Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Impact of a Spinning Supermassive Black Hole on the Orbit and Gravitational Waves of a Nearby Compact Binary

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A spinning supermassive black hole measurably changes the orbit, merger time, and LISA-band gravitational waves of a nearby stellar-mass binary.

desk verdict Useful orbital-dynamics follow-up whose LISA detectability claim outruns the actual matched-filter analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01443 v1 pith:HPI3DUBV submitted 2019-08-05 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Yun Fang (CAS) , Xian Chen (PKU) , Qing-Guo Huang (CAS) This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords Kozai-LidovmechanismsupermassiveblackholespingravitationalwavesLISALense-Thirringeffectgravitomagneticforcebinarymergerpost-Newtoniandynamics
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 argues that the spin of a supermassive black hole (SMBH) is not a negligible detail when a stellar-mass binary black hole orbits nearby: it changes the binary's Kozai-Lidov oscillation, its merger time, and the gravitational waves it emits into the LISA band. Working from a previously derived spin-inclusive extension of the Kozai-Lidov equations, the authors evolve two representative triples around a $4\times10^6\,M_\odot$ SMBH spinning at $a=0.9\,m_3$. In both cases the eccentricity, inclination, and precession of the inner binary differ from the zero-spin case, and the merger time shifts by about 14% to 25%, with the sign depending on the initial orbital angles. In a Galactic-Center-like example observed for four years, the spin waveform and the no-spin waveform have a fitting factor of 0.834 against a distinguishability threshold of 0.999997, so the spin imprint should be visible. If these results hold, LISA observations of such triples could probe the spins of galactic-center black holes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-inclusive generalization of the Kozai-Lidov equations (the gravitational three-body resonance that can drive a binary's eccentricity to large values) taken from the authors' earlier work. It adds 1.5 post-Newtonian spin terms—a gravitomagnetic force on the inner binary and Lense-Thirring precession of the outer orbit—to the usual Kozai-Lidov equations, along with 1PN pericenter precession and 2.5PN gravitational-wave radiation reaction. These equations evolve the full set of orbital elements of both orbits, including the outer orbit's ascending node and inclination, which the standard formalism treats as frozen. The waveform comparison then uses the harmonic decomposition of eccentric binary gravitational waves and a matched-filter fitting factor computed with the LISA noise curve; the fitting factor is the quantity that decides whether the spin imprint is resolvable.

What would settle it

Run an independent direct few-body integration of the paper's first example at the same post-Newtonian order (or a full numerical-relativity-informed simulation) and compare the resulting merger time and LISA-band waveform with the paper's spin-inclusive result; if the merger-time shift is far below 14–25% or the spin-vs-no-spin fitting factor rises above the paper's threshold FFS = 0.999997, the paper's central claim would fail.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the spin-induced gravitomagnetic force on the inner binary, together with Lense-Thirring precession of the outer orbit, breaks the standard assumption that the outer orbit's angular momentum stays fixed during Kozai-Lidov cycles, and that this changes the inner binary's fate. Using the spin-inclusive equations, the authors find that the merger time is longer in one example and shorter in another, shifting by roughly 14% to 25%. For the first example ($m_1=20\,M_\odot$, $m_2=10\,M_\odot$, $m_3=4\times10^6\,M_\odot$, spin $0.9\,m_3$, inner semi-major axis 0.031 AU, outer semi-major axis 30 AU, both eccentricities 0.1), spin makes the inclination oscillate more often, speeds up nodal precession, and slowly precesses the outer orbital plane; these differences show up in the waveform through the angles $\gamma$ and $\beta$. With LISA noise and a four-year observation, the overlap between the spin and no-spin waveforms is only FF = 0.834, far below the threshold FFS = 0.999997, so the two signals are distinguishable.

