk collision runs (Sec. III A); not fitted to data, but sets absolute timescales.
γ₀ (dynamical friction reference damping) = 4×10^-13 M_•^-1
Chosen for sBH–disk runs (Sec. III B); scaling results independent of exact value.
Coulomb logarithm factor I = 1
Set to unity in Eq. (10) “for simplicity”; affects dynamical-friction strength by O(1).
H_disk scale height = 1.5 M_•
Used in representative evolutions and capture criterion; physical values vary with disk model.
ɩ_crit capture threshold = 1.5×10^-2 rad
Defines “captured” for t_cap estimates; choice affects absolute t_cap but not scaling laws.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Schwarzschild spacetime and test-particle limit
Background is fixed Schwarzschild, mass ratio ≲ 10^-4; spin of SMBH ignored except Keplerian Ω_K formula given for Kerr but not used.
domain assumption Thin axisymmetric disk with Gaussian vertical profile and Keplerian rotation
Eqs. (4)–(6); disk modeled as 2H_disk slab with Σ_g; no radial density dependence in dynamical runs.
domain assumption Linear damping four-force form (Eqs. 2–3) from Ref. [44]
Force assumed proportional to relative four-velocity plus projection correction; appropriate for aerodynamic drag/dynamical friction but not validated microscopically here.
domain assumption Adiabatic (orbit-averaged) approximation valid
Sec. II D; used to derive secular equations. Full-vs-adiabatic check only for one star case; paper itself notes breakdown near aligned configuration (Sec. III B).
standard math Osculating-orbit perturbation equations
Osculation conditions and coefficient formulas from Refs. [44,47]; relied on for Eq. (26).
ad hoc to paper I=1 for dynamical friction
Eq. (10) sets Coulomb logarithm factor to 1, rescaling interaction strength.
domain assumption Constant surface density during orbital decay
Used for t_cap scaling and for comparing to Ref. [19]; paper notes Ref. [19] used increasing Σ_g, causing shorter timescales.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Captured are circularized: A relativistic treatment of extreme mass ratio inspirals crossing accretion disks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WQ3OJE5R

@misc{pith2026260111925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Captured are circularized: A relativistic treatment of extreme mass ratio inspirals crossing accretion disks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WQ3OJE5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.11925}
}

abstract

A small body orbiting around an accreting massive object and periodically crossing its accretion disk is a common configuration in astrophysics. In this work, we investigate the secular evolution of extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs), in which a stellar-mass object (SMO), e.g., a star or a stellar-mass black hole (sBH), collides with the accretion disk of a central supermassive black hole (SMBH), within a fully relativistic framework. We find (1) the disk always tends to align the SMO no matter what the initial orbital inclination $\iota$ relative to the disk is, (2) the final orbital eccentricity of the SMO captured by the disk is always low though the orbital eccentricity may temporarily grow when the orbital inclination $\iota$ is large and the SMO is an sBH, and (3) via collisions with the accretion disk only, only a small fraction of sBHs that are initially close to the SMBH and close to the disk can be captured by the disk within typical disk lifetime of active galactic nuclei. Two-body scatterings between SMOs in the nuclear stellar cluster play an essential role in randomly kicking sBHs towards the disk and boosting the capture rate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.11925 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the wet EMRIs with SMO-disk collision scenario. The relations between the labeled parameters are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Evolution of the semi-major axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The comparison of estimated shrink timescale with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of the semi-major axis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The comparison of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_9.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. Dependence of the capture timescale on the initial semi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12. The surface density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. Capture timescales estimated using the aero-drag force [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14. Capture timescales estimated using the dynam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

No evidence for a supermassive black hole binary in GSN 069
astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

No in-phase timing modulation is found in GSN 069's quasi-periodic eruptions, ruling out a companion supermassive black hole with projected light-travel amplitude A0 >= 254 M at 95% credibility.
Pitching Cosmic Curveballs: Environmental Effects on Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals with Spinning Secondaries
gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

First framework for spin-coupled gas forces in EMRIs shows unique dephasing and breaks spin-inclination degeneracy in Fisher analysis.
Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals in Light of Quasi-periodic Eruptions: Milli-Hertz Gravitational Wave Background
astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

