Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 13 cited by

Local-in-Time Conservative Binary Dynamics at Fifth Post-Minkowskian and First Self-Force Orders

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Subtracting the 5PM/1SF nonlocal tail from the scattering angle yields the first local-in-time Hamiltonian for generic bound orbits of nonspinning binaries.

desk verdict The first real separation of local from nonlocal dynamics at 5PM/1SF, with a solid computation and one under-justified 2rad subtraction that needs a referee's eye. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20665 v1 pith:Y2DEIG5M submitted 2025-06-25 hep-th gr-qc

Christoph Dlapa , Gregor Kälin , Zhengwen Liu , Rafael A. Porto This is my paper
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords fifthpost-Minkowskianorderfirstself-forcenonlocal-in-timetaileffectslocal-in-timeHamiltonianisotropicgaugegenericboundorbitssourceenergyfluxboundary-to-boundmap
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 reports the local-in-time conservative dynamics of nonspinning compact binaries at fifth post-Minkowskian (5PM) and first self-force (1SF) order. The earlier 5PM/1SF scattering result describes hyperbolic encounters but fails for bound orbits because it contains nonlocal-in-time tail effects that depend on the orbit. The authors compute the 5PM/1SF nonlocal tail contribution to the deflection angle, subtract it from the even-in-velocity scattering angle of [2], and reconstruct a local-in-time Hamiltonian in isotropic gauge valid for generic orbits. The 5PM/1SF local coefficient $\hat c_5^{(\mathrm{loc})}$ is reported here for the first time, and the logarithmic part of the full 5PM bound Hamiltonian is derived at SF-exact level from the 4PM source energy flux of [3]. A hybrid bound Hamiltonian for elliptic orbits follows by adding small-eccentricity nonlocal terms adapted from [21] up to 6PN/1SF, extending scattering-based computations to the bound systems relevant for gravitational-wave astronomy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the nonlocal-in-time radial action $S_r^{(\mathrm{nloc})} = -\frac{G E}{2\pi}\int \frac{d\omega}{2\pi} \frac{dE_{\mathrm{src}}}{d\omega} \log\big((2 e^{\gamma_E} G M \omega)^2\big)$, which encodes all nonlocal tail effects through the center-of-mass source energy spectrum $dE_{\mathrm{src}}/d\omega$. The computation reduces the 5PM/1SF tail integral to the three-loop integral family of [58] with linear and quadratic propagators, solved by integration-by-parts reduction and canonical differential equations; the answers are multiple polylogarithms (generalized log integrals) up to weight three in the variable $x$ with $\gamma = \tfrac12 (x + 1/x)$. The separation identity (7) subtracts this nonlocal angle from the even-in-velocity angle of [2], and the boundary-to-bound map of [35,36] converts the resulting local angle into the isotropic-gauge Hamiltonian (8)-(9). The flux-log relation (10) fixes the logarithmic coefficient of the 5PM bound Hamiltonian from the 4PM source energy flux of [3].

