Probing the Nature of Black Holes: Deep in the mHz Gravitational-Wave Sky

Aaron Zimmerman; Alasdair Taylor; Antoine Petiteau; Barry Wardell; B\'eatrice Bonga; Chris Kavanagh; Daniela Doneva; Elias Vagenas; Emanuele Berti; Geoffrey Comp\`ere

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Probing the Nature of Black Holes: Deep in the mHz Gravitational-Wave Sky

T0 review · 4 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 future millihertz gravitational-wave detector with ten times LISA's sensitivity would test whether black holes have event horizons and whether general relativity holds in the strong-field regime.

desk verdict A competent, candid community white paper making the case for AMIGO, a tenfold-more-sensitive LISA; the physics summaries are sound, but the central sensitivity gain is asserted rather than demonstrated and every science projection inherits that assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.11390 v1 pith:CIONPGSE submitted 2019-08-29 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Vishal Baibhav , Leor Barack , Emanuele Berti , Béatrice Bonga , Richard Brito , Vitor Cardoso , Geoffrey Compère , Saurya Das

show 21 more authors

Daniela Doneva Juan Garcia-Bellido Lavinia Heisenberg Scott A. Hughes Maximiliano Isi Karan Jani Chris Kavanagh Georgios Lukes-Gerakopoulos Guido Mueller Paolo Pani Antoine Petiteau Surjeet Rajendran Thomas P. Sotiriou Nikolaos Stergioulas Alasdair Taylor Elias Vagenas Maarten van de Meent Niels Warburton Barry Wardell Vojtěch Witzany Aaron Zimmerman

This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc

keywords gravitationalwavesmillihertzbandblackholeseventhorizonsextreme-mass-ratioinspiralsblack-holespectroscopyexoticcompactobjectsmodifiedgravity

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 white paper asks what physics would become accessible if a space-based gravitational-wave observatory operated in the millihertz band with ten times LISA's sensitivity at every frequency. It argues that such a detector, called AMIGO, would turn black holes into precision laboratories: measuring masses, spins, and multipole moments, testing whether their exteriors match the Kerr solution of general relativity, and probing whether event horizons really exist. The paper projects concrete numbers: exotic-compact-object reflectivity constrained at the five-$\sigma$ level, chirp masses and mass ratios measured to parts in $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-5}$, dipole radiation flux limited to about $10^{-9}$, and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals seen out to redshift ten or beyond. If these projections hold, a single mission class could address whether astrophysical black holes are described by Einstein's theory, whether new long-range fields exist, and how supermassive black holes formed and grew over cosmic time.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the paper is the projected AMIGO sensitivity curve, produced by feeding a LISA-like instrument model with three upgrades: a larger mirror, a more powerful laser, and ten times lower acceleration noise. Every quantitative claim - event rates, parameter errors, reflectivity bounds, dipole limits - is an inference from where that curve falls relative to the signal amplitudes of known sources. The physical mechanisms the paper leans on are horizon-specific: tidal heating of a black hole's horizon transfers thousands of radians of orbital phase in an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral; the tidal Love numbers of black holes vanish exactly in general relativity while horizonless objects have nonzero values; and the purely ingoing boundary condition at a horizon suppresses echoes in the ringdown. These properties turn the sensitivity curve into a discriminator between Kerr black holes and exotic compact objects.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to simulate realistic data with the quoted AMIGO noise curve plus the actual galactic-binary confusion foreground and ask whether the claimed five-$\sigma$ reflectivity bound and $10^{-7}$ chirp-mass precision survive when source confusion, calibration errors, and noise nonstationarity are included; if they do not, the headline projections fail even under the paper's own instrument assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a future space-based detector with peak sensitivity in the millihertz band and a flat factor-of-ten sensitivity improvement over the planned LISA mission would be a discovery instrument for fundamental physics, not just an incremental advance. Using a specific instrument concept - 2.5 million kilometer arms, a 0.5 meter telescope, a 30 watt laser at 1064 nanometers, and a tenfold reduction in acceleration noise - the authors compute a sensitivity curve and read off what it implies for known gravitational-wave sources. They conclude that AMIGO would detect extreme-mass-ratio inspirals to redshifts of ten or beyond, with event rates of at least several hundred per year; measure chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio with fractional errors down to $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-5}$ for supermassive mergers; constrain dipolar energy loss to about $10^{-9}$; and distinguish a black hole from a horizonless compact object by the absence or presence of tidal heating, tidal Love numbers, and ringdown echoes. In their reading, the same instrument would constrain the effective reflectivity of exotic compact objects at five-$\sigma$ confidence and map the multipolar structure of supermassive black holes that LISA will only begin to characterize. The paper's claim is that these measurements would resolve long-standing questions: whether astrophysical black holes are the Kerr black holes of general relativity, whether event horizons are real boundaries, whether light bosonic fields condense around spinning holes, and how the first supermassive black holes formed.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that a space mission with 2.5-million-kilometer arms, a 0.5 meter mirror, a 30 watt 1064 nanometer laser, and ten times lower acceleration noise can actually be built and that its noise curve is accurately modeled; if that sensitivity gain is not realized, every projected constraint and event rate scales away.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single supermassive-merger event could measure chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio to fractional errors of $10^{-7}$ and $10^{-5}$, making gravitational-wave phasing a far sharper probe of deviations from general relativity than LISA alone.
AMIGO would constrain the effective reflectivity of any horizonless surface at five-sigma confidence, a test that the paper says is impossible with near-future detectors.
Extreme-mass-ratio inspirals out to redshift ten or beyond would let the same detector track the co-evolution of black hole mass and spin across cosmic history and catch near-extremal black holes if they exist.
A single event could limit dipole radiation flux to about $10^{-9}$, testing the neutrality of matter at the level of one excess electron per $10^{23}$ neutrons.
Measuring spin distributions of a large black-hole population would constrain ultralight bosons in the $10^{-21}$ to $10^{-10}$ eV mass range through superradiant spin-down.

