Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 7 cited by

This paper derives analytic 6PN formulas for how generic bound orbits around a spinning black hole lose energy, angular momentum, and Carter constant, and validates them against numerical Teukolsky results.

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 02:25 UTC pith:KQ4TQD73

load-bearing objection Solid extension of analytic EMRI fluxes to 6PN O(e^16) with careful, honest validation — but the core expressions live on a non-versioned webpage, so the central claim can't be audited from the manuscript alone. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.27941 v1 pith:KQ4TQD73 submitted 2026-03-30 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Secular evolution of orbital parameters for general bound orbits in Kerr spacetime

Norichika Sago , Ryuichi Fujita , Soichiro Isoyama , Hiroyuki Nakano This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th MSC 83C5783C1083C25 PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx04.70.-s
keywords Kerr spacetimegravitational radiation reactionpost-Newtonian expansionTeukolsky equationCarter constantextreme-mass-ratio inspiralsorbital eccentricity expansionflux-balance formulas
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 extends analytic gravitational-wave flux formulas for generic (eccentric and inclined) bound orbits in Kerr spacetime to 6PN order and 16th order in eccentricity, at leading order in the mass ratio. It validates these formulas against high-precision numerical Teukolsky fluxes, finding relative errors that scale as the expected p^(-13/2) in the weak-field regime. It also constructs a hybrid truncation that mixes lower-PN/high-eccentricity terms with higher-PN/low-eccentricity terms, matching the full 6PN O(e^16) accuracy at reduced computational cost. Exponential resummation, which worked at 4PN, does not reliably improve the 6PN fluxes for this problem. If these results hold, they provide fast analytic building blocks for adiabatic inspiral models of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals for future space-based gravitational-wave observatories.

Core claim

The paper's central result is the analytic derivation of the orbit-averaged rates of change of energy, angular momentum, and Carter constant for a generic bound orbit in Kerr spacetime, through 6PN order and O(e^16) at linear order in the mass ratio, exact in the spin and inclination angle. The formulas are validated against numerical Teukolsky data, with the relative error showing the expected p^(-13/2) scaling. The paper also demonstrates that higher-order PN terms do not monotonically improve accuracy in the strong-field regime, and introduces a hybrid approximation that retains accuracy with much lower algebraic complexity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the flux-balance formula: each secular rate <dE/dt>, <dL/dt>, <dC/dt> equals a weighted sum of squared gravitational-wave amplitudes at the horizon and at infinity, summed over frequency harmonics of a single geodesic. The machinery combines this with an orbital parametrization using energy, angular momentum, and the Carter constant, and with a systematic analytic expansion of the radial wave solutions for perturbations of a spinning black hole. The output is a double series in the post-Newtonian parameter v = 1/sqrt(p) and the eccentricity e, whose coefficients are exact for any spin and inclination.

Load-bearing premise

All the flux formulas rest on the adiabatic flux-balance assumption — that the secular change of each orbital constant equals the gravitational-wave flux averaged over a single geodesic — which breaks down when a transient resonance locks the radial and polar frequencies.

What would settle it

Evolve a high-eccentricity, high-spin, retrograde inspiral through a transient radial-polar resonance, first with the paper's 6PN O(e^16) fluxes alone and then with a resonance-resolved evolution; a large phase difference would confirm the formulas do not give complete secular evolution where the paper itself says they may fail. Also, a direct strong-field test at p ≈ 8, q = 0.9, e = 0.7 would check whether the claimed accuracy ordering holds where the PN series is asymptotic.