What would settle it

Compute the 5PM/1SF nonlocal radial action including the double-radiation region and the odd-in-velocity tail-of-tail corrections; if either contributes to the scattering angle at order $G^5\nu$, then Eq. (7) fails to isolate the local dynamics. A complementary check is an independent 6PN/1SF bound-state calculation: agreement in the overlap with the hybrid Hamiltonian would confirm the subtraction, while any mismatch would signal a missing nonlocal term.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at 5PM/1SF order the conservative dynamics separates into a local-in-time piece and a nonlocal tail piece, and that the local piece can be isolated by subtracting the nonlocal tail from the even-in-velocity scattering angle: $\chi^{(5)(1\mathrm{SF})}_{b(\mathrm{loc})} = \chi^{(5)(1\mathrm{SF})}_{b(\mathrm{even})} - \chi^{(5)}_{b(\mathrm{nloc})}$, with $\chi^{(5)\log}_{b(\mathrm{loc})} = -\chi^{(5)\log}_{b(\mathrm{nloc})}$. The nonlocal tail is computed through the universal radial-action formula (1), an integral over the source gravitational-wave spectrum times a logarithmic factor, evaluated to $O(G^4)$ with three-loop-type integrals and multiple polylogarithms up to weight three. Applying the boundary-to-bound map of [35,36] to the local angle yields the center-of-mass momentum and an isotropic-gauge Hamiltonian valid for generic orbits. The paper also derives the SF-exact logarithmic coefficient of the 5PM bound Hamiltonian from the source energy flux of [3], and assembles a hybrid Hamiltonian by including nonlocal small-eccentricity tail terms to 6PN/1SF. The 5PM/1SF local coefficient $\hat c_5^{(\mathrm{loc})}$ appears for the first time.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that all nonlocal-in-time effects at 5PM/1SF are captured by the single-radiation source-spectrum integral of Eq. (1), so the double-radiation region can be discarded and the uncomputed odd-in-velocity tail-of-tail terms can be ignored when subtracting the tail from the even-in-velocity angle; if either of those contributions is nonzero at this order, the resulting 'local' Hamiltonian still contains nonlocal contamination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The local-in-time Hamiltonian is valid for generic bound orbits, so 5PM/1SF scattering data can now be used for elliptic and eccentric motion, not just hyperbolic encounters.
  • The SF-exact logarithmic coefficient of the 5PM bound Hamiltonian is fixed by the 4PM source energy flux, giving a strict target that any future full 5PM bound-state calculation must reproduce.
  • The local/nonlocal separation, previously established at 4PM, is now shown to work at 5PM/1SF, extending the reach of boundary-to-bound methods by one perturbative order.
  • The hybrid Hamiltonian, combining the local 5PM/1SF terms with small-eccentricity nonlocal PN terms up to 6PN/1SF, is consistent with existing PN results in the overlap and is provided with expressions to 30th PN order for direct use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, if the 2rad-factorization assumption holds at 5PM, the same subtraction strategy should extend to higher PM/SF orders, with each order's nonlocal tail controlled by the previous order's source flux, suggesting a route to all-orders bound-state dynamics from scattering data.
  • The odd-in-velocity tail-of-tail terms left out of [2] are the main open piece at this order; once computed, they could be added to the even angle before subtraction, and the present local Hamiltonian fixes the even-in-velocity part they must not disturb.
  • Because the logarithmic part of the 5PM Hamiltonian is SF-exact while the nonlogarithmic part is currently 1SF, the dominant remaining uncertainty at 5PM is concentrated in the nonlogarithmic higher-self-force tail content, which future 5PM/2SF results would localize.
  • The same source-spectrum-to-tail relation that fixes the logarithmic coefficient may connect future energy-flux computations directly to bound-state observables, giving an independent cross-check between scattering and bound-state formalisms.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This letter computes the nonlocal-in-time tail contribution to the 5PM/1SF scattering angle in nonspinning binary dynamics using the worldline EFT framework. The computation evaluates the universal nonlocal radial-action formula (1) to O(G^4), expresses the result in terms of multiple polylogarithms up to weight three, and provides explicit expressions for both the logarithmic and non-logarithmic pieces of the nonlocal deflection angle. The paper then subtracts these nonlocal terms from the even-in-velocity 5PM/1SF scattering angle of Ref. [2] via Eq. (7), extracts the local-in-time coefficient c5(loc), reconstructs a center-of-mass momentum and Hamiltonian in isotropic gauge valid for generic orbits, and derives the SF-exact logarithmic part of the bound Hamiltonian from the source energy flux of Ref. [3]. For elliptic-like motion, the authors supplement the local dynamics with PN nonlocal terms from Refs. [20,21] translated to isotropic gauge, including unpublished 6PN/1SF coefficients attributed to Bini and Khalil. The central new result, stated explicitly by the authors, is the first reported value of the local-in-time 5PM/1SF Hamiltonian coefficient c5(loc).

