Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

PyGRO: a Python Integrator for General Relativistic Orbits

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PyGRO computes fully relativistic orbits from any user-supplied analytic spacetime metric, without hand-deriving Christoffel symbols.

desk verdict A genuinely useful, open geodesic integrator with solid validation against known results; the 'any metric' claim is plausible but not yet proven by the Schwarzschild/Kerr benchmarks. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20152 v1 pith:2L6PYMQ6 submitted 2025-04-28 gr-qc

Riccardo Della Monica This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords generalrelativitygeodesicequationsnumericalintegrationsymboliccomputationtest-particleorbitsblackholespacetimesSchwarzschildmetricKerr
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 presents PyGRO, an open-source Python package that promises to compute fully relativistic orbits of massive and massless test particles in any analytic four-dimensional spacetime, starting only from the user's symbolic expression of the metric tensor. The package automatically derives all the geometric objects needed for motion—the inverse metric, the connection coefficients that enter the geodesic equations, and the normalization condition fixing whether a trajectory is timelike or null—and then integrates the equations numerically with adaptive step-size methods. The paper validates the claim by reproducing classical general-relativity results: orbital precession in Schwarzschild that agrees with the standard weak-field formula and goes beyond it in strong fields, stable and unstable circular orbits with the innermost stable circular orbit at 6M, the photon sphere at 3M with strong deflection of light, the two critical impact parameters of a Kerr black hole with spin 0.8, and the S2 star observables in the Galactic center. A radial-infall benchmark against an exact analytic solution shows that the numerical error and the deviation of the four-velocity norm from its conserved value converge to zero as tolerances are tightened. If the central claim holds, any researcher with an analytic metric—including modified-gravity or black-hole-mimicker models—can generate orbital predictions with minimal setup instead of computing connection coefficients by hand.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a two-level pipeline. At the symbolic level, a Metric object takes the user's expression $g_{\mu\nu}$ and computes the inverse metric, the Levi-Civita connection $\Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\rho}=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu\sigma}(\partial_{\nu}g_{\sigma\rho}+\partial_{\rho}g_{\nu\sigma}-\partial_{\sigma}g_{\nu\rho})$, the geodesic equations $\ddot{x}^{\mu} + \Gamma^{\mu}_{\nu\rho}\dot{x}^{\nu}\dot{x}^{\rho}=0$, and helper functions built from the causal normalization $g_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}=-1$ for timelike geodesics or $0$ for null geodesics. At the numerical level, a GeodesicEngine converts those symbolic equations into fast callable functions, optionally compiled to C, and integrates them with embedded adaptive Runge-Kutta schemes, stopping on user-defined criteria such as an event-horizon radius. Two higher-level interfaces carry most of the user-facing value: an Observer class that uses tetrad frames to fire geodesics along physically meaningful directions, and an Orbit class that, in spherically symmetric spacetimes, converts classical Keplerian elements into initial conditions by solving the effective-potential relations, with the energy and angular momentum to $(a,e)$ map computed numerically for generality. This machinery is what turns typing in a metric into getting an orbit without manual derivation.

What would settle it

Take a spacetime with a known exact geodesic that is not among the demonstrated Schwarzschild and Kerr cases—for instance, radial null infall in Reissner-Nordström, or a metric with a coordinate singularity inside the domain—and run PyGRO at progressively tighter tolerances; if the integrated trajectory does not converge to the analytic solution at the requested tolerance, or if the constraint $g_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}$ fails to shrink toward zero, the 'any analytic metric' claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that one package can turn a user-supplied symbolic expression of any analytic four-dimensional metric into fully relativistic geodesic trajectories, for both massive and massless test particles, without manual derivation of the Christoffel symbols or of the normalization of initial data. The validation consists of reproducing, with the same code, a broad set of classical general-relativity results: the perihelion advance of bound orbits in Schwarzschild matching the post-Newtonian formula in weak fields and going beyond it in strong fields; stable circular orbits and the innermost stable circular orbit at 6M, together with unstable circular orbits that plunge after long integrations; the photon sphere at 3M and the strong deflection of null geodesics; the two critical impact parameters of a Kerr black hole with spin a=0.8 and the resulting prograde and retrograde photon orbits; the full set of S2 observables in the Galactic center including the roughly 200 km/s relativistic redshift contribution at pericenter; and an analytic radial-infall null geodesic whose integrated coordinate-time profile reproduces the divergence at the horizon. Accuracy is quantified by convergence of the numerical solution and of the conserved norm $g_{\mu\nu}\dot{x}^{\mu}\dot{x}^{\nu}$ to their exact values as tolerances are tightened.

