Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 47 references

A canonical foliation on null infinity in perturbations of Kerr

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper constructs a canonical sphere foliation on future null infinity in perturbations of Kerr, giving unambiguous definitions of null energy, linear momentum, center of mass and angular momentum.

desk verdict A rigorous and technically impressive construction of a canonical foliation at null infinity, but the 'canonical' claim is only proved relative to a fixed background PG structure; independence from that background is not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.20119 v1 pith:VTSMGLAY submitted 2024-12-28 gr-qc math-phmath.APmath.DGmath.MP

Sergiu Klainerman , Dawei Shen , Jingbo Wan This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcmath-phmath.APmath.DGmath.MP MSC 83C3083C5735Q75
keywords KerrstabilityfuturenullinfinityGCMspheresLGCMfoliationsupertranslationambiguitygravitationalwaverecoilBondimasslossangularmomentummemory
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 claims that in small-angular-momentum perturbations of Kerr, the future null infinity $\mathcal{I}^+$ carries a canonically constructed sphere foliation — a 'Limiting GCM (LGCM) foliation' — that is rigid: any two such foliations coincide up to a translation along $\mathcal{I}^+$. Because of this rigidity, the null energy, linear momentum, center of mass, and angular momentum defined relative to the foliation are free of the supertranslation ambiguity that had made those quantities controversial at null infinity. The paper derives the evolution equations for these quantities, recovering the Bondi mass-loss law and an angular-momentum memory equation, and shows that under the Kerr-stability assumptions the center of mass of the final black hole is displaced from the reference Kerr value by a large amount — a gravitational-wave recoil. If correct, this supplies a rigorous, background-independent frame at null infinity in which gravitational radiation quantities are unambiguously defined for perturbed Kerr spacetimes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Limiting GCM (LGCM) foliation: a sphere foliation $S'(u',r')$ with null frame $(e'_3,e'_4,e'_1,e'_2)$ near $\mathcal{I}^+$ whose defining conditions (5.5)–(5.8) are the $r\to\infty$ limits of the intrinsic GCM sphere conditions — vanishing of $\ell\ge2$ mass-aspect modes, vanishing $\ell=1$ divergence of $\beta$, vanishing anti-trace expansions, and cancellation of the limiting incoming-geodesic coefficients $H,Y,W_1$. The construction takes a sequence of intrinsic GCM spheres, emits incoming null cones with geodesic foliations from them, and uses an Arzelà–Ascoli argument to extract a limit foliation; the null-frame transformation formulae transfer the estimates from the cones to the limiting foliation.

What would settle it

Compute, in a numerical simulation of a small-angular-momentum Kerr perturbation, the limit $\lim_{r\to\infty} r^5(\mathrm{div}\,\beta)_{\ell=1}$ along a fixed retarded time; if it does not exist, the LGCM foliation and all quantities defined from it are ill posed. More directly, exhibit a KSAF+ spacetime with two LGCM foliations whose spheres differ on $\mathcal{I}^+$ by more than a constant translation, contradicting Theorem 1.11.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the intrinsic GCM spheres of the Kerr-stability proof, transported along incoming null cones and passed to the limit $r\to\infty$, induce a foliation $\{S'(u',r')\}$ and a null frame near $\mathcal{I}^+$ satisfying a set of limiting GCM conditions (Theorem 1.10). On this foliation the weighted limits $X'=\lim r^2(\mathrm{tr}\,\chi'-2/r')$ and $\underline{X}'=\lim r^2(\mathrm{tr}\,\underline{\chi}'+2/r')$ take the Kerr values $(0,4m)$, the $\ell\ge 2$ part of the mass aspect and the $\ell=1$ part of $\mathrm{div}'\beta'$ vanish, and the incoming geodesic conditions hold in the limit. The paper proves (Theorem 1.11) that any two such foliations differ only by a translation along $\mathcal{I}^+$, so the physical quantities defined by (1.17) are unambiguous. It then derives the evolution laws (1.19), which include the Bondi mass-loss formula and an angular-momentum memory equation, and uses them to show that the center of mass computed on the LGCM foliation differs from the initial-layer center of mass by $O(\varepsilon_0 r^{1/2-\delta_{\rm dec}})$, quantifying gravitational-wave recoil (Theorem 1.17).