Significance. If the result is correct, this is a substantial advance in PM/PN binary dynamics: it extends the local/nonlocal decomposition of Ref. [1] from 4PM to 5PM/1SF, produces a 5PM Hamiltonian valid for generic bound orbits, and connects the SF-exact logarithmic part of the bound Hamiltonian to an independently computed source energy flux. The paper has several genuinely strong features: the calculation is analytic and heavy (IBP reduction with 343 master integrals, differential equations, MPLs to weight three), no parameters are fitted, and the manuscript reports multiple internal consistency checks, including agreement with W1-only PN values at O(G^5), agreement with the overlap with Ref. [2], and consistency with the PN Hamiltonians of Refs. [20,21]. These checks lend credibility to the computation. The main risks are the factorization assumption used to discard the 2rad region, the acknowledged omission of odd-in-velocity tail-of-tail effects, and the reliance on unpublished input for part of the hybrid Hamiltonian; none of these are obviously fatal, but they need to be addressed before the central claim can be considered fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Footnote 1 and Eq. (7)] The subtraction that defines c5(loc) relies on the assertion, made in footnote 1, that the 2rad region contributes to the nonlocal radial action only through a factorized rad1-only source piece times the logarithm of the GW frequency and must therefore be discarded from the spectrum in Eq. (1). The cited justification, Ref. [37], was developed for the 4PM tail problem. At 5PM/1SF the impulse receives new multi-emission configurations at one higher loop, and the manuscript does not demonstrate that the requested factorization persists. If the 2rad region contains hereditary terms at O(G^5) that are not of the rad1-times-logarithm form, those terms survive the subtraction in Eq. (7) and the reported c5(loc) is not purely local-in-time. Please provide an explicit derivation, or an independent check, of the factorization at 5PM/1SF, or state precisely the residual uncertainty this introduces into the headline coefficient.
  2. [Introduction, Eq. (12), and Conclusions] The manuscript explicitly acknowledges that odd-in-velocity tail-of-tail effects were not computed in Ref. [2] and are therefore not removed by the subtraction in Eq. (7). This omission is more than a technical caveat for the paper's headline claims. The bound Hamiltonian in Eq. (12) and the closing statement that the results provide the 'most accurate description to date' suggest completeness in a regime where such effects are known to enter. Please state unambiguously whether odd-in-velocity tails can affect the even-in-velocity coefficient c5(loc) or only the nonlocal sector of the full bound Hamiltonian, and provide, at minimum, the order and leading parametric form at which they would enter. If they can contaminate c5(loc), the extraction in Eq. (7) needs to be revisited.
  3. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (14) and footnote 2] The coefficients c5(nloc) for the 6PN/1SF small-eccentricity terms are taken from unpublished work by Bini and Khalil, with no derivation or public source provided. These coefficients are used in Eq. (13), and the agreement claim with Refs. [20,21] in the overlapping PN regime depends on them. As it stands, a central compatibility check of the hybrid Hamiltonian rests on input the reader cannot verify. Please include the derivation in an appendix, make the values available in a machine-readable form with sufficient validation, or provide a published reference. This is a reproducibility issue for the combined Hamiltonian, even if it is not needed for the central c5(loc) coefficient.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The expression log(2 e^{γ_E} GM ω)^2 is ambiguous: please clarify whether the square applies to the full logarithm or only to its argument.
  2. [Integrand construction] The phrase 'the 112 combination' is not defined in the text; it should be explained or accompanied by a precise reference so that a reader can follow the integrand construction.
  3. [Conclusions] The conclusion mentions 'PN-expanded values to 30th order' in the ancillary files, while the main text states the PN results are developed up to 6PN in a small-eccentricity expansion; please reconcile these statements or define what the 30th order refers to.
