Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 41 references

Analytic Solutions to Compact Binary Inspirals With Leading Order Spin-Orbit Contribution Using The Dynamical Renormalization Group

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

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

Pith's one-line read Closed-form formulas track a spinning binary's orbit and spin precession at every instant, without averaging.

desk verdict The moving-frame DRG solution for spin-orbit inspirals is a genuine, careful result; the paper's 'real-space trajectory' claim hangs on an unproven conserved quantity in Appendix C and should be tested or withdrawn. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05688 v1 pith:AIF7V7CO submitted 2019-08-15 gr-qc

Zixin Yang , Adam K. Leibovich This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords dynamicalrenormalizationgroupcompactbinaryinspiralspin-orbitcouplingpost-Newtonianapproximationradiationreactionspinprecessiongravitationalwavetemplatesanalyticsolutions
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 claims that the dynamical renormalization group (DRG) can turn the perturbative post-Newtonian equations of a spinning compact binary into closed-form analytic expressions for the orbital radius, frequency, phase, and spin-precession angle at any time during the inspiral. The key improvement over existing analytic approaches is that no orbit averaging or precession averaging is used, so the oscillatory orbital detail is retained. The solutions hold for arbitrary component masses and for arbitrary spin magnitudes and orientations, at leading spin-orbit order plus the 2.5PN radiation-reaction force. Compared with adiabatic solutions, the resummed formulas give roughly an order-of-magnitude better accuracy in the orbital phase, and they evaluate about an order of magnitude faster than direct numerical integration.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dynamical renormalization group applied to ordinary differential equations: radiation reaction and leading spin-orbit effects are treated as perturbations of a Newtonian quasi-circular orbit, and the secularly growing pieces (terms proportional to $t-t_0$ and its powers) are absorbed into 'renormalized' parameters via counter-terms. The renormalization-group equations, obtained from the independence of bare parameters on the renormalization scale, then give first-order flow equations whose integrals are time invariants, e.g., a constant combination of $t$ and $R_R(t)$ in Eq. (3.7a), the spin-modified Kepler relation (3.7b), and conserved combinations for phase and spin eccentricity. These invariants determine all renormalized parameters at any time, so inserting them into the resummed expressions yields the closed-form orbit and spin-precession. The moving triad $\{\mathbf{n},\boldsymbol{\lambda},\mathbf{l}\}$ carries the solution; a proposed transformation (Appendix C) uses a modified total angular momentum to map the triad to a fixed observer frame.

What would settle it

Run the numerical integration of Eqs. (2.1)–(2.4) used in Fig. 1 with the same initial conditions, compute the quantity $\mathbf{J}$ defined in Eq. (C9) at every time step, and check whether its magnitude and direction stay constant to the claimed $O(v^4 S)$; any secular drift at $O(v^5)$ in the non-spinning part or $O(v^4 S)$ in the spin part would invalidate the fixed-frame real-space claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms: the DRG resummation converts the secularly growing perturbative corrections to a quasi-circular inspiral into a set of renormalized parameters whose time dependence is fixed by renormalization-group equations. The resulting expressions — Eqs. (3.6)–(3.8) with the RG invariants (3.7) — give the binary separation $r(t)$, orbital frequency $\omega(t)$, orbital phase $\varphi(t)$, and the precessing spin components $S_+^a(t)$ in a moving triad aligned with the radial direction and orbital angular momentum. The spin-orbit terms appear only through the $l$-components $S_l$ and $\Sigma_l$ at this order, which are constant, and the spin precession solution preserves spin magnitudes. The paper reports that the resummed solutions match numerical integration of the same equations substantially better than the adiabatic approximation, and that evaluating the formulas is roughly ten times faster than the numerical integration.

