Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 93 references

This paper computes the first gauge-invariant, long-wavelength graviton-photon scattering amplitude around a Kerr-Newman black hole through second order in spin, showing that all Wilson coefficients are fixed by the black hole's multipole m

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 12:57 UTC pith:OESYY27W

load-bearing objection A careful, mostly convincing worldline-EFT computation of graviton-to-photon conversion off a Kerr-Newman black hole to O(S^2), with one genuinely load-bearing algebra step in Appendix A that is asserted rather than shown. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2601.00980 v4 pith:OESYY27W submitted 2026-01-02 hep-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc

Graviton Photoproduction by a Kerr-Newman Black Hole with Worldline EFT

Qinyuan Zheng This is my paper
classification hep-th astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords graviton photoproductionKerr-Newman black holeworldline effective field theoryspin gauge invariancemultipole momentsgraviton-photon conversionscattering amplitudedifferential cross section
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 establishes that the conversion of a graviton into a photon by a charged, spinning black hole—the Kerr-Newman geometry—is computable in the low-energy limit without solving the coupled gravito-electromagnetic perturbation equations. Treating the black hole as a point particle with spin via worldline effective field theory, it derives the tree-level scattering amplitude through O((ωm)^2), equivalently O(S^2), and to linear order in Newton's constant. The amplitude is gauge invariant and fixed entirely by the Kerr-Newman multipole moments: no electric dipole, magnetic dipole and electric quadrupole both equal to the charge e, and mass quadrupole coefficient 1. The result reproduces the spinless Reissner-Nordström limit and yields the full angular differential cross section, including the striking feature that spin effects vanish in the unpolarized cross section at O(S) and vanish entirely for gravitons traveling parallel to the spin axis. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a long-standing obstacle—the non-separability of the coupled perturbation equations for Kerr-Newman—into a parameter-free low-energy prediction that future black-hole perturbation calculations can test.

Core claim

The central claim is that the gauge-invariant graviton-to-photon scattering amplitude for a Kerr-Newman black hole, to second order in the spin S and first order in Newton's constant, is fully determined by the multipole moments of the Kerr-Newman solution. Matching the asymptotic electromagnetic field fixes the Wilson coefficients c1 = 0 (no electric dipole), c2 = e (magnetic dipole with gyromagnetic ratio 2), and c3 = e (electric quadrupole); matching the asymptotic metric fixes c4 = 1 (mass quadrupole). The resulting amplitude, Eq. (51), passes three consistency checks: external graviton and photon gauge invariance, spin-gauge invariance verified through a generalized Rξ gauge, and reduct

What carries the argument

The spinning worldline effective field theory, where the black hole is modeled as a point particle carrying a spin tensor S^{μν}, subject to a covariant spin-supplementary condition and a first-class spin gauge symmetry. The amplitude is built from the non-minimal operators B·S (magnetic dipole), S^μS^ν D_μ E_ν (electric quadrupole), and E_{μν}S^μS^ν (mass quadrupole), with Wilson coefficients fixed by matching to the asymptotic Kerr-Newman fields. The tree-level diagrams combine the bulk graviton-photon (hAA) vertex with these worldline couplings and the worldline fluctuation propagators.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation stands on the claim that a black hole's spin can be described by the standard covariant spin condition even when electromagnetic forces push on it; if adding the Lorentz force breaks that first-class constraint, the amplitude's spin-gauge invariance is lost.

What would settle it

Recompute the preservation of the spin-supplementary constraint D/dτ[S^{μν}(p̂_ν + Λ_{0ν})] = 0 while keeping the Lorentz force term eF^{μν} ẋ_ν from the momentum equation; the paper's Appendix A states that this term drops out by antisymmetry of F but does not display the cancellation. If the F-dependent terms fail to vanish on the constraint surface, the spin-gauge fixing that underlies the amplitude is inconsistent.

