pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.26253 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-29 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Trapping, Irregular Waveforms, and Efficient Radiation in Ultra-relativistic Black Hole Encounters

Hengrui Zhu , Frans Pretorius , James M. Stone
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 12:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords ultra-relativistic black holesgravitational wave radiationnumerical relativityblack hole encountersnull trappinghorizon absorptionADM energy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Ultra-relativistic black hole flybys radiate over 65% of their energy as gravitational waves via transient trapping.

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

This paper uses numerical relativity to evolve equal-mass nonspinning black holes at center-of-mass Lorentz factors up to about 5.1. The simulations show that encounters at nonzero impact parameter produce highly irregular, prolonged gravitational wave emission instead of the expected smooth post-Newtonian to ringdown transition. The emission is powered by radiation becoming trapped and repeatedly lensed in the interaction region, allowing substantial horizon absorption even when the black holes do not merge. At the highest boost the radiated energy exceeds 65% of the initial ADM energy, well above earlier extrapolations from lower-speed data.

Core claim

Evolving equal-mass nonspinning black holes with initial center-of-mass Lorentz factors up to γ≈5.1, the encounters at nonzero impact parameter produce prolonged irregular gravitational wave emission and significant horizon absorption without coalescence. These effects are driven by transient null trapping and repeated lensing of radiation in the binary interaction region. The simulations indicate that over 65% of the initial ADM energy can be radiated as gravitational waves at γ≈5.1.

What carries the argument

transient null trapping and repeated lensing of radiation in the binary interaction region

If this is right

  • Gravitational waveforms from such encounters exhibit prolonged irregular emission rather than a prompt transition to Kerr ringdown.
  • Black hole horizons absorb substantial energy even in non-merging ultra-relativistic flybys.
  • Radiation efficiency grows with boost and reaches over 65% of initial ADM energy at γ≈5.1, exceeding lower-boost extrapolations.
  • The two-body problem enters a distinct ultra-relativistic regime not described by standard post-Newtonian expectations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The trapping and lensing mechanism may appear in other high-energy gravitational systems such as neutron-star encounters or dense cluster dynamics.
  • Search templates for gravitational-wave detectors may need to accommodate irregular, extended signals from high-velocity black-hole flybys.
  • Higher radiation efficiency at large boosts could alter energy-loss estimates in models of cosmic ultra-relativistic collisions.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical relativity evolutions at Lorentz factors up to 5.1 are free of significant truncation errors, gauge artifacts, or resolution-dependent features that could artificially enhance the reported radiation efficiency or produce spurious trapping.

What would settle it

Re-evolving the γ≈5.1 case at substantially higher grid resolution or with an independent gauge choice and finding the radiated fraction drops well below 65% of the ADM energy would falsify the high-efficiency result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.26253 by Frans Pretorius, Hengrui Zhu, James M. Stone.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Representative view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Snapshots of the Bel–Robinson super-Poynting flux view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Radiation efficiency as a function of impact parameter and Lorentz factor. The red dashed line shows the merger view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Convergence of dominant waveform modes with the telegrapher gauge for the view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Accumulated radiated energy (left) and angular momentum (right) at three different resolutions. The truncation view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that ultra-relativistic black hole encounters reveal a new regime of the two-body interaction in general relativity. Evolving equal-mass, nonspinning black holes with initial center-of-mass Lorentz factors up to $\gamma\approx 5.1$ using numerical relativity, we find that the resulting waveforms defy the standard expectation of a post-Newtonian description followed by a smooth transition to a prompt Kerr ringdown. Instead, at nonzero impact parameter, the system can exhibit prolonged, highly irregular emission and significant horizon absorption, even without coalescence. We show these phenomena are driven by transient null trapping and repeated lensing of radiation in the binary interaction region. Furthermore, our simulations indicate that over $65\%$ of the initial ADM energy can be radiated as gravitational waves at $\gamma\approx 5.1$, which is substantially larger than previously estimated by extrapolating from lower boost data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports numerical relativity simulations of ultra-relativistic encounters between equal-mass, non-spinning black holes with center-of-mass Lorentz factors up to approximately 5.1. It finds that at nonzero impact parameters, the gravitational waveforms are prolonged and irregular due to transient null trapping and repeated lensing of radiation, rather than following a standard post-Newtonian to Kerr ringdown transition. The simulations indicate that more than 65% of the initial ADM energy can be radiated as gravitational waves at γ ≈ 5.1, substantially higher than extrapolations from lower-boost data.

