Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

The paper claims that the nonlinearity ratio for the (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4) ringdown channel of a Schwarzschild black hole is 0.164 at infinity and 0.055 at the horizon, matching numerical simulations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 19:19 UTC pith:TYVG244Q

load-bearing objection A solid, honest analytic follow-up to PBKR that treats 2s0 as non-resonant and lands the dominant (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4) ratio in the right window, but the key saddle-point step is only checked by phase plots, not by a controlled error estimate. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.00943 v3 pith:TYVG244Q submitted 2025-11-30 gr-qc hep-th

Computing nonlinearity ratios using second order black hole perturbation theory

Jasveer Singh , Vardarajan Suneeta This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th MSC 83C5783C2583C35 PACS 04.30.-w04.70.-s
keywords nonlinearity ratioquadratic quasinormal modessecond-order perturbation theorySchwarzschild black holeWKB approximationsteepest descentringdownhorizon
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to establish that an analytical scheme — WKB approximation, matched asymptotic expansions, and steepest-descent integration — can compute the nonlinearity ratio of quadratic quasinormal modes in the general case where the second-order frequency is not a linear quasinormal-mode frequency. For the dominant (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4) channel, the scheme yields a ratio at infinity that agrees with numerical relativity and Leaver-based results, and it provides the first analytical value at the black hole horizon. The paper also argues that the same scheme fails for the (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) channel because the steepest-descent approximation is invalid there, and that only crude estimates are possible until the spatial support of causally truncated quasinormal modes is known. A sympathetic reader would care because the nonlinearity ratio determines which quadratic modes should appear in gravitational-wave ringdown templates, and an analytical route to it can complement expensive simulations.

Core claim

For the channel (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4), the paper computes the nonlinearity ratio for gravitational strain as NL_{l=4,h}(x→∞)=0.1638, matching numerical values from independent simulations and Leaver-based calculations, and reports the first analytical horizon ratio NL_{l=4,h}(x→−∞)=0.055. The calculation treats the second-order frequency 2s0 as a non-resonant frequency (not a linear QNM), constructs WKB solutions for the homogeneous Zerilli equation at that frequency, and evaluates the source integral by steepest descent about the point where the product of Gaussians from the parent and daughter modes peaks. The paper further shows that the ratio is insensitive to the admissible choices of sourc

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the integral of the second-order source against the WKB mode functions, I = ∫ ϕ−(x, 2s0) ϕ−(x, s0)² H(x) dx, evaluated by steepest descent. The key simplification is that the product of two Gaussians peaked at different locations (the l=2 and l=4 potential maxima) is itself a Gaussian peaked at the weighted average x_m, so the integral localizes at that point. The non-resonant matching of ϕ± at frequency 2s0, with both ingoing and outgoing components present, is what distinguishes this computation from the resonant case previously treated.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation rests on the assumption that after rotating the integration contour, the full integrand — including the source factor H(x) — has stationary phase along the real line in exactly the region where the causally truncated quasinormal modes have their support; the paper itself shows this assumption fails for the (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) channel.

