Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 163 references

Eccentric binary dynamics pinned to 12th order in eccentricity

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

2026-08-04 21:08 UTC pith:XEVFSGSI

load-bearing objection A high-order PN computation with genuinely new Q-potential and 2SF redshift coefficients; the one structural risk is an unproven radial-momentum relation (Eq. 61) that all new EOB coefficients depend on. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2608.01774 v1 pith:XEVFSGSI submitted 2026-08-03 gr-qc

High-Post-Newtonian-Order Dynamics Induced by Tail-of-Tail Interactions: The Non-Geodesic Terms

G. Pratten This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C2583C35 PACS 04.25.Nx04.30.-w
keywords tail-of-tail interactionhereditary effectseccentric binariespost-Newtonian expansioneffective-one-bodyself-forceredshift invariantgravitational waves
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 aims to settle what gravitational-wave tail-of-tail interactions do to the conservative dynamics of eccentric, non-spinning compact binaries at the next correction beyond the first hereditary term. It extends the Delaunay-averaged tail-of-tail Hamiltonian from O(e_t^2) to O(e_t^12), then transcribes that Hamiltonian into the effective-one-body description. The result is a complete set of 5.5PN and 6.5PN coefficients for the non-geodesic Q potential through the p_r^12 sector, including the full dependence on the symmetric mass ratio. The linear-in-mass-ratio terms reproduce known first-order self-force results; the quadratic terms are new second-order self-force predictions. The same Hamiltonian, fed through the first law of binary mechanics at fixed orbital frequencies, yields the complete tail-of-tail contribution to the second-order inverse redshift at those PN orders through O(e^10).

Core claim

The paper derives the conservative tail-of-tail Hamiltonian for eccentric, non-spinning compact binaries to relative first post-Newtonian order and through O(e_t^12) in eccentricity, then matches it to the effective-one-body description. From the Delaunay-averaged Hamiltonian it extracts the 5.5PN and 6.5PN corrections to the non-geodesic potential Q(u,p_r;nu) through the p_r^12 sector, including the complete dependence on the symmetric mass ratio through O(nu^2). The linear-in-nu coefficients reproduce established first-order self-force results; the quadratic-in-nu coefficients are new eccentric second-order self-force predictions. Applied to the first law of binary mechanics at fixed frequ

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-split tail-of-tail action: a nonlocal-in-time integral built from products of multipole moments evaluated at advanced and retarded times, with gravitational-wave backscattering encoded in principal-value kernels. The calculation wraps this action in a 1PN quasi-Keplerian parametrisation of the harmonic-coordinate orbit, Delaunay-averages it (orbital average over one radial period), and matches the averaged Hamiltonian to the effective-one-body Hamiltonian order by order in eccentricity. Because the non-geodesic Q potential starts at quartic order in radial momentum, an eccentricity expansion through O(e_t^12) unlocks Q coefficients through p_r^12. A Fourier-Bes

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes that 1PN quasi-Keplerian motion in harmonic coordinates, together with the quadrupole (to 1PN), octupole, and current-quadrupole (to Newtonian order) source moments, captures every tail-of-tail contribution at relative 1PN order through O(e^12).

What would settle it

Compute the second-order inverse redshift for eccentric orbits about a Schwarzschild black hole at fixed m2-rescaled frequencies, keeping terms through O(e^10) at 5.5PN and 6.5PN; the tail-of-tail coefficients in Eqs. (183)-(184) should appear unchanged. A cheaper check: rederive the O(e^2) second-order redshift from an independent effective-one-body Hamiltonian, extending the internal consistency check already reported through O(e^2).