Reading between the lines

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

If the quoted noise curve is realized, the same sensitivity would make AMIGO a multiband partner for ground-based detectors: stellar-mass binaries that LIGO/Virgo eventually see merging would be tracked years earlier in the millihertz band, a synergy the paper mentions only in passing.
The five-sigma reflectivity projection assumes a single loud event; with several hundred EMRIs per year, stacking many sources could push the effective bound on horizon reflectivity well below the single-event projection.
The paper's redshift reach to $z\sim10$, combined with its primordial-black-hole discussion, suggests AMIGO could turn PBH formation models into a measurable population; the paper does not make that connection explicitly.
The optimistic EMRI-rate assumption embedded in the yield statements is a point where a skeptical reader would want a dedicated population synthesis before committing to the quoted event statistics.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. This is a Voyage 2050 white paper, not a research preprint. It contains no new measurement, derivation, or dataset. Its value is as a synthesis: a broad, accurate review of how a future mHz-band detector could test the Kerr hypothesis, horizons, dark-matter models, and GR itself, written by many of the people who would do that science. The physics summaries are reliable and, within the limits of the genre, honest. It openly states that LISA EMRI rates are uncertain from several per year to hundreds or thousands (Sec. 4.1) and that accretion-disk modeling is very challenging (Sec. 4.2). That candor matters.

The AMIGO concept is concrete and named: 0.5 m telescope, 30 W laser, 10x lower acceleration noise, same 2.5 Gm arms. The paper's load-bearing claim is that this gives a uniform factor-of-10 sensitivity improvement across the band, and nearly every quantitative projection—5-sigma ECO reflectivity bounds, 10^-7/10^-5 mass-parameter errors, EMRI horizon out to z~10—scales from that curve.

Here is the soft spot. The sensitivity curve is asserted, not derived. Section 2 says it was computed with the LISA Performance Model, but gives no noise breakdown or settings. The stress-test note is on target: the Galactic binary confusion foreground is an astrophysical floor. If it is included in the model, the effective gain in the confusion-dominated part of the band will be less than 10x, and projections there are optimistic. The paper does mention the foreground in one sentence and says it must be traded against technical improvements, but that caveat does not carry forward into the numbers in Sections 3.4, 4, and 5. For a white paper aiming to motivate a mission, this is a genuine weakness—not fatal to the genre, but worth flagging to anyone who reads the projections as firm forecasts.

Also, many projections are scaled from the authors' own earlier LISA studies. That is not a flaw in itself; they are the right people to do the scaling. But it confirms that the paper is a synthesis, not a new calculation. The citation pattern is naturally self-referential, which is fine in context.

Verdict: it deserves serious peer-review attention as a white paper—the feasibility claim and the foreground issue need scrutiny—but it should be judged as a community position document, not a research paper. I would not cite it as the source for any specific number; I would go to the underlying literature.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This white paper argues for AMIGO, a space-based millihertz gravitational-wave observatory that would reuse the LISA configuration (2.5 million km arms) with upgraded components—a 0.5 m telescope, a 30 W laser at 1064 nm, and a tenfold reduction in acceleration noise—and, it is claimed, improve sensitivity over LISA by a factor of 10 across all frequencies. On that basis the paper develops a broad fundamental-physics and astrophysics science case: precision tests of general relativity and the Kerr hypothesis (multipole moments, tidal heating, tidal deformability, ringdown spectroscopy), searches for dark matter and new bosonic fields (dipole radiation, superradiant clouds, dark-matter environments), probes of horizons and exotic compact objects (including 5σ ECO-reflectivity constraints), extreme-mass-ratio inspirals as probes of supermassive-black-hole growth and galactic-center environments out to z~10, and ultra-precise measurements of SMBH merger parameters (chirp mass to 10^-7, ringdown mass and spin to O(10^-5)). The paper concludes that such a mission is feasible in the 2035–2050 period.

Significance. The manuscript is a well-crafted and comprehensive science case, and its strengths are real: the physics summaries are accurate and up to date; the paper is candid about its dominant uncertainties (the EMRI-rate range in §4.1 and the difficulty of accretion-disk modeling in §4.2); and the sensitivity curve is generated with the standard LISA Performance Model rather than an ad hoc noise model. If the assumed factor-10 gain holds across the mHz band, the projected outcomes would be transformative—5σ ECO-reflectivity constraints, 10^-7-level chirp-mass measurements, and EMRI science to z~10 are all qualitatively new capabilities. The assessment of the paper therefore hinges on one premise: the frequency-resolved validity of the factor-10 curve. The quantitative projections are also heavily self-referential (mostly scaling the team's own LISA-era forecasts, e.g., Refs. [244, 247]), so this report focuses on making those assumptions explicit and conditional.

major comments (4)