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on the equations the authors took from their earlier paper that add the supermassive black hole's spin to the Kozai-Lidov orbital evolution; if those equations are wrong or miss a term, the whole result collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Merger-rate estimates for BBHs forming near SMBHs must include SMBH spin, because the 14–25% changes in merger time translate directly into changes in predicted merger rates.
  • LISA search templates for BBH-SMBH triples need spin-inclusive waveforms; a no-spin template would miss a signal like the paper's first example, where the fitting factor is only 0.834.
  • The time a BBH spends inside the LISA band changes with spin, so the spin affects source detectability and any inferred population of LISA-band sources.
  • For a BBH-SMBH triple found in the Galactic Center, a four-year LISA observation would separate the spin and no-spin cases, making the SMBH spin measurable in principle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's two examples bracket the sign of the merger-time shift, but a systematic average over initial orbital angles (a survey the authors defer) is needed to know whether spin speeds up or slows down the net BBH merger rate in galactic nuclei; that average is a testable extension.
  • Because the SMBH spin defines a preferred axis, the time-varying orientation angles of the inner binary could in principle separate spin magnitude from spin direction, something the paper's fixed spin value of $a=0.9\,m_3$ does not attempt.
  • The same gravitomagnetic Kozai-Lidov equations should apply to other hierarchical triples, including stellar-mass tertiaries and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals, where Lense-Thirring precession is already known to matter; the waveform-level test proposed here could be carried over to those settings.
  • If the spin imprint is as strong as the representative example suggests, BBH mergers originating near SMBHs may carry a systematic orientation or phase bias when analyzed with Schwarzschild-SMBH templates, appearing as a population-level mismatch rather than a single-source detection.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies hierarchical triple systems consisting of a stellar-mass binary black hole (BBH) in a tight orbit around a spinning supermassive black hole (SMBH). It adopts the spin-inclusive Kozai-Lidov equations from the authors' earlier paper (Fang & Huang 2019), which include 1PN periastron precession, 2.5PN radiation reaction, and 1.5PN spin effects, and evolves the inner binary orbital elements for two representative initial angle configurations. The authors find that the SMBH spin changes the Kozai-Lidov oscillations, the inclination and nodal precession, and the merger time by roughly 14-25%. For one example, the paper computes the gravitational-wave (GW) waveform of the inner binary using a harmonic decomposition for eccentric orbits with time-varying orientation, and uses a phase-averaged matched-filter overlap to report FF = 0.834 < FFS = 0.999997, concluding that a millihertz detector such as LISA could distinguish the spinning-SMBH case from the non-spinning case.