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Eccentric effective-one-body models can now carry analytic tail-of-tail Q-potential coefficients through p_r^12 at 5.5PN and 6.5PN.
  • The second-order inverse-redshift coefficients through O(e^10) provide fixed-frequency weak-field benchmarks that direct eccentric second-order self-force computations can target.
  • The O(nu^2) parts of the Q coefficients are qualitatively new: they encode mass-ratio dependence of the tail-of-tail interaction at second self-force order.
  • The spectral-norm identity shows each averaged hereditary bilinear equals minus a positive-definite sum over Fourier amplitudes, fixing signs term by term.
  • The matching procedure is iterative and can be carried to higher eccentricity order, extending the Q potential to higher p_r powers with the same inputs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same EOB matching route, applied to unbound orbits by analytic continuation, should yield the tail-of-tail part of the scattering angle; the paper lists this as future work, but the ingredients appear already present.
  • If a direct eccentric second-order self-force code reaches O(e^10), disagreement with Eqs. (183)-(184) would most likely trace to the 1PN quasi-Keplerian truncation or to omitted multipole sectors, since the first-order and spectral checks already close those channels at lower order.
  • Going beyond relative 1PN order would require 2PN orbital dynamics and higher multipole moments, so the present coefficient list is the natural stopping point of this harmonic-coordinate, fixed-PN-order approach.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper computes the conservative tail-of-tail dynamics of eccentric, non-spinning compact binaries to relative 1PN order and through O(e_t^12). In harmonic coordinates, it derives the Delaunay-averaged tail-of-tail Hamiltonian, matches it to the effective-one-body (EOB) description, and thereby extracts the 5.5PN and 6.5PN non-geodesic Q-potential coefficients through O(p_r^12) with complete dependence on the symmetric mass ratio through O(nu^2). It also derives the tail-of-tail contribution to the 2SF inverse redshift at those PN orders through O(e^10) using the first law at fixed orbital frequencies. Three validation routes are presented: a spectral Fourier–Bessel rederivation of the averaged Hamiltonian, a 1SF redshift comparison against the independent Munna–Evans calculation, and an EOB self-consistency check through O(e^2).

Significance. If the results are correct, this is a substantial step: it provides the first eccentric 2SF predictions for the non-geodesic EOB potential at 5.5PN and 6.5PN, extends the Q-potential to p_r^12, and gives weak-field benchmarks for ongoing second-order self-force programs. The paper is largely derived rather than fitted: there are no free parameters, the spectral and time-domain routes agree, and the 1SF comparison is claimed to agree through O(e^12) with an independent calculation. However, the central novelty rests on a single asserted relation for the 1PN EOB radial momentum, Eq. (61), which is not derived and is not tested independently at the orders needed. The paper's overall value is high, but the soundness of the new Q-potential coefficients depends on closing that gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [IV.B, Eqs. (70)-(79)] The corrected 1PN radial-momentum relation p_r^(0) = p_r^N [1 + eta^2(1/r - 1/(2 a_e_r))] is stated without derivation, the text noting only that it corrects a typo in Ref. [87]. This relation is load-bearing: every new Q-potential coefficient in Eqs. (70)-(79) and the 2SF inverse-redshift coefficients in Eqs. (183)-(184) flow from the EOB matching that uses Eq. (61). The internal cross-check in Sec. VI.C is not independent because it evaluates the same EOB Hamiltonian with the same Eq. (61), and it is truncated at O(e_t^2); the 1SF comparison in Sec. VI.A bypasses the EOB matching entirely. I request a derivation of Eq. (61) from the 1PN EOB energy-conservation equation, or an external check (e.g., a direct evaluation of the EOB Hamiltonian along the 1PN QK orbit to O(e_t^12), or comparison with an independent eccentric 2SF calculation).
  2. [IV.B, Eqs. (70)-(79)] The matching procedure that converts the harmonic Delaunay averages (45)-(46) into the Q-potential coefficients (70)-(79) is not shown. The text states that the expansion is iterative and that Q first enters at O(e_t^4), but the explicit linear system at each eccentricity order is absent. Because these coefficients are the central new result, the reader cannot verify the uniqueness of the extraction or the absence of cross-contamination from the A- and D-potential sectors. Please provide the matching equations (or a detailed algorithm) and, ideally, a table showing which eccentricity orders fix each q_{2m,n}. The O(e_t^12) algebra may remain in ancillary material, but the structure of the matching should be in the main text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [VI.A] The agreement with Munna–Evans is stated as exact to all orders in eccentricity at 5.5PN and coefficient-by-coefficient at 6.5PN. A small table comparing the eccentricity expansions of U^(1)_11/2 and U^(1)_13/2 would make this check more transparent.
  2. [V] The spectral cross-validation is described as independent at the level of the hereditary integral and orbital average, but it uses the same source multipoles and QK dynamics. This should be stated prominently as a consistency check rather than an independent physical derivation, which the text already acknowledges.
  3. [III] The complete O(e_t^12) multipole bilinears are relegated to ancillary material, while Tables I-III show only O(e_t^4). Please ensure the ancillary material is permanently archived and that a version is included with the published paper, as the final Hamiltonian and Q coefficients cannot be checked otherwise.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'complete O(nu^2) dependence' should be qualified in the abstract: the Q-potential result is through O(p_r^12), and the 2SF inverse-redshift result is through O(e^10). The current wording could overstate the eccentricity range of the redshift invariants.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the Q-potential and 2SF redshifts are derived from an independently constructed harmonic tail-of-tail Hamiltonian and transcribed to EOB; nothing is fitted or reduced to its own input.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained in the relevant sense: the Delaunay-averaged tail-of-tail Hamiltonian in Eqs. (45)-(46) is built from standard MPM multipoles and beta coefficients (Sec. III), and the EOB matching in Sec. IV is an algebraic transcription between two representations of the same conservative dynamics. No parameter is fitted to the target predictions. The Q-potential coefficients (70)-(79) are obtained by solving the matching equations order-by-order in eccentricity, with the circular and e_t^2 sectors fixing A and \bar{D} and the higher sectors determining Q; this is an invertible map rather than a definition of Q in terms of itself. The 2SF inverse-redshift results in Eqs. (183)-(184) are derived from the same Hamiltonian through the first law at fixed frequencies, a standard variational identity, and are not fitted. The O(\nu) Q coefficients are explicitly checked against independent GSF results from Refs. [86,88], and the 1SF redshift is checked against the independent calculation of Ref. [98]. The Fourier-Bessel spectral rederivation in Sec. V uses the same source multipoles but evaluates the hereditary integral by a distinct spectral norm, so it is a consistency check rather than circularity. The manuscript's reliance on Eq. (61), the corrected 1PN EOB radial-momentum relation, is a stated input and is load-bearing, but it is not defined in terms of the derived Q coefficients or redshift invariants; a possible error there would be a correctness/verification issue, not circularity. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Pratten et al. waveform papers) are contextual and not load-bearing for the tail-of-tail derivation. No circular step could be exhibited, so the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 8 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is a derived expansion, not a model fit: there are no fitted constants and no new entities are introduced. The central calculation leans on a standard scaffold of 1PN QK dynamics, MPM multipoles, the time-split tail-of-tail action, EOB/DJS gauge, the hereditary first law, and Schwarzschild-geodesic frequency maps, all taken from the cited literature. The only free choices are truncation orders (e^12, relative 1PN), which the paper states are computational.

axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The 1PN quasi-Keplerian parameterization in harmonic coordinates (Eqs. 1-3), including the mean-motion relation Eq. (7) and the (epsilon,j)-to-orbital-element map (Eqs. 9-17).
    The orbital scaffold for all Delaunay averages and matching; taken from Refs. [107-110] as established PN results.
  • domain assumption The time-split tail-of-tail action Eq. (18) with the beta coefficients Eq. (25) and principal-value convention is the correct conservative hereditary interaction.
    Adopted from Refs. [18,86,87] and [9,77,79,113-115]; the paper states conventions but does not re-derive the action from first principles.
  • domain assumption The harmonic MPM multipole moments I2, I3, J2 at the stated PN accuracy (Eq. 26) are complete.
    Standard moments from Refs. [1,116]; completeness at relative 1PN is presupposed.
  • domain assumption The first law of binary mechanics retains its standard form for the localized Delaunay-averaged hereditary Hamiltonian.
    Invoked in Sec. VI, attributed to Ref. [97]; this is the basis for the redshift derivations.
  • domain assumption The DJS-gauge EOB Hamiltonian (Eq. 50) with A, Dbar, Q expansions (Eqs. 52-54) fully represents the dynamics at the PN orders considered.
    Framework from Ref. [89]; the Q extraction depends on this gauge choice.
  • standard math The spectral identities used in Sec. V: the principal-value relation Eq. (90), the diagonal action on Fourier modes, and the Kapteyn-series convergence of Hansen coefficients.
    Background for the Fourier-Bessel cross-validation; standard results from Refs. [78,92,121-125].
  • domain assumption The reference Schwarzschild geodesic maps and O(q) frequency-shift relations, including the Darwin parameters (Eqs. 148-150, 165-168, 180-181).
    Input from Refs. [96,133,134,139] used for fixed-frequency GSF comparisons.
  • domain assumption The 2PN periastron advance (Eq. 15) enters the 2SF redshift computation.
    From Refs. [109,110]; needed for the O(epsilon) term in delta_q j, Eq. (166).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 32920 in / 17555 out tokens · 188923 ms · 2026-08-04T21:08:14.137966+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of High-Post-Newtonian-Order Dynamics Induced by Tail-of-Tail Interactions: The Non-Geodesic Terms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XEVFSGSI

