Extreme mass-ratio inspiral within an ultralight scalar cloud I. Scalar radiation

Colin Weller; Dongjun Li; Huan Yang; Michael LaHaye; Nicol\'as Yunes; Patrick Bourg

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Extreme mass-ratio inspiral within an ultralight scalar cloud I. Scalar radiation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An EMRI inside a superradiant scalar cloud emits scalar radiation whose backreaction changes the inspiral rate in a cloud-mode-dependent way, producing gravitational-wave dephasing of order hundreds of radians.

desk verdict Solid new flux calculations for EMRIs in scalar clouds; the suspected normalization bug in Eq. (61) is actually a sign-convention artifact — worth a careful referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02045 v2 pith:42K7ECMM submitted 2025-07-02 gr-qc

Dongjun Li , Colin Weller , Patrick Bourg , Michael LaHaye , Nicolás Yunes , Huan Yang This is my paper

classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C3583C2583C10 PACS 04.30.-w04.70.-s95.30.Sf

keywords extrememass-ratioinspiralultralightscalarcloudsuperradianceradiationmodifiedTeukolskyformalismenergyfluxgravitational-wavedephasingKerrblackhole

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral—a stellar-mass compact object spiraling into a supermassive Kerr black hole—when the black hole is dressed in an ultralight scalar cloud formed by superradiance. It computes, in full general relativity, the scalar radiation excited in the cloud by the secondary and the backreaction of that radiation on the orbit. The central result is that the sign of the net scalar energy flux depends on which cloud mode is populated: a dipole ($\ell_c=m_c=1$) cloud gives a net negative flux inside $r_0\approx26.7M$, slowing the inspiral, while a quadrupole ($\ell_c=m_c=2$) cloud gives a positive flux at all radii, accelerating it. For a cloud mass $M_c=10^{-4}M$ and mass ratio $\epsilon=10^{-5}$, the accumulated gravitational-wave phase shift reaches $O(10^2)$ radians after 18 months, well above the one-radian phase accuracy space-based detectors aim for, so the effect could be observable in future EMRI waveforms.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a two-parameter expansion in the mass ratio $\epsilon$ and cloud amplitude $\zeta$, organized with the modified Teukolsky formalism (a decoupling of the Newman-Penrose equations on non-vacuum black-hole backgrounds). The scalar sector reduces to the sourced Klein-Gordon equation $(\Box-\mu^2)\Phi^{(1,1)}=S_\Phi^{(1,1)}$, whose source is the contraction of the background cloud profile $\Phi^{(1,0)}$ with the Lorenz-gauge reconstructed metric perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}^{(0,1)}$ of the secondary. The paper renders this source explicitly separable by projecting onto the Kinnersley tetrad, replacing directional derivatives with Chandrasekhar operators, and expanding the factors $\Gamma(r,\theta)^{-\beta}\bar\Gamma(r,\theta)^{-\sigma}$ in Fourier series in $\cos\theta$ following [141]; the radial equation is then solved by a Green's function built from in/up homogeneous solutions. The selection rule $m=m_c+m_g$, $\omega=\omega_c+m_g\Omega_g$ couples cloud modes to the secondary's orbital harmonics, and the transition of a radiation mode from oscillatory to exponentially decaying behavior near infinity (when $|\omega|<\mu$) produces the sharp flux feature at $r_0\approx41.66M$ for the dipole cloud.