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

If this is right

  • At 6PN O(e^16), the formulas give relative accuracy O(v^13) = O(p^(-13/2)) in the weak-field regime, as the numerical comparisons show.
  • The hybrid truncation (4PN O(e^16) plus 6PN O(e^6)) reproduces full-6PN accuracy for the tested cases, suggesting the algebraic size of analytic flux models can be cut sharply without losing accuracy.
  • The error analysis quantifies how eccentricity degrades PN convergence: for e=0.7, terms up to O(e^14) are needed for p ≳ 40, while O(e^6) suffices at e=0.1.
  • The formulas are exact in spin and inclination, so they cover the full generic-parameter space of Kerr inspirals.
  • Exponential resummation at 6PN yields little improvement, so reaching higher accuracy will require hybridizing analytic PN with numerical self-force data rather than simple resummation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The strong-field non-monotonicity of the PN series means the error scaling p^(-13/2) should not be extrapolated inward; a practical inspiral model should switch to numerical data below some p and use these analytic fluxes only above it.
  • The hybrid logic—pairing high-PN/low-eccentricity with low-PN/high-eccentricity—could likely be applied to other quantities such as fundamental frequencies and waveform amplitudes, not just fluxes, to cut cost across an entire waveform model.
  • Because the paper's formulation averages over the orbital libration, the 6PN fluxes alone cannot describe a resonance crossing; a complete model will need these formulas supplemented by a resonance-transit prescription.
  • A natural next test is whether the hybrid model's accuracy holds for retrograde and high-spin cases beyond the few combinations the paper plots; the paper tests one retrograde spin at one inclination, so the hybrid's broad validity is not yet settled.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives analytic post-Newtonian (PN) expressions for the orbit-averaged secular rates of change of energy, angular momentum, and Carter constant for generic bound orbits in Kerr spacetime, at linear order in the mass ratio and up to 6PN order and O(e^16) in eccentricity. The derivation uses the established flux-balance scheme in the Teukolsky/MST framework. The paper validates the formulas against numerical Teukolsky data for spins q = 0.9, 0.5, 0.1, −0.9, eccentricities e = 0.1–0.7, and inclinations θinc = 20°–80°, finding the expected p^(−13/2) scaling in the weak-field regime. It also proposes a hybrid PN/eccentricity truncation and tests exponential resummation, concluding that the hybrid is promising while exponential resummation gives little improvement at 6PN. The full 6PN O(e^16) formulas are not printed; they are said to be available through an online repository.