@misc{pith2026260801774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: High-Post-Newtonian-Order Dynamics Induced by Tail-of-Tail Interactions: The Non-Geodesic Terms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XEVFSGSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.01774}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We compute the tail-of-tail contribution to the conservative dynamics of eccentric, non-spinning compact binaries to relative 1PN order and to $\mathcal O(e_t^{12})$. Using the $1$PN quasi-Keplerian dynamics in harmonic coordinates, we derive the Delaunay-averaged Hamiltonian at $5.5$PN and $6.5$PN order and match it to the effective-one-body description, allowing us to determine the corresponding contributions to the non-geodesic EOB $Q$ potential through the $\mathcal{O}(p_r^{12})$, including the dependence on the symmetric mass ratio up to $\mathcal{O}(\nu^2)$. The terms linear in the mass ratio reproduce the available first-order self-force results, while the quadratic terms provide qualitatively new eccentric second-order self-force predictions arising from the tail-of-tail terms. We independently rederive the averaged Hamiltonian using a Fourier--Bessel decomposition of the hereditary interaction. Applying the first law at fixed orbital frequencies, we recover the known first-order self-force redshift through $\mathcal O(e^{12})$ and obtain the complete tail-of-tail contribution to the second-order inverse redshift at $5.5$PN and $6.5$PN through $\mathcal O(e^{10})$.

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

163 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D94, 104015 (2016), arXiv:1609.00354 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, P. H. Damgaard, G. Festuccia, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 171601 (2018), arXiv:1806.04920 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Cheung, I

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein, and M. P. Solon, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 251101 (2018), arXiv:1808.02489 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee, and D. O’Connell, JHEP 02, 137 (2019), arXiv:1811.10950 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, JHEP10, 206 (2019), arXiv:1908.01493 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Z. Bern, C. Cheung, R. Roiban, C.-H. Shen, M. P. Solon, and M. Zeng, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 201603 (2019), arXiv:1901.04424 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D73, 104029 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0409156

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  9. [9]

    W. D. Goldberger and A. Ross, Phys. Rev. D81, 124015 (2010), arXiv:0912.4254 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  10. [10]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Class. Quant. Grav.31, 043001 (2014), arXiv:1309.3474 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    R. A. Porto, Phys. Rept.633, 1 (2016), arXiv:1601.04914 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D104, 024069 (2021), arXiv:2103.03190 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Barack and A

    L. Barack and A. Pound, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 016904 (2019), arXiv:1805.10385 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Palenzuela, Front

    C. Palenzuela, Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 58 (2020), arXiv:2008.12931 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  16. [16]

    Buonanno and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  17. [17]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231104 (2019), arXiv:1909.02375 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084047 (2020), arXiv:2007.11239 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024061 (2020), arXiv:2004.05407 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    Bini and T

    D. Bini and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D112, 044002 (2025), arXiv:2504.20204 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  23. [23]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Ya- mamoto (KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D88, 043007 (2013), arXiv:1306.6747 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.1004, L22 (2026), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2605.27225 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Colpiet al.(LISA), (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro- ph.CO]

    M. Colpiet al.(LISA), (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Abacet al.(ET), JCAP03, 081 (2026), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al.(ET), JCAP03, 081 (2026), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Pürrer and C.-J

    M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D106, 044042 (2022), arXiv:2205.08448 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  34. [34]

    Kapil, L

    V. Kapil, L. Reali, R. Cotesta, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D109, 104043 (2024), arXiv:2404.00090 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Zevin, I

    M. Zevin, I. M. Romero-Shaw, K. Kremer, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Astrophys. J. Lett.921, L43 (2021), arXiv:2106.09042 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Fumagalli, I

    G. Fumagalli, I. Romero-Shaw, D. Gerosa, V. De Renzis, K. Kritos, and A. Olejak, Phys. Rev. D110, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2405.14945 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Samsing, Phys

    J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D97, 103014 (2018), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  38. [38]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, K. Kre- mer, F. A. Rasio, J. Samsing, C. S. Ye, and M. Zevin, Phys. Rev. D98, 123005 (2018), arXiv:1811.04926 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [39]

    Zevin, J

    M. Zevin, J. Samsing, C. Rodriguez, C.-J. Haster, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astrophys. J.871, 91 (2019), arXiv:1810.00901 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Tagawa, B

    H. Tagawa, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, K. Omukai, and J. Samsing, Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L20 (2021), arXiv:2010.10526 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Gondán and B

    L. Gondán and B. Kocsis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506, 1665 (2021), arXiv:2011.02507 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Samsing, I