Load-bearing premise

The real-space trajectory rests on the proposal, introduced in Appendix C, that a specially redefined total angular momentum stays conserved during the radiative inspiral and can be substituted into the no-radiation triad evolution; if that conservation is wrong, the solution is only valid in the moving frame, not as a fixed-frame orbit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Gravitational-wave template banks can be built by direct evaluation of the closed-form expressions, eliminating per-template numerical integration of the orbital equations.
  • The retained non-averaged oscillatory terms mean the solutions capture orbital-eccentricity and precession structure that adiabatic, orbit-averaged models smooth over.
  • The spin-orbit induced eccentricity $e_R^S = A_R^S/R_R$ runs with time through the RG equation, so the formulas include the spin-radiation interaction's effect on the orbital shape.
  • For positive $\mathcal{S} = (51S_l + 21\Delta\Sigma_l)/4$, the renormalized radius shrinks until $R_R(t) = \mathcal{S}^{2/3}M^{-1/3}$, giving an analytic estimate of the end of the post-Newtonian inspiral phase.
  • The same DRG machinery extends to include spin-spin and higher-order PN corrections, which the paper identifies as the path to improved late-inspiral accuracy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the proposed conserved quantity $\mathbf{J}$ of Appendix C survives a direct numerical check, the moving-frame solution becomes a full fixed-frame trajectory, which would make the closed-form expressions directly usable for waveform generation without any averaging step.
  • The order-of-magnitude speedup at fixed accuracy suggests that DRG-based analytic templates could shift the computational bottleneck in matched-filtering searches from template generation to memory access and correlation sums.
  • The same resummation strategy could be applied to eccentric inspirals or to extreme-mass-ratio systems, where orbit averaging is known to distort small secular effects.
  • A direct test of the real-space claim would be to compare the Appendix C fixed-frame orbit against a fixed-frame numerical solution; the paper's moving-frame plots alone do not validate the frame transformation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper derives closed-form analytic solutions for the orbital motion and spin precession of a spinning compact binary during the inspiral, using the dynamical renormalization group (DRG) to resum secularly growing terms from the leading-order (1.5PN) spin-orbit coupling and the 2.5PN radiation-reaction force. The solutions are expressed in a comoving triad and are claimed to give the real-space trajectory and spin precession at arbitrary times without orbit averaging or precession averaging. The authors demonstrate through two representative configurations that their resummed moving-frame orbital solutions are more accurate than adiabatic approximations and about an order of magnitude faster than numerical integration. A proposed transformation in Appendix C aims to convert the moving-triad solution into a fixed inertial frame.

