Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

The implications of stochastic gas torques for asymmetric binaries in the LISA band

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read LISA can still measure the binary, but stochastic gas torques can erase the disk's signature from the data.

desk verdict Useful first injection study, but the evidence does not pin the disk-property bias on stochasticity—mean-torque suppression is the likely culprit. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.10087 v2 pith:PSKL72UP submitted 2025-02-14 gr-qc astro-ph.GA

Lorenzo Copparoni , Lorenzo Speri , Laura Sberna , Andrea Derdzinski , Enrico Barausse This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.GA MSC 83C35
keywords gravitationalwavesLISAextrememass-ratioinspiralsintermediateAGNaccretiondisksgastorquesstochasticvariabilityBayesianparameterestimation
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

LISA's promise to measure gas torques around merging black holes assumes the torques follow simple power laws, but hydrodynamic simulations show they fluctuate stochastically. This paper tests that assumption by injecting waveforms built from simulated stochastic torque profiles into a Bayesian LISA analysis and recovering them with the standard analytic power-law template. Across three asymmetric binaries spanning extreme and intermediate mass-ratio inspirals, the binary parameters (masses, spin, initial separation) come back unbiased at 90% confidence, while the inferred torque amplitude and slope can be biased; in the most stochastic case the posterior is compatible with no torque at all even though gas is present. The conclusion is that simplified analytic torque models are safe for measuring the binary but not for measuring the accretion disk, and disk surface-density estimates derived from them can be off by more than two sigma.

What carries the argument

The central object is the numerical gas-torque profile $\dot L_{\rm num}(r)$ extracted from two-dimensional, laminar, Mach-20 hydrodynamic simulations of a secondary embedded in a thin isothermal disk; the profile is interpolated in orbital separation and added to gravitational-wave fluxes to build injected EMRI/IMRI signals. The recovery model is the standard analytic template: a power-law torque $\dot L = \dot L_{\rm GW} A (r/10M_1)^n$ superimposed on the gravitational-wave flux, with amplitude $A$ and slope $n$ as free parameters. The argument runs on the contrast between a stochastic, nearly flat-spectrum torque fluctuation, which is large for mass ratio $10^{-3}$ and small for $10^{-4}$, and this smooth power-law family. The Bayesian sampler's inability to represent fluctuations with the power-law shape is what produces the biased or vanishing torque-amplitude posteriors while leaving the binary parameters, which are fixed by the dominant gravitational-wave flux, unaffected.