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument depends on the already-proved stability theorem for slowly rotating Kerr: the specific decay rates it establishes, its construction of intrinsic GCM spheres, and the far-region condition; if those estimates fail, the canonical foliation and the physical quantities defined on it would not be established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The null energy, linear momentum, center of mass and angular momentum of a perturbed Kerr spacetime are now defined on $\mathcal{I}^+$ without supertranslation ambiguity; any two choices of the LGCM foliation give the same values.
  • The derived evolution equations (1.19) recover the Bondi mass-loss formula and the angular-momentum memory equation as consequences of the null structure equations in the canonical frame.
  • The conformal compactification of a KSAF+ spacetime is $C^{1,1/2+\delta_{\rm dec}}$ up to $\mathcal{I}^+$, giving quantitative regularity of the metric at null infinity.
  • Under the initial assumptions of the underlying stability theorem, the center-of-mass displacement between the initial-layer foliation and the LGCM foliation is $O(\varepsilon_0 r^{1/2-\delta_{\rm dec}})$, providing a rigorous derivation of gravitational-wave recoil in this setting.
  • The LGCM construction selects a canonical 'rest frame' of the final black hole, tying the definition of conserved quantities to the center-of-mass frame of the final Kerr spacetime.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same limiting procedure could be run under stronger decay rates, the paper's threshold result suggests the recoil would shrink to $O(\varepsilon_0)$ in the $s>5$ regime; extending the construction to the full sub-extremal range $|a|<m$ would place the definitions on equal footing for all astrophysical Kerr spins.
  • The LGCM foliation provides a concrete gauge that numerical relativists could in principle track: spheres on which the $\ell=1$ parts of $\mathrm{div}\,\beta$ and the mass-aspect modes vanish up to the stated order. A numerical implementation comparing its angular momentum with a supertranslation-invariant definition from the literature would be a testable cross-check.
  • The proof's reliance on the null-frame transformation formulae suggests that any diffeomorphism-invariant framework producing a canonical foliation at null infinity will need to control the same $\ell=1$ structure; analogous LGCM-type foliations may appear in other asymptotic regimes, such as asymptotically de Sitter or anti-de Sitter spacetimes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a geometric framework for defining physical quantities at future null infinity in the KSAF+ spacetimes that arise from the nonlinear stability of slowly rotating Kerr black holes. The authors introduce a Limiting GCM (LGCM) foliation on null infinity, prove its existence by taking limits of incoming null cones emanating from intrinsic GCM spheres, prove a uniqueness theorem for LGCM foliations, and use the foliation to define null energy, linear momentum, center of mass, and angular momentum. They derive evolution equations for these quantities, including the Bondi mass-loss formula and angular momentum memory, and apply them to show that the center of mass of the initial layer can differ by a large amount from that of the final Kerr spacetime, interpreted as gravitational wave recoil.

Significance. If the main theorems are correct, the paper provides the first rigorous construction of a canonical foliation of null infinity in perturbations of Kerr on which the standard physical quantities are unambiguously defined and satisfy the expected radiation laws. This directly addresses a long-standing issue pointed out by Penrose concerning supertranslation ambiguity in the definitions of angular momentum and center of mass. The paper is built on deep prior work by the same authors and collaborators, and the internal arguments are detailed and plausible. The results are conditional on the full KSAF+ framework imported from [19,29-31,40], including the decay estimates (2.7) and the existence and uniqueness of intrinsic GCM spheres, which is a premise about the prior stability theorem rather than a defect of this paper. The derivation of the evolution laws from the null structure equations is a genuine contribution, as is the explicit comparison with the initial-layer frame leading to Theorem 8.5.