Significance. If fully established, this would be a valuable contribution to analytic gravitational-wave template construction: it extends the DRG approach of Galley and Rothstein to spinning binaries, gives explicit closed-form expressions for the orbital radius, frequency, phase, and spin-precession phase, and avoids averaging over the orbital and precession timescales. The derivations in Appendices A and B are detailed and self-consistent, the numerical comparisons in Figs. 1 and 2 are concrete, and the claimed speedup in Fig. 3 is plausible. However, the central headline claim of a real-space trajectory at any time instant depends on the Appendix C fixed-frame transformation, which is introduced as a proposal rather than a proven result and is never tested against a fixed-frame numerical integration.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C9)] The real-space trajectory claim rests on the assumption that the modified total angular momentum J defined in Eq. (C9) is conserved to O(v^4S) and can replace the conservative J in the moving-triad evolution. The paper only states we propose this conservation and calls the frame transformation naive; no derivation of dJ/dt is given, and no estimate is provided of the accumulated error over the inspiral timescale ~1/(nu v^5 Omega). Since an O(v^4S) rate can integrate to an O(1) change in the triad orientation over the full inspiral, this is a load-bearing step for the abstract's claim of a real-space trajectory valid at any time. This issue needs a proof or a controlled numerical validation.
  2. [Section IV, Figs. 1-2] All numerical comparisons in Section IV are for moving-frame quantities: orbital radius r(t), orbital phase phi(t), and spin components S^n(t), S^lambda(t). No figure compares the fixed-frame trajectory generated by Eqs. (C2)-(C5) with J from Eq. (C9) against a direct numerical integration of the PN equations of motion in a fixed inertial frame. Consequently, the numerical section supports the moving-frame DRG solution but does not test the fixed-frame transformation that the title and abstract emphasize.
  3. [Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The Euler-angle relation Phi + alpha = phi in Eq. (C3) assumes phi is the physical orbital phase entering the triad orientation. Earlier in Appendix A the paper notes that the resummed phi(t) is no longer a physical angle for a precessing orbit but is a combination of Euler angles. The manuscript should clarify why this same phi(t) can be used as the orbital phase in the fixed-frame transformation (C3), and should state the explicit relation of phi to the Euler angles if this is not the standard orbital phase.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section V] The conclusion acknowledges that the spin component comparison is not ideal and that phase differences grow at late times; this limitation is stated honestly, but it should be quantified in Section IV (e.g., by reporting the maximum error or the time at which the angle error exceeds a threshold).
  2. [Section IV, Eq. (4.1)] The expression for AR(0) and the relation between the initial conditions and renormalized parameters would be easier to follow with a short derivation or a footnote explaining how Eq. (4.2) is obtained from the r(t) solution in (3.6a).
  3. [Throughout] The notation S is reused: in Section III it denotes the spin combination S = (51 Sl + 21 Delta Sigma_l)/4, while elsewhere S denotes the total spin vector S = S1 + S2. This overloading is confusing and should be disambiguated, for instance by using a calligraphic symbol for the constant spin combination.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B20)] The complex exponential expression in Eq. (B20) contains a ratio raised to an imaginary power; the condition (M^{1/2} R_R(t)^{3/2} - S) > 0 is mentioned in the text but should be stated explicitly alongside the equation as a domain of validity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the moving-frame DRG solution is derived from the PN equations by perturbative expansion and resummation, and the accuracy benchmark is direct numerical integration of the same equations; the fixed-frame extension in Appendix C rests on an unproven conserved-quantity assumption, not on a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central results in Eqs. (3.6)-(3.8) are obtained by substituting the perturbation ansatz r = R_B + delta-r + delta-r_S and omega = Omega_B + delta-omega + delta-omega_S into the post-Newtonian equations of motion (2.7), solving the resulting linearized differential equations, and using DRG counter-terms to remove secular growth; the renormalization-group equations (3.7) follow from the independence of the bare parameters from the renormalization scale. No parameter is fitted to the numerical or adiabatic solutions, and the comparisons in Figs. 1-2 benchmark the resummed expressions against direct numerical integration of the same equations. The DRG machinery is taken from Ref. [26], which is prior work by different authors, so it is not a load-bearing self-citation; the only self-citation, Ref. [35], is a future-work pointer. The fixed-frame real-space trajectory claim in Appendix C does rely on a newly proposed conserved quantity J defined in Eq. (C9), whose conservation is asserted rather than proved and whose use in the triad evolution is called 'naive' by the authors; however, this is an omitted justification and a correctness risk, not a circular step, because J is not defined as the output being predicted and no fitted quantity is relabeled as a prediction. The main derivation is therefore self-contained with respect to its stated equations and external benchmarks.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the PN truncation at 1.5PN spin-orbit plus 2.5PN radiation reaction, the constancy of the l-components of spin at linear order, the quasi-circular background, the imported DRG resummation procedure, and a proposed modified conserved angular momentum for the fixed-frame map. No free parameters are fitted to data; renormalized parameters are fixed by initial conditions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The 2.5PN Burke-Thorne radiation reaction and 1.5PN leading-order spin-orbit terms in Eq. (2.1) are the complete set of forces needed at the considered order; 1PN and 2PN conservative forces and next-to-leading-order spin-orbit are negligible.
    Stated in Section II: 'Following Ref [26], here we ignore the 1PN and 2PN conservative forces, as well as the next-to-leading order spin-orbit effects... Instead, we focus on the leading order radiation reaction effects on spinning objects.' This truncation defines the model the solutions solve.
  • domain assumption The l-components of the spin vectors are time-independent at linear order in spin, so S_l and Σ_l can be treated as constants in the orbital equations.
    Derived in Section II, Eq. (2.10c): dS_a^l/dt = O(S^2); used to treat S_l and Σ_l as constants in Eqs. (2.7a)-(2.7b).
  • domain assumption The unperturbed orbit is quasi-circular with constant radius R_B and frequency Ω_B satisfying Eq. (3.1); eccentricity is a small O(v^5) perturbation.
    Background solution in Section III and Appendix A: 'The background quasi-circular orbit of a conserved binary...' with small eccentricities e_B ~ O(v^5) and e_S_B ~ O(Sv^4).
  • standard math The DRG resummation procedure of Galley and Rothstein [26] correctly resums secular perturbative growth and produces the RG equations used here.
    The method is imported from a cited prior paper; the paper verifies cancellation of (τ-t0) terms but does not re-derive the general validity of DRG for this system.
  • ad hoc to paper A modified total angular momentum J (Eq. C9) is conserved to O(v^4S) and can replace J in the moving-triad evolution for radiative inspirals.
    Proposed in Appendix C without derivation from the radiative equations of motion; the paper itself calls the resulting frame transformation 'naive'.
invented entities (1)
  • Modified total angular momentum J (tilde)
    purpose: To evolve the moving triad {n, λ, l} into a fixed observer frame for radiative inspirals, replacing the non-conserved total angular momentum J.
    Defined in Eq. (C9) and stated to be conserved to O(v^4S); it is not derived from the equations of motion and has no external verification. The paper labels the fixed-frame transformation built on it as naive.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Solutions to Compact Binary Inspirals With Leading Order Spin-Orbit Contribution Using The Dynamical Renormalization Group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIF7V7CO