Significance. If correct, the work would open a potentially new observational channel for measuring SMBH spins using LISA detections of stellar-mass BBHs in galactic nuclei, and it provides an analytic framework for generating waveforms from eccentric binaries with time-varying orbital orientation. The authors make explicit, falsifiable predictions for concrete examples, which is a strength. However, the main detectability claim is not yet established: the overlap is computed with a non-standard phase-averaged quantity rather than a maximized matched-filter statistic, and no search over the parameters of the no-spin template family is performed. The orbital evolution results are interesting but are based on two hand-picked initial configurations and on equations inherited from a prior paper that are not reproduced here. The quantitative distinguishability result is therefore best regarded as a proof-of-principle needing substantial reinforcement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eqs. (22)-(26)] The fitting factor is computed using phase-averaged products, with absolute values inside the time integrals and phase-averaged squared amplitudes, rather than using the standard complex matched-filter overlap maximized over the unknown phase and arrival time. Equation (17) applies to two fixed waveforms, but in real matched filtering the template is varied to maximize the overlap; a phase-maximized FF will generally be larger than the value obtained after phase averaging. Consequently the comparison FF = 0.834 < FFS = 0.999997 does not establish that the spin waveform is distinguishable from the no-spin waveform. Please recompute the overlap without discarding the oscillatory terms in Eqs. (7)-(8) and maximize over a constant phase and time offset, or otherwise justify why the phase-averaged quantity is the relevant statistic.
  2. [Section 4.2 and Section 5] The comparison is made between two waveforms with identical initial angles (ι0 = 70°, Ω0 = 100°, ω0 = 20°), and no maximization is performed over the parameters of the no-spin template family. The no-spin model has free initial angles ι0, Ω0, ω0, and the spin-induced differences shown in Figures 4 and 9 appear largely as faster oscillations and different precession rates; a no-spin template with different initial angles could therefore mimic part of the spin signal. The paper's own statement in Section 5 that a parameter survey is deferred to future work concedes this limitation. The claim that LISA can detect the SMBH spin requires showing that the spin waveform has low overlap with the entire no-spin template family, not merely with the same-initial-condition waveform.
  3. [End of Section 3] The neglect of Doppler modulation and amplitude modulation from the outer orbital motion is not quantitatively justified. For A = 30 AU and m3 = 4 × 10^6 M_sun, the outer orbital speed is v/c ≈ 0.025 and the orbital period is about 0.08 yr. The Doppler phase modulation of a GW at frequency f has amplitude of order (v/c) f P, which is roughly 10-100 radians for f in the LISA band over a four-year observation. This is not a small PN correction compared with the spin-induced changes in γ and β shown in Figures 7 and 9, and omitting it could significantly change the waveform and the resulting overlap. Please provide a quantitative estimate of these effects or include them in the waveform model before drawing the detectability conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The statement that 'LISA will claim a detection as soon as SNR becomes 10' is conflated with the distinguishability threshold; FFS should be evaluated at the actual SNR of the source. The reported FFS = 0.999997 corresponds to SNR ≈ 400, so please state explicitly whether this SNR is achieved for the assumed distance of 8 kpc and the adopted LISA sensitivity curve.
  2. [Section 3, Eq. (14)] The expression for f_peak is typeset ambiguously; please write it as f_peak = sqrt(m1 + m2) (1 + e)^{-0.3046} / [π (α(1-e))^{3/2}] or use an equivalent unambiguous form.
  3. [Section 3, Eq. (2)] The formula for sinγ is algebraically correct but unnecessarily complicated; simplifying it to sqrt(1 - sin^2 ι sin^2 Ω) would make the orientation equations more transparent and easier to check.
  4. [Figure 5 and Figure 9] The axis label 'α(2m1)' is not explained in the caption; please state explicitly that α is plotted in units of the Schwarzschild radius of the more massive BH in the binary.
  5. [Section 4, Eqs. (22)-(26)] The use of absolute values and phase-averaged products in the overlap integral should be explicitly identified as a non-standard definition; the notation ⟨h1|h2⟩ normally denotes the noise-weighted inner product, and the reader should not have to infer that a different quantity is being computed.
  6. [References] Several references are given only as arXiv identifiers (e.g., Abbott et al. 2016a; Addison et al. 2015; Fragione et al. 2018; Randall & Xianyu 2019); please update to published versions where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-inclusive evolution is integrated from a parameter-free published PN formalism and compared against a different model, not fitted to the target result.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained in the relevant sense. The spin-inclusive Kozai-Lidov equations are taken from Fang & Huang (2019), but that prior work is a parameter-free post-Newtonian derivation whose stated assumptions do not include the present paper's results; it is therefore independent support under the review rules, not a fitted input. The claims about eccentricity, inclination, merger time, and waveform distinguishability are obtained by integrating these equations for two models (K-L+1PN+RR and K-L+1PN+RR+Spin) and comparing the outputs; no quantity that is later called a prediction is used to set the model parameters. The matched-filter FF/FFS comparison in Section 4.2 compares two independently computed waveforms from the two models at the same initial conditions, so the detectability statement is a falsifiable model comparison rather than a restatement of an input. The possible concern that the no-spin template was not maximized over its full parameter space is a statistical robustness issue, not circularity. No self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, or renaming pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on a prior self-cited formalism, hand-picked initial conditions, and a standard waveform model. No new particles or forces are introduced. The main free choices are the orbital angles and the SMBH spin, which determine the 14-25 percent merger-time shifts and the LISA fitting factor.

free parameters (5)
  • Initial orbital angles, Example 1 = i3=60 deg, i=70 deg, omega=20 deg, Omega=100 deg, Omega3=0
    Chosen by hand to give a stable triple where spin effects are visible; the 14-25 percent merger-time difference and the FF=0.834 result are specific to this configuration.
  • Initial orbital angles, Example 2 = i=140 deg, omega=10 deg, Omega=60 deg, others same
    Second hand-picked configuration; changes the sign of the spin effect on merger time, showing the outcome is initial-condition-dependent.
  • SMBH spin a = a = 0.9 m3
    Chosen to represent a rapidly spinning SMBH; detectability result depends on this value.
  • Binary and SMBH masses and separations = m1=20 Msun, m2=10 Msun, m3=4e6 Msun, alpha=0.031 AU, A=30 AU, e=E=0.1
    Chosen to mimic the Galactic Center and to keep the triple hierarchical; not varied in this paper.
  • Source distance and observation time = r=8 kpc, dt=4 yr
    Used in the matched-filter calculation; the FF/FFS margin would change with distance and observing duration.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Hierarchical triple condition alpha/A ~ 1e-3 << 1 justifies the secular, double-averaged Kozai-Lidov expansion.
    Invoked in Section 2 when choosing alpha=0.031 AU and A=30 AU; the entire K-L framework assumes the inner binary separation is much smaller than the outer orbit.
  • domain assumption The spin-inclusive K-L equations of Fang & Huang (2019) are correct at 1.5PN order.
    This paper takes these equations as its evolution model; no derivation is given in this manuscript.
  • domain assumption Post-Newtonian ordering: 1PN periastron precession, 2.5PN radiation reaction, and 1.5PN spin terms are the only important corrections.
    Stated in Section 2; higher-order terms and the GW emission from the outer revolution are neglected.
  • standard math Quadrupole harmonic waveform for eccentric binaries (Maggiore 2007; Peters & Mathews 1963) applies.
    Used in Section 3, Eqs. (7)-(12), to construct h+ and hx from the orbital parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impact of a Spinning Supermassive Black Hole on the Orbit and Gravitational Waves of a Nearby Compact Binary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HPI3DUBV