major comments (1)
  1. [Definition 5.1 and Theorem 6.1] The canonicality claim is stronger than what is proved. Definition 5.1 defines an LGCM foliation only as 'associated to the background PG structure', and Theorem 6.1 proves uniqueness for two LGCM foliations 'associated to the background outgoing PG S(u,r)-foliation of M'. The abstract, Theorem 1.11, and Remark 1.12 state that the foliation is canonical on I+ and eliminates supertranslation ambiguity without this qualification. The paper does not establish that the LGCM foliation is independent of the choice of the background outgoing PG structure. Since the limiting quantities in Definition 1.13 are defined relative to the LGCM foliation, and since a KSAF+ spacetime could in principle be endowed with different outgoing PG structures satisfying Definition 2.18, the physical quantities might depend on that auxiliary background. A concrete test would be to compare the LGCM foliations constructed from two different admissible outgoing PG structures on the same (M,g); no such comparison is given. This gap is load-bearing for the central claim that the construction eliminates the supertranslation ambiguity. Please either prove the background independence or reformulate the claims as statements about a fixed KSAF+ structure and explain why that is sufficient for the physical conclusion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Definition 7.1] The assignments of J and C appear to be interchanged relative to the rest of the paper. In Definition 7.1 one reads J := B and C := *B, whereas in (1.17), in the proof of Theorem 7.7, and in the table of Appendix B the center of mass is the divergence part B and the angular momentum is the curl part *B. Please align the notation.
  2. [Section 3] The notation lim_{C_{u,r}→∞} is used throughout Section 3 and in the introduction without ever being defined. Please define it explicitly, for example as the limit along the family of spheres S(u,r) of the background outgoing PG foliation with u fixed, and state the order of the double limits in (1.13) and (5.5).
  3. [Theorem 1.11] The symbol r◦λ is used in (1.15) before ◦λ is defined. Please define ◦λ := λ−1 in the introduction, or write the condition as r(λ−1)→0.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos: 'Pernrose' in the Section 6 heading; 'a well defined of local versions' in the first paragraph of the Introduction; and 'null infinityI +' with a missing space in the abstract.
  5. [Equation (2.7)] In the second displayed line of (2.7), the set of quantities contains }trX twice. Please verify whether the first and fourth entries should be different quantities, such as the linearized traces of χ and χ.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Canonicality is proved only for foliations tied to one fixed background outgoing PG structure, so the claimed elimination of supertranslation ambiguity is conditional rather than derived.

  1. self definitional [Definition 5.1; Theorem 6.1; Abstract]
    "Definition 5.1: 'A sphere foliation S′(u′,r′) ... is called a Limiting GCM (LGCM) foliation (associated to the background PG structure {S(u,r),...})'; Theorem 6.1: 'Assume that there are two LGCM foliations S′(u′,r′) and S′′(u′′,r′′) associated to the background outgoing PG S(u,r)–foliation of M.' Abstract: 'we establish the existence of a canonical foliation on the future null infinity ... The rigid character of this foliation eliminates the usual ambiguities.'"

    Definition 5.1 builds 'associated to the background PG structure' into the definition of LGCM, and Theorem 6.1 proves uniqueness only for two LGCM foliations associated to the same background outgoing PG S(u,r)-foliation. The background outgoing PG structure is exactly a choice of a null foliation and retarded-time u on I+, i.e., the supertranslation gauge freedom that the abstract claims is eliminated. Thus the uniqueness statement is conditional on fixing the very freedom the paper says it removes. No argument is given that a different admissible background outgoing PG structure produces the same LGCM foliation up to translation; therefore the 'canonical' foliation and the physical quantities defined relative to it (Definition 1.13, Section 7) may depend on the auxiliary background.