Load-bearing premise

The advertised 'any analytic spacetime' generality depends on the metric being supplied as one symbolic expression in a single coordinate chart that covers the whole integration domain; for spacetimes requiring multiple charts, piecewise definitions, or purely numerical metrics, the demonstrated pipeline does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A researcher testing an alternative theory of gravity can swap in a new metric expression and immediately obtain the orbital trajectories and photon paths, removing the bottleneck of hand-deriving connection coefficients for each theory.
  • The Orbit class supplies a fully relativistic Keplerian parametrization for any spherically symmetric metric, so observational fits phrased in semi-major axis, eccentricity, and angular elements can be compared across theories in the same language used by astronomers.
  • The Observer class turns a metric into a ray-tracing setup, enabling black-hole shadow, photon-ring, and astrometric-position calculations for arbitrary analytic geometries rather than pre-coded special cases.
  • The runtime and convergence benchmarks indicate that after a roughly one-second setup the per-orbit integrations take milliseconds, making the package practical for repeated evaluations in parameter-estimation and model-comparison workflows.
  • Because the four-velocity norm is a monitorable constraint during integration, users of new metrics have a built-in accuracy diagnostic that does not require an analytic solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper validates the pipeline only on Schwarzschild and Kerr, both given as single global analytic expressions; a fair next stress test would be a spacetime whose physically relevant region needs multiple coordinate patches, where the single-chart assumption could break.
  • For very complicated metrics the symbolic differentiation and C-compilation step may dominate runtime, so caching or simplifying the derived geodesic expressions before compilation is a natural extension not covered by the benchmarks.
  • The Keplerian-element Orbit interface is explicitly restricted to spherical symmetry; extending the same initialization method to axisymmetric spacetimes, which the paper lists as future work, would bring the same ease of use to rotating black holes and their shadows.
  • A testable extension is to expose the constraint violation as a per-step automatic stopping or error-control criterion, turning what is now a post-hoc benchmark into a safeguard for unexplored metrics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents PyGRO, an open-source Python package for numerically integrating time-like and null geodesics in four-dimensional space-times specified by a user-supplied symbolic metric. The Metric class uses sympy to compute the inverse metric, Christoffel symbols, and normalization helpers; the GeodesicEngine integrates the resulting geodesic equations with adaptive explicit Runge-Kutta methods (RKF45, Dormand-Prince, Cash-Karp, RKF78) and supports autowrap and lambdify backends. Higher-level APIs (Observer, Orbit) allow initialization from tetrad frames and Keplerian-like orbital elements in spherical symmetry. The paper validates the code against the post-Newtonian perihelion precession formula (Eq. 24), circular-orbit properties including the ISCO, the photon sphere at r=3M, Kerr critical impact parameters (Eq. 41), and the analytical radial infall solution (Eq. 43), and it reports convergence and runtime benchmarks. It also demonstrates a full pipeline for reconstructing the S2 star's observable astrometric and spectroscopic quantities.