What would settle it

Run the same analytic-template Bayesian analysis on injections built from a magnetohydrodynamic or higher-Mach disk simulation and check whether the torque-amplitude posterior still collapses to zero when the stochastic power is large; if it stays centered on the true average, the claimed bias mechanism would not extend beyond the simulated regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that environmental-torque recovery under LISA is asymmetric: the vacuum or intrinsic binary parameters are robust, while the environment parameters are not. Injecting stochastic torques from hydrodynamic simulations and fitting with the analytic template $\dot L = \dot L_{\rm GW} A (r/10M_1)^n$, the posteriors for masses, spin, and initial separation show no bias at the 90% level in any of the three cases. The torque amplitude and slope, however, are systematically affected: for moderate stochastic variability the amplitude posterior centers on the time-averaged torque, while for the most stochastic case studied the amplitude is consistent with zero, meaning the analysis would miss a real environmental interaction. The paper further shows that translating the recovered amplitude into disk properties such as surface density is biased by more than two $\sigma$ even when the correct constant-Mach disk model is used, and that using a different but viable constant-opacity disk model amplifies the bias. The central claim is a caution: analytic power-law torque templates are sufficient for binary parameter extraction but not for reliable accretion-disk inference from LISA data.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes the stochastic torque fluctuations in the injected signals are representative of real AGN accretion disks; the paper's simulations are laminar, two-dimensional, and Mach 20, while realistic disks are magnetized, turbulent, and Mach ~100, so the size and direction of the reported biases could differ.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, LISA's measurement of binary parameters for EMRIs/IMRIs in AGN disks is safe with existing analytic templates: masses, spins, and initial separations are recovered without bias at 90% confidence despite unmodeled torque fluctuations.
  • A posterior on the torque amplitude that is consistent with zero should not be read as evidence of no gas: in the largest-stochasticity case studied, the true torque is present yet the analytic template reports an amplitude compatible with zero.
  • Estimates of disk surface density derived from the recovered torque amplitude carry a systematic bias larger than two sigma in the studied case, and the bias grows when the assumed disk opacity model is wrong.
  • Residuals from a single stochastic-torque event have signal-to-noise ratio below about one, so isolated events should not corrupt the LISA global fit; the cumulative effect of many events is left open.
  • The torque slope $n$ is recovered within two sigma in all studied cases, suggesting that distinguishing between competing disk models may still be possible even when the amplitude is biased.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's injected torques come from laminar, two-dimensional, Mach-20 disks, real magnetized and turbulent AGN disks with Mach numbers near 100 could produce stronger or differently structured fluctuations; the qualitative finding that stochasticity biases environment parameters more than binary parameters would likely survive, but the size and direction of the disk-density bias could c
  • The near-identical posteriors for stochastic and analytic injections in the $q = 10^{-3}$ case suggest that, in the gap-opening regime, LISA data alone may not distinguish Type I from Type II migration; breaking that degeneracy may require eccentric orbits, periodic torque signatures, or independent electromagnetic information.
  • A natural next test is to inject torque profiles from magnetohydrodynamic or higher-Mach simulations and check whether the amplitude posterior's shift scales with the fluctuation power; this would convert the paper's case-by-case finding into a predictive relation.
  • If residuals from thousands of unresolved EMRI sources accumulate, stochastic torque power could contribute to LISA's confusion noise, a regime the paper flags but does not quantify.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper studies whether simple analytic power-law torque templates can recover the parameters of EMRI/IMRI binaries embedded in AGN disks when the true torques, taken from the hydrodynamic simulations of Ref. [56], contain stochastic time variability. The authors inject waveforms built with FastEMRIWaveforms using simulated torques, analyze them with a standard LISA Bayesian pipeline (eryn, FEW templates, LISA PSD), and find that binary parameters are recovered without bias at 90% confidence, while the amplitude and slope of the environmental torque can be biased. In one of the three cases the torque amplitude posterior is compatible with zero, suggesting that strong stochastic variability can hide the environmental signal. They then map the recovered torque amplitude to disk surface densities using two disk models and report a >2σ bias in the inferred surface density for case 1.