full rationale

The paper's analytic core is not circular: the limits in Propositions 3.2 and 3.7 are derived from the KSAF+ decay estimates and the Einstein equations, the LGCM foliation is constructed by a limiting process from intrinsic GCM spheres (Theorem 5.9 imported from prior work), and the evolution laws in Theorem 7.7 are obtained from the null structure and Bianchi equations after imposing the gauge conditions H=Y=W1=0. None of these steps is a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main circularity concern is the canonicality claim. The existence theorem and the uniqueness theorem are both stated for LGCM foliations 'associated to' a fixed background outgoing PG structure, while the abstract presents the foliation as canonical on I+ and as eliminating supertranslation ambiguity. Because the background PG structure itself encodes the choice of null sections on I+, the uniqueness result does not by itself exclude a dependence of the LGCM foliation on that background. This is a conditional overclaim rather than an equation-level circular reduction, but it does mean the central 'canonical' conclusion is weaker than advertised. The recoil theorem is also largely a restatement of the initial-layer assumption (8.6) in the frame where the LGCM final center of mass is set to zero; the paper is explicit about this, so it is not a hidden circularity. Overall, the self-contained derivation of the evolution laws and the genuine construction of the LGCM foliation carry independent content, but the supertranslation-elimination claim is not fully justified by the quoted theorems.

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

The paper's central results are conditional on the KSAF+ spacetime axioms imported from the Kerr stability series, on the intrinsic GCM sphere theorem, and on the initial layer decay assumption. No numerical parameters are fitted in this paper; the mass and angular momentum, and the small parameters epsilon0, delta_dec, delta_star, and ksmall are fixed by the prior stability framework.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption KSAF+ spacetime definition and decay estimates (2.7) from [31] hold for the spacetimes considered.
    Definition 2.18 imports the decay and coordinate properties of the final spacetime from the Kerr stability theorem; all later limits depend on these rates.
  • domain assumption Existence and uniqueness of intrinsic GCM spheres in KSAF+ spacetimes (Theorem 5.9 from [30]).
    The sequence of incoming null cones in Section 5.3 and the limiting foliation are founded on this theorem; it is cited, not reproved here.
  • domain assumption Initial layer assumption (8.6): div beta = O(epsilon0 r^{-9/2-delta_dec}) relative to Kerr, inherited from [31].
    The recoil estimate in Theorem 8.5 uses this as input; the large displacement is a direct consequence of this assumed decay.
  • domain assumption Background outgoing PG structure is fixed as part of the spacetime data.
    The LGCM foliation is defined relative to a given PG structure (Definition 5.1); the uniqueness theorem is relative to the same PG structure (Theorem 6.1).
  • standard math Elliptic estimates for Hodge systems on almost round spheres (Proposition 2.10).
    Used in the uniqueness proof in Section 6 to close the elliptic system at i+.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A canonical foliation on null infinity in perturbations of Kerr." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VTSMGLAY

@misc{pith2026241220119,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A canonical foliation on null infinity in perturbations of Kerr},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VTSMGLAY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20119}
}
read the original abstract