  4. [Introduction] The term 'elliptic-like motion' is used without a precise definition; please specify the bound-orbit conditions and the sense in which the small-eccentricity expansion applies.
  5. [Eq. (14) and acknowledgments] It would help the reader if the manuscript indicated exactly which parts of the Ref. [20] and [21] data are unchanged and which parts are modified in the translation to isotropic gauge, beyond the single footnote thanking Bini and Khalil.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: c5(loc) is an independent subtraction of a newly computed nonlocal tail from the external angle of [2], not a fit or a renaming of its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external inputs. The central local coefficient is defined in Eq. (7) as chi_5b(loc) = chi_5b(even from [2]) - chi_5b(nloc), where the nonlocal piece is obtained from a new three-loop integral evaluation of Eq. (1) using the source energy spectrum from [3]; neither side of the subtraction is adjusted to reproduce the other, so the subtraction is not a fitted-input prediction. Eq. (1) is imported as an established universal relation (cited to [7,8,37]), and the logarithmic-coefficient relation (10) is likewise an optical-theorem/IR-UV cancellation result from prior work; neither contains the 5PM/1SF target coefficient. The paper checks agreement with the independent PN values of [20,21] and incorporates [21]'s nonlocal W1-only terms as explicit inputs in the hybrid Hamiltonian, which is a consistency statement rather than a prediction from those inputs. The main self-citations ([1,3,37]) are methodological or provide prior theorems; the 2rad-discard rule in footnote 1 is a load-bearing assumption imported from [37] and is a legitimate correctness risk if the factorization fails at 5PM, but it is not a circular reduction of the claimed result to its own input. No parameter is fitted and no known result is merely renamed.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several external results, mostly from the same author group, plus two explicit assumptions (odd-in-velocity tails, 2rad factorization). No free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The derivation is parameter-free but not fully self-contained.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Universal formula for nonlocal-in-time tail effects in the radial action, Eq. (1): S_r^(nloc) = -GE/(2π) integral (dE_src/dω) log(2e^γE GM ω)^2.
    This relation from Ref. [37] is the foundation for separating local and nonlocal effects; it is used without re-derivation in the present work.
  • domain assumption The full even-in-velocity 5PM/1SF scattering angle from Driesse et al. [2] is correct.
    The subtraction in Eq. (7) starts from this external result; any error in [2] propagates directly into the local Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper Odd-in-velocity tail-of-tail effects can be neglected at 5PM/1SF.
    The paper states these were not computed in [2] and thus are not removed; it assumes they do not affect the even-in-velocity local dynamics.
  • domain assumption The 2rad region contribution to the nonlocal radial action factorizes and must be discarded to avoid double counting.
    Footnote 1 asserts this factorization based on [37]; if it fails at 5PM, the subtraction would be incomplete.
  • domain assumption The B2B map and Hamiltonian reconstruction from the scattering angle in isotropic gauge, from Refs. [35-37], is valid at 5PM.
    The local-in-time bound Hamiltonian in Eqs. (8)-(9) is obtained via this framework.
  • domain assumption The logarithmic coefficient of the bound Hamiltonian is related to the source energy flux via Eq. (10).
    This optical-theorem-based relation from [37] is used to derive the SF-exact log part.
  • standard math The master integrals can be reduced to 343 masters via IBP and solved in terms of MPLs up to weight three.
    The integration strategy relies on the well-established IBP and differential-equation methods; no elliptic integrals appear.
  • ad hoc to paper The 6PN/1SF nonlocal coefficients in isotropic gauge from unpublished work by Bini and Khalil, Eq. (14), are correct.
    The paper incorporates these values for the hybrid Hamiltonian without a published reference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local-in-Time Conservative Binary Dynamics at Fifth Post-Minkowskian and First Self-Force Orders." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Y2DEIG5M