Significance. If the hidden formulas are correct and reproducible, this is a substantial step beyond the previous 5PN O(e^10) results for generic Kerr inspirals, and it provides parameter-free analytic building blocks that could accelerate adiabatic EMRI waveform models. The validation strategy is a genuine strength: the numerical benchmarks are methodologically independent, the error scaling is physically consistent with the truncation order, and no free parameters are fitted. The hybrid construction and the honest mapping of where the PN series fails are also valuable. The main caveat is that the central 6PN expressions themselves are not in the manuscript, so the results are not independently testable from the paper alone. The resonance limitation is acknowledged and does not by itself invalidate the flux-formula claim, but it should be clearly separated from the claim of providing a complete secular evolution model.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1] The central result—the 6PN O(e^16) expressions for ⟨dE/dt⟩, ⟨dL/dt⟩, and ⟨dC/dt⟩—is not displayed. Equation (42) gives only dE/dt at 3PN O(e^16), and the continuation to 6PN for E, L, and C is relegated to Ref. [91], which is a non-versioned Google-site URL. The validation in Figs. 1, 3, 8, and 9 cannot be repeated or audited from the manuscript alone; the central claim is therefore not independently testable. Please include the complete formulas in an appendix or deposit them with a permanent, versioned DOI (e.g., Zenodo), and confirm that the deposited expressions are exactly those used to generate the figures.
  2. [§4.1 and §3.3] The hybrid formula in Eq. (46) is expressed in terms of the coefficients A_{2j} defined by Eq. (44), but no explicit A_{2j} values are given. The hybrid construction is thus another application of the unpublished online data and has the same auditability problem. At minimum, the A_{2j} coefficients used in Eq. (46) for the relevant PN and eccentricity orders should be supplied in the paper or the repository, with a precise description of which truncations enter the hybrid.
  3. [§3.2] The numerical Teukolsky results are said to have summation truncation tolerances of 10^{-8} for the k,n sums and for the ℓ sum. If this is a bound on the final numerical error, it sets a floor of roughly 10^{-8} on the relative-error metric Δ_I. However Figs. 1 and 3 display Δ_I values below 10^{-8}, down to about 10^{-10}, and interpret those as validation of the analytic formula. Please clarify the actual numerical error budget; if the 10^{-8} refers only to intermediate per-mode tolerances, state the final error and confirm that it is below the smallest Δ_I shown. Otherwise the apparent p^{-13/2} scaling at large p could be contaminated by numerical truncation error.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (14)] The definition of cos ι appears to contain a typographical issue: the numerator should likely be \(\hat L_p\) or \(\hat L\), but the subscript/notation is unclear as printed.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The notation mixes δ_E, δ_E^{(11)}, and δ_E^{(12)} without explicitly defining which curve is which in the left panel; please label the curves directly.
  3. [Throughout] The strings '6PNO(e 16)', '5PNO(e 10)', and '4PNO(e 6)' are missing spaces; typesetting as '6PN O(e^{16})' etc. would be clearer.
  4. [Ref. [91]] Reference [91] is given as a general Google-site URL with no access date, version, or permanent identifier. Even if the formulas remain online, a stable archival reference is needed.
  5. [§5] The statement that the formulation is 'exact in both the primary BH spin and the orbital inclination' is potentially misleading: the PN expansion in v is still asymptotic, and the inclination relation (16) is itself PN-expanded. Please phrase the exactness claim more carefully.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the core derivation is an analytic PN expansion with no fitted parameters, and validation uses independent numerical Teukolsky data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an analytic post-Newtonian expansion of orbit-averaged gravitational-wave fluxes for Kerr geodesics. The derivation chain is: Kerr geodesic parametrization (Secs. 2.1–2.2), Teukolsky amplitudes via the MST method (Sec. 2.4), flux-balance formulas (Eqs. (36)–(38)), and PN/eccentricity expansion (Eq. (41)) with an explicit example in Eq. (42). None of these steps defines the output in terms of the claimed prediction. No parameter is fitted to numerical data; the validation in Sec. 3.2 compares the analytic formulas with numerical Teukolsky results through Eq. (43), which is an independent numerical method rather than a fitted calibration. Although some numerical references share authors with the present paper, they are not used as derivation inputs, and the numerical method is methodologically distinct. The fact that the full 6PN O(e^16) expressions are published online rather than in the manuscript [91] is a verifiability/completeness concern, not circularity. The acknowledged resonance limitation in Sec. 5 restricts the physical applicability of the secular-averaging scheme but does not make the flux derivation equivalent to its inputs. Therefore, no circular step can be identified.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted: the formulas take (q, e, θinc) as inputs and produce PN coefficients analytically; no new entities are introduced. What the paper pulls from prior literature is the flux-balance scheme, the MST method, and the numerical benchmarks — the last partially from the same group.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Kerr geodesic motion is integrable; bound orbits are uniquely labeled by (Ê, L̂, Ĉ) (Eqs. 2–4).
    Used throughout §2.1 to parametrize orbits; standard from Carter [84, 97], but the entire flux formula depends on this labeling.
  • domain assumption Flux-balance relations (Eqs. 36–38): secular rates of E, L, C equal sums of squared Teukolsky amplitudes at infinity and horizon, at leading order in the mass ratio.
    §2.5; this is the adiabatic approximation. It fails near resonances between radial and polar frequencies, as the paper acknowledges in §5.
  • standard math The MST analytic-continuation method yields correct PN-expanded homogeneous Teukolsky solutions and asymptotic coefficients.
    §2.4, following Refs. [71, 101]. The paper does not re-derive this; an algebraic or ordering error there would propagate into every δ_I^(j).
  • domain assumption The double expansion in v and e can be truncated at 6PN and O(e^16) with residual error below the claimed accuracy.
    §3.3 and Fig. 4: the paper shows that for e = 0.70, O(e^14)+ is required to reach 6PN accuracy for p ≳ 40, so the truncation is only marginally converged at the highest eccentricity shown.
  • domain assumption The numerical Teukolsky fluxes of Refs. [88, 104–106] are accurate to the stated ~10^-8 relative error.
    Used as ground truth in the validation of §3.2; authorship overlaps with the present paper, reducing independence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20770 in / 15737 out tokens · 146333 ms · 2026-08-03T02:25:55.281219+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We analytically derive the secular changes of the orbital parameters, i.e., energy, angular momentum, and Carter constant, for general bound orbits in Kerr spacetime, at leading order in the mass ratio, through the 6th post-Newtonian (6PN) order and the 16th order in orbital eccentricity. We validate the formulas against high-precision numerical Teukolsky results and quantify how eccentricity affects both the achievable accuracy and the PN convergence. We then construct and test a simple ``hybrid'' approximation that combines different PN and eccentricity truncations to retain accuracy at reduced computational cost. We also assess the performance of exponential resummation at higher PN orders. These results provide building blocks for fast, (analytic) adiabatic inspiral and waveform models for extreme mass ratio inspirals relevant to space-based detectors such as the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA).