What would settle it

An independent, grid-based numerical integration of the scalar source term (without the Fourier-series separation) for the same parameters ($a=0.88M$, $\mu M=0.3$, secondary at $r_0=10M$) should reproduce both the sign and magnitude of the net scalar energy flux: negative for the dipole cloud and positive for the quadrupole cloud. A null or opposite-sign net flux would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that the scalar radiation field $\Phi^{(1,1)}$ sourced by an EMRI in a quasi-bound scalar cloud around a Kerr black hole carries energy fluxes to infinity and into the horizon whose balance depends on the cloud's quantum numbers. For the fundamental dipolar cloud ($\ell_c=m_c=1$, $n_c=0$) the horizon flux dominates below $r_0\approx26.7M$ and is negative, so the total scalar flux removes orbital energy and slows the inspiral. For the quadrupolar cloud ($\ell_c=m_c=2$, $n_c=0$) the total flux is positive at every radius, accelerating the inspiral, and the horizon flux itself becomes positive inside $r_0\approx18.1M$, depositing energy into the black hole. Mode-by-mode energy fluxes agree with the independent calculation of [105] to within a few percent, with relative differences under $6\%$ for the total horizon and infinity fluxes, and the resulting dephasing is $O(10^2)$ radians after 18 months for $M_c=10^{-4}M$ and $\epsilon=10^{-5}$.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation imports the Lorenz-gauge reconstructed metric perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}^{(0,1)}$ for circular equatorial Kerr orbits directly from the code of [98] without independently verifying that reconstruction, so if that external input is in error the scalar source $S_\Phi^{(1,1)}$ and all fluxes derived from it would be affected.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Waveform templates for EMRIs in scalar clouds must include cloud-mode-dependent scalar backreaction: dipole clouds decelerate the secondary inside $r_0\approx26.7M$, while quadrupole clouds accelerate it at all radii.
The dephasing can reach $O(10^2)$ radians after 18 months for $M_c=10^{-4}M$ and $\epsilon=10^{-5}$, far exceeding the roughly one-radian phase-accuracy goal, making the environmental effect potentially measurable rather than a negligible correction.
Because the scalar-to-gravitational flux ratio is below $10^{-3}$ at $r_0\leq10M$ for $M_c=10^{-4}M$, the effect is small but not negligible, and the few-percent differences between the two independent flux calculations still translate into $O(1)$ radian dephasing over a year.
The sharp decrease of the dipole-cloud infinity flux near $r_0\approx41.66M$, while outside LISA's band for $\mu M=0.3$, would become observable for scalar masses $\mu M\gtrsim0.4$, offering a possible diagnostic in a wider parameter region.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the sign of the net scalar flux is tied to the cloud's $(\ell_c,m_c)$, a measured dephasing sign in a real EMRI would identify which superradiant mode dominates, effectively turning gravitational waves into a cloud-resolving probe.
The radius where the $m_g=1$ radiation mode crosses from oscillatory to evanescent behavior should appear as a sudden drop in the scalar energy flux, so a chirp 'kink' at the corresponding frequency could constrain the scalar mass even when the transition lies outside LISA's nominal band.
The same source-extraction machinery (Chandrasekhar operators plus Fourier decomposition of $\Gamma$ factors) transfers directly to the modified Teukolsky source terms for gravitational radiation, so the follow-up gravitational calculation should inherit the same selection-rule structure and show corresponding mode-dependent flux signs.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The real content here is the scalar radiation fluxes for an EMRI in a superradiant scalar cloud, computed semi-analytically and cross-checked against Dyson et al. The dipolar cloud part is largely a replication, but the quadrupolar cloud analysis is new and the dephasing estimate gives the paper observational bite. The calculation looks sound to me: truncation errors are quantified, the source-projection method is a genuine technical improvement, and the agreement with [105] at the few-percent level is a credible independent check.

One thing I checked carefully: the stress-test claim about Eq. (61) does not hold up. It drops the minus sign in the paper’s definition of Qdot, Eq. (59). With that sign included, E_Phi,inf = -omega Qdot_inf, so E_s,inf = (omega_c - omega) Qdot_inf = -m_g Omega_g Qdot_inf. That is exactly the m_g omega_g prefactor in Eq. (61a), and similarly for the horizon. The suspected factor-of-28 error is a sign-convention artifact, not a bug. The paper could still do a better job deriving Eq. (61) instead of citing [46,105], but the formula is consistent with its own definitions.