Significance. The question addressed is important for LISA science: environmental effects on E/IMRIs are a key potential observable, and the paper is the first to use numerically simulated stochastic torques in end-to-end parameter-estimation injections. The methodology is largely standard and reproducible in spirit: publicly available waveform and sampling tools are used, the recovery is blind in the sense that the analytic templates do not contain the simulated stochastic component, and the paper includes a useful case-2 control with a mean-matched analytic injection. The authors also state clear limitations in Sec. VI, including the low Mach number of the simulations and the neglect of MHD turbulence. However, the causal claim that stochastic variability is responsible for the disk-property biases is not yet demonstrated, because the paper lacks mean-matched noiseless controls for the disk-property inference in the cases that drive the headline conclusion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§V, Fig. 6] The case-1 bias in the inferred surface density is not cleanly attributable to stochastic torque variability. Section IV A states that for case 1 the stochastic features are subdominant and that the recovered (A, n) posterior is compatible at 1σ with the expected values computed from the simulation. The >2σ bias in the left panel of Fig. 6 instead follows from converting A to Σ0 through the unsuppressed Type I relation, Eq. (1), while the numerical mean torque is smaller than the Type I value by a factor of ~0.28 as stated in Sec. IV. A control injection using the mean numerical torque without its stochastic component, analyzed with the same template and the same disk-model mapping, is therefore necessary before the disk-property bias can be attributed to stochasticity. If the control reproduces the Fig. 6 bias, the central claim in Sec. VI should be reframed as a mean-torque/disk-model calibration effect rather than an effect of stochastic variability.
  2. [§IV B, Fig. 4] The paper's own case-2 control, shown in Fig. 4, reveals that a stochastic injection and an analytic injection with matched mean amplitude produce nearly identical environmental-parameter posteriors. That result directly weakens the claim that stochastic variability, rather than the mean torque, is responsible for biased disk-property inference. The sentence in §V, 'This happens because in our analysis we are unable to confidently distinguish events undergoing stochastic type II migration from ones undergoing simple Type I migration,' is offered as an explanation, but no analogous mean-matched control is shown for case 1 or case 3. Without those controls, the causal role of stochastic variability is not established.
  3. [§IV B, case 3] The case-3 null result, in which A is compatible with zero, is not sufficient to demonstrate that stochastic variability hides the torque. Section IV B notes that for case 3 the average numerical torque is about two orders of magnitude below the analytic Type I expectation. A smooth power-law injection with the same suppressed mean amplitude would very likely produce a similarly null A posterior. Without that control, the conclusion that 'when stochastic variability is large, the posterior can indicate no torques, even though they are present' is more parsimoniously explained by the smallness of the mean torque than by stochastic fluctuations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§IV] The sentence reporting the reduction relative to Type I torque, 'by a factor of ∼0.28, ∼−0.22 and ∼−0.015 for cases 1, 2 and 3,' uses a negative number in a multiplicative factor; this should be rewritten as ratios including the sign of the torque or as separate amplitude and sign statements.
  2. [Fig. 1] The bottom-panel axis label 'M1 kr' is ambiguous; it should read 'M1 k r' or define k as the wavenumber explicitly.
  3. [Table I] The table entries contain inconsistent spacing, e.g. 'a/M1 0.9 0 .9 0 .9', which should be cleaned up for publication.
  4. [§V] The statement that f_Edd = 287 for case 1 should be clarified: this is far above the Eddington limit and likely arises from the normalization choice in Eq. (5); a brief comment on whether such a value is physically meaningful for the assumed thin-disk model would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the injection-recovery analysis is self-contained and its conclusions are not forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper performs a blind injection-recovery study rather than a derivation from first principles. Hydrodynamic torques from the external simulations of Ref. [56] are used to generate injected waveforms, while the analytic template of Eq. (3) is fitted with a Bayesian likelihood. The 'expected' values of A and n are computed by averaging the simulated torque, but these are comparison markers shown in the posterior plots, not priors, likelihood constraints, or fitted inputs; the posterior is free to disagree, and in case 3 it is compatible with A = 0 despite a nonzero expected amplitude, demonstrating that the recovery is not forced. The disk-property inference in Section V converts the fitted (A, n) into surface-density posteriors using analytic disk models, so any bias is a measured consequence of the mismatch between the injected stochastic torque and the analytic template family, not a relation that reduces to its own inputs by construction. Self-citations to Ref. [32] for the power-law torque template and Ref. [56] for the hydrodynamic simulations are legitimate external inputs with independent content, and the paper includes a matched control (Case 2, Fig. 4) comparing stochastic and analytic injections. No equation is shown to equal its own input, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on simulated torque data from prior hydrodynamic work, the AAK waveform approximation, the adiabatic quasicircular orbit assumption, and the choice of disk models for astrophysical inference. The only fitted parameters in the template are the torque amplitude A and slope n, both recovered by the MCMC and then used to infer disk properties.

free parameters (2)
  • A (torque amplitude in template Eq. 3) = Posterior: case 1 ~ 2e-5; case 2 ~ -9e-5; case 3 consistent with 0
    The power-law amplitude of the environmental torque correction in the analytic template is fitted to the simulated LISA data; the paper's disk inference is driven by the posterior of A.
  • n (torque power-law slope) = Posterior roughly 3 to 6 across cases; expected 4
    The slope of the torque power law in Eq. (3) is a free template parameter recovered via MCMC; the paper uses it to compare disk models.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The hydrodynamic simulations of Derdzinski et al. (2021) provide a faithful model of the disk torque, including its stochastic variability, for EMRIs and IMRIs.
    The paper uses these simulated torques as the injection ground truth (Sec. III A), so its conclusions about bias inherit the validity of those simulations.
  • domain assumption The augmented analytic kludge (AAK) waveform model is sufficiently accurate for both injection and template generation in the LISA band.
    Waveforms are generated with FEW/AAK (Sec. III A) and templates use the same AAK model (Sec. III B), sharing any systematic waveform errors.
  • domain assumption The inspiral is quasicircular, equatorial, and adiabatic, and the secondary's gravitational potential smoothing is adequate.
    Eccentric and inclined orbits are excluded (Sec. II, III A); the disk torque is only applied to circular equatorial trajectories.
  • domain assumption The two disk models used for astrophysical inference (constant Mach number and constant opacity) are physically viable descriptions of AGN disks.
    Section V derives the surface density relations, Eqs. (5)-(8), and uses them to convert torque posteriors into disk properties.
  • domain assumption LISA's noise power spectral density from the LISA Science Requirements Document is the correct sensitivity curve for the analysis.
    The Gaussian likelihood in Eq. (4) uses this PSD; the width of all posteriors depends on it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The implications of stochastic gas torques for asymmetric binaries in the LISA band." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PSKL72UP