What would settle it

Compute the same (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4) integral by a method that does not use steepest descent — for example, direct numerical integration on a hyperboloidal slicing that avoids spatial truncation — and compare the resulting nonlinearity ratio with 0.164 at infinity and 0.055 at the horizon. If either disagreement exceeds the few-percent spread the paper reports across regularizations, the saddle-point premise would be invalidated.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • The analytical value 0.1638 for the (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4) ratio at infinity confirms that this channel dominates the quadratic ringdown signal, matching numerical relativity and providing a benchmark for template building.
  • The first analytical horizon ratio, 0.055, gives a quantitative prediction for horizon nonlinearities that can be tested against horizon-tracking simulations of binary mergers.
  • The insensitivity of the ratio to regularization choices and matching points suggests that the WKB+steepest-descent scheme, where valid, yields robust numbers rather than artifacts of the approximation.
  • The documented failure for the (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) channel delineates the method's domain of validity, warning against applying it blindly to channels whose potential peaks coincide.
  • The overtone-sourced ratios (e.g., 2s1 giving ~0.575 at infinity) provide rough estimates for the relative amplitude of quadratic modes excited by linear overtones, useful for assessing their significance in ringdown analysis.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the horizon ratio of ~0.055 is confirmed by future simulations, it would indicate that nonlinear mode coupling near the horizon is only about a factor of three weaker than at infinity, a nontrivial constraint on models of horizon dynamics.
  • The validity of steepest descent appears tied to the separation of the parent and daughter potential maxima; a testable extension is that channels with coincident peaks (like (2,0)²→(2,0)) will systematically fail, while those with well-separated peaks will succeed.
  • The 1/(2s0) factor connecting strain to the Zerilli scalar implies that higher-frequency quadratic channels will have smaller observed strain nonlinearity ratios even when their scalar ratios are comparable — a quantitative consequence the paper leaves implicit.
  • The main obstacle to precision is the unknown support of spatially truncated QNMs; this suggests that hyperboloidal-slicing methods, which avoid the truncation issue, could serve as an independent check of the steepest-descent numbers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the PBKR WKB/matched-asymptotics scheme for computing quadratic quasinormal-mode (QQNM) nonlinearity ratios in Schwarzschild, and extends it to the generic case in which the QQNM frequency 2s0 is not itself a linear QNM frequency. The central application is the channel (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4). The authors construct approximate homogeneous solutions for s≠s_n, evaluate the source integral by steepest descent, and obtain NL_{l=4,h}(∞)=0.1638, in agreement with the numerically measured range 0.15–0.20. They also report the first analytical horizon value NL_{l=4,h}(−∞)=0.055, study sensitivity to source-term regularization and to matching-point choices, and give rough estimates for QQNMs sourced by linear overtones. The paper is explicit that the method is channel-dependent: for (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) the steepest-descent evaluation fails (giving 16418.9), and only a rough numerical-integration estimate (0.313) is possible because the exact support of the causally truncated linear QNMs is unknown.

Significance. If the central result is robust, this is a valuable contribution. It provides a closed-form, parameter-free expression (Eq. 181) for a QQNM nonlinearity ratio in a non-resonant channel, with s0 fixed by the Schutz–Will quantization condition and no parameter tuned to the 0.15–0.20 window. The explicit sensitivity checks for matching points (Tables 3–4) and source regularization (Tables 1–2) are strengths, and the paper honestly documents the failure mode for the l=2 channel. The horizon result is new and potentially useful in light of recent horizon-ringdown studies. However, the central number rests on an uncontrolled saddle-point approximation, so the result is currently conditional rather than established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 10, Eqs. (185)–(191), Figs. 4–5] The integrals I1 and I2 are evaluated by replacing the integrand with a Gaussian about xm1/xm2 and evaluating H(x) and the hypergeometric factors at the saddle point. The phase plots in Figs. 4–5 show that the phase is approximately stationary near x=0, but they do not quantify (i) the error from neglecting the variation of H(x) and the Dν prefactors over the Gaussian width, or (ii) the error from integrating over the whole real line instead of the unknown support of the causally truncated QNMs. Since Section 9 shows that the identical saddle-point step fails for (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) (16418.9 vs 0.313), and Section 12 states that the precise support is unknown, the l=4 result needs an independent check. Please perform a direct numerical integration of Eq. (183) over the allowed matching region/turning points, exactly as was done for l=2 in Eq. (179), and report the resulting value and its d
  2. [Secs. 9 and 12, Eq. (44)] The computation uses Eq. (44), an integral over the full real line of h(x′), while the actual QNMs are spatially truncated with unknown support. For l=4 the saddle point lies near x=0, but the Gaussian tail is integrated beyond the causal support; if the support is narrower than the Gaussian width, the result can change substantially. The insensitivity to matching points and to regularization choices does not address this support ambiguity. The authors should either state the assumed support for l=4 explicitly and show stability under plausible variations of the support, or provide a quantitative bound on the truncation error. Without this, the agreement with 0.15–0.20 could be coincidental.
  3. [Eq. (176)] The conversion from NL_ψ to NL_h is load-bearing because the headline value is the strain ratio. Numerically, 0.1638/0.981 ≈ 0.166 ≈ |s0|^2. However, the expression as typeset, (2s0^2)(2s0^2)/(2(2s0)^2 ×2), evaluates to |s0|^2/4 under the standard reading 2s0^2 = 2·s0^2. The intended factor appears to be s0^2, obtained from ((2s0)^2(2s0)^2)/(2(2s0)^2 ×2). Please rewrite Eq. (176) with unambiguous parentheses and provide the derivation of this factor. As written, a reader cannot verify the conversion that produces the central numerical claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (187)] There is an exponent typo: to be consistent with α=√k_{l2}/2, the second Gaussian in I1 should be e^{−i√k_{l2}/2 (x−z2)^2}, not e^{−i√k_{l2} (x−z2)^2}. The subsequent formulas with xm1=(α z2+β z1)/(α+β) indicate this is a typesetting error, but it should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 8, Eq. (116)] The statement ilde D = ilde B is not obviously correct: the coefficients multiply different exponentials and are evaluated at different points (x1 vs x2), with different phase factors. Since ilde D is not used later, please either derive it correctly or delete the identification.
  3. [Sec. 9] To support the claim that the l=2 saddle-point result is unphysical, the paper compares steepest descent (16418.9) with numerical integration between turning points (0.313). It would be stronger to also compare with an actual numerical/simulation value for the (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) channel, as was done for l=4.
  4. [Sec. 12] The text contains an unresolved citation placeholder: “(see also [?] for an argument against this using causality)”. This should be replaced with the proper reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the (2,2)×(2,2)→(4,4) nonlinearity ratio is computed from a closed WKB expression with no parameter tuned to the numerical benchmark, and the benchmark itself is external.