Significance. PyGRO addresses a real need: a flexible, user-friendly geodesic integrator for arbitrary analytic metrics that minimizes manual derivation of connection coefficients. If the advertised generality holds, it is a useful tool for the relativistic astrophysics community, particularly for testing modified-gravity or black-hole-mimicker models against S-star and EHT observations. Strengths include the open-source availability, reproducible example notebooks, validation against independent analytical results (post-Newtonian precession, radial infall, photon sphere, Kerr critical impact parameters), explicit convergence tests (Fig. 14), and measured runtime tables. The symbolic engine is generic rather than hardcoded to Schwarzschild or Kerr. The main weakness is evidential: the benchmark suite covers only Schwarzschild and Kerr, both highly symmetric in the configurations tested, so the central 'any analytic metric' claim is broader than what the paper actually demonstrates.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Section 3] The advertised 'full generality with any user-given symbolic expression of the space-time metric tensor' is not established by the benchmarks in Section 3, which use only the Schwarzschild metric (Eq. 23) and the Kerr metric (Eq. 40). These are highly symmetric, and the Kerr example is restricted to the equatorial plane, so the effective number of nonzero Christoffel symbols is small. Section 2.1 itself cautions that 'algebraically complicated metric tensors' introduce symbolic overhead, and Section 3.7 quantifies performance only for those same two metrics. To make the central claim load-bearing, I request either (i) an additional benchmark with a dense, non-symmetric analytic metric whose independent components depend on all four coordinates, demonstrating that Metric initialization and geodesic integration remain tractable and accurate, or (ii) a revision of the abstract and Section 1 to state that PyGRO is designed for general analytic metrics and validated on high-symmetry examples. As written, the 'any analytic four-dimensional space-time' claim overreaches the evidence.
  2. [Section 2.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) contains an index error. The geodesic equation should read \ddot{x}^\mu + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\rho} \dot{x}^\nu \dot{x}^\rho = 0, not \ddot{x}^\mu + \Gamma^\mu_{\nu\rho} \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu = 0. As printed, the free index \mu also appears as a summation index on \dot{x}^\mu, making the equation ambiguous or incorrect. Please correct the equation and ensure the surrounding text and the implementation description use the same convention.
  3. [Section 3.5, Eq. (40)] The Kerr metric in Eq. (40) defines \Delta \equiv r^2 - 2Mr + a, but the correct Boyer-Lindquist expression is \Delta \equiv r^2 - 2Mr + a^2. As printed, the d r^2 term of the metric is wrong, which would affect any reader implementing the metric directly from the paper. Please correct this definition and check that all subsequent formulas (e.g., Eqs. 41 and 42) are consistent with the corrected \Delta.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.6] The convergence check is referred to as being reported in 'Fig. 7' and compared with 'Eq. (13)'; the correct references are Fig. 14 and Eq. (43).
  2. [Section 3.4 and Fig. 11] The 'striking agreement' between the PyGRO-reconstructed S2 observables and the data of Gillessen et al. (2017) is partly by construction, because the orbital elements used to initialize the geodesic are taken from that same catalog. Please describe this example as a consistency check or science application rather than an independent validation of the integrator.
  3. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'the the geodesic equations' in the abstract, 'Christhoffel' in Fig. 1, 'coordiante' and 'Earth form' in Section 3.4, and 'correspons' in Section 3.4. A careful copyedit pass is needed.
  4. [References] The reference list has inconsistent and potentially duplicate entries, including two Einstein (1915) entries with different page ranges and inconsistent spelling of 'Gravity + Collaboration' versus 'Gravity+ Collaboration'. Please check the final reference list for consistency.
  5. [Fig. 14] The right panel of Fig. 14 would benefit from an explicit y-axis label such as 'constraint violation' rather than only the expression g_{\mu\nu} \dot{x}^\mu \dot{x}^\nu, and the left panel should state clearly whether the plotted error is absolute or relative.
  6. [Section 3.7] The runtime comparisons would be more informative if PyGRO were benchmarked against an existing hardcoded geodesic integrator (e.g., GYOTO) for the same cases, since absolute runtimes on a single laptop do not by themselves substantiate the 'fast' characterization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PyGRO's benchmarks are checked against independent analytic and post-Newtonian results, so the central claim is not forced by its own inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain in PyGRO starts from a user-supplied symbolic metric and uses sympy to compute the inverse metric, Christoffel symbols, and geodesic equations; the numerical solver is then validated against external known results: the post-Newtonian periastron advance formula (Eq. 24), the known ISCO and photon-sphere radii, the Kerr critical-impact-parameter relation (Eq. 41), and the analytic radial null geodesic solution (Eq. 43). These checks are external to the code's fitted values and therefore constitute genuine validation. The S2 example in Section 3.4 uses orbital elements from Gillessen et al. (2017) as initial conditions and compares the reconstructed observables to the same catalogue; this is a self-consistency check rather than an independent prediction, but it is not a load-bearing part of the paper's central claim and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The cited prior work by the author is contextual and does not supply the validation. The advertised 'any analytic metric' generality is not fully established by the Schwarzschild/Kerr benchmarks, and Eq. (2) contains an index typo, but these are correctness or support concerns, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on standard GR geodesic equations and on the user's metric expression; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced. The load-bearing assumptions are that the metric is analytic and single-chart, and that the code's chosen root in Eq. (3) is the physical one.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Motion of test particles follows the geodesic equation with the Levi-Civita connection (Eq. 2).
    Used throughout Section 2; this is the standard GR model for free-falling massive and massless particles.
  • domain assumption The spacetime is provided as a single analytic symbolic expression in one coordinate chart covering the integration region.
    Section 2.1 requires a sympy expression for g_mu_nu; the abstract claims 'any analytic four-dimensional space-time,' but multi-chart or numerical metrics are not supported.
  • domain assumption For each new metric, the normalization equation (3) is solved for the missing velocity component, with the physical root selected.
    Section 2.3 computes one component of the tangent four-vector from Eq. (3); the paper does not specify how multiple roots are disambiguated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PyGRO: a Python Integrator for General Relativistic Orbits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2L6PYMQ6