@misc{pith2026250210087,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The implications of stochastic gas torques for asymmetric binaries in the LISA band},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PSKL72UP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.10087}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves from asymmetric mass-ratio black-hole binaries carry unique information about their astrophysical environment. For instance, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) could potentially measure the amplitude and slope of gas torques in binaries embedded in the accretion disks of Active Galactic Nuclei, helping differentiate competing accretion disk models. However, this relies on simplified analytic models, which do not account for the stochastic variability of torques seen in hydrodynamic simulations. In this work, we use hydrodynamic simulations to create gravitational waveforms for extreme and intermediate mass-ratio inspirals in the LISA band. We then analyze these simulated waveforms using simpler templates that assume analytic torques, without stochastic time variability. By performing realistic Bayesian parameter estimation, we find no bias at 90% confidence in the binary parameters; however, estimates of accretion disk parameters, such as torque amplitude and slope, may be biased. Typically, the posterior distribution is centered around the average value of the torques, but when stochastic variability is large, the posterior can indicate no torques, even though they are present in the simulation. Our results suggest that while simplified analytic torque models work well for estimating binary parameters, caution is needed when using them to infer properties of the accretion disk. This work moves towards a more realistic assessment of one of the LISA science objectives, i.e., probing the properties of the astrophysical environments of black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.10087 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Impact of stochastic torques on the binary evolution. In the top panels we report the different components responsible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Residual signal left by subtracting the best-fit wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Posteriors of the intrinsic parameters for case 1 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. We compare the posteriors of two injections: one in which the IMRI experiences the full stochastic torque of case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior of the intrinsic parameters for the case 3 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: For moderate stochastic time variability, the posteriors for the torque amplitude are approximately centered on the averaged value of the simulated torque. However, for significant stochastic variability, the estimated amplitude may effectively reduce to zero, thus obs…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Disk properties inferred from gravitational wave observations for case 1, using two different disk models. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Full posterior for the case 1 injection. In black we report the injection values of the binary parameters and the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Full posterior for the case 2 injection. In black we report the injection values of the binary parameters and the expected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Full posterior for the case 3 injection. In black we report the injection values of the binary parameters and the expected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Dissecting environmental effects with eccentric gravitational wave sources

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Resonances between oscillating environmental forces and the epicyclic motion of eccentric binaries can dominate gravitational wave dephasing over orbit-averaged drag for eccentricities above about 0.05.

  2. Environmental effects in stellar mass gravitational wave sources II: Enhanced detectability of phase shifts in eccentric sub-populations

    astro-ph.HE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentricity boosts the detectability of environmental dephasing in gravitational-wave signals by up to ℓ_max^{1-n}, potentially making environmental effects ubiquitous in future detectors' eccentric sources.

  3. Sequential simulation-based inference for extreme mass ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Sequential simulation-based inference with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation shrinks the 11-parameter search volume for simulated non-spinning extreme-mass-ratio inspirals by factors of 1e6 to 1e7 and recover...

  4. When vacuum breaks: a self-consistency test for astrophysical environments in extreme mass ratio inspirals

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A duration-scan self-consistency test on vacuum EMRI parameter posteriors flags unmodeled environmental effects without adding environmental parameters.