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

If this is right

  • For the first time, the graviton-to-photon conversion cross section around a Kerr-Newman black hole is known through O(S^2) with no free parameters, so any future solution of the coupled perturbation equations can be benchmarked against Eq. (51).
  • The unpolarized cross section receives no O(S) spin correction; spin effects enter at O(S^2) and vanish entirely when the incident graviton is parallel or antiparallel to the spin, unless individual helicity channels are resolved.
  • The amplitude is invariant under bosonic gauge transformations and spin-gauge transformations, verified through a generalized Rξ gauge, so the result is a genuine observable rather than a gauge artifact.
  • In the S→0 limit the amplitude reduces to the known spinless charged-black-hole photoproduction amplitude, which the paper checks against existing results.
  • The cross section's helicity structure obeys a transformation rule: the spin-dependent correction for one helicity channel equals that of the opposite channel with the spin flipped, which explains the cancellation of O(S) in the unpolarized case.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's discussion suggests that if four-dimensional black holes have vanishing mixed electromagnetic-gravitational Love numbers, the conservative conversion amplitude would be fixed by multipole moments to all orders, not just through O(S^2); this is a testable extension rather than a claim of the paper.
  • The helicity-flip rule (flipping the spin maps '++' corrections to '--' and '+–' to '–+') may be a general symmetry of spin-dependent scattering in axially symmetric backgrounds; checking it against another process, such as photon-to-photon scattering off a Kerr-Newman background, would show whether it survives outside graviton photoproduction.
  • Because the Wilson coefficients were matched to Kerr-Newman multipoles with gyromagnetic ratio 2, the same operator basis applies to any compact object with the same low-order multipole structure; for neutron stars with arbitrary charge-spin alignment, the spin expansion would need to be replaced by a strict wavelength expansion, as the paper notes.
  • The long-wavelength suppression of dissipative mixed operators means the conversion cross section is conservative and elastic through O(S^2); this suggests absorption corrections around charged spinning black holes start only at higher order in ωm, which could be checked by full perturbation theory.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a worldline EFT for a spinning, charged compact object and uses it to compute the tree-level graviton-to-photon conversion amplitude in the Kerr-Newman background, working through O((ωm)^2) (equivalently O(S^2)) and to linear order in G. The Wilson coefficients c1–c4 are fixed by matching the long-distance electromagnetic and gravitational multipole moments of Kerr-Newman, giving c1=0, c2=e, c3=e, c4=1. The author derives Feynman rules, obtains a gauge-invariant amplitude (Eq. 51), and uses it to compute unpolarized and helicity-dependent differential cross sections, including symmetry properties under spin reversal and momentum alignment. The paper claims this is the first such amplitude computation and that the result is a parameter-free, long-wavelength prediction of classical GR+Maxwell for Kerr-Newman.