The soft spots are real but manageable. The metric perturbation h(0,1) is taken from the Kerr-Lorenz-Circ notebooks without independent verification; if that code is wrong, the scalar source is wrong. The reproducibility story is also weaker than it should be: one line says the notebook is available on request, another gives a GitHub link with no commit hash. The claimed corrections to [105] are asserted but not substantiated. And the MTF framing overstates what is actually computed — the modified Teukolsky equation is written down but not solved, so this is really a scalar-flux paper with an MTF roadmap attached. The dephasing estimate is admittedly adiabatic and uses only the dominant gravitational quadrupole mode, which is fine for an estimate but not a waveform.

The 11% discrepancy in one subdominant infinity mode is minor; it is 10^12 smaller than the dominant mode, and the authors say so. The sign change of the horizon flux for the quadrupole cloud and the resulting acceleration of the inspiral is the most interesting new result, and I don't see anything that undermines it.

Who is this for? Anyone working on environmental effects for LISA, especially EMRI dephasing in boson clouds. It deserves a serious referee. I would send it to review with requests to pin down the code availability and to add a short derivation or clear citation for Eq. (61), but I would not block on either.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a semi-analytical, modified-Teukolsky-based method to compute the scalar radiation emitted by an extreme mass-ratio inspiral embedded in an ultralight, superradiant scalar cloud around a Kerr black hole. The authors construct the scalar source from the background cloud profile and a Lorenz-gauge reconstructed metric perturbation, solve the radial equation by a Green's-function method, and evaluate energy and angular-momentum fluxes at the horizon and infinity for dipolar and quadrupolar clouds. They compare with the recent calculation of Dyson et al., find broad agreement, and use the fluxes to estimate a gravitational-wave dephasing of O(10^2) rad after 18 months for a representative system. The main physical claims are that the dipolar cloud produces a net negative scalar energy flux inside r0≈26.7M, slowing the inspiral, while the quadrupolar cloud produces an always-positive net flux, accelerating the inspiral.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is a valuable step toward waveform-accurate modeling of environmental effects in EMRIs: it provides a fully relativistic treatment of scalar radiation from a rotating black hole, extends previous work to quadrupolar clouds, quantifies truncation errors in the source and mode sums, and gives a falsifiable dephasing prediction for LISA-like detectors. The semi-analytical source decomposition and the Green's-function solution are presented in enough detail to be adapted to the gravitational sector in the announced follow-up work. The comparison with the independent numerical approach of [105] is a genuine validation of the implementation, and the paper is honest about the residual discrepancies, although the validation is weakened by a small spin mismatch between the two calculations.

major comments (3)

[Secs. III and V, Figs. 2, 4, 5, 9] The central validation is a comparison to [105], but the text states that [105] used a=0.877M while the present work uses a=0.88M. The quoted '<5%' and '<6%' agreement therefore includes a parameter mismatch. Please recompute the comparison at identical spin values, or, if that is impractical, quantify the effect of Delta a = 0.003M on each reported difference and restate the agreement accordingly. This is especially relevant for the 11.4% discrepancy at ell=8, m=2, which the text partially attributes to the spin mismatch; as written, one cannot separate numerical error from the parameter difference.
[Sec. V, Eq. (62)] Equation (62) has a sign error in the denominator for modes with m_g<0. For the quadrupolar cloud with m=1 (so m_g=-1), a=0.88M and muM=0.3 give m omega_+ - omega_c ≈ -1.5e-4 / M, so the right-hand side of Eq. (62) is negative or complex and the printed inequality is not meaningful. The threshold quoted in the text, r0≈370M, follows instead from the condition omega_c - m omega_+ < |m_g| Omega, i.e., r0 < (|m_g|/(omega_c - m omega_+) - a)^{2/3}. Please correct Eq. (62) and the sentence 'as one can directly find from Eq. (62)'.
[Secs. III and VI] The scalar source and hence every flux in the paper depend on the Lorenz-gauge metric perturbation h^{(0,1)}_{mu nu} taken directly from the Mathematica notebooks of [98]. The comparison with [105] uses the same reconstructed metric, so it validates the present implementation of the contraction and angular projection but not the underlying reconstruction itself. Please add an explicit limitation statement to Sec. VI noting that the results inherit the accuracy of the Kerr-Lorenz-Circ code, or, if feasible, perform an independent test of the reconstructed h^{(0,1)} (for example, against the vacuum gravitational energy flux for circular equatorial orbits).