[Section 2 (AMIGO) and Fig. 1.] The paper's central premise is the claim in §2 that AMIGO improves LISA's sensitivity 'by a factor of 10 across all frequencies,' and every quantitative projection in §§3.4, 4, and 5 inherits this curve. The support offered is a single sentence stating that Fig. 1 was computed with the LISA Performance Model; no noise budget, parameter list, or frequency-resolved breakdown is given. This matters because the standard LISA Performance Model includes the Galactic Binary Confusion foreground (Ref. [21]), an astrophysical floor that does not automatically scale down with the instrument's shot and acceleration noise. The text mentions the confusion foreground only as a mission-design trade-off and does not state whether the Fig. 1 AMIGO curve includes it, what residual confusion remains after resolving the additional bright binaries, or what the effective gain is at 1–3 mHz. It may well be that a factor-10 gain is achievable even in the confused band, since improved sensitivity resolves more binaries and thereby lowers the residual confusion; the point is that this has to be shown rather than asserted. The authors should supply the full noise decomposition (sensor noise, acceleration noise, confusion residual) for both LISA and AMIGO on a common plot, and either demonstrate the factor-10 gain at each frequency or qualify the science statements in §§3.4–5 by the frequency-dependent effective gain.
[Section 4.1 (EMRI rates).] Section 4.1 states that LISA EMRI rates are uncertain 'from several events per year to hundreds or even thousands,' and then concludes that 'the rate for AMIGO is likely to be at least several hundred events per year.' The second statement is not derived anywhere in the manuscript and appears to assume a favorable outcome of the first. The AMIGO yield should be presented as a range, obtained by specifying how the detection horizon and effective survey volume scale with the §2 sensitivity curve (for the population models that bracket the LISA rate), rather than as a point value; otherwise the 'large statistics' science goals in §§4 and 5 rest on an unstated astrophysical assumption.
[Sections 5.1 and 5.2 (parameter-estimation forecasts).] The headline quantitative claims—fractional chirp-mass errors down to 10^-7, symmetric-mass-ratio errors of 10^-5, dipolar-flux constraints at the 10^-9 level, and ringdown mass/spin errors of O(10^-5)—are quoted with citations to the team's prior LISA-era work (e.g., Refs. [244, 247]) but without the source parameters, signal-to-noise ratios, or Fisher-matrix assumptions used to produce them. A reader cannot tell which figures are new calculations for AMIGO and which are extrapolations scaled from LISA forecasts by the factor-10 curve. The authors should state the assumed event parameters and SNR for each quoted accuracy, identify the method (Fisher matrix or otherwise), and flag explicitly which results are order-of-magnitude extrapolations.
[Section 3.4 (ECO reflectivity).] The claim in §3.4 that 'an improvement in sensitivity by a factor 10 relative to LISA will allow us to put constraints on the ECO reflectivity at 5σ confidence level, which are impossible with near-future detectors' is a prominent, quantitative science outcome, but it is stated without a derivation or a supporting reference. A short estimate (noise curve, source population, and how reflectivity maps to the echo amplitude and phase), or an explicit citation to a study that performs this calculation, is needed before this claim can be evaluated.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.3.] The sentence 'By a rough estimate, the ratio of SNR in the ringing to SNR in the inspiral is ∼ sqrt(Q m/M)' appears twice in this section with slightly different formatting; one copy should be removed.
[Section 2.] The phrase 'this sensitivity is the target or bench mark' should read 'benchmark.'
[Fig. 1.] Because the paper's central claim is a factor-10 gain relative to LISA, the figure would be much more informative if it overlaid the LISA sensitivity curve and displayed the ratio; as printed, the claimed factor cannot be visually checked.
[Fig. 2.] The gravitational-waveform panel in Fig. 2 has no axis labels or scale information; adding them would make the figure self-contained.
[References.] Several references give only an arXiv identifier without a title or publication status (e.g., Refs. [209], [224], [262]); completing these entries would help the reader.
[Section 4.3.] The text reads 'tetering on the edge of becoming naked singularities'; this should be 'teetering,' and the earlier 'we expectQ' is missing a space.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's science projections are explicitly conditional forecasts based on an assumed AMIGO sensitivity curve, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions.

full rationale

This paper is a mission white paper, not a derivation of new physical results from first principles. Its central science claims are explicitly conditional on the assumed AMIGO configuration: Section 2 defines a detector concept (0.5 m telescope, 30 W laser, 10-fold acceleration-noise reduction) and states that this configuration yields a factor-of-10 sensitivity improvement over LISA, with the curve computed using the LISA Performance Model. All subsequent projections, such as the 5-sigma ECO reflectivity constraint (Section 3.4), the EMRI redshift reach (Section 4.1), and the chirp-mass and mass-ratio errors (Section 5.1), are derived from that assumed curve, and the paper says so explicitly (e.g., 'SNRs were calculated assuming a ten-fold reduction in the LISA noise' in Figure 3). This is a forecast from an assumption, not a circular fit: the assumed sensitivity is not fitted to the predicted quantities, and the predicted quantities are not used to define the sensitivity. Self-citations appear (e.g., Refs. [244], [247], [161]), but they are used as standard published tools for SNR and parameter-estimation calculations, not as unverified load-bearing uniqueness theorems; they are external, previously published results. The known limitation that the Galactic Binary Confusion foreground may cap the effective gain is acknowledged in Section 2, so the paper is transparent that the curve is a projection. The possible technical infeasibility or optimism of the assumed noise model is a correctness or feasibility risk, not circularity. Therefore no circular step meeting the evidentiary standard is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The AMIGO science case rests on a small set of hand-chosen detector parameters (0.5 m telescope, 30 W laser, 1064 nm wavelength, tenfold acceleration-noise reduction) whose combined effect is the 'factor of 10 across all frequencies' sensitivity curve in Figure 1. All projected constraints (5 sigma exotic-compact-object reflectivity in Section 3.4, tidal Love number bounds in Section 5.1, dipole-flux and charge bounds in Section 5.1, mass and spin errors of 10^-5 to 10^-7) scale from this curve. The physics inputs (Kerr baseline, zero tidal Love numbers, superradiance, quasinormal-mode spectra) are standard literature results, mostly by the same community. No new entity is introduced beyond the named mission concept, and the detector's performance is assumed rather than measured, so it carries no independent evidence.

free parameters (6)