@misc{pith2026190805688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Solutions to Compact Binary Inspirals With Leading Order Spin-Orbit Contribution Using The Dynamical Renormalization Group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIF7V7CO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05688}
}
read the original abstract

We calculate the real-space trajectory and spin precession of a generic spinning compact binary inspiral at any time instant using the dynamical renormalization group formalism. This method leads to closed-form analytic solutions to the binary motion through treating radiation reaction as perturbations and resumming the secular growth of perturbative terms. We consider the spin-orbit effects at leading order and the 2.5PN radiation reaction without orbit averaging or precession averaging for arbitrary individual masses and spin magnitudes and orientations. The solutions are written in a moving reference frame, with the orbital angular momentum and binary radial directions aligned along two of the axes. The resummed solutions show improved accuracy compared to adiabatic solutions while also being an order of magnitude faster computationally compared to numerical integration methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05688 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: C++ runtime com [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Definitions of the Euler angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Perturbations of quasi-circular orbits Next we describe the deviation of the quasi-circular background orbit as a result of the leading order radiation reaction and linear spin-orbit effects by isolating the perturbative corrections r(t) =RB +δr(t) +δrS(t) and ω(t) = ΩB +δω(t) +δωS(t). The first time-dependent terms δr(t) andδω(t) are the perturbation that ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    We renormalize these terms by removing the t0 dependence with the introduction of counter-terms for the bare parameters

    Renormalization The full set of bare solutions to the orbit motion including linear spin-orbit terms and 2.5PN Burke-Thorne terms is given by r(t) =RB +δr(t) +δrS(t), (A6a) ω(t) = ΩB +δω(t) +δωS(t), (A6b) φ(t) = ΦB +δΦ(t) +δΦS(t), (A6c) with the corresponding perturbations in (A2) and (A5). We renormalize these terms by removing the t0 dependence with the...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Renormalization Group Solutions Exploiting the fact that the bare quantities{RB(t0), ΩB(t0), ΦB(t0),AS B(t0)} are independent of the arbitrary scale τ, we can write down the renormalization group equations for the renormalized quantities{RR(t), ΩR(t), ΦR(t),AS R(t)} as dRR dτ =− 64ν 5 R6 R(τ)Ω6 R(τ)− (144 5 Sl + 48∆Σl ) νR3 R(τ)Ω5 R(τ), (A11a) dΩR dτ =96ν...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (B9) The renormalization treatment is performed for the natural logarithm of the spin components

    Spin Renormalization To begin, the bare parameter lnSa +B is related to the renormalized value lnSa +R through lnSa +B(t0) = lnSa +R(τ) +δa lnS(τ,t 0). (B9) The renormalization treatment is performed for the natural logarithm of the spin components. As a result, Sa +B = Sa +Reδa lnS. The exponential implies that it is the phase of the precession that is r...

    work page

  5. [5]

    (B15) It seems to be formally divergent and has the dependence on the cut-off t0

    Spin Component Renormalization Group Solution The running of the renormalized parameter Sa +R can be determined using (B12), which leads to d dτi lnSa +R(τ) = ( ΩR− νa ν Ω3 RR2 R− νa ν (5Sl + 3∆Σl) Ω2 R RR ) + [ dΩR dτ − νa ν Ω3 RR2 R ( 3 ΩR dΩR dτ + 2 RR dRR dτ ) − νa ν (5Sl + 3∆Σl) Ω2 R RR ( 2 ΩR dΩR dτ − 1 RR dRR dτ )] × (τ−t0) + [ 96ν 5 R5 BΩ7 B− (24 ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Babak, R