Significance. If correct, the result is a valuable benchmark: it bypasses the coupled Teukolsky obstacle for Kerr-Newman in the long-wavelength regime, is internally anchored by the spinless limit, and provides explicit angular distributions that can be compared with future perturbative calculations. The construction is not circular: the Wilson coefficients come from matching to known multipole moments, and the amplitude is then predicted. The main strength is the combination of an operator basis, explicit Ward-identity checks, and a parameter-free matching. The significance, however, hinges on the consistency of the spinning charged worldline theory, especially the first-class nature of the spin constraint when electromagnetic interactions are included; this is asserted rather than demonstrated in the present text.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A4)] The proof that C^μ = S^{μν}(\hat p_ν + Λ_{0ν}) remains first-class after adding the e A·\dot x coupling is the load-bearing step for all O(S) and O(S^2) spin physics, but the displayed computation is incomplete. The Lorentz-force part of D\hat p_ν/dτ is (e/m)F_{νρ}\dot x^ρ, and S^{μν}F_{νρ}\dot x^ρ is not annihilated by antisymmetry of F alone; a counterexample is a spin pointing along z in a transverse electric field. The final expression S^{μρ}\hat p_ρ (D\hat p_ν/dτ) \hat p^ν = 0 does not follow from the preceding line unless additional identities from (A3), including the non-minimal spin-torque terms in N^{μν}, are explicitly used. The spinless limit and the c4=1 matching do not test this EM–gravity spin sector, so the central O(S^2) amplitude claim depends on completing this algebra.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (25)–(26)] The matching c3=e is central to the parameter-free claim, but the paper only quotes the ACMC expansion and asserts the match. The coordinate map in Eq. (25) is essential: a direct Boyer-Lindquist expansion of Eq. (24) gives a different P2 coefficient, and consistency relies on the ACMC transformation and on cancellation of the gauge-dependent c^{(t)}_{ℓℓ'} terms in Eq. (26). Please show the transformed potential explicitly and demonstrate the extraction of Q2 and M1 from Eq. (26) so that the matching is unambiguous rather than an appeal to the literature.
  3. [Sec. V.A and Appendix D] The paper states that the scattering amplitude is independent of the generalized spin-gauge parameter ξ introduced in Eq. (50), but Appendix D only lists the ξ-dependent propagators and vertices and then asserts that the ξ-dependent pieces cancel. Given that ξ-independence is one of the principal consistency checks, and is the check most directly affected by the electromagnetic sector, the authors should display at least the cancellation structure—for example for the c2-proportional terms—rather than stating it. Without this, the spin-gauge invariance of the charged-sector amplitude is not verifiable from the manuscript.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (54)] The Kerr-Newman bound is written as S^2 ≤ m^2(G^2 m^2 − G e^2); please check the restoration of G in this expression, since with G=1 it should reduce to S^2 ≤ m^2(m^2 − e^2) in the usual units.
  2. [Eq. (51) and Appendix E] The shorthand notation such as εεhεASv is defined only for one combination after Eq. (51). Please give a single uniform definition for all epsilon contractions, e.g. ε^{μνρσ} a_μ b_ν c_ρ d_σ, and use it consistently in the amplitude and cross-section appendices.
  3. [Figures 2–5] The figures show δ(dσ/dΩ) with no overall numerical scale; the text states Sω/m=1, but it would help to specify the normalization of the plotted correction explicitly in each caption.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Wilson coefficients are matched to independent Kerr-Newman multipole data; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Appendix A proof gap is a rigor caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The Wilson coefficients are fixed by matching to the known multipole expansion of the Kerr-Newman solution: c1=0 follows from the absence of electric dipole (Eq. 28), c2=e from the magnetic dipole sector (Eqs. 29-32), c3=e from the electric quadrupole (Eqs. 33-34), and c4=1 from the mass quadrupole in the ACMC metric (Eqs. 36-39). These are external, independently known data about the KN solution, not fits to the graviton-photon conversion amplitude that the paper computes. The tree-level amplitude (Eq. 51) and the differential cross section (Eqs. 53, 55-56) are then obtained from the standard bulk hAA vertex, the worldline propagators, and the matched operator basis; the result is a parameter-free prediction given m, e, S. The spinless limit reproduces Refs. [14,36], providing an independent benchmark. The framework citations ([76,77]) do not have authors overlapping with this paper, so no self-citation load-bearing issue arises. One caveat is flagged under the reviewing rule: Appendix A claims the Lorentz force term 'drops out of the expression by the antisymmetry of the Maxwell tensor' (Eq. A4 and following), but the displayed algebra does not demonstrate this cancellation, and antisymmetry of F alone is not sufficient to annihilate S^{mu nu} F_{nu rho} v^rho under the covariant SSC. This is a mathematical rigor gap in a supporting consistency check; it is not an input-output equivalence and does not make the central amplitude a repackaged fit.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 9 axioms · 0 invented entities