@misc{pith2026250620665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local-in-Time Conservative Binary Dynamics at Fifth Post-Minkowskian and First Self-Force Orders},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Y2DEIG5M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20665}
}
read the original abstract

We report the local-in-time conservative dynamics of nonspinning binary systems at fifth Post-Minkowskian (5PM) and first self-force (1SF) orders. This follows from an explicit calculation of the 5PM/1SF nonlocal-in-time tail-type contribution to the deflection angle via worldline effective field theory techniques. Proceeding as in [2403.04853], we subtract the nonlocal tail terms from the result in [2403.07781] and reconstruct a local-in-time Hamiltonian in isotropic gauge -- valid for generic orbits. For completeness, we reinstate the nonlocal terms relevant for elliptic-like motion up to 6PN/1SF in a small-eccentricity expansion. Via the connection between the (source) energy flux in [2210.05541] and tail effects, we also derive the SF-exact logarithmic-dependent part of the full 5PM bound Hamiltonian. Our results provide the most accurate description to date of the dynamics of bound compact objects within the framework of relativistic scattering computations.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 13 Pith papers

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

  1. Nonlocal-in-time tail effects in gravitational scattering to fifth Post-Minkowskian and tenth self-force orders

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 8.0 of 10

    Nonlocal-in-time conservative tail contributions to gravitational scattering are derived at 5PM and 10SF orders, expressed via polylogarithms up to weight three and agreeing with prior results through 6PN.

  2. Dynamical Love Numbers for Black Holes and Beyond from Shell Effective Field Theory

    hep-th 2025-12 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A shell-based EFT computes scalar Love numbers for Schwarzschild black holes through O(G^9) and conjectures an all-orders Riemann-zeta structure.

  3. Conservative Black Hole Scattering at Fifth Post-Minkowskian and Second Self-Force Order

    hep-th 2026-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The conservative black-hole scattering angle at fifth post-Minkowskian and second self-force order is computed in terms of K3 periods, but contains a coefficient fixed only by an ad hoc 'γ-3' prescription.

  4. Analytic structure of the high-energy gravitational amplitude: multi-H diagrams and classical 5PM logarithms

    hep-th 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Computes the leading double logarithm at 5PM in the high-energy gravitational amplitude via multi-H diagrams and dispersion relations, extracting the single-log imaginary part of the eikonal phase.

  5. Hidden simplicity in the scattering for neutron stars and black holes

    hep-th 2025-09 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Authors define Kerr generating functions for all-loop scattering on Kerr black holes and apply them to compute leading non-linear tidal effects of neutron stars up to four loops in gravity.

  6. A Runway to Dissipation of Angular Momentum via Worldline Quantum Field Theory

    hep-th 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    The authors introduce static correlators in worldline QFT to compute angular momentum dissipation in black hole scattering, reproducing the known O(G^3) flux and extending the approach to electromagnetism at O(α^3).

  7. All-order structure of static gravitational interactions and the seventh post-Newtonian potential

    hep-th 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A closed formula computes static post-Newtonian corrections at arbitrary odd orders in gravity, yielding the explicit seventh post-Newtonian potential that matches an independent diagrammatic method.

  8. Black Hole Dynamics at Fifth Post-Newtonian Order

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Derives 5PN scattering observables and a conservative Hamiltonian contribution for black holes that determines EOB parameters d5loc and a6loc.

  9. Resummed energy loss in extreme-mass-ratio scattering using critical orbits

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Near-separatrix logarithmic divergence, anchored by fitted unstable-circular-orbit fluxes, yields resummed formulas for energy loss in extreme-mass-ratio scattering that track exact numerical calculations to about 10-25%.

  10. Heterotic Footprints in Classical Gravity: PM dynamics from On-Shell soft amplitudes at one loop

    hep-th 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Derives conservative potential and scattering angle for charged black holes in EMD theory via one-loop soft amplitudes, showing IR finiteness after Lippmann-Schwinger treatment and smooth reduction to GR.

  11. Scattering of a point mass by a Schwarzschild black hole: radiated energy and angular momentum

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The 5PM-1SF radiated energy and the complete 4PM-1SF radiated angular momentum to 7PN order are derived for a point mass scattering off a Schwarzschild black hole, along with the resulting 5PM radiation-reacted scatte...

  12. IterInt: Evaluating iterated integrals via differential equations

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    IterInt package evaluates iterated integrals by transforming them into solvable differential equation systems with built-in regularization.