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 7 Pith papers

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

  1. Quadrupole and quadratic-in-spin effects in quasicircular, spinning, asymmetric binaries

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Calculates energy fluxes with quadratic-in-spin and quadrupole effects for small-mass-ratio spinning binaries in self-force theory, providing numerical data and sixth-order PN expansions.

  2. Analytical Fluxes from Generic Schwarzschild Geodesics

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    An analytic Chebyshev-expansion method computes gravitational-wave fluxes from arbitrary-eccentricity Schwarzschild geodesics by reducing them to sums of prior Keplerian Fourier coefficients, with numerical tests show...

  3. Pitching Cosmic Curveballs: Environmental Effects on Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals with Spinning Secondaries

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    First framework for spin-coupled gas forces in EMRIs shows unique dephasing and breaks spin-inclination degeneracy in Fisher analysis.

  4. Analytical Fluxes from Generic Schwarzschild Geodesics

    gr-qc 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    A Chebyshev-basis expansion reduces gravitational-wave fluxes from arbitrary-eccentricity bound Schwarzschild geodesics to sums of previously derived Keplerian Fourier coefficients, achieving 10^{-5} relative accuracy...

  5. Efficient and Stable Computation of Gravitational-Wave Fluxes from Generic Kerr Orbits via a Unified HeunC Framework

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A unified confluent HeunC framework with hybrid connection-coefficient computation and adaptive bi-power quadrature yields relative errors of order 10^{-11} and 2-10x speedups over existing packages for total radiativ...

  6. Efficient and Stable Computation of Gravitational-Wave Fluxes from Generic Kerr Orbits via a Unified HeunC Framework

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A HeunC framework computes gravitational-wave fluxes from generic Kerr orbits with 10^{-11} relative errors and speedups of 3-60x over prior packages by eliminating auxiliary parameters via analytic continuation and a...

  7. Efficient and Stable Computation of Gravitational-Wave Fluxes from Generic Kerr Orbits via a Unified HeunC Framework

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A unified confluent HeunC framework computes gravitational-wave fluxes from generic Kerr orbits with 10^{-11} relative errors and speedups of 3-60x over existing packages for low- and high-order modes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 91 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Pau Amaro-Seoane et al., arXiv e-prints (2 2017), arXiv:1702.00786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Monica Colpi et al., arXiv e-prints (2 2024), arXiv:2402.07571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Ziren Luo, Yan Wang, Yueliang Wu, Wenrui Hu, and Gang Jin, PTEP,2021(5), 05A108 (May 2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Jianwei Mei et al., PTEP,2021(5), 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Yungui Gong, Jun Luo, and Bin Wang, Nature Astron.,5(9), 881–889 (2021), arXiv:2109.07442

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Rel.,21(1), 4 (2018), arXiv:1205.5240

    Pau Amaro-Seoane, Living Rev. Rel.,21(1), 4 (2018), arXiv:1205.5240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  7. [7]

    Rel.,26(1), 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016

    Pau Amaro Seoane et al., Living Rev. Rel.,26(1), 2 (2023), arXiv:2203.06016

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    En-Kun Li et al., Rept. Prog. Phys.,88(5), 056901 (2025), arXiv:2409.19665

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Yasushi Mino, Misao Sasaki, and Takahiro Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.,128, 373–406 (1997), gr- qc/9712056

    arXiv 1997

  10. [10]

    Rel.,14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529

    Eric Poisson, Adam Pound, and Ian Vega, Living Rev. Rel.,14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  11. [11]

    Harte, Fund

    Abraham I. Harte, Fund. Theor. Phys.,179, 327–398 (2015), arXiv:1405.5077

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Leor Barack and Adam Pound, Rept. Prog. Phys.,82(1), 016904 (2019), arXiv:1805.10385

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Kokkotas, editors,Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, page 38