Kerr stability for small angular momentum has been proved in the series of works by Klainerman-Szeftel, Giorgi-Klainerman-Szeftel and Shen. Some of the most basic conclusions of the result, concerning various physical quantities on the future null infinity are derived in the work of Klainerman-Szeftel. Further important conclusions were later derived in An-He-Shen and Chen-Klainerman. In this paper, based on the existence and uniqueness results for GCM spheres by Klainerman-Szeftel, we establish the existence of a canonical foliation on the future null infinity for which the null energy, linear momentum, center of mass and angular momentum are well defined and satisfy the expected physical laws of gravitational radiation. The rigid character of this foliation eliminates the usual ambiguities related to these quantities in the physics literature. We also show that under the initial assumption of Klainerman-Szeftel, the center of mass of the black hole has a large deformation (recoil) after the perturbation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.20119 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The Penrose diagram of the final space-time in Theorem 1.1 with initial hypersurface Σ0, future space-like boundary A, and I + the complete future null infinity. The hypersurface H+ is the future event horizon of the final Kerr. The proof of Theorem 1.1 is based on a limiting argument7 for a continuous family of such spacetimes M = (ext)M ∪ (top)M ∪ (int)M, represented graphically in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The Penrose diagram of a finite GCM admissible space-time M = (ext)M ∪ (top)M ∪ (int)M. The future boundary Σ∗ initiates at the GCM sphere S∗. The past boundary of M, B1 ∪ B1 , is included in the initial layer L0, in which the spacetime is assumed given. 7For the reader interested in a more in depth account the slowly rotating Kerr stability result discussed here, including a short description of its history, we ref… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Construction of the incoming null cone Cn . S∗,n is the intrinsic GCM sphere deformed from a background sphere S∗,n = S(un, rn) and Cn is the incoming null cone emanating from S∗,n. Sen(s) is a leaf of the geodesic foliation of Cn and it coincides with a background sphere S(us, rs) at south pole ps. The spheres Sen(s) on Cn will be relabeled by the background function u in (5.21). 3. For any fixed n ∈ N and s, we de… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of Cn and Cm with n < m. For any fixed n ∈ N, Cn is foliated by the spheres Sn(u) for 1 ≤ u ≤ un. The sequence of the intrinsic spheres S∗,n converges to the timelike infinity i + while the sequence of the incoming null cones Cn approach the future null in…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of three centers of mass CKerr, C (0) 1 and C ′ 1 . The center of mass of the perturbed initial data, denoted by C (0) 1 , is far away from that of the reference Kerr initial data, denoted by CKerr. However, C (0) 1 is close to the center of mass of the fina…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    X. An, T. He and D. Shen,Angular momentum memory effect, arXiv:2403.11133

    work page Pith review arXiv

  2. [2]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner,The Dynamics of General Relativity. Gravitation: An introduction to current research. Witten, L editor. Wiley, NY, (1962)

    work page 1962

  3. [3]

    Bieri,An extension of the stability theorem of the Minkowski space in general relativity, J

    L. Bieri,An extension of the stability theorem of the Minkowski space in general relativity, J. Diff. Geom. Vol.86 (1), 17–70, 2010

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, A. W. K. Metzner, Gravitational waves in general relativity VII. Waves from axi-symmetric isolated systems.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A269, 21 (1962)

    work page 1962

  5. [5]

    Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Springer, 2011th edition

    H. Brezis,Functional Analysis, Sobolev Spaces and Partial Differential Equations, Springer, 2011th edition. 79

    work page

  6. [6]

    Caciotta and F

    G. Caciotta and F. Nicolò,Non linear perturbations of Kerr spacetime in external regions and the peeling decay, Ann. Henri Poincaré,11, 433–497, 2010

    work page 2010

  7. [7]

    P. N. Chen, J. Keller, M. T. Wang, Y. K. Wang, and S. T. Yau,Evolution of angular momentum and center of mass at null infinity, Comm. Math. Phys.386 (2021), 551–588

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Chen and S

    X. Chen and S. Klainerman,Regularity of the Future Event Horizon in Perturbations of Kerr, arXiv:2409.05700

    arXiv

Show all 47 references
  1. [9]

    P. N. Chen, M. T. Wang and S. T. Yau,Quasilocal angular momentum and center of mass in general relativity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.20 (2016), 671–682

    2016

  2. [10]

    P. N. Chen, M. T. Wang, Y. K. Wang, and S. T. Yau,Supertranslation invariance of angular momentum, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.25 (3), (2021), 777–789

    2021

  3. [11]

    Christodoulou Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational-wave experiments, D 1991 Phys

    D. Christodoulou Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational-wave experiments, D 1991 Phys. Rev. Lett. 67 1486

    1991

  4. [12]