  5. Prospects for EMRI/MBH parameter estimation using Quasi-Periodic Eruption timings: short-timescale analysis

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    QPE arrival times from an EMRI-disk collision model can recover black hole mass and orbital size/eccentricity to about 10% over tens of orbits, while spin and disk precession properties are much harder to constrain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [56]

    Derdzinski, D

    A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 501, 3540 (2021), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365- 2966

    2021

  2. [1]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collab- oration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collabora- tion), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  3. [2]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, et al. (The LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024

  4. [3]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. (LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    2021

  5. [4]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. (LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    2019

  6. [5]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al. (LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  7. [6]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collabora- tion and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    2017

  8. [7]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), 2111.03634

    arXiv 2023

Show all 106 references
  1. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters 882, L24 (2019), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ab3800

    2019

  2. [9]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 913, L7 (2021), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/abe949

    2021

  3. [10]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al., The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters 818, L22 (2016), URL https: //dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L22

    2016 doi

  4. [11]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters 900, L13 (2020), URL https://dx.doi. org/10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

    2020 doi

  5. [12]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins, et al., Tests of general relativity with gwtc- 3 (2021), 2112.06861, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2112.06861

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, et al. (LIGO Scien- tific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.116.221101

    2016

  7. [14]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collabora- tion and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett...

    2019

  8. [15]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. (The LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRev...

    2019 doi

  9. [16]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collab- oration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.103.122002

    2021

  10. [17]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al. (LIGO Scientific Col- laboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.1...

    2020 doi

  11. [18]

    S. E. Woosley, The Astrophysical Journal 836, 244 (2017), ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357

    2017

  12. [19]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, The Astrophysical Journal 887, 53 (2019), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ ab518b

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and B. Kocsis, The Astrophysi- cal Journal 898, 25 (2020), URL https://dx.doi.org/ 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    2020 doi

  14. [23]

    Caputo, L

    A. Caputo, L. Sberna, A. Toubiana, S. Babak, E. Ba- rausse, S. Marsat, and P. Pani, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 892, 90 (2020), ISSN 1538-4357, 2001.03620

    2020 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Colpi et al., LISA Definition Study Report (2024), 2402.07571

    M. Colpi et al., LISA Definition Study Report (2024), 2402.07571

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Barausse and L

    E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 77, 104027 (2008), 0711.4558

    2008 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Kocsis, N

    B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024032 (2011), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.84.024032

    2011

  18. [27]

    Yunes, B

    N. Yunes, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and Z. Haiman, Physical Review Letters 107, 171103 (2011), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, 1103.4609

    2011 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Physical Re- view D 89, 104059 (2014), ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368, 1404.7149

    2014 arXiv

  20. [29]

    C. P. L. Berry, S. A. Hughes, C. F. Sopuerta, A. J. K. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. P. Mi- haylov, M. C. Miller, and A. Sesana, The unique po- tential of extreme mass-ratio inspirals for gravitational- wave astronomy (2019), 1903.03686, URL https:// arxiv.org/a...

    2019 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Toubiana, L

    A. Toubiana, L. Sberna, A. Caputo, G. Cusin, S. Marsat, K. Jani, S. Babak, E. Barausse, C. Caprini, P. Pani, et al., Physical Review Letters 126, 101105 (2021), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, 2010.06056

    2021 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Sberna, S

    L. Sberna, S. Babak, S. Marsat, A. Caputo, G. Cusin, A. Toubiana, E. Barausse, C. Caprini, T. D. Canton, A. Sesana, et al., Physical Review D106, 064056 (2022), ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029, 2205.08550

    2022 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Speri, A

    L. Speri, A. Antonelli, L. Sberna, S. Babak, E. Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021035 (2023), 2207.10086

    2023 arXiv

  24. [33]

    M. Garg, A. Derdzinski, S. Tiwari, J. Gair, and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 532, 4060 (2024), 2402.14058

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Babak, J

    S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, Physical Review D 95, 103012 (2017), ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029, 1703.09722

    2017 arXiv

  26. [35]

    P. A. Seoane et al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel.26, 2 (2023), 2203.06016

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    J. E. Greene, J. Strader, and L. C. Ho, Ann. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 58, 257 (2020), 1911.09678