    Adam Pound and Barry Wardell, Black Hole Perturbation Theory and Gravitational Self-Force, In Cosimo Bambi, Stavros Katsanevas, and Konstantinos D. Kokkotas, editors,Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, page 38. Springer, Singapore (2022), arXiv:2101.04592

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Seiji Kawamura et al., PTEP,2021(5), 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Adrian Abac et al., arXiv e-prints (3 2025), arXiv:2503.12263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Matthew Evans et al., arXiv e-prints (9 2021), arXiv:2109.09882

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    Ollie Burke, Gabriel Andres Piovano, Niels Warburton, Philip Lynch, Lorenzo Speri, Chris Kavanagh, Barry Wardell, Adam Pound, Leanne Durkan, and Jeremy Miller, Phys. Rev. D,109(12), 124048 (2024), arXiv:2310.08927

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Hassan Khalvati, Alessandro Santini, Francisco Duque, Lorenzo Speri, Jonathan Gair, Huan Yang, and Richard Brito, Phys. Rev. D,111(8), 082010 (2025), arXiv:2410.17310

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Josh Mathews et al., Prospects for detecting and characterising asymmetric-mass binaries in LISA with future models (to appear)

  20. [20]

    Flanagan, Phys

    Tanja Hinderer and Eanna E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D,78, 064028 (2008), arXiv:0805.3337

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    Jeremy Miller and Adam Pound, Phys. Rev. D,103(6), 064048 (2021), arXiv:2006.11263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Josh Mathews, Barry Wardell, Adam Pound, and Niels Warburton, Phys. Rev. D,113(6), 064034 (2026), arXiv:2510.16113

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    Jack Lewis, Takafumi Kakehi, Adam Pound, and Takahiro Tanaka, arXiv e-prints (7 2025), arXiv:2507.08081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Hughes, Niels Warburton, Gaurav Khanna, Alvin J

    Scott A. Hughes, Niels Warburton, Gaurav Khanna, Alvin J. K. Chua, and Michael L. Katz, Phys. Rev. D,103(10), 104014, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 089901 (2023)] (2021), arXiv:2102.02713

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Soichiro Isoyama, Ryuichi Fujita, Alvin J. K. Chua, Hiroyuki Nakano, Adam Pound, and Norichika Sago, Phys. Rev. Lett.,128(23), 231101 (2022), arXiv:2111.05288

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Morteza Kerachian, Luk ´aˇs Polcar, Viktor Skoup´y, Christos Efthymiopoulos, and Georgios Lukes-Gerakopoulos, Phys. Rev. D,108(4), 044004 (2023), arXiv:2301.08150

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Sotiriou, arXiv e-prints (3 2026), arXiv:2603.10116

    Sara Gliorio, Matteo Della Rocca, Susanna Barsanti, Leonardo Gualtieri, Andrea Maselli, and Thomas P. Sotiriou, arXiv e-prints (3 2026), arXiv:2603.10116

    arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Maarten van de Meent, Phys. Rev. D,97(10), 104033 (2018), arXiv:1711.09607

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    Zachary Nasipak, arXiv e-prints (7 2025), arXiv:2507.07746

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Drummond, and Scott A

    Viktor Skoupy, Georgios Lukes-Gerakopoulos, Lisa V . Drummond, and Scott A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D,108(4), 044041 (2023), arXiv:2303.16798

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Drummond, Philip Lynch, Alexandra G

    Lisa V . Drummond, Philip Lynch, Alexandra G. Hanselman, Devin R. Becker, and Scott A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D,109(6), 064030 (2024), arXiv:2310.08438

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Drummond, Scott A

    Lisa V . Drummond, Scott A. Hughes, Viktor Skoup ´y, Philip Lynch, and Gabriel Andres Piovano, arXiv e-prints (3 2026), arXiv:2603.12189

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Viktor Skoup ´y, arXiv e-prints (3 2026), arXiv:2603.13482

    arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    Qiuxin Cui and Wen-Biao Han, arXiv e-prints (3 2026), arXiv:2603.18075

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Takafumi Kakehi and Takahiro Tanaka (unpublished)

  36. [36]

    Adam Pound, Barry Wardell, Niels Warburton, and Jeremy Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett.,124(2), 021101 (2020), arXiv:1908.07419