@misc{pith2026190801443,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impact of a Spinning Supermassive Black Hole on the Orbit and Gravitational Waves of a Nearby Compact Binary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HPI3DUBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01443}
}
read the original abstract

Recent theoretical studies suggest that stellar-mass binary black holes (BBHs) would merge more efficiently due to the Kozai-Lidov mechanism if these binaries form in the vicinity of supermassive black holes (SMBHs). Since SMBHs are likely rotating rapidly, we continue our earlier study on the generalization of the Kozai-Lidov formalism to include the spin of the SMBH and study the evolution of a nearby BBH. We find that the eccentricity and orbital inclination of the BBH is significantly affected, because the spin (i) forces the orbital plane of the center-of-mass of the BBH around the SMBH to precess (the Lense-Thirring effect) and (ii) imposes an additional gravitomagnetic force on the BBH. As a result, the merger time of the BBH could be significantly different. We calculate the waveform from the BBH in one representative example and study its detectability by a milli-Hertz GW detector, such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). We find that the signal is distinguishable from that in the case without spin. Our results imply that the BBHs in the LISA band could potentially be used to probe the spin of the SMBHs in galaxy centers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01443 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Configuration of our triple system seen from a fixed reference frame of (X, Y, Z) with basis vectors (eX, eY , eZ ). The vectors Jout and Jin are, respectively, the angular momenta of the outer and inner binary. Moreover, ι3 and ι are the inclination angles of the outer and inner orbits, κ is the angle between the projection of Jout in the (X, Y ) plane and eX, Ω is the longitude of the ascending node of the inner o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Evolution of ι and Ω. The line styles are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evolution of ω and α, and the line styles are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of γ (upper panel) and β (lower panel). The blue curves correspond to the model without spin and the orange ones with spin. where f is the radial orbital frequency of the inner bi￾nary, µ = m1m2/(m1 + m2) is the reduced mass, and An = α 2 n [Jn−2 (ne) − Jn+2 …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of the peak frequency of the GWs from the inner BBH. The line styles and the model parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Evolution of e, α, γ, β in the first 12 years for our first example. The unit of α is 2m1, i.e., the Schwarzschild radius of the more massive BH in the binary. lowing Maggiore 2007) |h1+,n| 2 + |h1×,n| 2 = π 4f 4µ 2n 4 2r 2 (4C1n 2 sin2 2β1(cos 2γ1 + 3)2 +((A1n − B1n) …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A pipeline to search for signatures of line-of-sight acceleration in gravitational wave signals produced by compact binary coalescences

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Line-of-sight acceleration phase corrections for gravitational waves are extended to aligned-spin and tidal binaries, and a pipeline with selection criteria is tested against several acceleration-mimicking effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016a, ApJ, 818, L22 —. 2016b, PhRvX, 6, 041015, [Erratum: PhRvX 8,no.3,039903(2018)] —. 2016c, PhRvL, 116, 241103 —. 2016d, PhRvL, 116, 061102 —. 2017a, PhRvL, 118, 221101, [Erratum: PhRvL 121,no.12,129901(2018)] —. 2017b, ApJ, 851, L35 —. 2017c, PhRvL, 119, 141101 —. 2017d, PhRvL, 119, 161101 —. 2018, arXiv:1811.12907

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    Addison, E., Laguna, P., & Larson, S. 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Antonini, F., & Perets, H. B. 2012, ApJ, 757, 27

    work page 2012

  4. [4]

    A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G

    Apostolatos, T. A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G. J., & Thorne, K. S. 1994, PhRvD, 49, 6274