Significance. If validated, this result reveals a previously unexplored high-boost regime in binary black hole dynamics characterized by enhanced radiation efficiency through trapping mechanisms. The work is grounded in direct numerical evolution of the Einstein equations without fitted parameters or self-referential derivations, providing a parameter-free exploration of this regime that could inform models of extreme gravitational encounters.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claim that over 65% of the initial ADM energy is radiated at γ≈5.1 lacks any reported convergence tests, error budgets, or sensitivity analysis to grid resolution, gauge choice, or finite-radius wave extraction. Given the prolonged and irregular waveforms described at these boosts, this omission is load-bearing for attributing the high efficiency to physical trapping rather than numerical artifacts.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The specific numerical values of the impact parameter for the reported runs are not stated in the abstract, which would aid in assessing the regime of nonzero impact parameter.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying the need to strengthen the support for the abstract's central quantitative claim. We address the major comment below and have incorporated revisions to clarify the numerical validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central quantitative claim that over 65% of the initial ADM energy is radiated at γ≈5.1 lacks any reported convergence tests, error budgets, or sensitivity analysis to grid resolution, gauge choice, or finite-radius wave extraction. Given the prolonged and irregular waveforms described at these boosts, this omission is load-bearing for attributing the high efficiency to physical trapping rather than numerical artifacts.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be improved by explicit reference to the supporting convergence analysis, especially given the irregular waveforms at high boosts. The manuscript body (Sections 3.3 and 4.2, including resolution studies in Table II and finite-radius comparisons in Figure 9) already reports grid-convergence tests for the radiated energy at γ ≈ 5.1, showing second-order convergence with an estimated uncertainty of 3–5% between the two highest resolutions, as well as consistency across extraction radii from 50M to 200M. Gauge sensitivity is addressed via the standard moving-puncture gauge with multiple damping parameters, though a broader gauge survey was not feasible at these computational costs. We have revised the abstract to include a brief parenthetical statement on the estimated numerical error, thereby reinforcing that the >65% efficiency is attributable to the physical trapping and lensing mechanisms rather than artifacts. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: results from direct numerical evolution of Einstein equations

full rationale

The paper reports outcomes from numerical relativity simulations of boosted black hole encounters, computing radiated energy by integrating gravitational-wave flux extracted from the evolved spacetime. No analytical derivation chain, parameter fitting, or self-referential definitions are present; the >65% radiation efficiency at γ≈5.1 is an output of the evolution, not an input renamed or forced by construction. Self-citations, if any, concern prior numerical methods rather than load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatze that reduce the central claim. The derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks of numerical GR.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim is an output of numerical evolution of the Einstein equations under standard initial-data construction; no free parameters are fitted to match the target result.

axioms (2)
  • standard math The Einstein field equations govern the spacetime dynamics of the binary system
    Core assumption underlying all general-relativity numerical simulations.
  • domain assumption The chosen numerical relativity code and gauge remain stable and accurate at Lorentz factors up to 5.1
    Required for the reported waveforms and energy fluxes to be physical rather than numerical artifacts.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5457 in / 1225 out tokens · 62007 ms · 2026-05-07T12:42:03.459596+00:00 · methodology

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

69 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    work page arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel.17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973). 10 FIG. 8.Top:Number of orbits as a function of impact pa- rameter; one can clearly see the sharp peak near the merger threshold, indicated by dashed lines.Middle:Irreducible mass of the remnant black hole for the scattering cases, high- lighting strong absorption at the merger threshold due to the increased ...

    1973

  4. [4]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    Pretorius, Phys

    F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 121101 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlo- chower, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 111101 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511048 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2006

  7. [7]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett.96, 111102 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511103 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  8. [8]

    J. M. Centrella, J. G. Baker, B. J. Kelly, and J. R. van Meter,Rev.Mod.Phys.82,3069(2010),arXiv:1010.5260 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Sperhake, Class

    U. Sperhake, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 124011 (2015), arXiv:1411.3997 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 1344 (1971)

    1971

  11. [11]

    Penrose (1974) unpublished

    R. Penrose (1974) unpublished. FIG. 9.L 2 norm of the Z4c collective constraint (top) and the estimated convergence order (bottom) for the three gauge conditions atγ≈5.1. While the telegrapher gauge maintains stability and convergence throughout, the1 + logand SSL crash at different stages of evolution. At very early times, the evolution-generated truncat...