The ledger is clean: the paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions, and its free parameters are four Wilson coefficients fixed by matching to the known KN multipole moments rather than by fitting the target observable. The axioms are a mix of standard worldline-EFT domain assumptions and one genuinely load-bearing algebraic claim (Appendix A constraint preservation with EM) whose verification is condensed. The mixed RF-response function χ_RF(ω) is mentioned only as a future extension and is not used.

free parameters (4)
  • c2 (magnetic-dipole Wilson coefficient) = e
    Matched to the KN magnetic dipole M1 = -e a (Eq. 28) via the A_φ = c2 S sin²θ/(m r) far-zone field. Not fitted to the conversion cross section.
  • c3 (electric-quadrupole Wilson coefficient) = e
    Matched to the KN electric quadrupole Q2 = -e a² through the ACMC coordinate expansion (Eq. 26). Matching step hides a BL→ACMC coordinate-subtlety but is internally consistent.
  • c4 (mass-quadrupole Wilson coefficient) = 1
    Matched to the KN mass quadrupole 2ma² in ACMC-2 coordinates (Eq. 36); equals the pure-Kerr value from Teukolsky matching [76,82,83] and is charge-independent.
  • c1 (electric-dipole Wilson coefficient) = 0
    KN has no electric dipole (Q1 = 0, Eq. 28); set to zero rather than fitted.
axioms (9)
  • domain assumption Long-wavelength worldline EFT validity: for λ ≫ r_s the compact object is a point defect with local covariant operators; the background is flat space plus perturbations.
    Sec. II, Eq. (1)-(12): the entire setup. Standard for the post-Minkowskian worldline program.
  • domain assumption Power counting ε = ω m ~ r_s/λ ≪ 1, and for KN the ε-expansion coincides with the spin expansion (ωS/m = χ_s Gωm ~ ω r_s).
    Sec. II and Appendix C (final paragraph): orders the operator tower and justifies truncation at O(ε²) ≡ O(S²).
  • domain assumption Mixed RF (Riemann × Maxwell) and non-conservative response operators first contribute at O(ε³) and are dropped.
    Sec. II: 'Through this order, mixed local operators schematically written as RF do not contribute... first contribute at O(ε^3)'. Load-bearing for the universality claim.
  • domain assumption KN multipole moments: Q2n = -e a^{2n}, M_{2n+1} = -e a^{2n+1}, a = S/m.
    Eq. (28), cited to [81]; used as the matching input for c2 and c3.
  • domain assumption The covariant SSC constraint C = S^{μν}(ˆp_ν + Λ_0ν) remains first-class when EM interactions (Pauli + minimal coupling) are added.
    Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A6); the EM cancellation is asserted in one line. This is the paper's own verified claim, but the verification is condensed.
  • domain assumption ACMC coordinate multipole matching uniquely fixes the Wilson coefficients; gauge-dependent c_{ℓℓ'} terms do not contaminate the physical moments.
    Sec. III.A-B, using Thorne [80] and Ma-Pang-Lü [81]; the c3 step is the subtlest (P0/P1 gauge contamination argued harmless).
  • standard math KN spin bound S² ≤ m²(G²m² - G e²).
    Eq. (54), cited to [85]; used only to argue spin corrections cannot be parametrically enhanced, not in the amplitude derivation.
  • domain assumption Tree-level worldline computation equals the classical scattering cross section.
    Appendix E derives dσ_cl/dΩ = |M|²/(4π)² from the effective action; standard equivalence of classical and quantum tree amplitudes.
  • standard math Bulk Einstein-Hilbert + Maxwell actions and the derived hAA vertex.
    Eqs. (2)-(5), (43): standard QFT input, derived in Sec. IV.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 24329 in / 31478 out tokens · 268272 ms · 2026-08-03T12:57:23.908810+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present the first computation of the gauge-invariant, long-wavelength scattering amplitude for the graviton photoproduction by a Kerr-Newman black hole through $\mathcal{O}\big((\omega m)^2\big)$, or correspondingly $\mathcal{O}(S^2)$, and to linear order in $G$, using the worldline effective field theory. We show that electromagnetic interactions can be introduced consistently into the spinning worldline theory while preserving spin gauge invariance. We also derive the full angular dependence of the conversion cross section through $\mathcal{O}(S^2)$, and demonstrate that the relevant Wilson coefficients at this order are fixed entirely by matching the electromagnetic and gravitational multipole moments to the Kerr-Newman solution. This result provides a benchmark for future analyses of coupled gravitoelectromagnetic scattering in spinning, charged compact-object backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.00980 by Qinyuan Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The geometry of the graviton photoproduction by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The differential cross sections display the expected symmetry. The polar asymmetry introduced by the spin is manifest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The spin correction in the unpolarized differential cross sections of graviton photoproduction is symmetric between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Spin correction to the differential cross sections of graviton photoproduction in the “++” channel is polar asymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Spin correction to the differential cross sections of graviton photoproduction in the “+–” channel is also polar asymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. E. Gertsenshtein, Sov. Phys. JETP14, 84 (1962)