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    2018, MNRAS, 477, 4423

    Arca-Sedda, M., & Gualandris, A. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 4423

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    2004, PhRvD, 69, 082005

    Barack, L., & Cutler, C. 2004, PhRvD, 69, 082005

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & M acutearka, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 165

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    Berti, E., Buonanno, A., & Will, C. M. 2005, PhRvD, 71, 084025

    work page 2005

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    2018, CmPhy., 1, 53

    Chen, X., & Han, W.-B. 2018, CmPhy., 1, 53

    2018

  2. [10]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, L141

    Chen, X., Li, S., & Cao, Z. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L141

    2019

  3. [11]

    Cutler, C., & Flanagan, E. E. 1994, PhRvD, 49, 2658

    1994

  4. [12]

    2019, PhRvD, 99, 103005

    Fang, Y., & Huang, Q.-G. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 103005

    2019

  5. [13]

    Finn, L. S. 1992, PhRvD, 46, 5236

    1992

  6. [14]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hughes, S. A. 1998, PhRvD, 57, 4535

    1998

  7. [15]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 5160

    Fragione, G., & Leigh, N. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 5160

    2018

  8. [16]

    2019, ApJ, 875, L31

    Hoang, B.-M., Naoz, S., Kocsis, B., Farr, W., & McIver, J. 2019, ApJ, 875, L31

    2019

  9. [17]

    2018, ApJ, 856, 140

    Dosopoulou, F. 2018, ApJ, 856, 140

    2018

  10. [18]

    Hong, J., & Lee, H. M. 2015, MNRAS, 448, 754

    2015

  11. [19]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 063014

    Inayoshi, K., Tamanini, N., Caprini, C., & Haiman, Z. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 063014

    2017

  12. [20]

    1962, Astron

    Kozai, Y. 1962, Astron. J., 67, 591

    1962

  13. [21]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planetary and Space Science., 9, 719

    1962

  14. [22]

    J., & Brown, D

    Lindblom, L., Owen, B. J., & Brown, D. A. 2008, PhRvD, 78, 124020

    2008

  15. [23]

    2007, Gravitational Waves (Oxford: Oxford Univ

    Maggiore, M. 2007, Gravitational Waves (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press)

    2007

  16. [24]

    2018, ApJ, 866, 66

    Mckernan, B., et al. 2018, ApJ, 866, 66

    2018

  17. [25]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 200

    Meiron, Y., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A. 2017, ApJ, 834, 200

    2017

  18. [26]

    C., & Lauburg, V

    Miller, M. C., & Lauburg, V. M. 2009, ApJ, 692, 917

    2009

  19. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155

    Teyssandier, J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155

    2013

  20. [28]

    A., et al

    Nichols, D. A., et al. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 124014

    2011

  21. [29]

    2016, PhRvD, 94, 064020

    Nishizawa, A., Berti, E., Klein, A., & Sesana, A. 2016, PhRvD, 94, 064020

    2016

  22. [30]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, PhRvD, 131, 435

    1963

  23. [31]

    2017, ApJ, 846, 146

    Petrovich, C., & Antonini, F. 2017, ApJ, 846, 146

    2017

  24. [32]

    Poisson, E., & Will, C. M. 2014, Gravity: Newtonian,

    2014

  25. [33]

    2019, arXiv:1902.08604

    Randall, L., & Xianyu, Z.-Z. 2019, arXiv:1902.08604

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2013, CQGra, 30, 244004 —. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 277

    2013

  27. [35]

    J., & Liug, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liug, C. 2019, CQGra, 36, 105011

    2019

  28. [36]

    2019, ApJ, 878, 85

    Secunda, A., Bellovary, J., Mac Low, M.-M., et al. 2019, ApJ, 878, 85

    2019

  29. [37]

    2013, PhRvL, 111, 061106

    Seto, N. 2013, PhRvL, 111, 061106

    2013

  30. [38]

    C., Metzger, B

    Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., & Haiman, Z. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 946

    2017

  31. [39]

    S., & Hartle, J

    Thorne, K. S., & Hartle, J. B. 1984, PhRvD, 31, 1815

    1984

  32. [40]

    2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.09857

    Peng, P. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.09857

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Richardson, D. C. 2016, ApJ, 828, 77

    2016

  34. [42]

    Will, C. M. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 023017

    2017

  35. [43]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 87

    Zhang, F., Shao, L., & Zhu, W. 2019, ApJ, 877, 87

    2019

Pith tools

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