AMIGO telescope diameter = 0.5 m
Section 2, Detector concept; the shot-noise sensitivity in Eq. (1) scales as D^-2, so the projected signal-to-noise ratios and reach figures depend on this hand-chosen value.
AMIGO laser power = 30 W
Section 2; the shot-noise floor in Eq. (1) scales inversely with the square root of the laser power, so this chosen value shapes the Fig. 1 sensitivity curve.
AMIGO laser wavelength = 1064 nm (same as LISA)
Section 2; the shot-noise floor in Eq. (1) scales as lambda^(3/2), tuned by this hand-chosen wavelength.
AMIGO acceleration-noise improvement factor = 10x relative to LISA
Section 2, Detector concept; the low-frequency end of the Fig. 1 sensitivity curve and all low-frequency science (extreme-mass-ratio inspiral reach) assume this improvement without a feasibility demonstration.
AMIGO arm length = 2.5 million km (identical to LISA)
Section 2; a chosen geometry of the proposed configuration, inherited from LISA and carried into the sensitivity curve.
Sensitivity improvement target = factor of 10 across all frequencies
Introduction and Section 2; the paper defines AMIGO as an enhanced LISA with this improvement, and every projected constraint in Sections 3.4, 4, and 5 inherits this factor.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Kerr hypothesis and no-hair theorems: astrophysical black holes in general relativity are fully described by mass and spin via the Kerr metric.
The testing program in Sections 3.4, 4.3, and 5.1 measures deviations from the Kerr baseline (multipole moments, quadrupole, ringdown modes); if the baseline itself were wrong, the projected deviation tests would lose their meaning.
domain assumption Tidal Love numbers of black holes vanish exactly in general relativity, at least for slowly spinning holes.
Sections 3.4 and 5.1 rest the exotic-compact-object discrimination test on this 'precise cancellation', citing Refs [167-173].
ad hoc to paper A tenfold improvement in mHz-band sensitivity is technically achievable by 2035-2050.
Section 2, Detector concept, assumes a 0.5 m telescope, 30 W laser, 1064 nm wavelength, and a 10-fold acceleration-noise improvement; every projected science outcome scales with this stated, not demonstrated, assumption.
domain assumption Astrophysical event rates are high enough to deliver the projected statistics.
Section 4.1 admits LISA extreme-mass-ratio inspiral rates are uncertain 'from several events per year to hundreds or even thousands' and asserts AMIGO rates of 'at least several hundred events per year'; the science deliverables depend on these rates.
domain assumption The LISA Performance Model accurately represents the mHz noise budget for LISA-like and AMIGO-like detectors.
The Figure 1 caption states the sensitivity curve 'was computed with the use of the LISA Performance Model (perf-lisa.in2p3.fr)'; all reach statements inherit that model's assumptions about noise sources.

invented entities (1)

AMIGO (Advanced Millihertz Gravitational-wave Observatory)
purpose: A proposed space-based gravitational wave detector with ten times LISA's sensitivity across the millihertz band; the paper's entire science case is conditional on this instrument existing and performing as specified.
AMIGO is a named mission concept, structurally an ALIA-type design (Ref [22]). Its projected sensitivity curve in Figure 1 is an input assumption from Section 2, not a measured or independently verified capability. The instrument could in principle be validated by building it and measuring its noise, but at the time of writing its performance claims carry no external falsifiable handle.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Nature of Black Holes: Deep in the mHz Gravitational-Wave Sky." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CIONPGSE

@misc{pith2026190811390,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Nature of Black Holes: Deep in the mHz Gravitational-Wave Sky},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CIONPGSE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.11390}
}

read the original abstract

Black holes are unique among astrophysical sources: they are the simplest macroscopic objects in the Universe, and they are extraordinary in terms of their ability to convert energy into electromagnetic and gravitational radiation. Our capacity to probe their nature is limited by the sensitivity of our detectors. The LIGO/Virgo interferometers are the gravitational-wave equivalent of Galileo's telescope. The first few detections represent the beginning of a long journey of exploration. At the current pace of technological progress, it is reasonable to expect that the gravitational-wave detectors available in the 2035-2050s will be formidable tools to explore these fascinating objects in the cosmos, and space-based detectors with peak sensitivities in the mHz band represent one class of such tools. These detectors have a staggering discovery potential, and they will address fundamental open questions in physics and astronomy. Are astrophysical black holes adequately described by general relativity? Do we have empirical evidence for event horizons? Can black holes provide a glimpse into quantum gravity, or reveal a classical breakdown of Einstein's gravity? How and when did black holes form, and how do they grow? Are there new long-range interactions or fields in our universe, potentially related to dark matter and dark energy or a more fundamental description of gravitation? Precision tests of black hole spacetimes with mHz-band gravitational-wave detectors will probe general relativity and fundamental physics in previously inaccessible regimes, and allow us to address some of these fundamental issues in our current understanding of nature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.11390 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The complicated trajectory of a compact object inspiralling into a SMBH (red curve) leads to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Redshift z and luminosity distance dL as a function of the remnant BH mass for which AMIGO can see the fundamental mode of different ringdown angular harmonics with an optimal SNR = 1000 for nonspinning BH binary merger with mass ratio q = 2. SNRs were calculated assuming a ten-fold reduction in the LISA noise and following Ref. [244] to calculate the ringdown energy. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: SNR as a function of the remnant BH mass (left) and redshift (right) for the fundamental mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

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

Eccentricity-Modulated Phase Degeneracy and Distinguishability between Dark Matter and Accretion Disk Environmental Effects in EMRIs
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

DM dephasing in EMRIs is nearly eccentricity-independent while disk dephasing is strongly suppressed by e0, so residual SNR and distinguishability time favor slightly eccentric orbits for LISA separation of the two effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

263 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[21]

2001, Astron

Nelemans, G., et al. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 375, 890

2001
[1]

2019, Class

Barack, L., et al. 2019, Class. Quant. Grav., 36, 143001

2019
[2]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

2016
[3]

2017, in TAUP 2017, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 24-28, 2017

Akutsu, T., et al. 2017, in TAUP 2017, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 24-28, 2017

2017
[4]

Unnikrishnan, C. S. 2013, Int. J. Mod. Phys., D22, 1341010

2013
[5]

2016, Phys

Armano, M., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 231101

2016
[6]

2017, arXiv:1702.00786

Audley, H., et al. 2017, arXiv:1702.00786

arXiv 2017
[7]

Reynolds, C. S. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 277

2014

Show all 263 references

[8]

2013, Nature, 494, 449

Risaliti, G., et al. 2013, Nature, 494, 449

2013
[9]

E., et al

McClintock, J. E., et al. 2011, Class. Quant. Grav., 28, 114009

2011
[10]

2008, Nature, 455, 78

Doeleman, S., et al. 2008, Nature, 455, 78

2008
[11]

2013, Science, 340, 6131

Antoniadis, J., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 6131

2013
[12]