QPE observations yield EMRI rates of 2.88e-6 (stellar) and 6.07e-6 (black hole) per galaxy per year, with only black hole EMRIs potentially exceeding LISA sensitivity in the 1-10 mHz band.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

[23]

C. Zhou, Y . Zeng, and Z. Pan, The Astrophysical Journal985, 242 (2025)

2025
[1]

+” branch corresponds to prograde rotation, i.e., the angle between the disk angular momentum and the SMBH spin is less than 90◦, whereas the “-

Hereγdenotes the interaction (damping) coefficient that encodes the strength of the force exerted on the SMO. When combined with the relative velocity between the SMO and the ZAMO frame, it determines the individual components of the resulting four-acceleration. In the case of an SMO interacting with an accretion disk, the disk is assumed to follow nearly...

2000
[2]

Kley and R

W. Kley and R. Nelson, Annual Review of Astronomy and As- trophysics50, 211 (2012)

2012
[3]

sin(χ−χ 0) p p−3−e 2 q 1−z 2 1 cos2(χ−χ 0)[1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 ,(B8) C(z1) ϕ =− pz1 sin2(χ−χ 0) q (p−3−e 2)(1−z 2 1) [1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 .(B9) Forψ 0 andχ 0, with dψr dτ = dψ dτ− dψ0 dτ = dψr dτ geodesic − dψ0 dτ = 1 (∂r/∂ψr) dr dτ− ∂r ∂p dp dτ− ∂r ∂e de dτ ! , (B10) and dψθ dτ = dχ dτ− dχ0 dτ = dψθ dτ geodesic − dχ0 dτ = 1 (∂θ/∂ψθ) dθ dτ− ∂θ ∂z1 dz1 dτ ! , (B...
[4]

sin(ψ−ψ 0) e[(p−6) 2−4e 2][1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 · n e[4e2−(p−6) 2] cos(ψ−ψ 0) +(−6+p)(6+e 2−2p+e 2 cos[2(ψ−ψ 0)]) o , (B14) C(χ0) r =0, (B15) C(χ0) θ =− p p p−3−e 2(1−z 2
[5]

cos(χ−χ 0) z1 q 1−z 2 1 cos2(χ−χ 0)[1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 , (B16) C(χ0) ϕ = p q (p−3−e 2)(1−z 2
[6]

(B17) Appendix C: Adiabatic approximation form in this work In this work, by explicitly accounting forψ 0 andχ 0, we adopt an equivalent form of Eq

sin[2(χ−χ 0)] 2[1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 . (B17) Appendix C: Adiabatic approximation form in this work In this work, by explicitly accounting forψ 0 andχ 0, we adopt an equivalent form of Eq. (28), in which the phasesψ andχare integrated from 0 to 2π, as ⟨ f⟩I0 = R 2π 0 dχ R 2π 0 dψ 1 ωr(ψr,I) f(ψ r, ψθ,I) 2π R 2π 0 dψ 1 ωr(ψr,I) ,(C1) withψ r =ψ−ψ 0,ψ θ =χ−χ 0,I...
[7]

C. E. O’Connor and D. Lai, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society498, 4005 (2020)

2020

Show all 56 references

[8]

N. C. Stone, B. D. Metzger, and Z. Haiman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society464, 946 (2016)

2016
[9]

Kuwahara, Ayumu, Kurokawa, Hiroyuki, and Ida, Shigeru, A&A623, A179 (2019)

2019
[10]

Y . Yang, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, Z. M´arka, N. C. Stone, and S. M´arka, The Astrophysical Journal876, 122 (2019)

2019
[11]

P. Peng, A. Franchini, M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, and X. Chen, The Astrophysical Journal989, 122 (2025)

2025
[12]

McKernan, K

B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, W. Lyra, H. B. Perets, L. M. Win- ter, and T. Yaqoob, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters417, L103 (2011)

2011
[13]

Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 374, 515 (2006)

Y . Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 374, 515 (2006)

2006
[14]

C. Zhou, L. Huang, K. Guo, Y .-P. Li, and Z. Pan, Phys. Rev. D 109, 103031 (2024)

2024
[15]

Tagawa, Z

H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and B. Kocsis, The Astrophysical Jour- nal898, 25 (2020)

2020
[16]

J. Xian, F. Zhang, L. Dou, J. He, and X. Shu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L32 (2021)

2021
[17]