full rationale

The central result, N L_{l=4,h}(x→∞)=0.1638, is obtained by evaluating the closed expression in Eq. (181): (1/2s0)√(s0/2)/W(2s0) times the integral of φ−(2s0)φ−²(s0)H(x). The frequency s0 is fixed by the Schutz–Will WKB quantization condition, Eq. (165), not by the target ratio. The integral is evaluated by steepest descent at the saddles xm1 and xm2, Eqs. (188) and (191), with the phase stationarity explicitly checked in Figs. 4–5. No parameter in the calculation is tuned to reproduce the numerical values of [1], [19], or [17]; the comparisons to those works are external benchmarks. The paper's own negative result for the (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) channel (Section 9, N L=16418.9 before numerical integration) shows that the method's validity is checked rather than imposed, and the acknowledged limitation that the exact support of spatially truncated QNMs is unknown (Section 12) is an uncertainty in the method, not a circular reduction. Matching-point sensitivity is explicitly tested (Tables 3–4) and regularization ambiguities are varied (Section 10.1, Table 1), with the ratio remaining stable. Citations such as [21], [27], and [10] are external works and are not self-citations, nor do they smuggle in the paper's conclusion. I therefore find no circular step: the derivation is self-contained in the sense that its inputs (WKB quantization, external source terms, matching rules, saddle-point evaluation) do not contain the predicted nonlinearity ratio.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The headline ratio 0.1638 is not fit to the target, but it rests on a chain of assumptions: the WKB potential expansion, the steepest-descent phase-stationarity, the non-resonance of 2s0, the truncation-support ansatz, a regularization choice, and literature-supplied source terms. Several are checked for robustness; the steepest-descent premise is known-fragile because the paper itself shows it fails for the (2,0) channel. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Matching points x1, x2 (and y1, y2 at second order) = x0 − x1 ∈ [3.766, 10]; default ≈ 8 (M=1 units)
    Chosen by hand in the allowed range set by inequalities (91)–(94). The reported ratios vary by ≤2% across the range (Tables 3–4), so this is a weak dependence, but it is a genuine hand choice in the scheme.
  • Source-term regularization choice (χ0′ variants) = no numeric value; three variants in Table 1
    Second-order source regularization is non-unique ([10]); the paper tests several variants and finds ~1–2% variation (Tables 1–2). The choice is an input, not fitted to the target.
  • Misner wormhole initial-data parameters (L, P) for the (2,0)×(2,0)→(2,0) estimate = L = 2.1, P = 0
    Used to compute c0L and c0NL entering the denominator renormalization for the l=2 ratio (eqs 166–169, 170–173). The l=2 result is recognized by the paper as initial-condition-sensitive; these parameters come from the close-limit literature, not from the target.
  • Integration range for numerical cross-checks (l=2 and overtone ratios) = between the turning points (x0 − x1 ≈ 3.77)
    The 'numerical integration' estimates 0.313, 0.575, 0.295, 0.226 integrate between approximate turning points because the exact support of causally-truncated QNMs is unknown — a choice the paper flags as the main obstacle to precision.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption WKB quadratic expansion of the Zerilli potential around its maximum and three-region matching (Schutz–Will)
    Used in Sections 6–8 to construct φ±(x,s) for s = 2s0; the allowed matching range (93)–(94) assumes quadratic-over-cubic dominance.
  • domain assumption Steepest-descent validity: integrand phase is stationary along the chosen contour where truncated QNMs contribute
    Central to the l=4 integrals I1, I2 (Section 10); asserted via phase plots (Figures 4–5) and shown to fail for l=2 (Section 9, NL = 16418.9).
  • domain assumption 2s0 is not a linear QNM frequency of the final-l potential, so W(2s0) ≠ 0 and the source pole is simple
    Stated in Section 5 ('We have assumed s = 2s0 is not a pole of the Wronskian'); expected from the Schwarzschild QNM spectrum but not numerically verified in the paper.
  • domain assumption Linear QNMs are spatially truncated with unknown support; integrals may be restricted to the middle WKB region
    Invoked in Sections 5 and 9 following [28],[29]; the unknown support is the acknowledged obstacle to precision (Section 12).
  • standard math Dictionary between χ and metric perturbations: ψ2 = χS/(2s0), ψ = 2ḧ and the strain factors of Eqs. (135)–(136), (175)–(176)
    Standard Zerilli/master-function relations from the literature ([10],[21]); the extra 1/2s0 and s0² factors shift the final numbers by factors of order unity.
  • domain assumption The second-order source terms S_{2,0} and S_{4,4} from [7]/[10] (with one typo correction) are correct as written
    The l=2 source is 'taken from [7], correcting a typo in [42]' (Section 9); the l=4 source is from [10] (Section 10). The computed ratios inherit any error in these lengthy expressions.
  • domain assumption Renormalization of the (2,2) parent amplitude by other channels is negligible for the l=4 ratio
    Section 10: 'the amplitude of the l=2 mode could get renormalized from other channels... This is not expected to be very significant, hence we neglect it.'