minor comments (5)

[Figs. 7 and 8 captions] The captions say the radiation is plotted 'at the equilateral plane (i.e., theta = 0)'; since theta = 0 is the polar axis, this should presumably read 'equatorial plane (theta = pi/2)'.
[Sec. VI] There is a typo in the Discussion: 'comptuation' should be 'computation'.
[Sec. V, Fig. 12] The dephasing delta_phi shown in Fig. 12 is never defined by an equation; please give the explicit formula used to evolve the orbital radius and to compute delta_phi from the scalar fluxes.
[Sec. III, end of the source evaluation] The Mathematica notebook implementing the source construction is said to be provided 'upon request'; for reproducibility, please provide a persistent repository link alongside the existing supplementary notebook reference.
[Sec. V, Eq. (61c)] The statement that the angular-momentum flux is completely determined by the energy flux through Eq. (61c) relies on the specific definitions in Eq. (60) and the sign convention for the Noether charge flux; a brief remark explaining that this is not the single-mode identity Ldot/Edot = m/omega would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scalar flux and dephasing are computed from an independently sourced Klein-Gordon solve, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The central scalar-radiation calculation is self-contained. The background cloud profile Phi(1,0) is obtained by solving the massive Klein-Gordon equation on Kerr via Leaver's method [130,131], and the metric perturbation h(0,1) is taken from the external Lorenz-gauge reconstruction code [96,98,99]; neither ingredient is fitted to the target fluxes. The scalar radiation Phi(1,1) is then computed by solving the sourced Klein-Gordon equation with Green's functions (Eqs. (41)-(50)), with the source built directly from those two independent inputs. The flux formulas in Eq. (61) are imported from [46,105] and used in both this work and the comparison paper, so the agreement with [105] is a consistency check on the numerical implementation rather than a circular validation of the physics; whether the prefactor m_g*omega_g in Eq. (61) is physically correct is a correctness question, not a circularity. The MTF self-citations [116,117,122,123] frame the gravitational sector but are not used in the scalar calculation, so they are not load-bearing. No parameter is fit to the claimed sign reversal or dephasing; those are computed outputs. Consequently, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation introduces no fitted parameters; benchmark scales (μM, a, Mc, ϵ) are carried from prior work. The load-bearing inputs are the external quasi-bound state solution (Leaver) and the Lorenz-gauge reconstructed metric perturbation (Dolan et al.), which are assumed correct. The MTF is invoked for the gravitational-sector source decomposition but is not solved here. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)

Scalar field mass μM = 0.3
Chosen benchmark value, matching [105] to enable comparison; not fitted to any target output.
Kerr spin a = 0.88M
Chosen to match [105] and to keep the cloud in the superradiant regime.
Scalar cloud mass Mc = 10^-4 M
Chosen for the dephasing estimate in Fig. 12; the result scales with Mc/M.
Mass ratio ϵ = 10^-5
Representative LISA EMRI value; fluxes scale as ϵ^2.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption General relativity on a Kerr background with a minimally coupled massive complex scalar field.
Action in Eq. (1) and the background metric g(0,0) are assumed throughout.
domain assumption Small mass ratio ϵ = mp/M and small cloud amplitude ζ allow double perturbative expansion.
Expansion in Eq. (6) is the foundation of the calculation; violated for comparable masses or dense clouds.
standard math The scalar cloud is a quasi-bound state obtained via Leaver's method (Ref. [131]).
Background radial function 0RΦ and frequency ωc come from [131]; the paper does not re-derive them.
standard math The Lorenz-gauge metric reconstruction of [96,98,99] is valid and implemented for circular equatorial orbits.
h(0,1) from the supplied Mathematica notebooks is used as input to the source; the paper relies on the correctness of that external code.
standard math The Fourier series method of [141] for Γ^-β factors is accurate with pmax=12 and 64-digit precision.
Used to separate radial and angular parts; the paper quotes residual errors <10^-6 but does not prove convergence.
domain assumption Radiation reaction is treated adiabatically using fluxes; gravitational flux includes only the ℓg=mg=2 mode.
Used for the dephasing estimate in Fig. 12; full second-order self-force is not included.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extreme mass-ratio inspiral within an ultralight scalar cloud I. Scalar radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42K7ECMM