    Christodoulou, The Global Initial Value Problem in General Relativity

    D. Christodoulou, The Global Initial Value Problem in General Relativity. In V. G. Gurzadyan, R. T. Jantzen, and R. Ruffini, editors, The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting, 44–54, December 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Christodoulou and S

    D. Christodoulou and S. Klainerman,The Global Nonlinear Stability of Minkowski Space, Princeton Mathematical Series41, 1993

    1993

  6. [14]

    Dafermos, G

    M. Dafermos, G. Holzegel, I. Rodnianski and M. Taylor,The non-linear stability of the Schwarzschild family of black holes, arXiv:2104.08222

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Dray and M

    T. Dray and M. Streubel,Angular momentum at null infinity. Class. Quantum. Grav.1 (1), (1984), 15–26

    1984

  8. [16]

    M. J. Fitchett,The influence of gravitational wave momentum losses on the centre of mass motion of a Newtonian binary system, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol203 (4), August 1983, pp. 1049–1062

    1983

  9. [17]

    É. É. Flanagan and D. A. Nichols,Conserved charges of the extended Bondi-Metzner-Sachs algebra, Phys. Rev. D95, 044002 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Giorgi, S

    E. Giorgi, S. Klainerman, and J. Szeftel,A general formalism for the stability of Kerr, arXiv:2002.02740 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Giorgi, S

    E. Giorgi, S. Klainerman and J. Szeftel,Wave equations estimates and the nonlinear sta- bility of slowly rotating Kerr black holes, arXiv:2205.14808, To appear in Pure Appl. Math. Q

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Graf, Global nonlinear stability of Minkowski space for spacelike-characteristic initial data, arXiv:2010.12434, To appear in Mémoires de la SMF

    O. Graf, Global nonlinear stability of Minkowski space for spacelike-characteristic initial data, arXiv:2010.12434, To appear in Mémoires de la SMF

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Herrmann, I, Hinder, D

    F. Herrmann, I, Hinder, D. Shoemaker, P. Laguna, R. A. Matzner,Gravitational Recoil from Spinning Binary Black Hole Mergers, The Astrophysical Journal, Vol661 (1), pp. 430–436

  14. [22]

    Hintz,Exterior stability of Minkowski space in generalized harmonic gauge, Arch

    P. Hintz,Exterior stability of Minkowski space in generalized harmonic gauge, Arch. Ra- tional Mech. Anal.247 (99), 2023. 80

    2023

  15. [23]

    Hintz and A

    P. Hintz and A. Vasy,Stability of Minkowski space and polyhomogeneity of the metric, Ann. PDE 6 (1): Art. 2, 146 pp, 2020

    2020

  16. [24]

    J. L. Jaramillo and E. Gourgoulhon,Mass and Angular Momentum in General Relativity, Fundamental theories of physics, Vol.162 (2010)

    2010

  17. [25]

    Keller, Y.-K

    J. Keller, Y.-K. Wang and S.-T. Yau,Evaluating quasi-local angular momentum and center- of-mass at null infinity, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.24 (2020), no. 6, 1423–1473

    2020

  18. [26]

    Klainerman and F

    S. Klainerman and F. Nicolò,The Evolution Problem in General Relativity. Progress in Mathematical Physics,25, Birkhauser, Boston, 2003

    2003

  19. [27]

    Klainerman and F

    S. Klainerman and F. Nicolo,Peeling properties of asymptotic solutions to the Einstein vacuum equations, Classical Quant. Grav.20, 3215–3257, 2003

    2003

  20. [28]

    Klainerman and J

    S. Klainerman and J. Szeftel,Global nonlinear stability of Schwarzschild spacetime under polarized perturbations, Annals of Mathematics Studies210. Princeton University Press

  21. [29]

    Klainerman and J

    S. Klainerman and J. Szeftel,Construction of GCM spheres in perturbations of Kerr, Ann. PDE 8 (2), Art. 17 (2022), 153 pp

    2022

  22. [30]