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 30070 in / 23376 out tokens · 207708 ms · 2026-08-03T19:19:32.447416+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Computing nonlinearity ratios using second order black hole perturbation theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TYVG244Q

@misc{pith2026251200943,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Computing nonlinearity ratios using second order black hole perturbation theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TYVG244Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2512.00943}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We revisit an analytical approximation scheme for computing nonlinearity ratios involving quadratic quasinormal modes (QQNMs). We compute these ratios for the general case when the QQNM is not one of the linear QNMs, for the $(l,m)$ channel $(2,2) \times (2,2) \to (4,4)$. We find an excellent match with numerical simulations. We also discuss where and why the method can fail, for example, for the channel $(2,0) \times (2,0) \to (2,0)$ where we can only get crude estimates for the nonlinearity ratio. Motivated by recent studies on nonlinear ringdown at the horizon, we also compute the nonlinearity ratios at the horizon. We find that the ratio both at the horizon and infinity is insensitive to different choices of regularization of the source term in the second order perturbations. We also discuss amplitudes of QQNMs sourced by linear overtones. Finally, we discuss the issues that must be resolved within this method to do precision analysis of nonlinear ringdown.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.00943 by Jasveer Singh, Vardarajan Suneeta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Diagram of −Q(x) We can now identify the three different WKB regions: I1 = (−∞, t1) before the first turning point, I2 = (t1, t2) between the turning points and I3 = (t2, ∞) after the second turning point. The plot of −Q(x) and the three regions are depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: x-axis: contour rotated variable running from negative to positive infinity, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Contour of choice with z being the complexified (x ′ − x0) leads to spatially truncated QNMs in the integral. However, we do not have a precise range over which they are non-zero. That range will in general, depend on the potential and also the support of the initial data (it roughly lies inside the common future light cone of the initial data [28]). Let us perform numerical integration in Mathematica (rat… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: x-axis: contour rotated variable running from negative to positive infinity, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: x-axis: contour rotated variable running from negative to positive infinity, with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Unifying the Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli and Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky formalisms on spherical backgrounds

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A self-dual curvature formulation unifies the Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli and Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky equations on spherical backgrounds as components of one tensorial curvature equation.