    2020 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Kejriwal, V

    S. Kejriwal, V. Witzany, M. Zajaˇ cek, D. R. Pasham, and A. J. K. Chua, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 532, 2143 (2024), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/532/2/2143/58529727/stae1599.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stae1599

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    D. R. Pasham, F. Tombesi, P. Sukov´ a, M. Zajaˇ cek, S. Rakshit, E. Coughlin, P. Kosec, V. Karas, M. Masterson, A. Mummery, et al., Science Advances 10, eadj8898 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adj8898, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ sciadv.adj8898

    2024 doi

  30. [39]

    A. J. Dittmann and M. C. Miller, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, 3732 (2020), ISSN 0035-8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/493/3/3732/32903023/staa463.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa463

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    Y. Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society 374, 515 (2006), ISSN 0035- 8711, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/374/2/515/4872435/mnras0374-0515.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155. x

    2006

  32. [41]

    S. K. Chakrabarti, Physical Review D 53, 2901 (1996), ISSN 0556-2821, 1089-4918

    1996

  33. [42]

    S. L. Shapiro and A. B. Marchant, The Astrophysical Journal 225, 603 (1978), ISSN 0004-637X

    1978

  34. [43]

    Bar-Or and T

    B. Bar-Or and T. Alexander, The Astrophysical Journal 820, 129 (2016), ISSN 0004-637X

    2016

  35. [44]

    Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063007 (2021), 2104.01208

    2021 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Pan and H

    Z. Pan and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103018 (2021), 2101.09146

    2021 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 374, 515 (2007), astro-ph/0603583

    Y. Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 374, 515 (2007), astro-ph/0603583

    2007 arXiv

  38. [47]

    Goodman and J

    J. Goodman and J. C. Tan, Astrophys. J. 608, 108 (2004), astro-ph/0307361

    2004 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Derdzinski and L

    A. Derdzinski and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 521, 4522 (2023), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966, 2205.10382

    2023 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Zwick, A

    L. Zwick, A. Derdzinski, M. Garg, P. R. Capelo, and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511, 6143 (2022), 2110.09097

    2022 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Duque, S

    F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084006 (2025), 2411.03436

    2025 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Kejriwal, L

    S. Kejriwal, L. Speri, and A. J. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084060 (2024), 2312.13028

    2024 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Khalvati, A

    H. Khalvati, A. Santini, F. Duque, L. Speri, J. Gair, H. Yang, and R. Brito (2024), 2410.17310

    2024 arXiv

  44. [53]

    A. M. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society 486, 2754 (2019), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966

    2019

  45. [54]

    P. C. Duffell, Z. Haiman, A. I. MacFadyen, D. J. D’Orazio, and B. D. Farris, The Astrophysical Journal 792, L10 (2014), ISSN 2041-8213, 1405.3711

    2014 arXiv

  46. [57]

    Goldreich and S

    P. Goldreich and S. Tremaine, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 233, 857 (1979), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1086/157448

    1979 doi

  47. [58]

    Goldreich and S

    P. Goldreich and S. Tremaine, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 241, 425 (1980), ISSN 0004-637X

    1980

  48. [59]

    Baruteau and F

    C. Baruteau and F. Masset, Recent Developments in Planet Migration Theory (Springer Berlin Heidel- berg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013), pp. 201–253, ISBN 978-3-642-32961-6, URL https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-32961-6_6

    2013

  49. [60]

    R. P. Nelson, in Handbook of Exoplanets, edited by H. J. Deeg and J. A. Belmonte (Springer International Pub- lishing, Cham, 2018), pp. 2287–2317, ISBN 978-3-319- 55332-0 978-3-319-55333-7

    2018

  50. [61]

    Baruteau, A

    C. Baruteau, A. Crida, S.-J. Paardekooper, F. Masset, J. Guilet, B. Bitsch, R. P. Nelson, W. Kley, and J. C. B. Papaloizou, in Protostars and Planets VI (University of Arizona Press, 2014), 1312.4293

    2014 arXiv

  51. [62]

    Tanaka and W

    H. Tanaka and W. R. Ward, The Astrophysical Journal 602, 388 (2004), ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357

    2004

  52. [63]