  13. Manifest symplecticity in classical scattering

    hep-th 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The on-shell action and the exponential scattering generator differ as functions, but the on-shell action of the true Hamiltonian equals the on-shell action of the generator treated as a unit-time effective Hamiltonian.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 74 linked inside Pith · cited by 13 Pith papers

  1. [37]

    G. Cho, G. K¨ alin, and R. A. Porto, JHEP04, 154 (2022), [Erratum: JHEP 07, 002 (2022)], arXiv:2112.03976 [hep- th]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Driesse, G

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

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Dlapa, G

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

    arXiv 2023

  4. [1]

    Dlapa, G

    C. Dlapa, G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 221401 (2024), arXiv:2403.04853 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

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

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

    arXiv 2017

  6. [5]

    Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Damour, P

    T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Rev. D89, 064058 (2014), arXiv:1401.4548

    arXiv 2014

Show all 77 references
  1. [8]

    Galley, A

    C. Galley, A. Leibovich, R. A. Porto, and A. Ross, Phys. Rev. D93, 124010 (2016), arXiv:1511.07379

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Marchand, L

    T. Marchand, L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D97, 044023 (2018), arXiv:1707.09289

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev.D100, 024047 (2019), arXiv:1903.05113 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Foffa, R

    S. Foffa, R. A. Porto, I. Rothstein, and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev.D100, 024048 (2019), arXiv:1903.05118

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D101, 064033 (2020), arXiv:1907.02869 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Foffa, P

    S. Foffa, P. Mastrolia, R. Sturani, C. Sturm, and W. J. Torres Bobadilla, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 241605 (2019), arXiv:1902.10571

    2019 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Bl¨ umlein, A

    J. Bl¨ umlein, A. Maier, and P. Marquard, Phys. Lett. B 800, 135100 (2020), arXiv:1902.11180

    2020 arXiv

  8. [15]

    G. L. Almeida, S. Foffa, and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124075 (2021), arXiv:2110.14146 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    G. Cho, R. A. Porto, and Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D106, L101501 (2022), arXiv:2201.05138 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Blanchet, G

    L. Blanchet, G. Faye, Q. Henry, F. Larrouturou, and D. Trestini, Phys. Rev. D108, 064041 (2023), arXiv:2304.11186 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Bl¨ umlein, A

    J. Bl¨ umlein, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and G. Sch¨ afer, Nucl. Phys. B965, 115352 (2021), arXiv:2010.13672 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [19]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D102, 024062 (2020), arXiv:2003.11891 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D102, 024061 (2020), arXiv:2004.05407 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D102, 084047 (2020), arXiv:2007.11239 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D106, 024042 (2022), arXiv:2204.05047v3 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Bl¨ umlein, A

    J. Bl¨ umlein, A. Maier, P. Marquard, and G. Sch¨ afer, Phys. Lett. B816, 136260 (2021), arXiv:2101.08630 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [24]

    R. A. Porto, M. M. Riva, and Z. Yang, JHEP04, 050 (2025), arXiv:2409.05860 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [25]

    G. L. Almeida, A. M¨ uller, S. Foffa, and R. Sturani, (2025), arXiv:2410.10565 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    G. Cho, B. Pardo, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D104, 024037 (2021), arXiv:2103.14612 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Amalberti, Z

    L. Amalberti, Z. Yang, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044046 (2024), arXiv:2406.03457 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

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

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev.D94, 104015 (2016), arXiv:1609.00354

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Damour, Phys

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

    2018 arXiv

  24. [31]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, G. Festuccia, L. Plante, and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 171601 (2018), arXiv:1806.04920

    2018 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Cheung, I

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

    2018 arXiv

  26. [33]

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

    2019 arXiv

  27. [34]

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

    2019 arXiv

  28. [35]

    K¨ alin and R

    G. K¨ alin and R. A. Porto, JHEP01, 072 (2020), arXiv:1910.03008

    2020 arXiv

  29. [36]