2010, Rev

Genzel, R., et al. 2010, Rev. Mod. Phys., 82, 3121

2010
[13]

2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, L10

Gravity Collaboration, et al. 2018, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 618, L10

2018
[14]

2019, Astrophys

Akiyama, K., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 875, L1

2019
[15]

K., et al

Porayko, N. K., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 102002

2018
[16]

2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 895

Gendreau, K., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 895

2017
[17]

1975, The Nora and Edward Ryerson lecture, Chicago, April 22

Chandrasekhar, S. 1975, The Nora and Edward Ryerson lecture, Chicago, April 22

1975
[18]

2019, Class

Robson, T., et al. 2019, Class. Quant. Grav., 36, 105011

2019
[19]

2015, Class

Barke, S., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 095004

2015
[20]

2018, Phys

Armano, M., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 061101

2018
[22]

2019, arXiv:1907.11305

Baker, J., et al. 2019, arXiv:1907.11305

2019 arXiv
[23]

Sotiriou, T. P. 2015, Lect. Notes Phys., 892, 3

2015
[24]

Hawking, S. W. 1972, Commun. Math. Phys., 25, 167

1972
[25]

Bekenstein, J. D. 1995, Phys. Rev., D51, R6608

1995
[26]

P., et al

Sotiriou, T. P., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 081103

2012
[27]

2013, Phys

Hui, L., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 241104

2013
[28]

P., et al

Sotiriou, T. P., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 251102

2014
[29]

A., et al

Campbell, B. A., et al. 1992, Phys. Lett., B285, 199

1992
[30]

1996, Phys

Kanti, P., et al. 1996, Phys. Rev., D54, 5049

1996
[31]

2011, Phys

Yunes, N., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D83, 104002

2011
[32]

P., et al

Sotiriou, T. P., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev., D90, 124063

2014
[33]

2017, Class

Benkel, R., et al. 2017, Class. Quant. Grav., 34, 064001

2017
[34]

2016, Phys

Benkel, R., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D94, 121503

2016
[35]

2019, Phys

Witek, H., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 064035

2019
[36]

Horndeski, G. W. 1974, Int. J. Theor. Phys., 10, 363

1974
[37]

D., et al

Doneva, D. D., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 131103

2018
[38]

O., et al

Silva, H. O., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 131104

2018
[39]

1999, Phys

Jacobson, T. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 2699

1999
[40]

2013, Phys

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 111101

2013
[41]

2014, JHEP, 04, 067

Tasinato, G. 2014, JHEP, 04, 067

2014
[42]

Heisenberg, L. 2014, J. Cosm. Astropart., 1405, 015

2014
[43]

2016, Phys

Beltran Jimenez, J., et al. 2016, Phys. Lett., B757, 405

2016
[44]

2016, Class

Chagoya, J., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 175007

2016
[45]

2018, Phys

Heisenberg, L., et al. 2018, Phys. Lett., B780, 638

2018
[46]

2011, Phys

Blas, D., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D84, 124043

2011
[47]

2016, Phys

Bhattacharyya, J., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 064056

2016
[48]

2006, Class

Eling, C., et al. 2006, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, 5643, [Erratum: Class. Quant. Grav.27,049802(2010)]

2010
[49]

2011, Phys

Barausse, E., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D83, 124043

2011
[50]

2013, Class

Barausse, E., et al. 2013, Class. Quant. Grav., 30, 244010

2013
[51]

2016, Class

Bhattacharyya, J., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 235003

2016
[52]

2007, Phys

Garﬁnkle, D., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev., D76, 024003

2007
[53]

2018, Class

Akhoury, R., et al. 2018, Class. Quant. Grav., 35, 035006

2018
[54]

2019, Phys

Ramos, O., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 024034

2019
[55]

2019, arXiv:1902.05130

Sarbach, O., et al. 2019, arXiv:1902.05130

2019 arXiv
[56]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L13

2017
[57]

Sotiriou, T. P. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 041104

2018
[58]

2018, Phys

Emir G ¨umr¨ukc ¸¨uo˘glu, A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D97, 024032

2018
[59]

2003, Phys

Jackiw, R., et al. 2003, Phys. Rev., D68, 104012

2003
[60]

2009, Phys

Alexander, S., et al. 2009, Phys. Rept., 480, 1

2009
[61]

2009, Phys

Yunes, N., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev., D79, 084043 21

2009
[62]

2009, Prog

Konno, K., et al. 2009, Prog. Theor. Phys., 122, 561

2009
[63]

2012, Phys

Yagi, K., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev., D86, 044037, [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D89,049902(2014)]

2014
[64]

Stein, L. C. 2014, Phys. Rev., D90, 044061

2014
[65]

F., et al

Sopuerta, C. F., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev., D80, 064006

2009
[66]

2011, Phys

Pani, P., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D83, 104048

2011
[67]

2012, Phys

Yagi, K., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 251105, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.116,no.16,169902(2016)]

2016
[68]

2012, Phys

Canizares, P., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev., D86, 044010

2012
[69]

2017, Phys

Okounkova, M., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 044020

2017
[70]

2011, Phys

de Rham, C., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 231101

2011
[71]

F., et al

Hassan, S. F., et al. 2012, JHEP, 02, 126

2012
[72]

V olkov, M. S. 2012, Phys. Rev., D85, 124043

2012
[73]

V olkov, M. S. 2013, Class. Quant. Grav., 30, 184009

2013
[74]

2013, Phys

Brito, R., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev., D88, 064006

2013
[75]

V olkov, M. S. 2015, Lect. Notes Phys., 892, 161

2015
[76]

2015, Class

Babichev, E., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 154001

2015
[77]

2018, Phys

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 251103

2018
[78]

2018, Nature, 562, 51

Bertone, G., et al. 2018, Nature, 562, 51

2018
[79]

2019, arXiv:1907.10610

Bertone, G., et al. 2019, arXiv:1907.10610

2019 arXiv
[80]