    1962

  2. [2]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.65, 1311 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    J. I. McDonald and S. A. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D110, 103003 (2024), arXiv:2406.18634 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Matsuo and A

    H. Matsuo and A. Ito, Journal of Cosmology and As- troparticle Physics2025(10), 061

  5. [5]

    A. Ito, K. Kohri, and K. Nakayama, Phys. Rev. D109, 063026 (2024), arXiv:2305.13984 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Aly and D

    F. Aly and D. Stojkovic, Phys. Rev. D113, 104003 (2026), arXiv:2511.13642 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Linet, Phys

    B. Linet, Phys. Lett. A146, 159 (1990)

    1990

  8. [8]

    Marklund, G

    M. Marklund, G. Brodin, and P. K. S. Dunsby, Astrophys. J.536, 875 (2000)

    2000

  9. [9]

    A. D. Dolgov and D. Ejlli, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012(12), 003–003

  10. [10]

    Tseng and Y.-M

    P.-Y. Tseng and Y.-M. Yeh, Constraining memory- burdened primordial black holes with graviton-photon conversion and binary mergers (2025), arXiv:2511.01848 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Domcke and C

    V. Domcke and C. Garcia-Cely, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 021104 (2021), arXiv:2006.01161 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Lella, F

    A. Lella, F. Calore, P. Carenza, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 083042 (2024), arXiv:2406.17853 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  13. [13]

    W. K. De Logi and A. R. Mickelson, Phys. Rev. D16, 2915 (1977)

    1977

  14. [14]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, B. R. Holstein, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. D91, 064008 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Johnston, R

    M. Johnston, R. Ruffini, and F. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 31, 1317 (1973)

    1973

  16. [16]

    Johnston, R

    M. Johnston, R. Ruffini, and M. Peterson, Lett. Nuovo Cimento9S2, 217 (1974)

    1974

  17. [17]

    Johnston, R

    M. Johnston, R. Ruffini, and F. Zerilli, Phys. Lett. B49, 185 (1974)

    1974

  18. [18]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. D9, 860 (1974)

    1974

  19. [19]

    U. H. Gerlach, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 1023 (1974)

    1974

  20. [20]

    N. R. Sibgatullin, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.66, 1187 (1974)

    1974

  21. [21]

    D. W. Olson and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. Lett.33, 1116 (1974)

    1974

  22. [22]

    Moncrief, Phys

    V. Moncrief, Phys. Rev. D9, 2707 (1974)

    1974

  23. [23]

    Moncrief, Phys

    V. Moncrief, Phys. Rev. D12, 1526 (1975)

    1975

  24. [24]

    D. M. Chitre, R. H. Price, and V. D. Sandberg, Phys. Rev. D11, 747 (1975)

    1975

  25. [25]

    Boughn, Phys

    S. Boughn, Phys. Rev. D11, 248 (1975)

    1975

  26. [26]