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    Niels Warburton, Adam Pound, Barry Wardell, Jeremy Miller, and Leanne Durkan, Phys. Rev. Lett.,127(15), 151102 (2021), arXiv:2107.01298. 19/22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Barry Wardell, Adam Pound, Niels Warburton, Jeremy Miller, Leanne Durkan, and Alexandre Le Tiec, Phys. Rev. Lett.,130(24), 241402 (2023), arXiv:2112.12265

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Lo ¨ıc Honet, Adam Pound, and Geoffrey Comp`ere, Phys. Rev. D,113(6), 064035 (2026), arXiv:2510.16114

    arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Lo ¨ıc Honet, Josh Mathews, Geoffrey Comp `ere, Adam Pound, Barry Wardell, Gabriel Andres Piovano, Maarten van de Meent, and Niels Warburton, arXiv e-prints (10 2025), arXiv:2510.16112

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Angelica Albertini, Alessandro Nagar, Adam Pound, Niels Warburton, Barry Wardell, Leanne Durkan, and Jeremy Miller, Phys. Rev. D,106(8), 084062 (2022), arXiv:2208.02055

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Angelica Albertini, Alessandro Nagar, Adam Pound, Niels Warburton, Barry Wardell, Leanne Durkan, and Jeremy Miller, Phys. Rev. D,106(8), 084061 (2022), arXiv:2208.01049

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Angelica Albertini, Rossella Gamba, Alessandro Nagar, and Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D,109(4), 044022 (2024), arXiv:2310.13578

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Angelica Albertini, Alessandro Nagar, Josh Mathews, and Georgios Lukes-Gerakopoulos, Phys. Rev. D,110(4), 044034 (2024), arXiv:2406.04108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Wittek, Adam Pound, Harald P

    Nikolas A. Wittek, Adam Pound, Harald P. Pfeiffer, and Leor Barack, Phys. Rev. D,110(8), 084023 (2024), arXiv:2403.08864

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [46]

    QiuXin, HAN

    CUI. QiuXin, HAN. Wen-Biao, JIANG. Ye, ZHONG. XingYu, and SHEN. Ping, Sci. Sin. Phys. Mech. Astro., 55(3), 230403 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Katie Rink, Ritesh Bachhar, Tousif Islam, Nur E. M. Rifat, Kevin Gonzalez-Quesada, Scott E. Field, Gaurav Khanna, Scott A. Hughes, and Vijay Varma, Phys. Rev. D,110(12), 124069 (2024), arXiv:2407.18319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Maria de Lluc Planas, Joan Llobera-Querol, and Sascha Husa, Phys. Rev. D,109(12), 124028 (2024), arXiv:2401.13342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Hector Iglesias, Leanne Durkan, and Deirdre Shoemaker, arXiv e-prints (10 2025), arXiv:2510.11685

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Lousto and James Healy, Class

    Carlos O. Lousto and James Healy, Class. Quant. Grav.,40(9), 09LT01 (2023), arXiv:2203.08831

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Christian Chapman-Bird, Alvin J. K. Chua, Scott Hughes, Michael Katz, Zach Nasipak, Maxime Pigou, Lorenzo Speri, and Niels Warburton, Fastemriwaveforms (June 2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    few: Fast EMRI Waveforms,https://bhptoolkit.org/FastEMRIWaveforms/(2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Alvin J. K. Chua, Michael L. Katz, Niels Warburton, and Scott A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett.,126(5), 051102 (2021), arXiv:2008.06071

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Katz, Alvin J

    Michael L. Katz, Alvin J. K. Chua, Lorenzo Speri, Niels Warburton, and Scott A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D,104(6), 064047 (2021), arXiv:2104.04582

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Katz, Alvin J

    Lorenzo Speri, Michael L. Katz, Alvin J. K. Chua, Scott A. Hughes, Niels Warburton, Jonathan E. Thomp- son, Christian E. A. Chapman-Bird, and Jonathan R. Gair, arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2307.12585 (July 2023), arXiv:2307.12585

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Christian E. A. Chapman-Bird et al., Phys. Rev. D,112(10), 104023 (2025), arXiv:2506.09470

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Ilan Strusberg, Barak Rom, and Re’em Sari, arXiv e-prints (5 2025), arXiv:2505.07941