Macedo, C. F. B., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J., 774, 48

2013
[81]

Macedo, C. F. B., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev., D88, 064046

2013
[82]

2017, Phys

Hui, L., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 043541

2017
[83]

2013, Phys

Eda, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 221101

2013
[84]

2015, Phys

Eda, K., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D91, 044045

2015
[85]

2014, Phys

Barausse, E., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev., D89, 104059

2014
[86]

Barausse, E., et al. 2015, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 610, 012044

2015
[87]

2018, Phys

Yue, X.-J., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D97, 064003

2018
[88]

A., et al

Hannuksela, O. A., et al. 2019, Nat. Astron., 3, 447

2019
[89]

A., et al

Hannuksela, O. A., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.11845

2019 arXiv
[90]

1999, Phys

Gondolo, P., et al. 1999, Phys. Rev. Lett., 83, 1719

1999
[91]

2001, Phys

Ullio, P., et al. 2001, Phys. Rev., D64, 043504

2001
[92]

2005, Phys

Bertone, G., et al. 2005, Phys. Rev., D72, 103517

2005
[93]

2005, Phys

Zhao, H.-S., et al. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 011301

2005
[94]

2015, Lect

Brito, R., et al. 2015, Lect. Notes Phys., 906, pp.1

2015
[95]

2004, Astrophys

Markevitch, M., et al. 2004, Astrophys. J., 606, 819

2004
[96]

Ostriker, J. P. 2000, Phys. Rev. Lett., 84, 5258

2000
[97]

F., et al

Hennawi, J. F., et al. 2002, Astrophys. J., 572, 41

2002
[98]

2019, arXiv:1905.03790

Naoz, S., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.03790

2019 arXiv
[99]

R., et al

Safdi, B. R., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 123021

2019
[100]

2018, Phys

Hook, A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 121, 241102

2018
[101]

P., et al

Huang, F. P., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D97, 123001

2018
[102]

Edwards, T. D. P., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.04686

2019 arXiv
[103]

2011, Phys

Arvanitaki, A., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D83, 044026

2011
[104]

2015, Class

Brito, R., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 134001

2015
[105]

E., et al

East, W. E., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 041101

2017
[106]

Herdeiro, C. A. R., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 221101

2014
[107]

2016, Class

Herdeiro, C., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 154001

2016
[108]

2017, Phys

Arvanitaki, A., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 043001

2017
[109]

2017, Phys

Baryakhtar, M., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 035019

2017
[110]

2017, Phys

Brito, R., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 064050

2017
[111]

2017, Phys

Brito, R., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 131101

2017
[112]

2012, Phys

Pani, P., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 109, 131102

2012
[113]

2012, Phys

Pani, P., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev., D86, 104017

2012
[114]

2013, Phys

Brito, R., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev., D88, 023514

2013
[115]

2015, Phys

Arvanitaki, A., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D91, 084011

2015
[116]

2018, JCAP, 1803, 043

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2018, JCAP, 1803, 043

2018
[117]

2012, Prog

Yoshino, H., et al. 2012, Prog. Theor. Phys., 128, 153

2012
[118]

2014, PTEP, 2014, 043E02

Yoshino, H., et al. 2014, PTEP, 2014, 043E02

2014
[119]

2015, Class

Yoshino, H., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 214001

2015
[120]

L., et al

Liebling, S. L., et al. 2012, Living Rev. Rel., 15, 6, [Living Rev. Rel.20,no.1,5(2017)]

2017
[121]

Mendes, R. F. P., et al. 2017, Class. Quant. Grav., 34, 185001

2017
[122]

2017, Phys

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 084014, [Addendum: Phys. Rev.D95,no.8,089901(2017)]

2017
[123]

2017, Phys

Sennett, N., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 024002

2017
[124]

2017, Phys

Palenzuela, C., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 104058

2017
[125]

2019, Phys

Helfer, T., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 044046

2019
[126]

2019, Phys

Sanchis-Gual, N., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 024017 22

2019
[127]

2016, JCAP, 1605, 054

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2016, JCAP, 1605, 054

2016
[128]

2018, JCAP, 1801, 026

Juli ´e, F.-L. 2018, JCAP, 1801, 026

2018
[129]

2018, JCAP, 1810, 033

Juli ´e, F.-L. 2018, JCAP, 1810, 033

2018
[130]

2018, Phys

Khalil, M., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 104010

2018
[131]

1996, Phys

Garcia-Bellido, J., et al. 1996, Phys. Rev., D54, 6040

1996
[132]

1971, Mon

Hawking, S. 1971, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 152, 75

1971
[133]

2019, arXiv:1906.08217

Carr, B., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.08217

2019 arXiv
[134]

2015, Phys

Clesse, S., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D92, 023524

2015
[135]

Garc ´ıa-Bellido, J. 2017, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 840, 012032

2017
[136]

2017, Phys

Ali-Ha ¨ımoud, Y ., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 123523

2017
[137]

2017, Phys

Clesse, S., et al. 2017, Phys. Dark Univ., 15, 142

2017
[138]

Hawking, S. W. 1976, Phys. Rev., D14, 2460

1976
[139]

G., et al

Unruh, W. G., et al. 2017, Rept. Prog. Phys., 80, 092002

2017
[140]

2019, arXiv:1902.04504, in print at Int.J.Mod.Phys.D

Comp `ere, G. 2019, arXiv:1902.04504, in print at Int.J.Mod.Phys.D

2019 arXiv
[141]

Mathur, S. D. 2005, Fortsch. Phys., 53, 793

2005
[142]

2008, Lect

Bena, I., et al. 2008, Lect. Notes Phys., 755, 1

2008
[143]

2016, Phys

Bena, I., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 201601

2016
[144]

O., et al

Mazur, P. O., et al. 2004, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 101, 9545

2004
[145]

2008, Phys

Barcelo, C., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev., D77, 044032

2008
[146]