    K¨ alin and R

    G. K¨ alin and R. A. Porto, JHEP02, 120 (2020), arXiv:1911.09130

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Damour, Phys

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

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Parra-Martinez, M

    J. Parra-Martinez, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, JHEP11, 023 (2020), arXiv:2005.04236 [hep-th]. 6

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K¨ alin and R

    G. K¨ alin and R. A. Porto, JHEP11, 106 (2020), arXiv:2006.01184 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    K¨ alin, Z

    G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 261103 (2020), arXiv:2007.04977 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    K¨ alin, Z

    G. K¨ alin, Z. Liu, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D102, 124025 (2020), arXiv:2008.06047 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Mogull, J

    G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, JHEP02, 048 (2021), arXiv:2010.02865 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Z. Liu, R. A. Porto, and Z. Yang, JHEP06, 012 (2021), arXiv:2102.10059 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and J. Steinhoff, JHEP01, 027 (2022), arXiv:2109.04465 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Mougiakakos, M

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

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Di Vecchia, C

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

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    K¨ alin, J

    G. K¨ alin, J. Neef, and R. A. Porto, JHEP01, 140 (2023), arXiv:2207.00580 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Dlapa, G

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

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dlapa, G

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

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

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

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

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

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D107, 024012 (2023), arXiv:2210.07165 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  46. [54]

    G. U. Jakobsen and G. Mogull, Phys. Rev. D107, 044033 (2023), arXiv:2210.06451 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and B. Sauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 241402 (2023), arXiv:2308.11514 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, B. Sauer, and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151401 (2023), arXiv:2306.01714 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

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

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Dlapa, G

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

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Klemm, C

    A. Klemm, C. Nega, B. Sauer, and J. Plefka, Phys. Rev. D109, 124046 (2024), arXiv:2401.07899 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Frellesvig, R

    H. Frellesvig, R. Morales, and M. Wilhelm, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 201602 (2024), arXiv:2312.11371 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Z. Bern, E. Herrmann, R. Roiban, M. S. Ruf, and M. Zeng, (2024), arXiv:2408.06686 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [62]

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

    2024

  55. [63]

    Buonanno, G

    A. Buonanno, G. U. Jakobsen, and G. Mogull, Phys. Rev. D110, 044038 (2024), arXiv:2402.12342 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Bini and T

    D. Bini and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D110, 064005 (2024), arXiv:2406.04878 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Driesse, G

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

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Bini and T

    D. Bini and T. Damour, (2025), arXiv:2504.20204 [hep- th]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev.D73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    2006 arXiv

  60. [68]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D73, 104031 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511061

    2006

  61. [69]

    I. Z. Rothstein, Gen. Rel. Grav.46, 1726 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rept.633, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.04914

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    W. D. Goldberger, (2022), arXiv:2206.14249 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Maierh¨ ofer, J

    P. Maierh¨ ofer, J. Usovitsch, and P. Uwer, Comput. Phys. Commun.230, 99 (2018), arXiv:1705.05610 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Klappert, F

    J. Klappert, F. Lange, P. Maierh¨ ofer, and J. Uso- vitsch, Comput. Phys. Commun.266, 108024 (2021), arXiv:2008.06494 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    R. N. Lee, Comput. Phys. Commun.267, 108058 (2021), arXiv:2012.00279 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Prausa, Comput

    M. Prausa, Comput. Phys. Commun.219, 361 (2017), arXiv:1701.00725 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Meyer, Comput

    C. Meyer, Comput. Phys. Commun.222, 295 (2018), arXiv:1705.06252 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    W 1-only

    C. Dlapa, J. Henn, and K. Yan, JHEP05, 025 (2020), arXiv:2002.02340 [hep-ph]. 7 SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL As we did in [1], a hybrid formulation for elliptic-like orbits can be developed by incorporating into the Hamilto- nian in (12) the nonlocal-in-time contributions atO(G 5)—...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

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