    Tanaka, T

    H. Tanaka, T. Takeuchi, and W. R. Ward, The As- trophysical Journal 565, 1257 (2002), ISSN 0004-637X, 1538-4357

    2002

  53. [64]

    Taracchini, A

    A. Taracchini, A. Buonanno, G. Khanna, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084025 (2014), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.90.084025

    2014 doi

  54. [65]

    Tanaka and K

    H. Tanaka and K. Okada, The Astrophysical Journal 968, 28 (2024), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ad410d

    2024

  55. [66]

    D. G. Korycansky and J. B. Pollack, Icarus 102, 150 (1993), ISSN 0019-1035

    1993

  56. [67]

    D. N. C. Lin and J. C. B. Papaloizou, in Protostars and planets III , edited by E. H. Levy and J. I. Lunine (Ari- zona University Press, 1993), URL https://uapress. arizona.edu/book/protostars-and-planets-iii

    1993

  57. [68]

    D. N. C. Lin and J. Papaloizou, The Astrophysical Journal 307, 395 (1986), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1086/164426

    1986 doi

  58. [69]

    Malik, F

    M. Malik, F. Meru, L. Mayer, and M. Meyer, The Astro- physical Journal 802, 56 (2015), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/802/1/56

    2015 doi

  59. [70]

    Crida, A

    A. Crida, A. Morbidelli, and F. Masset, Icarus 181, 587 (2006), ISSN 0019-1035

    2006

  60. [71]

    W. R. Ward and K. Hourigan, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 347, 490 (1989), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx. doi.org/10.1086/168138

    1989 doi

  61. [72]

    M. Garg, A. Derdzinski, L. Zwick, P. R. Capelo, and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 517, 1339 (2022), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966, 2206.05292

    2022 arXiv

  62. [73]

    R. P. Nelson, J. C. B. Papaloizou, F. Masset, and W. Kley, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 318, 18 (2000), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966

    2000

  63. [74]

    P. C. Duffell and A. I. MacFadyen, The Astrophysical Journal 769, 41 (2013), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http: //dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/769/1/41

    2013 doi

  64. [75]

    K. D. Kanagawa, H. Tanaka, and E. Szuszkiewicz, The Astrophysical Journal 861, 140 (2018), ISSN 0004- 637X, 1538-4357, 1805.11101

    2018 arXiv

  65. [76]

    R. P. Nelson, Astronomy & Astrophysics 443, 1067 (2005), ISSN 0004-6361, 1432-0746

    2005

  66. [77]

    Baruteau and D

    C. Baruteau and D. N. C. Lin, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 709, 759 (2010), URL https://dx.doi.org/10. 1088/0004-637X/709/2/759

    2010

  67. [78]

    Wu, Y.-X

    Y. Wu, Y.-X. Chen, and D. N. C. Lin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 528, L127 (2024), 2311.15747

    2024 arXiv

  68. [79]

    Aoyama and X.-N

    Y. Aoyama and X.-N. Bai, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 946, 5 (2023), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/acb81f

    2023

  69. [80]

    Frank, A

    J. Frank, A. R. King, and D. Raine, Accretion Power in Astrophysics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2002), 3rd ed., ISBN 978-0-521-62957-7 978-0-521- 62053-6

    2002

  70. [81]

    F. S. Masset, Astronomy and Astrophysics 387, 605 (2002), astro-ph/0205211

    2002 arXiv

  71. [82]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  72. [83]

    Drasco and S

    S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D 73, 024027 (2006), ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368

    2006

  73. [84]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, The Astrophysical Journal 178, 347 (1972), ISSN 0004- 637X, 1538-4357

    1972

  74. [85]

    A. J. K. Chua, M. L. Katz, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Rapid generation of fully relativistic extreme- mass-ratio-inspiral waveform templates for LISA data analysis (2021), 2008.06071

    2021 arXiv

  75. [86]

    M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D 104, 064047 (2021), ISSN 2470-0010, 2470-0029, 2104.04582

    2021 arXiv

  76. [87]

    Speri, M

    L. Speri, M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton, J. E. Thompson, C. E. A. Chapman- Bird, and J. R. Gair, Fast and Fourier: Extreme Mass Ratio Inspiral Waveforms in the Frequency Domain (2023), 2307.12585