2013, JHEP, 02, 062

Almheiri, A., et al. 2013, JHEP, 02, 062

2013
[147]

Giddings, S. B. 2013, Phys. Rev., D88, 024018

2013
[148]

Giddings, S. B. 2017, JHEP, 12, 047

2017
[149]

2018, Phys

Carballo-Rubio, R. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 061102

2018
[150]

2018, Phys

Berthiere, C., et al. 2018, Phys. Lett., B786, 21

2018
[151]

E., et al

Kaplan, D. E., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 044033

2019
[152]

2019, arXiv:1904.05363

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.05363

2019 arXiv
[153]

1969, Riv

Penrose, R. 1969, Riv. Nuovo Cim., 1, 252, [Gen. Rel. Grav.34,1141(2002)]

2002
[154]

Wald, R. M. 1997, in Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation and the Universe: Essays in Honor of C.V . Vishveshwara, 69–85

1997
[155]

Ryan, F. D. 1995, Phys. Rev., D52, 5707

1995
[156]

J., et al

Vigeland, S. J., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev., D81, 024030

2010
[157]

2019, Phys

Raposo, G., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 104050

2019
[158]

2006, Living Rev

Blanchet, L. 2006, Living Rev. Rel., 9, 4

2006
[159]

V ., et al

Krishnendu, N. V ., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 091101

2017
[160]

2018, Phys

Kastha, S., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D98, 124033

2018
[161]

2007, Phys

Barack, L., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev., D75, 042003

2007
[162]

2017, Phys

Babak, S., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 103012

2017
[163]

Hughes, S. A. 2001, Phys. Rev., D64, 064004, [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D88,no.10,109902(2013)]

2013
[164]

2019, arXiv:1902.01723

Datta, S., et al. 2019, arXiv:1902.01723

2019 arXiv
[165]

2018, Phys

Maselli, A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 081101

2018
[166]

1953, Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

Poisson, E., et al. 1953, Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press)

1953
[167]

1984, in [263]

Damour, T. 1984, in [263]

1984
[168]

2009, Phys

Binnington, T., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev., D80, 084018

2009
[169]

2009, Phys

Damour, T., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev., D80, 084035

2009
[170]

2015, Phys

G ¨urlebeck, N. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 114, 151102

2015
[171]

2015, Phys

Pani, P., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D92, 024010

2015
[172]

2015, Phys

Pani, P., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D92, 124003

2015
[173]

2015, Phys

Landry, P., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev., D91, 104018

2015
[174]

2015, Phys

Pani, P. 2015, Phys. Rev., D92, 124030

2015
[175]

2016, Phys

Uchikata, N., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D94, 064015

2016
[176]

Porto, R. A. 2016, Fortsch. Phys., 64, 723

2016
[177]

B., et al

Giddings, S. B., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.04258

2019 arXiv
[178]

2019, Phys

Addazi, A., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 122, 081301

2019
[179]

2019, arXiv:1905.03947

Pani, P., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.03947

2019 arXiv
[180]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 221101, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.121,no.12,129902(2018)]

2018
[181]

2006, Phys

Berti, E., et al. 2006, Phys. Rev., D73, 064030

2006
[182]

2016, Phys

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 171101, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.117,no.8,089902(2016)]

2016
[183]

2016, Phys

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D94, 084031

2016
[184]

2019, Phys

Oshita, N., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 044002

2019
[185]

2019, arXiv:1905.00446

Wang, Q., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.00446

2019 arXiv
[186]

Kokkotas, K. D. 1995, in Relativistic gravitation and gravitational radiation. Proceedings, School of Physics, Les Houches, France, September 26- October 6, 1995, 89–102

1995
[187]

2000, Phys

Ferrari, V ., et al. 2000, Phys. Rev., D62, 107504

2000
[188]

2018, Class

Pani, P., et al. 2018, Class. Quant. Grav., 35, 15LT01

2018
[189]

2019, arXiv:1906.03624

Buoninfante, L., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.03624

2019 arXiv
[190]

2019, arXiv:1906.06411

Delhom, A., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.06411

2019 arXiv
[191]

2017, Nat

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 586

2017
[192]

2019, arXiv:1907.03091

Maggio, E., et al. 2019, arXiv:1907.03091

2019 arXiv
[193]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2018, arXiv:1811.12907

2018 arXiv
[194]

2018, Nature, 553, 473

Banados, E., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 473

2018
[195]

2019, arXiv:1904.09326

Natarajan, P., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.09326

2019 arXiv
[196]

J., et al

McLure, R. J., et al. 2002, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc., 331, 795

2002
[197]

2019, arXiv:1907.02018

Tamanini, N., et al. 2019, arXiv:1907.02018

2019 arXiv
[198]

Wong, K. W. K., et al. 2019, arXiv:1902.01402 23

2019 arXiv
[199]

2017, Phys

Inayoshi, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 063014

2017
[200]

2017, Phys

Bonvin, C., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 044029

2017
[201]

2016, MNRAS, 457, 3356

Valiante, R., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3356

2016
[202]

2007, Phys

Barausse, E., et al. 2007, Phys. Rev., D75, 064026

2007
[203]

2013, Mon

Sukov ´a, P., et al. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 436, 978

2013
[204]

R., et al

Gair, J. R., et al. 2008, Phys. Rev., D77, 024035

2008
[205]

2010, Phys

Lukes-Gerakopoulos, G., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev., D81, 124005

2010
[206]

2017, Phys

Yang, H., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D96, 083015

2017
[207]

2011, Phys

Yunes, N., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D83, 044030

2011
[208]

2019, arXiv:1905.00030

Bonga, B., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.00030

2019 arXiv
[209]

2015, arXiv:1501.07856

Addison, E., et al. 2015, arXiv:1501.07856

2015 arXiv
[210]

2018, Communications Physics, 1, 53

Chen, X., et al. 2018, Communications Physics, 1, 53

2018
[211]

2016, Phys

Gerosa, D., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 117, 011101

2016
[212]