  2. Black Hole Ringdown Nonlinearities in the Large-D Limit

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    In the large-D limit, analytic third-order nonlinear corrections to quasinormal modes improve ringdown modeling accuracy by several orders of magnitude for head-on black hole collisions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    MH-Y Cheung, V Baibhav, E Berti, V Cardoso, G Carullo, R Cotesta¡ W D Pozzo, F Duque, T Helfer, E Shukla and KWK Wong, Nonlinear Effects in Black Hole Ringdown, Phys Rev Lett, 130(8) (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    K Mitman, M Lagos, LC Stein, S Ma, L Hui, Y Chen, N Deppe, F Hebert, LE Kidder, J Moxon, MA Scheel, SA Teukolsky, W Throwe and NL Vu, Nonlinearities in black hole ringdowns, Phys Rev Lett, 130(8) (2023)

    2023

  3. [3]

    M Lagos and L Hui, Generation and propagation of nonlinear quasinormal modes of a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys Rev D, 107(4) (2023)

    2023

  4. [4]

    SR Green, S Hollands, L Sberna, V Toomani and P Zimmerman, Conserved currents for a Kerr black hole and orthogonality of quasinormal modes, Phys Rev D, 107(6)(2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    RJ Gleiser, CO Nicasio, RH Price and J Pullin, Second-order perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 13(10):L117-L124 (1996)

    1996

  6. [6]

    CO Nicasio, RJ Gleiser, RH Price and J Pullin, Collision of boosted black holes: Second order close limit calculations, Phys Rev D, 59(4) (1999)

    1999

  7. [7]

    RJ Gleiser, CO Nicasio, RH Price, and J Pullin, Gravitational radiation from Schwarzschild black holes, Physics Reports, 325(2):41-81 (2000)

    2000

  8. [8]

    D Brizuela, JM Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, and GA Mena Marug´ an, Second- and higher-order perturbations of a spherical spacetime, Phys Rev D, 74(4) (2006)

    2006

  9. [9]

    D Brizuela, JM Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, and GA Mena Marug´ an, High-order gauge-invariant perturbations of a spherical spacetime, Phys Rev D, 76(2) (2007)

    2007

  10. [10]

    H Nakano and K Ioka, Second-order quasinormal mode of the Schwarzschild black hole, Phys.Rev.D76(8) (2007)

    2007

  11. [11]

    D Brizuela, JM Martin-Garcia and M Tiglio, Complete gauge-invariant formalism for arbitrary second- order perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys Rev D, 80(2) (2009)

    2009

  12. [12]

    D Brizuela, JM Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, U Sperhake and KD Kokkotas, High-order perturbations of a spherical collapsing star, Phys Rev D, 82(10) (2010)

    2010

  13. [13]

    A Spiers, A Pound and B Wardell, Second-order perturbations of the Schwarzschild spacetime: prac- tical, covariant and gauge-invariant formalisms, Phys.Rev.D 110(6), 064030 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    T Regge, and JA Wheeler, Stability of a Schwarzschild Singularity, Phys Rev 108:1063-1069 (1957)

    1957

  15. [15]

    FJ Zerilli, Effective Potential for Even-Parity Regge-Wheeler Gravitational Perturbation Equations, Phys Rev Lett, 24:737-738 (1970)

    1970

  16. [16]

    E Berti, V Cardoso, JA Gonzalez, U Sperhake, M Hannam, S Husa and B Br¨ ugmann, Inspiral, merger, and ringdown of unequal mass black hole binaries: A multipolar analysis, Phys Rev D, 76(6) (2007)

    2007

  17. [17]

    J Redondo-Yuste, G Carullo, JL Ripley, E Berti and V Cardoso, Spin dependence of black hole ringdown nonlinearities, Phys Rev D, 109(10) (2024)

    2024

  18. [18]

    B Bucciotti, V Cardoso, A Kuntz, D Pere˜ niguez, J Redondo-Yuste, Ringdown nonlinearities in the eikonal regime, Phys. Rev. D 111, L081502 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    B Bucciotti, L Juliano, A Kuntz, E Trincherini, Quadratic quasinormal modes of a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys Rev D, 110(10) (2024). 33

    2024

  20. [20]

    N Khera, AR Metidieri, B Bonga, XJ Forteza, B Krishnan, E Poisson, D Pook-Kolb, E Schnetter and H Yang, Nonlinear ringdown at the black hole horizon, Phys Rev Lett, 131(23) (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    D Perrone, T Barreira, A Kehagias and A Riotto, Non-linear black hole ringdowns: An analytical approach, Nuclear Physics B, 999:116432 (2024)