@misc{pith2026250420152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PyGRO: a Python Integrator for General Relativistic Orbits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2L6PYMQ6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20152}
}
read the original abstract

Advancement in recent years in the field of experimental gravitation has allowed to test the equivalence principle in regimes that were previously unexplored, allowing for unprecedented verifications of general relativity and also enabling tests of alternative theories of gravity. We introduce a new computational tool, PyGRO, with the aim of integrating numerically the geodesic equations for the trajectories of massive and massless test particles in any analytic four-dimensional space-time. The result is a modern, fast, open-source, highly customizable and user-friendly Python package to perform the numerical integration of the the geodesic equations. Combining symbolic and numerical calculations, PyGRO offers a variety of methods to obtain fully relativistic orbits with minimal intervention by the user, working in full generality with any user-given symbolic expression of the space-time metric tensor. We have tested PyGRO in an array of different scenarios, validating the methodology employed by successfully reproducing classical results from general relativity, which we report in this article.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the code structure of PyGRO. The Metric object serves as the primary symbolic tool in PyGRO, computing all tensorial quantities required for deriving geodesic equations. The GeodesicEngine, on the other hand, is responsible for the numerical integration of these equations, acting as a worker that processes Geodesic objects. These objects encapsulate the geodesic type (e.g., null or time-lik… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effective potential for given values of E and L in the Schwarzschild space-time. A choice of E and L uniquely identifies ra￾dial turning points, i.e. values of the radial coordinates at which the radial velocity ˙r = 0. These points are identified by rp, the pericenter, and ra, the apocenter. which allows to obtain relations between the local frame metric and the space-time metric: f a α f b β ηab = gαβ, (8) f α a f… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Illustration of the angular orbital elements for a Keplerian or￾bit. The orbital inclination i represent the inclination of the orbital plane with respect to a reference plane (e.g. the plane of sky for a distant ob￾server); the longitude of the ascending node Ω corresponds to the angle between a reference direction (in our case the ϕ = 0 line on the equa￾torial plane) and the line of nodes, namely the line in which… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example orbit with e = 0.8 and a = 200M integrated with Py￾GRO. The integration has been carried on for 10 full revolutions around the central object. The trajectory is not a closed ellipse. Orbital preces￾sion makes the orbit’s pericenter advance, while the radial coo…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The rate of orbital precession for orbits with a ∈ [50, 10000] and for three values of the eccentricity, e = 0.2, 0.5 and 0.8. The solid lines correspond to the rate of precession computed with PyGRO, while the dotted lines represent the post-Newtonian prediction for t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Circular orbits around a Schwarzschild black hole integrated with PyGRO. The top panels display the resulting orbits on the equatorial plane, with the black circle representing the central black hole. The bottom panels show the effective potential in Eq. (12) computed …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Illustration of reference frame for a stationary observer in the Schwarzschild case, defined as in Eqs. (27)-(28). The observer (black dot) carries a left-handed system of axes, f1 f2 f3, with f1 pointing radi￾ally towards the central black hole, f2 pointing tangential…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Photon trajectories obtained with PyGRO, fired by observers at positions r0 ∈ [2, 6]M, around a Schwarzschild black hole with an ini￾tially tangential direction on the equatorial plane. Photons fired from below r0 < 3M end up in the horizon. Photons fired from r0 > 3M …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The additional contribution to the apparent line-of-sight ve￾locity given by the combination of special relativistic Doppler effect and gravitational time dilation for the S2 star in the Galactic center. The relativistic redshift component is maximized around pericent…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Full set of observables for S2 in the Galactic center, reconstructed from the geodesic integration with PyGRO. In particular, on the left panels we show the right ascension (top panel) and declination (middle panel) relative to Sgr A* of S2 over two full orbital perio…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Photon trajectories on the equatorial plane of the Kerr space￾time with a = 0.8. The trajectories are obtained by integrating backward in time from a distant observer on the x axis. The solid black lines corre￾spond to the prograde and retrogrde circular photon orbits…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Analytical (gray solid line) and numerical (blue dotted line, obtained with PyGRO) solutions for a radially infalling null geodesic in the Schwarzschild space-time, starting from an initial radial coordi￾nate r0 = 50M. The two solutions perfectly agree. The dashed ver…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Convergence check of the numerical integration routine in PyGRO. In particular, for the same case illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.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