@misc{pith2026250702045,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extreme mass-ratio inspiral within an ultralight scalar cloud I. Scalar radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42K7ECMM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02045}
}

read the original abstract

In this work, we study the dynamics of an extreme mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) embedded within a scalar cloud populated around the massive black hole. This cloud may be generated through the black hole superradiant process if the wavelength of the scalar particle is comparable to the size of the massive black hole. The EMRI motion perturbs the cloud, producing scalar radiation towards infinity and into the black hole horizon. In addition, the backreaction of the scalar radiation onto the orbit modifies the motion of the EMRI and induces an observable gravitational-wave phase shift for a range of system parameters. We quantify the scalar flux and the induced phase shift, as one of the examples of exactly-solvable, environmental effects of EMRIs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02045 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The infinity and horizon energy fluxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The radial part [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. The radial source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The radial source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. The threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. The scalar radiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. The scalar radiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. The mode by mode infinity energy flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Leading mode-by-mode contributions to the infinity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. The ratio of the total energy flux due to scalar radia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13. The infinity and horizon energy fluxes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Schr\"odinger perturbation theory for black hole quasinormal modes
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

A bilinear-form framework computes black-hole quasinormal-mode frequency shifts to any order, but the mode-sum expansion of the first-order mode shift diverges and needs a continuum piece.
Extreme mass-ratio inspirals into Newtonian Proca stars
gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

For Newtonian Proca stars, a perturbing object on a circular orbit loses nearly the same energy in the vector ground state as in the scalar boson-star ground state (within ~20%), while the spherical excited Proca stat...
Relativistic Tidal Transitions of Saturated Kerr Boson Clouds
astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Relativistic Kerr wavefunctions change tidal transition matrix elements of saturated boson clouds by up to 21.7% relative to the hydrogenic approximation, with the radial profile responsible for ~80% of the change.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

146 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[105]

Dyson, T

C. Dyson, T. F. M. Spieksma, R. Brito, M. van de Meent, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 211403 (2025), arXiv:2501.09806 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025
[98]

S. R. Dolan, L. Durkan, C. Kavanagh, and B. Wardell, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 155011 (2024), arXiv:2306.16459 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2024
[1]

B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016
[2]

Abbott et al

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

arXiv 2023
[3]

Yunes, K

N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D94, 084002 (2016), arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016
[4]

B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016
[5]

R. Nair, S. Perkins, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev.Lett. 123,191101(2019),arXiv:1905.00870[gr-qc]

arXiv 2019
[6]

H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 181101 (2021), arXiv:2004.01253 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021

Show all 146 references

[7]

S. E. Perkins, R. Nair, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024060 (2021), arXiv:2104.11189 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[8]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3 (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[9]

Schumacher, S

K. Schumacher, S. E. Perkins, A. Shaw, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104053 (2023), arXiv:2304.06801 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[10]

Lagos, L

M. Lagos, L. Jenks, M. Isi, K. Hotokezaka, B. D. Met- zger, E. Burns, W. M. Farr, S. Perkins, K. W. K. Wong, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D109, 124003 (2024), arXiv:2402.05316 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[11]