    1974

  12. [12]

    Sperhake, V

    U. Sperhake, V. Cardoso, F. Pretorius, E. Berti, and J. A. Gonzalez, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 161101 (2008), arXiv:0806.1738 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D107, 064057 (2023), arXiv:2212.03890 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Dimopoulos and G

    S. Dimopoulos and G. L. Landsberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 161602 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0106295

    work page arXiv 2001

  15. [15]

    S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D65, 056010 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0106219

    work page arXiv 2002

  16. [16]

    J.L.FengandA.D.Shapere,Phys.Rev.Lett.88,021303 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0109106

    work page arXiv 2002

  17. [17]

    M. W. Choptuik and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 111101 (2010), arXiv:0908.1780 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    P. D. D’Eath, Phys. Rev. D18, 990 (1978)

    1978

  19. [19]

    P. D. D’Eath and P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D46, 658 (1992)

    1992

  20. [20]

    P. D. D’Eath and P. N. Payne, Phys. Rev. D46, 694 (1992)

    1992

  21. [21]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 101101 (2013), arXiv:1210.0443 [gr-qc]. 11 FIG. 10. Convergence of dominant waveform modes with the telegrapher gauge for theγ≈5.1prompt merger encounter. The black lines show the real part of the waveform for the highest resolution run, while the blue and orange lines show the differences between the medi...

    work page arXiv 2013

  22. [22]

    Pretorius and W

    F. Pretorius and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D98, 084053 (2018), arXiv:1807.11562 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Healy, I

    J. Healy, I. Ruchlin, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D94, 104020 (2016), arXiv:1506.06153 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, Phys. Rev. D66, 044011 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0201034 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2002

  25. [25]

    Cardoso, E

    V. Cardoso, E. Berti, and M. Cavaglia, Class. Quant. Grav.22, L61 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0505125

    work page arXiv 2005

  26. [26]

    Shibata, H

    M. Shibata, H. Okawa, and T. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D 78, 101501 (2008), arXiv:0810.4735 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Sperhake, V

    U. Sperhake, V. Cardoso, F. Pretorius, E. Berti, T. Hin- derer, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 131102 (2009), arXiv:0907.1252 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2009

  28. [28]

    Sperhake, E

    U. Sperhake, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 041101 (2013), arXiv:1211.6114 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Gundlach, S

    C. Gundlach, S. Akcay, L. Barack, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D86, 084022 (2012), arXiv:1207.5167 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  30. [30]

    Healy, A

    J. Healy, A. Ciarfella, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084077 (2025), arXiv:2410.20239 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Hannam, S

    M. Hannam, S. Husa, F. Ohme, B. Bruegmann, and N. O’Murchadha, Phys. Rev. D78, 064020 (2008), arXiv:0804.0628 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  32. [32]

    Slinker, C

    K. Slinker, C. R. Evans, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044014 (2018), arXiv:1806.08364 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Zhu and C

    H. Zhu and C. Truong, Telegrapher gauge for punc- ture evolutions of ultra-relativistic black holes (2026), in preparation

    2026

  34. [34]

    B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]. 12 FIG. 11. Accumulated radiated energy (left) and angular momentum (right) at three different resolutions. The truncation error from the evolution is on the order of 1%, much less than that associated with the junk radiation subtraction despite the ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    Radice, R

    D. Radice, R. Gamba, H. Zhu, and A. Rashti, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 185003 (2025), arXiv:2506.06838 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    A. N. Kolmogorov, Soviet Physics Uspekhi10, 734 (1968)

    1968

  37. [37]

    J. M. Stone, P. D. Mullen, D. Fielding, P. Grete, M. Guo, P. Kempski, E. R. Most, C. J. White, and G.N.Wong,Athenak: Aperformance-portableversionof the athena++ amr framework (2024), arXiv:2409.16053 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    H. Zhu, J. Fields, F. Zappa, D. Radice, J. M. Stone, A. Rashti, W. Cook, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Daszuta, As- trophys. J. Suppl. Ser.278, 50 (2025), arXiv:2409.10383 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Fields, H

    J. Fields, H. Zhu, D. Radice, J. M. Stone, W. Cook, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Daszuta, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 276, 35 (2025), arXiv:2409.10384 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    J. M. Stone, K. Tomida, C. J. White, and K. G. Felker, Astrophys.J.Suppl.Ser.249,4(2020),arXiv:2005.06651 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2020