    R. A. Matzner, Phys. Rev. D14, 3274 (1976)

    1976

  27. [27]

    Chandrasekhar, Proc

    S. Chandrasekhar, Proc. R. Soc. A365, 453 (1979)

    1979

  28. [28]

    D. L. Gunter, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A296, 497 (1980)

    1980

  29. [29]

    R. A. Breuer, M. Rosenbaum, M. P. Ryan, and R. A. Matzner, Phys. Rev. D23, 305 (1981)

    1981

  30. [30]

    M. O. E. Hadj and S. R. Dolan, Physical Review D106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.044002 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.044002 2022

  31. [31]

    P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 241103 (2013), arXiv:1304.1160 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [32]

    A. L. Dudley and J. D. Finley, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1505 (1977)

    1977

  33. [33]

    A. L. Dudley and J. D. Finley, J. Math. Phys.20, 311 (1979)

    1979

  34. [34]

    Bellezza and V

    V. Bellezza and V. Ferrari, J. Math. Phys.25, 1985 (1984)

    1985

  35. [35]

    W. Deng, W. Liu, K. Xiao, and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C 86, 232 (2026), arXiv:2511.19553 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Ahmadiniaz, F

    N. Ahmadiniaz, F. M. Balli, O. Corradini, J. M. Dávila, and C. Schubert, Nuclear Physics B950, 114877 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    B.R.Holstein,AmericanJournalofPhysics74,1002–1011 (2006)

    2006

  38. [38]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006)

    2006

  39. [39]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Gen. Rel. Grav. 38, 1537 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0605238

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  40. [41]

    Levi and J

    M. Levi and J. Steinhoff, Journal of High Energy Physics 2015, 10.1007/jhep09(2015)219 (2015)

    doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)219 2015

  41. [42]

    Cheung, I

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, Physical Re- view Letters121, 10.1103/physrevlett.121.251101 (2018)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.121.251101 2018

  42. [43]

    Cheung and M

    C. Cheung and M. P. Solon, Physical Review Letters125, 10.1103/physrevlett.125.191601 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.191601 2020

  43. [44]

    Z. Bern, A. Luna, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, and M. Zeng, Physical Review D104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.065014 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.065014 2021

  44. [45]

    B. P. A. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and V. Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), 20 arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [46]

    B. P. A. et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and V. Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [47]

    Cangemi, M

    L. Cangemi, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johansson, A. Ochirov, P. Pichini, and E. Skvortsov, Kerr black holes from mas- sive higher-spin gauge symmetry (2023), arXiv:2212.06120 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [48]

    P. H. Damgaard, K. Haddad, and A. Helset, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep11(2019)070 (2019)

    doi:10.1007/jhep11(2019)070 2019

  48. [49]

    Chen, M.-Z

    W.-M. Chen, M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang, and J.- W. Kim, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 10.1007/jhep08(2022)148 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)148 2022

  49. [50]

    Chung, Y.-t

    M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang, J.-W. Kim, and S. Lee, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep04(2019)156 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)156 2019

  50. [51]

    G. U. Jakobsen and G. Mogull, Physical Review Letters 128, 10.1103/physrevlett.128.141102 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.141102 2022

  51. [52]

    G. U. Jakobsen and G. Mogull, Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.044033 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.044033 2023

  52. [53]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and B. Sauer, Journal of High Energy Physics2022, 128 (2022), arXiv:2207.00569 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [54]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, B. Sauer, and Y. Xu, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 151401 (2023), arXiv:2306.01714 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [55]

    G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, J. Plefka, and B. Sauer, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 241402 (2023), arXiv:2308.11514 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [56]

    Kälin and R

    G. Kälin and R. A. Porto, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 10.1007/jhep02(2020)120 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2020)120 2020

  56. [57]

    Kälin and R

    G. Kälin and R. A. Porto, Journal of High Energy Physics 2020, 10.1007/jhep01(2020)072 (2020)

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2020)072 2020

  57. [59]