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Viktor Skoup ´y and V ojtˇech Witzany, Phys. Rev. D,110(8), 084061 (2024), arXiv:2406.14291

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    David Trestini, Zachary Nasipak, and Adam Pound, arXiv e-prints (1 2026), arXiv:2601.05223

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Angelica Albertini,Gravitational waves from large-mass-ratio black hole binaries, PhD thesis, Charles U., Prague (main) (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Nami Nishimura, Alessandra Buonanno, Guglielmo Faggioli, Maarten van de Meent, and Gaurav Khanna, arXiv e-prints (3 2026), arXiv:2603.05601

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Geraint Pratten, Sascha Husa, Cecilio Garcia-Quiros, Marta Colleoni, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Hector Estelles, and Rafel Jaume, Phys. Rev. D,102(6), 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Kokkotas, editors, Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, page 31

    Soichiro Isoyama, Riccardo Sturani, and Hiroyuki Nakano, Post-Newtonian Templates for Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Inspirals, In Cosimo Bambi, Stavros Katsanevas, and Konstantinos D. Kokkotas, editors, Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, page 31. Springer, Singapore (2021), arXiv:2012.01350

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    Rel.,28(1), 9 (2025), arXiv:2311.01300

    Niayesh Afshordi et al., Living Rev. Rel.,28(1), 9 (2025), arXiv:2311.01300

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Rel.,27, 4 (2024), arXiv:1310.1528

    Luc Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel.,27, 4 (2024), arXiv:1310.1528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic, (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    Eric Poisson and Clifford M. Will,Gravity: Newtonian, Post-Newtonian, Relativistic, (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

    2014

  67. [67]

    Porto, Phys

    Rafael A. Porto, Phys. Rept.,633, 1–104 (2016), arXiv:1601.04914

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Mich `ele Levi, Rept. Prog. Phys.,83(7), 075901 (2020), arXiv:1807.01699

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Rel.,27, 2 (2024), arXiv:1805.07240

    Gerhard Sch ¨afer and Piotr Jaranowski, Living Rev. Rel.,27, 2 (2024), arXiv:1805.07240

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    Yasushi Mino, Misao Sasaki, Masaru Shibata, Hideyuki Tagoshi, and Takahiro Tanaka, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 128, 1–121 (1997), gr-qc/9712057

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  71. [71]

    Rel.,6, 6 (2003), gr-qc/0306120

    Misao Sasaki and Hideyuki Tagoshi, Living Rev. Rel.,6, 6 (2003), gr-qc/0306120

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  72. [72]

    Christopher Munna,Eccentric-orbit binary black hole inspirals: Informing the post-Newtonian expansion through black hole perturbation theory and multipole moment analysis, PhD thesis, North Carolina U. (2020)

    2020

  73. [73]

    Ryuichi Fujita, Prog. Theor. Phys.,127, 583–590 (2012), arXiv:1104.5615

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  74. [74]

    Ryuichi Fujita, Prog. Theor. Phys.,128, 971–992 (2012), arXiv:1211.5535

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  75. [75]

    Evans, and Seth Hopper, Phys

    Erik Forseth, Charles R. Evans, and Seth Hopper, Phys. Rev. D,93(6), 064058 (2016), arXiv:1512.03051. 20/22

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  76. [76]

    Ryuichi Fujita, PTEP,2015(3), 033E01 (2015), arXiv:1412.5689

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  77. [77]

    Norichika Sago, Ryuichi Fujita, and Hiroyuki Nakano, Phys. Rev. D,111(6), 064043 (2025), arXiv:2411.09147

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Christopher Munna, Phys. Rev. D,102(12), 124001 (2020), arXiv:2008.10622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Evans, Seth Hopper, and Erik Forseth, Phys

    Christopher Munna, Charles R. Evans, Seth Hopper, and Erik Forseth, Phys. Rev. D,102(2), 024047 (2020), arXiv:2005.03044

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  80. [80]

    Castillo, Charles R

    Jezreel C. Castillo, Charles R. Evans, Chris Kavanagh, Jakob Neef, Adrian Ottewill, and Barry Wardell, Phys. Rev. D,111(8), 084004 (2025), arXiv:2411.09700

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.