Linial and B

I. Linial and B. D. Metzger, The Astrophysical Journal957, 34 (2023)

2023
[18]

Franchini, Alessia, Bonetti, Matteo, Lupi, Alessandro, Miniutti, Giovanni, Bortolas, Elisa, Giustini, Margherita, Dotti, Mas- simo, Sesana, Alberto, Arcodia, Riccardo, and Ryu, Taeho, A&A675, A100 (2023)

2023
[19]

Tagawa and Z

H. Tagawa and Z. Haiman, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society526, 69 (2023)

2023
[20]

Rowan, H

C. Rowan, H. Whitehead, G. Fabj, P. Kirkeberg, M. E. Pessah, and B. Kocsis, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety543, 132–145 (2025)

2025
[21]

C. Zhou, B. Zhong, Y . Zeng, L. Huang, and Z. Pan, Phys. Rev. D110, 083019 (2024)

2024
[22]

for sBHs with large initial inclination angles. The au- thors cautioned that this peculiar behavior might reflect miss- ing physics, such as the inconsistent assumption of circular orbits and the neglect of disk back reaction on the orbiting object. Consistent with [18] and [1...
[24]

Lescaudron, Sandrine, Dubois, Yohan, Beckmann, Ricarda S., and V olonteri, Marta, A&A674, A217 (2023)

2023
[25]

T. F. M. Spieksma and E. Cannizzaro, (2025), arXiv:2504.08033 [astro-ph.GA]

2025
[26]

Y . Wang, Z. Zhu, and D. N. C. Lin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society528, 4958 (2024)

2024
[27]

G. Fabj, S. S. Nasim, F. Caban, K. E. S. Ford, B. McKernan, and J. M. Bellovary, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society499, 2608 (2020)

2020
[28]

S. S. Nasim, G. Fabj, F. Caban, A. Secunda, K. E. S. Ford, B. McKernan, J. M. Bellovary, N. W. C. Leigh, and W. Lyra, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society522, 5393 (2023)

2023
[29]

Secunda, B

A. Secunda, B. Hernandez, J. Goodman, N. W. C. Leigh, B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, and J. I. Adorno, The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters908, L27 (2021)

2021
[30]

MacLeod and D

M. MacLeod and D. N. C. Lin, (2019), 10.3847/1538- 4357/ab64db, arXiv:1909.09645 [astro-ph.SR]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Bakeret al., (2019), arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]

J. Bakeret al., (2019), arXiv:1907.06482 [astro-ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[32]

Mei, Y .-Z

J. Mei, Y .-Z. Bai, J. Bao, E. Barausse, L. Cai, E. Canuto, B. Cao, W.-M. Chen, Y . Chen, Y .-W. Ding, H.-Z. Duan, H. Fan, W.- F. Feng, H. Fu, Q. Gao, T. Gao, Y . Gong, X. Gou, C.-Z. Gu, D.-F. Gu, Z.-Q. He, M. Hendry, W. Hong, X.-C. Hu, Y .-M. Hu, Y . Hu, S.-J. Huang, X.-Q. Hu...

2020
[33]

Z. Luo, Y . Wang, Y . Wu, W. Hu, and G. Jin, Progress of Theo- retical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A108 (2020)

2020
[34]

Amaro-Seoane, Living Rev

P. Amaro-Seoane, Living Rev. Relativity21, 4 (2018)

2018
[35]

Barack and A

L. Barack and A. Pound, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 016904 (2019)

2019
[36]

J. R. Gair, M. Vallisneri, S. L. Larson, and J. G. Baker, Living Rev. Rel.16, 7 (2013)

2013
[37]

G. Sigl, J. Schnittman, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D75, 024034 (2007)

2007
[38]

Pan and H

Z. Pan and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, 103018 (2021)

2021
[39]

Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, 063007 (2021)

2021
[40]

Pan and H

Z. Pan and H. Yang, The Astrophysical Journal923, 173 (2021)

2021
[41]

Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D105, 083005 (2022)

2022
[42]

Derdzinski and L

A. Derdzinski and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society521, 4522 (2023)

2023
[43]

Kocsis, N

B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011)

2011
[44]

Derdzinski, D

A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety501, 3540 (2020)

2020
[45]

A. M. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety486, 2754 (2019)

2019
[46]