    Neill and I

    D. Neill and I. Z. Rothstein, Nuclear Physics B877, 177–189 (2013)

    2013

  58. [61]

    Bjerrum-Bohr, A

    N. Bjerrum-Bohr, A. Cristofoli, and P. H. Damgaard, Journal of High Energy Physics2020, 10.1007/jhep08(2020)038 (2020)

    doi:10.1007/jhep08(2020)038 2020

  59. [62]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep02(2019)137 (2019)

    doi:10.1007/jhep02(2019)137 2019

  60. [63]

    Maybee, D

    B. Maybee, D. O’Connell, and J. Vines, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep12(2019)156 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2019)156 2019

  61. [64]

    Cristofoli, R

    A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, D. A. Kosower, and D. O’Connell, Phys. Rev. D106, 056007 (2022), arXiv:2107.10193 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  62. [65]

    Z. Bern, J. J. M. Carrasco, and H. Johansson, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 061602 (2010)

    2010

  63. [66]

    Monteiro, D

    R. Monteiro, D. O’Connell, and C. D. White, Journal of High Energy Physics2014, 10.1007/jhep12(2014)056 (2014)

    doi:10.1007/jhep12(2014)056 2014

  64. [67]

    A. Luna, R. Monteiro, I. Nicholson, A. Ochirov, D. O’Connell, N. Westerberg, and C. D. White, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 10.1007/jhep04(2017)069 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2017)069 2017

  65. [68]

    W. D. Goldberger and J. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 105018 (2018)

    2018

  66. [69]

    Shen, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 10.1007/jhep11(2018)162 (2018)

    C.-H. Shen, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 10.1007/jhep11(2018)162 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2018)162 2018

  67. [70]

    Guevara, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep04(2019)033 (2019)

    A. Guevara, Journal of High Energy Physics2019, 10.1007/jhep04(2019)033 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2019)033 2019

  68. [71]

    Lee, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 10.1007/jhep10(2018)027 (2018)

    K. Lee, Journal of High Energy Physics2018, 10.1007/jhep10(2018)027 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep10(2018)027 2018

  69. [72]

    C. D. White, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 061602 (2021), arXiv:2012.02479 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  70. [73]

    Z. Bern, J. J. Carrasco, M. Chiodaroli, H. Johans- son, and R. Roiban, J. Phys. A57, 333002 (2024), arXiv:1909.01358 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [74]

    R. A. Porto, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 205001 (2010), arXiv:1005.5730 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  72. [75]

    M. V. S. Saketh and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D106, 124026 (2022)

    2022

  73. [76]

    Ben-Shahar, Scattering of spinning compact objects from a worldline eft (2023), arXiv:2311.01430 [hep-th]

    M. Ben-Shahar, Scattering of spinning compact objects from a worldline eft (2023), arXiv:2311.01430 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [77]

    Steinhoff, Spin gauge symmetry in the action principle for classical relativistic particles (2015), arXiv:1501.04951 [gr-qc]

    J. Steinhoff, Spin gauge symmetry in the action principle for classical relativistic particles (2015), arXiv:1501.04951 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  75. [78]

    W. D. Goldberger, J. Li, and I. Z. Rothstein, Journal of High Energy Physics2021, 10.1007/jhep06(2021)053 (2021)

    doi:10.1007/jhep06(2021)053 2021

  76. [79]

    C. R. Galley and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D79, 124027 (2009), arXiv:0903.1122 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  77. [80]

    K. S. Thorne, Rev. Mod. Phys.52, 299 (1980)

    1980

  78. [81]

    L. Ma, Y. Pang, and H. Lü, Journal of High Energy Physics2025, 10.1007/jhep02(2025)079 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep02(2025)079 2025

  79. [82]

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes: Part i (2023), arXiv:2107.10179 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  80. [83]

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes: Part ii (2023), arXiv:2212.07965 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.