    Klainerman and J

    S. Klainerman and J. Szeftel,Effective results in uniformization and intrinsic GCM spheres in perturbations of Kerr, Ann. PDE8 (2), Art. 18 (2022), 89 pp

    2022

  23. [31]

    Klainerman and J

    S. Klainerman and J. Szeftel,Kerr stability for small angular momentum, Pure Appl. Math. Q. 19 (3) (2023), 791–1678

    2023

  24. [32]

    Klainerman and J

    S. Klainerman and J. Szeftel,Brief introduction to the nonlinear stability of Kerr, Pure Appl. Math. Q.20 (4) (2024), 1721–1761

    2024

  25. [33]

    Lindblad and I

    H. Lindblad and I. Rodnianski,Global existence for the Einstein vacuum equations in wave coordinates, Comm. Math. Phys.256 (1), 43–110, 2005

    2005

  26. [34]

    Lindblad and I

    H. Lindblad and I. Rodnianski,The global stability of Minkowski spacetime in harmonic gauge, Ann. of Math. (2),171 (3), 1401–1477, 2010

    2010

  27. [35]

    Penrose,Asymptotic properties of fields and space-times, Phys

    R. Penrose,Asymptotic properties of fields and space-times, Phys. Rev. Lett.10, 66 (1963)

    1963

  28. [36]

    631–668, Ann

    R.Penrose, Some unsolved problems in classical general relativity, inSeminaronDifferential Geometry, pp. 631–668, Ann. of Math. Stud.102, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ

  29. [37]

    Rizzi, Angular momentum in General Relativity: A new definition, Phys

    A. Rizzi, Angular momentum in General Relativity: A new definition, Phys. Rev. Lett., 81, no. 6 (1998), 1150–1153

    1998

  30. [38]

    R. K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity VIII. Waves in asymptotically flat space-time, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A270, 103 (1962)

    1962

  31. [39]

    J. M. M. Senovilla,Super-energy tensors, Class. Quant. Grav.17 (2000), 2799–2842

    2000

  32. [40]

    Shen, Construction of GCM hypersurfaces in perturbations of Kerr, Ann

    D. Shen, Construction of GCM hypersurfaces in perturbations of Kerr, Ann. PDE9 (1), Art. 11 (2023), 112 pp

    2023

  33. [41]

    Shen,Stability of Minkowski spacetime in exterior regions, Pure Appl

    D. Shen,Stability of Minkowski spacetime in exterior regions, Pure Appl. Math. Q.20 (2), (2024), 757–868

    2024

  34. [42]

    Shen,Kerr stability in external regions, Ann

    D. Shen,Kerr stability in external regions, Ann. PDE10, Art. 9 (2024), 147 pp. 81

    2024

  35. [43]

    Shen,Global stability of Minkowski spacetime with minimal decay, arXiv:2310.07483

    D. Shen,Global stability of Minkowski spacetime with minimal decay, arXiv:2310.07483

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Shen,Exterior stability of Minkowski spacetime with borderline decay, arXiv:2405.00735

    D. Shen,Exterior stability of Minkowski spacetime with borderline decay, arXiv:2405.00735

  37. [45]

    Wald,General Relativity, The university of Chicago Press, 1984

    R. Wald,General Relativity, The university of Chicago Press, 1984

    1984

  38. [46]

    conserved quantities

    R. M. Wald and A. Zoupas,General definition of “conserved quantities” in general relativity and other theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D,61 (2000), 084027

    2000

  39. [47]

    Vitale,Evidence of Large Recoil Velocity from a Black Hole Merger Signal, Phys

    V.Varma, S.Biscoveanu, T.Islam, F.H.Shaik, C.-J.Haster, M.Isi, W.M.Farr, S.E.Field, S. Vitale,Evidence of Large Recoil Velocity from a Black Hole Merger Signal, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 191102, (2022). Sergiu Klainerman: Department of Mathematics, Princeton University, Princeton,...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.