  1. Dark Matter Heating of Compact Stars Beyond Capture: A Relativistic Framework for Energy Deposition by Particle Beams

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A new relativistic formalism computes capture and energy deposition of directed particle beams in compact stars, applied to blazar-boosted dark matter heating of white dwarfs and neutron stars.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

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

    2016

  2. [2]

    H., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G

    Aimar, N., Paumard, T., Vincent, F. H., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 095010

    2024

  3. [3]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, ApJ, 178, 347

    1972

  4. [4]

    M., Tyson, J

    Bernstein, G. M., Tyson, J. A., & Kochanek, C. S. 1993, AJ, 105, 816

    work page 1993

  5. [5]

    Bolton, C. T. 1972, Nature, 235, 271

    work page 1972

  6. [6]

    2023, Phys

    Cadoni, M., De Laurentis, M., De Martino, I., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 044038

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    1985, The mathematical theory of black holes

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1985, The mathematical theory of black holes

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Cunningham, C. T. & Bardeen, J. M. 1973, ApJ, 183, 237

    work page 1973

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    & Deruelle, N

    Damour, T. & Deruelle, N. 1985, Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique, 43, 107

    1985

  2. [10]

    & Deruelle, N

    Damour, T. & Deruelle, N. 1986, Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique, 44, 263 De Laurentis, M., de Martino, I., & Della Monica, R. 2023, Reports on Progress in Physics, 86, 104901 De Martino, I., della Monica, R., & De Laurentis, M. 2021, Phys. R...

    1986 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dicke, R. H. 1964, in Les Houches Summer Shcool of Theoretical Physics: Rel- ativity, Groups and Topology, 165–316

    1964

  4. [12]

    2019, Science, 365, 664

    Do, T., Hees, A., Ghez, A., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 664

    2019

  5. [13]

    W., Eddington, A

    Dyson, F. W., Eddington, A. S., & Davidson, C. 1920, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathemat- ical or Physical Character, 220, 291

    1920

  6. [14]

    & Genzel, R

    Eckart, A. & Genzel, R. 1996, Nature, 383, 415

    1996

  7. [15]

    1915, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 844

    Einstein, A. 1915, Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preußischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin), 844

    1915

  8. [16]

    1915, Sitzungsber

    Einstein, A. 1915, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ), 1915, 831 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 964, L25 Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, Akiyama, K., Alberdi, A., et al. 2022, ApJ, 930, L12 Event Ho...