    S. Babak, R. Balasubramanian, D. Churches, T. Cokelaer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 5477 (2006), gr-qc/0604037

    arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    Ajith et al., Phys

    P. Ajith et al., Phys. Rev. D77, 104017 (2008), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D79,129901(2009)], 0710.2335

    arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Harry, S

    I. Harry, S. Privitera, A. Bohe, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D94, 024012 (2016), 1603.02444

    arXiv 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    J. G. Baker, J. R. van Meter, S. T. McWilliams, J. Centrella, and B. J. Kelly, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 181101 (2007), gr-qc/0612024

    2007 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Centrella, J

    J. Centrella, J. G. Baker, B. J. Kelly, and J. R. van Meter, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 3069 (2010), 1010.5260

    2010 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. T. McWilliams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191102 (2019), 1810.00040

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    W. L. Burke and K. S. Thorne, in Relativity - Proceedings, Relativity Conference in the Midwest: Cincinnati, USA, June 2-6, 1969 (1970), pp. 209–228

    1970

  5. [13]

    K. S. Thorne and J. B. Hartle, Physical Review D 31, 1815 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    Damour, P

    T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D89, 064058 (2014), 1401.4548

    2014 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Damour, P

    T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D93, 084014 (2016), 1601.01283

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jaranowski and G

    P. Jaranowski and G. Schafer, Phys. Rev. D92, 124043 (2015), 1508.01016

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, A. Bohe, G. Faye, and S. Marsat, Phys. Rev. D93, 084037 (2016), 1512.02876

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, A. Bohe, G. Faye, and S. Marsat, Phys. Rev. D96, 104043 (2017), 1706.08480

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Marchand, L

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

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, G. Faye, and T. Marchand, Phys. Rev. D97, 044037 (2018), 1711.00283

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D100, 024047 (2019), 1903.05113

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

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

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Drasco, E

    S. Drasco, E. E. Flanagan, and S. A. Hughes, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, S801 (2005), gr-qc/0505075

    2005 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. A. Hughes, S. Drasco, E. E. Flanagan, and J. Franklin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 221101 (2005), gr-qc/0504015

    2005 arXiv

  17. [25]

    N. Sago, T. Tanaka, W. Hikida, and H. Nakano, Prog. Theor. Phys. 114, 509 (2005), gr-qc/0506092

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Pound, E

    A. Pound, E. Poisson, and B. G. Nickel, Phys. Rev. D72, 124001 (2005), gr-qc/0509122

    2005 arXiv

  19. [27]

    B. M. Barker and R. F. O’Connell, General Relativity and Gravitation 11, 149 (1979)

    1979

  20. [28]

    K. S. Thorne and J. B. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D31, 1815 (1984)

    1984

  21. [29]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 051101 (2017), 1606.03117

    2017 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D95, 104004 (2017), 1703.03967

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    C. R. Galley and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D95, 104054 (2017), 1609.08268

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    L.-Y. Chen, N. Goldenfeld, and Y. Oono, Phys. Rev. E54, 376 (1996), hep-th/9506161

    1996 arXiv

  25. [33]

    L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D52, 821 (1995), gr-qc/9506022

    1995 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), 1310.1528

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K. Arun, A. Buonanno, G. Faye, and E. Ochsner, Physical Review D 79, 104023 (2009)

    2009

  28. [36]

    Marsat, A

    S. Marsat, A. Bohe, L. Blanchet, and A. Buonanno, Classical and Quantum Gravity 31, 025023 (2013)

    2013

  29. [37]

    L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. D47, R4183 (1993), gr-qc/9211025

    1993 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. D. Schnittman, Phys. Rev. D70, 124020 (2004), astro-ph/0409174. 23

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Ahnert and M

    K. Ahnert and M. Mulansky, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP, 2011), vol. 1389, pp. 1586–1589

    2011

  32. [40]

    Yang, Work in Progress

    Z. Yang, Work in Progress

  33. [41]

    Blanchet, A

    L. Blanchet, A. Buonanno, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D84, 064041 (2011), 1104.5659

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

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