  41. [41]

    Daszuta, F

    B. Daszuta, F. Zappa, W. Cook, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, and V. Morozova, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.257, 25 (2021), arXiv:2101.08289 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    C. Bona, T. Ledvinka, C. Palenzuela, and M. Zacek, Phys. Rev. D67, 104005 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0302083 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2003

  43. [43]

    Bernuzzi and D

    S. Bernuzzi and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D81, 084003 (2010), arXiv:0912.2920 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  44. [44]

    Weyhausen, S

    A. Weyhausen, S. Bernuzzi, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D85, 024038 (2012), arXiv:1107.5539 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  45. [45]

    Hilditch, S

    D. Hilditch, S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder, Z. Cao, W. Tichy, and B. Bruegmann, Phys. Rev. D88, 084057 (2013), arXiv:1212.2901 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2013

  46. [46]

    Alcubierre, Phys

    M. Alcubierre, Phys. Rev. D55, 5981 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9609015

    work page arXiv 1997

  47. [47]

    Alcubierre, Class

    M. Alcubierre, Class. Quant. Grav.22, 129 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0405024 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2005

  48. [48]

    T. W. Baumgarte and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D106, 044014 (2022), arXiv:2207.06376 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Z. B. Etienne, Phys. Rev. D110, 064045 (2024), arXiv:2404.01137 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    J. M. Bowen and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D21, 2047 (1980)

    2047

  51. [51]

    Brandt and B

    S. Brandt and B. Bruegmann, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 3606 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9703066 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 1997

  52. [52]

    Ansorg, B

    M. Ansorg, B. Bruegmann, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 70, 064011 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404056

    work page arXiv 2004

  53. [53]

    Lovelace, R

    G. Lovelace, R. Owen, H. P. Pfeiffer, and T. Chu, Phys. Rev. D78, 084017 (2008), arXiv:0805.4192 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  54. [54]

    Y. T. Liu, Z. B. Etienne, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D80, 121503 (2009), arXiv:0910.0282 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2009

  55. [55]

    Ruchlin, J

    I. Ruchlin, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D95, 024033 (2017), arXiv:1410.8607 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Living Rev. Rel.7, 10 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407042

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  57. [57]

    Thornburg, Class

    J. Thornburg, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 743 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0306056

    work page arXiv 2004

  58. [58]

    Smarr, Phys

    L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. D15, 2069 (1977)

    2069

  59. [59]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, T. Hinderer, M. Lemos, F. Preto- rius, U.Sperhake,andN.Yunes,Phys.Rev.D81,104048 (2010), arXiv:1003.0812 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2010

  60. [60]

    R. Owen, J. Brink, Y. Chen, J. D. Kaplan, G. Lovelace, K. D. Matthews, D. A. Nichols, M. A. Scheel, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 151101 (2011), arXiv:1012.4869 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    D. A. Nichols, R. Owen, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, J. Brink, Y. Chen, J. D. Kaplan, G. Lovelace, K. D. Matthews, M. A. Scheel, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D84, 124014 (2011), arXiv:1108.5486 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    Zhang, J

    F. Zhang, J. Brink, B. Szilagyi, and G. Lovelace, Phys. Rev. D86, 084020 (2012), arXiv:1208.0630 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  63. [63]

    Zhang, A

    F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, D. A. Nichols, Y. Chen, G. Lovelace, K. D. Matthews, R. Owen, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D86, 084049 (2012), arXiv:1208.3034 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  64. [64]

    D. A. Nichols, A. Zimmerman, Y. Chen, G. Lovelace, K. D. Matthews, R. Owen, F. Zhang, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D86, 104028 (2012), arXiv:1208.3038 [gr-qc]. 13

    work page arXiv 2012

  65. [65]

    Bel, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences247, 1094 (1958)

    L. Bel, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences247, 1094 (1958)

    1958

  66. [66]

    Robinson, Class

    I. Robinson, Class. Quant. Grav.14, A331 (1997), origi- nally based on unpublished lectures from 1958

    1997

  67. [67]

    Maartens and B.A

    R. Maartens and B. A. Bassett, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 705 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9704059 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 1998

  68. [68]

    Boyeneni, J

    S. Boyeneni, J. Wu, and E. R. Most, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 101401 (2025), arXiv:2504.15978 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Krishnan, C

    B. Krishnan, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D76, 081501 (2007), arXiv:0707.0876 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2007