2019, arXiv:1906.01153

Calder ´on Bustillo, J., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.01153

2019 arXiv
[213]

2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, 663

Narayan, R. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 536, 663

2000
[214]

2014, Physical Review D, 89, 104059

Barausse, E., et al. 2014, Physical Review D, 89, 104059

2014
[215]

2011, Phys

Kocsis, B., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D84, 024032

2011
[216]

M., et al

Blaes, O. M., et al. 2006, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 369, 1235

2006
[217]

2019, Mon

Mishra, B., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 483, 4811

2019
[218]

T., et al

McWilliams, S. T., et al. 2010, Phys. Rev., D81, 064014

2010
[219]

T., et al

McWilliams, S. T., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev., D84, 064003

2011
[220]

2005, Mon

Vaughan, S., et al. 2005, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 362, 235

2005
[221]

2011, Mon

Middleton, M., et al. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc., 417, 250

2011
[222]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 85

2017
[223]

2019, arXiv:1903.03649

Witzany, V . 2019, arXiv:1903.03649

2019 arXiv
[224]

2019, arXiv:1903.03651

Witzany, V . 2019, arXiv:1903.03651

2019 arXiv
[225]

2018, Phys

Vines, J., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D97, 064010

2018
[226]

2019, Dynamics of spinning test par- ticles in curved spacetimes (Master thesis)

Zelenka, O. 2019, Dynamics of spinning test par- ticles in curved spacetimes (Master thesis)

2019
[227]

2016, Phys

Ruangsri, U., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev., D94, 044008

2016
[228]

2008, Mon

Sesana, A., et al. 2008, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 391, 718

2008
[229]

2017, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 55, 17

Alexander, T. 2017, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics, 55, 17

2017
[230]

2019, Phys

Amaro-Seoane, P. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 123025

2019
[231]

2003, Astrophys

Freitag, M. 2003, Astrophys. J., 583, L21

2003
[232]

2019, Astron

Gourgoulhon, E., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 627, A92

2019
[233]

2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol

Do, T., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, V ol. 51, 530

2019
[234]

Thorne, K. S. 1974, Astrophys. J., 191, 507

1974
[235]

2008, Astrophys

Berti, E., et al. 2008, Astrophys. J., 684, 822

2008
[236]

2011, Astron

Sadowski, A., et al. 2011, Astron. Astrophys., 532, A41

2011
[237]

F., et al

Gammie, C. F., et al. 2004, Astrophys. J., 602, 312

2004
[238]

2010, Gen

Marolf, D. 2010, Gen. Rel. Grav., 42, 2337

2010
[239]

P., et al

Porfyriadis, A. P., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev., D90, 044038

2014
[240]

2013, Phys

Yang, H., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev., D88, 044047, [Phys. Rev.D88,044047(2013)]

2013
[241]

2017, Mon

Comp `ere, G., et al. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 468, 4351

2017
[242]

E., et al

Gralla, S. E., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 155002

2016
[243]

2018, Class

Comp `ere, G., et al. 2018, Class. Quant. Grav., 35, 104002

2018
[244]

2018, Phys

Baibhav, V ., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev., D97, 044048

2018
[245]

2011, Mon

Stone, N., et al. 2011, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 412, 75

2011
[246]

2016, Phys

Sesana, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 231102

2016
[247]

2005, Phys

Berti, E., et al. 2005, Phys. Rev., D71, 084025

2005
[248]

G., et al

Arun, K. G., et al. 2006, Class. Quant. Grav., 23, L37

2006
[249]

2009, Phys

Yunes, N., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev., D80, 122003

2009
[250]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019, arXiv:1903.04467

2019 arXiv
[251]

2016, Phys

Barausse, E., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 241104

2016
[252]

2013, Phys

Berti, E., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev., D87, 124020

2013
[253]

2019, arXiv:1904.12783

Clough, K., et al. 2019, arXiv:1904.12783

2019 arXiv
[254]

2006, Science, 314, 97

Kramer, M., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 97

2006
[255]

M., et al

Eardley, D. M., et al. 1973, Phys. Rev., D8, 3308

1973
[256]

2012, Phys

Chatziioannou, K., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev., D86, 022004, [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D95,no.12,129901(2017)]

2017
[257]

2019, arXiv:1905.07277

Kastha, S., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.07277

2019 arXiv
[258]

2019, arXiv:1903.08284

Giesler, M., et al. 2019, arXiv:1903.08284

2019 arXiv
[259]

2019, arXiv:1905.00869

Isi, M., et al. 2019, arXiv:1905.00869

2019 arXiv
[260]

2018, arXiv:1809.03500

Baibhav, V ., et al. 2018, arXiv:1809.03500

2018 arXiv
[261]

2019, Phys

Cardoso, V ., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev., D99, 104077

2019
[262]

2019, arXiv:1906.05155

McManus, R., et al. 2019, arXiv:1906.05155

2019 arXiv
[263]

1984, Gravitational Ra- diation

Deruelle, N., et al., eds. 1984, Gravitational Ra- diation. Proceedings, Summer School, NATO Advanced Study Institute, Les Houches, France, June 2-21, 1982 24

1984

Pith tools

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

[1] [21]

2001, Astron

Nelemans, G., et al. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 375, 890

2001

[2] [1]

2019, Class

Barack, L., et al. 2019, Class. Quant. Grav., 36, 143001

2019

[3] [2]

P., et al

Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

2016

[4] [3]

2017, in TAUP 2017, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 24-28, 2017

Akutsu, T., et al. 2017, in TAUP 2017, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, July 24-28, 2017

2017

[5] [4]

Unnikrishnan, C. S. 2013, Int. J. Mod. Phys., D22, 1341010

2013

[6] [5]

2016, Phys

Armano, M., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 231101

2016

[7] [6]

2017, arXiv:1702.00786

Audley, H., et al. 2017, arXiv:1702.00786

arXiv 2017

[8] [7]

Reynolds, C. S. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 277

2014