    2023 arXiv

  77. [88]

    A. J. K. Chua, C. J. Moore, and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044005 (2017), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.044005

    2017 doi

  78. [89]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Physical Review D 69, 082005 (2004)

    2004

  79. [90]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Physical Review 131, 435 (1963), ISSN 0031-899X, URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    1963 doi

  80. [91]

    Zwick, A

    L. Zwick, A. Derdzinski, M. Garg, P. R. Capelo, and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511, 6143 (2022), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365-2966

    2022

  81. [92]

    Karnesis, M

    N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 526, 4814 (2023), ISSN 0035-8711, 1365- 2966, 2303.02164

    2023 arXiv

  82. [93]

    Cutler, Physical Review D 57, 7089 (1998), ISSN 0556-2821, 1089-4918

    C. Cutler, Physical Review D 57, 7089 (1998), ISSN 0556-2821, 1089-4918

    1998

  83. [94]

    Cutler and ´E

    C. Cutler and ´E. E. Flanagan, Physical Review D 49, 2658 (1994), ISSN 0556-2821

    1994

  84. [95]

    L. S. S. Team, Lisa science requirements docu- ment, URL https://www.cosmos.esa.int/documents/ 678316/1700384/SciRD.pdf

  85. [96]

    S. H. Strub, L. Ferraioli, C. Schmelzbach, S. C. St¨ ahler, and D. Giardini, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024005 (2024), 2403.15318

    2024 arXiv

  86. [97]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063004 (2023), 2301.03673

    2023 arXiv

  87. [98]

    M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024060 (2025), 14 2405.04690

    2025 arXiv

  88. [99]

    S. Deng, S. Babak, M. Le Jeune, S. Marsat, E. Plagnol, and A. Sartirana, Modular global-fit pipeline for LISA data analysis (2025), 2501.10277

    2025 arXiv

  89. [100]

    Zwick, C

    L. Zwick, C. Tiede, A. A. Trani, A. Derdzinski, Z. Haiman, D. J. D’Orazio, and J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103005 (2024), 2405.05698

    2024 arXiv

  90. [101]

    Ennoggi, M

    L. Ennoggi, M. Campanelli, Y. Zlochower, S. C. Noble, J. Krolik, F. Cattorini, J. V. Kalinani, V. Mewes, M. Chabanov, L. Ji, et al., arXiv e-prints arXiv:2502.06389 (2025), 2502.06389

    2025 arXiv

  91. [102]

    M. J. Avara, J. H. Krolik, M. Campanelli, S. C. Noble, D. Bowen, and T. Ryu, Astrophys. J. 974, 242 (2024), 2305.18538

    2024 arXiv

  92. [103]

    Combi, F

    L. Combi, F. G. Lopez Armengol, M. Campanelli, S. C. Noble, M. Avara, J. H. Krolik, and D. Bowen, Astro- phys. J. 928, 187 (2022), 2109.01307

    2022 arXiv

  93. [104]

    E. M. Guti´ errez, L. Combi, S. C. Noble, M. Campan- elli, J. H. Krolik, F. L´ opez Armengol, and F. Garc ´ ıa, Astrophys. J. 928, 137 (2022), 2112.09773

    2022 arXiv

  94. [105]

    S. L. Shapiro, Physical Review D 87, 103009 (2013), ISSN 1550-7998, 1550-2368, URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.87.103009

    2013 doi

  95. [106]

    P. Peng, A. Franchini, M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, and X. Chen (2024), 2411.16070

    2024 arXiv

  96. [107]

    Peng and X

    P. Peng and X. Chen, Astrophys. J. 950, 3 (2023), 2211.05798

    2023 arXiv

  97. [108]

    Clyburn and J

    M. Clyburn and J. Zrake, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2405.10281 (2024), 2405.10281

    2024 arXiv

  98. [109]

    F. J. S´ anchez-Salcedo, Astrophys. J. 897, 142 (2020), 2006.10206. Appendix A: F ull Posteriors We performed a full Bayesian parameter estimation in the three studied cases, using the vacuum parameters (log m1, log m2, a, p0, Φϕ 0), sky position and spin incli- nation ( DL, c...

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.