    J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Koc- sis, N.W.C.Leigh, B.Liu, M.E.Pessah, andH.Tagawa, Nature603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    A. A. Trani, S. Rastello, U. N. Di Carlo, F. Santoliquido, A. Tanikawa, and M. Mapelli, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 1362 (2022), arXiv:2111.06388 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Dall’Amico, M

    M. Dall’Amico, M. Mapelli, S. Torniamenti, and M. A. Sedda, Astron. Astrophys.683, A186 (2024), arXiv:2303.07421 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Stegmann and J

    J. Stegmann and J. Klencki, Astrophys. J. Lett.991, L54 (2025), arXiv:2506.09121 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Gupteet al., Phys

    N. Gupteet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 104045 (2025), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, (2026), arXiv:2603.22461 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Pompili, A

    L. Pompili, A. Gamboa, and A. Buonanno, (2026), arXiv:2605.28716 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [49]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Astrophys. J. Lett.1000, L2 (2026), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    M. d. L. Planas, S. Husa, A. Ramos-Buades, and J. Va- lencia, Astrophys. J.995, 47 (2025), arXiv:2506.01760 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Kacanja, K

    K. Kacanja, K. Soni, and A. H. Nitz, Phys. Rev. D112, 122007 (2025), arXiv:2508.00179 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Jan, B.-J

    A. Jan, B.-J. Tsao, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. Shoemaker, and P. Laguna, Phys. Rev. D113, 024018 (2026), arXiv:2508.12460 [gr-qc]. 21

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    K. S. Phukon, P. Schmidt, G. Morras, and G. Pratten, Phys. Rev. D113, 103023 (2026), arXiv:2512.10803 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  54. [54]

    Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    A. Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    J. N. Arredondo, A. Klein, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D110, 044044 (2024), arXiv:2402.06804 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084052 (2025), arXiv:2502.03929 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, and A. Buonanno, (2026), arXiv:2604.11903 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D104, 024046 (2021), arXiv:2104.11705 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  60. [60]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D105, 044035 (2022), arXiv:2112.06952 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D32, 2350015 (2023), arXiv:2306.15277 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Gamboaet al., Phys

    A. Gamboaet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 044038 (2025), arXiv:2412.12823 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Nagar, R

    A. Nagar, R. Gamba, P. Rettegno, V. Fantini, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 084001 (2024), arXiv:2404.05288 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello, and S. Neogi, Phys. Rev. D110, 024031 (2024), arXiv:2404.15408 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Nagar, D

    A. Nagar, D. Chiaramello, R. Gamba, S. Albanesi, S. Bernuzzi, V. Fantini, M. Panzeri, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D111, 064050 (2025), arXiv:2407.04762 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Albanesi, R

    S. Albanesi, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, J. Fontbuté, A. Gon- zalez, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D112, L121503 (2025), arXiv:2503.14580 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Gamboaet al., (2026), arXiv:2605.28715 [gr-qc]

    A. Gamboaet al., (2026), arXiv:2605.28715 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Efficient Eccentric Effective-One-Body Dynamics via Near-Identity Averaging Transformations

    P. Lynch, A. Buonanno, A. Gamboa, and M. van de Meent, (2026), arXiv:2606.30594 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    M. d. L. Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. García-Quirós, H. Estellés, S. Husa, and M. Haney, Phys. Rev. D113, 024006 (2026), arXiv:2503.13062 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    Ramos-Buades, Q

    A. Ramos-Buades, Q. Henry, and M. Haney, Phys. Rev. D113, 083044 (2026), arXiv:2601.03340 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    García-Quirós, M

    C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estel- lés, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064002 (2020), arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Prattenet al., Phys

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [74]

    Estellés, A

    H. Estellés, A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, C. García- Quirós, M. Colleoni, L. Haegel, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D103, 124060 (2021), arXiv:2004.08302 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    Blanchet and T

    L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A320, 379 (1986)

    1986

  76. [76]

    Blanchet, Proc

    L. Blanchet, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A409, 383 (1987)

    1987

  77. [77]

    Blanchet and T

    L. Blanchet and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D37, 1410 (1988)

    1988

  78. [78]

    Blanchet and G

    L. Blanchet and G. Schaefer, Class. Quant. Grav.10, 2699 (1993)

    1993

  79. [79]

    Blanchet, Class

    L. Blanchet, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 113 (1998), [Er- ratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 22, 3381 (2005)], arXiv:gr- qc/9710038

    arXiv 1998

  80. [80]

    Foffa and R

    S. Foffa and R. Sturani, Phys. Rev. D87, 044056 (2013), arXiv:1111.5488 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

Showing first 80 references.