    1915

  9. [17]

    Everitt, C. W. F., Debra, D. B., Parkinson, B. W., et al. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 106, 221101 Fernández Fernández, R., Della Monica, R., & de Martino, I. 2023, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2023, 039

    2011

  10. [18]

    2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121

    Genzel, R., Eisenhauer, F., & Gillessen, S. 2010, Reviews of Modern Physics, 82, 3121

    2010

  11. [19]

    M., Klein, B

    Ghez, A. M., Klein, B. L., Morris, M., & Becklin, E. E. 1998, ApJ, 509, 678

    1998

  12. [20]

    M., Eisenhauer, F., et al

    Gillessen, S., Plewa, P. M., Eisenhauer, F., et al. 2017, ApJ, 837, 30 Gravity+ Collaboration, Abuter, R., Alarcon, P., et al. 2022, The Messenger, 189, 17 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 615, L15 Gravity Collaboration, Abuter, R., Amorim, A., ...

    2017

  13. [21]

    M., et al

    Hees, A., Do, T., Ghez, A. M., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 118, 211101

    2017

  14. [22]

    D., Akiyama, K., Blackburn, L., et al

    Johnson, M. D., Akiyama, K., Blackburn, L., et al. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 61

    2023

  15. [23]

    2015, in Advancing Astro- physics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 40

    Keane, E., Bhattacharyya, B., Kramer, M., et al. 2015, in Advancing Astro- physics with the Square Kilometre Array (AASKA14), 40

    2015

  16. [24]

    Luminet, J. P. 1979, A&A, 75, 228

    1979

  17. [25]

    P., Paprocki, M., et al

    Meurer, A., Smith, C. P., Paprocki, M., et al. 2017, PeerJ Computer Science, 3, e103

    2017

  18. [26]

    2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    Nan, R., Li, D., Jin, C., et al. 2011, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 989

    2011

  19. [27]

    & Will, C

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

    2014

  20. [28]

    Pound, R. V . & Rebka, G. A. 1960, Phys. Rev. Lett., 4, 274

    1960

  21. [29]

    H., Teukolsky, S

    Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numer- ical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing

    1992

  22. [30]

    2020, Phys

    Psaltis, D., Medeiros, L., Christian, P., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 141104

    2020

  23. [31]

    2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1945

    Skidmore, W., TMT International Science Development Teams, & Science Ad- visory Committee, T. 2015, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 15, 1945

    2015

  24. [32]

    2013, General Relativity, Graduate Texts in Physics (Dordrecht: Springer)

    Straumann, N. 2013, General Relativity, Graduate Texts in Physics (Dordrecht: Springer)

    2013

  25. [33]

    2024, in Ground-based and Airborne In- strumentation for Astronomy X, ed

    Sturm, E., Davies, R., Alves, J., et al. 2024, in Ground-based and Airborne In- strumentation for Astronomy X, ed. J. J. Bryant, K. Motohara, & J. R. D

    2024

  26. [34]

    Taff, L. G. 1985, Celestial mechanics : a computational guide for the practitioner

    1985

  27. [35]

    Vessot, R. F. C., Levine, M. W., Mattison, E. M., et al. 1980, Phys. Rev. Lett., 45, 2081

    1980

  28. [36]

    H., Paumard, T., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G

    Vincent, F. H., Paumard, T., Gourgoulhon, E., & Perrin, G. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 225011

    2011

  29. [37]

    Webster, B. L. & Murdin, P. 1972, Nature, 235, 37

    1972

  30. [38]

    Will, C. M. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 4 Article number, page 15 of 15

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.