    2024

  22. [22]

    A Kehagias and A Riotto, Nonlinear Effects in Black Hole Ringdown Made Simple: Quasi-Normal Modes as Adiabatic Modes, Phys.Rev.D 111(4), L041506 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    K Fransen, D Pere˜ niguez, J Redondo-Yuste, Perturbations of Plane Waves and Quadratic Quasinormal Modes on the Light ring, arXiv:2509.03598

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  24. [24]

    A Kehagias, D Perrone and A Riotto, Non-linear Quasi-Normal Modes of the Schwarzschild Black Hole from the Penrose Limit, arXiV: 2503.09350

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    A Kehagias, D Perrone and A Riotto, Nonlinearities of Schwarzschild Black Hole Head-on Collisions, arXiV: 2508.17993

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [26]

    134 (6), 061401 (2025)

    P Bourg, RP Macedo, A Spiers, B Leather, B Bonga and A Pound, Quadratic quasi-normal mode dependence on linear mode parity, Phys.Rev.Lett. 134 (6), 061401 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    BF Schutz, and CM Will, Black hole normal modes - A semianalytic approach, Astrophysical Journal Letters, 291:L33-L36 (1985)

    1985

  28. [28]

    N Szpak, Quasinormal mode expansion and the exact solution of the Cauchy problem for wave equa- tions, arxiv: gr-qc/0411050 (2004)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  29. [29]

    S Okuzumi, K Ioka, and M Sakagami, Possible Discovery of Nonlinear Tail and Quasinormal Modes in Black Hole Ringdown, Phys Rev D77.124018 (2008)

    2008

  30. [30]

    HP Nollert and BG Schmidt, Quasinormal modes of Schwarzschild black holes: Defined and calculated via Laplace transformation, Phys Rev D, 45:2617-2627 (1992)

    1992

  31. [31]

    CW Misner, Wormhole Initial Conditions, Phys Rev 118:1110-1111 (1960)

    1960

  32. [32]

    M Campanelli and CO Lousto, Second order gauge invariant gravitational perturbations of a Kerr black hole, Phys Rev D, 59:124022 (1999)

    1999

  33. [33]

    N Loutrel, JL Ripley, E Giorgi and F Pretorius, Second-order perturbations of Kerr black holes: Formalism and reconstruction of the first-order metric, Phys Rev D, 103:104017 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    D Perrone, A Kehagias and A Riotto, Nonlinearities in Kerr Black Hole Ringdown from the Penrose Limit, JCAP 10, 024 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    H Zhu, JL Ripley, F Pretorius, S Ma, K Mitman, R Owen, M Boyle, Y Chen, N Deppe, LE Kidder, J Moxon, KC Nelli, HP Pfeiffer, MA Scheel, W Throwe and NL Vu, Nonlinear Effects In Black Hole Ringdown From Scattering Experiments I: spin and initial data dependence of quadratic mode coupling, Phys.Rev.D 109(10), 104050 (2024)

    2024

  36. [36]

    S Ma and H Yang, Excitation of quadratic quasinormal modes for Kerr black holes, Phys Rev D, 109(10) (2024)

    2024

  37. [37]

    N Khera, S Ma and H Yang, Quadratic Mode Couplings in Rotating Black Holes and Their Detectabil- ity, Phys Rev lett, 134(21) (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    A Kehagias and A Riotto, Can We Detect Deviations from Einstein’s Gravity in Black Hole Ring- downs?, arXiV: 2411.12428. 34

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  39. [39]

    A Zengino˘ glu, A geometric framework for black hole perturbations, Phys Rev D, 83(12) (2011)

    2011

  40. [40]

    R Panosso Macedo, Hyperboloidal approach for static spherically symmetric spacetimes: a didactical introduction and applications in black-hole physics, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 382(2267) (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    P Bourg, R Panosso Macedo, A Spiers, B Leather, B Bonga and A Pound, Quadratic quasinormal modes at null infinity on a Schwarzschild spacetime, Phys.Rev.D 112(4), 044049 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    R Gleiser, O Nicasio, R Price, J Pullin, Second order perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole, Class.Quant.Grav.13:L117-L124 (1996). 35

    1996