Tanaka, T

H. Tanaka, T. Takeuchi, and W. R. Ward, The Astrophysical Journal565, 1257 (2002)

2002
[47]

Tanaka and W

H. Tanaka and W. R. Ward, The Astrophysical Journal602, 388 (2004)

2004
[48]

P. Basu, S. Chatterjee, and S. Mondal, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society531, 1506 (2024)

2024
[49]

Duque, S

F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D111, 084006 (2025)

2025
[50]

J. R. Gair, E. E. Flanagan, S. Drasco, T. Hinderer, and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D83, 044037 (2011)

2011
[51]

E. C. Ostriker, The Astrophysical Journal513, 252 (1999)

1999
[52]

Fujita and W

R. Fujita and W. Hikida, Classical and Quantum Gravity26, 135002 (2009)

2009
[53]

Pound and E

A. Pound and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D77, 044013 (2008)

2008
[54]

Cutler, D

C. Cutler, D. Kennefick, and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D50, 3816 (1994)

1994
[55]

Sirko and J

E. Sirko and J. Goodman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society341, 501 (2003)

2003
[56]

Gangardt, A

D. Gangardt, A. A. Trani, C. Bonnerot, and D. Gerosa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society530, 3689–3705 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [23]

C. Zhou, Y . Zeng, and Z. Pan, The Astrophysical Journal985, 242 (2025)

2025

[2] [1]

+” branch corresponds to prograde rotation, i.e., the angle between the disk angular momentum and the SMBH spin is less than 90◦, whereas the “-

Hereγdenotes the interaction (damping) coefficient that encodes the strength of the force exerted on the SMO. When combined with the relative velocity between the SMO and the ZAMO frame, it determines the individual components of the resulting four-acceleration. In the case of an SMO interacting with an accretion disk, the disk is assumed to follow nearly...

2000

[3] [2]

Kley and R

W. Kley and R. Nelson, Annual Review of Astronomy and As- trophysics50, 211 (2012)

2012

[4] [3]

sin(χ−χ 0) p p−3−e 2 q 1−z 2 1 cos2(χ−χ 0)[1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 ,(B8) C(z1) ϕ =− pz1 sin2(χ−χ 0) q (p−3−e 2)(1−z 2 1) [1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 .(B9) Forψ 0 andχ 0, with dψr dτ = dψ dτ− dψ0 dτ = dψr dτ geodesic − dψ0 dτ = 1 (∂r/∂ψr) dr dτ− ∂r ∂p dp dτ− ∂r ∂e de dτ ! , (B10) and dψθ dτ = dχ dτ− dχ0 dτ = dψθ dτ geodesic − dχ0 dτ = 1 (∂θ/∂ψθ) dθ dτ− ∂θ ∂z1 dz1 dτ ! , (B...

[5] [4]

sin(ψ−ψ 0) e[(p−6) 2−4e 2][1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 · n e[4e2−(p−6) 2] cos(ψ−ψ 0) +(−6+p)(6+e 2−2p+e 2 cos[2(ψ−ψ 0)]) o , (B14) C(χ0) r =0, (B15) C(χ0) θ =− p p p−3−e 2(1−z 2

[6] [5]

cos(χ−χ 0) z1 q 1−z 2 1 cos2(χ−χ 0)[1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 , (B16) C(χ0) ϕ = p q (p−3−e 2)(1−z 2

[7] [6]

(B17) Appendix C: Adiabatic approximation form in this work In this work, by explicitly accounting forψ 0 andχ 0, we adopt an equivalent form of Eq

sin[2(χ−χ 0)] 2[1+ecos (ψ−ψ 0)]2 . (B17) Appendix C: Adiabatic approximation form in this work In this work, by explicitly accounting forψ 0 andχ 0, we adopt an equivalent form of Eq. (28), in which the phasesψ andχare integrated from 0 to 2π, as ⟨ f⟩I0 = R 2π 0 dχ R 2π 0 dψ 1 ωr(ψr,I) f(ψ r, ψθ,I) 2π R 2π 0 dψ 1 ωr(ψr,I) ,(C1) withψ r =ψ−ψ 0,ψ θ =χ−χ 0,I...

[8] [7]

C. E. O’Connor and D. Lai, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society498, 4005 (2020)

2020