Liu and N

H. Liu and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D111, 084049 (2025), arXiv:2407.08929 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[12]

Barausse, V

E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610,012044(2015),arXiv:1404.7140[astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[13]

Barausse, V

E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[14]

P. S. Cole, G. Bertone, A. Coogan, D. Gaggero, T. Karydas, B. J. Kavanagh, T. F. M. Spieksma, and G. M. Tomaselli, Nature Astron. 7, 943 (2023), arXiv:2211.01362 [gr-qc]

2023
[15]

Amaro-Seoane et al

P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[16]

Colpi et al

M. Colpi et al. (LISA), LISA Definition Study Report (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Hu and Y.-L

W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

2017
[18]

Ruan, Z.-K

W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[19]

Luoet al

J. Luoet al. (TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

2016 arXiv
[20]

Mei et al

J. Mei et al. (TianQin), PTEP 2021, 05A107 (2021), arXiv:2008.10332 [gr-qc]

2021
[21]

Baracket al., Class

L. Baracket al., Class. Quant. Grav.36, 143001 (2019), arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[22]

F. D. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D52, 5707 (1995)

1995
[23]

F. D. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D56, 1845 (1997)

1997
[24]

Barack and C

L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 75, 042003 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612029

2007 arXiv
[25]

Hinderer and E

T. Hinderer and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064028 (2008), arXiv:0805.3337 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[26]

S. J. Vigeland and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 024030 (2010), arXiv:0911.1756 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[27]

Vigeland, N

S. Vigeland, N. Yunes, and L. Stein, Phys. Rev. D83, 104027 (2011), arXiv:1102.3706 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[28]

Fransen and D

K. Fransen and D. R. Mayerson, Phys. Rev. D 106, 064035 (2022), arXiv:2201.03569 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[29]

C. F. Sopuerta and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D80, 064006 (2009), arXiv:0904.4501 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[30]

Yunes, P

N. Yunes, P. Pani, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D85, 102003 (2012), arXiv:1112.3351 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[31]

P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D83, 104048 (2011), arXiv:1104.1183 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[32]

Canizares, J

P. Canizares, J. R. Gair, and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044010 (2012), arXiv:1205.1253 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[33]

L.C.SteinandK.Yagi,Phys.Rev.D 89,044026(2014), arXiv:1310.6743 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[34]

Zimmerman, Phys

P. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064051 (2015), arXiv:1507.04076 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[35]

Cardoso, G

V. Cardoso, G. Castro, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251103 (2018), arXiv:1809.00673 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[36]

A. J. K. Chua, S. Hee, W. J. Handley, E. Higson, 19 C. J. Moore, J. R. Gair, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.478, 28 (2018), arXiv:1803.10210 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[37]

K. G. Arunet al. (LISA), Living Rev. Rel.25, 4 (2022), arXiv:2205.01597 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[38]

Tan, J.-d

J. Tan, J.-d. Zhang, H.-M. Fan, and J. Mei, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 824 (2024), arXiv:2402.05752 [gr-qc]

2024
[39]

Pan and H

Z. Pan and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D103, 103018 (2021), arXiv:2101.09146 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[40]

Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, 063007 (2021), arXiv:2104.01208 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[41]

Barausse and L

E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[42]

Yunes, B

N. Yunes, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 171103 (2011), arXiv:1103.4609 [astro- ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[43]

Kocsis, N

B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

2011 arXiv
[44]

A. M. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 2754 (2019), [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 489, 4860–4861 (2019)], arXiv:1810.03623 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[45]

L.Speri, A.Antonelli, L.Sberna, S.Babak, E.Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. X13, 021035 (2023), arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[46]

Brito and S

R. Brito and S. Shah, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084019 (2023), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 110, 109902 (2024)], arXiv:2307.16093 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[47]

March-Russell, Phys

A.Arvanitaki, S.Dimopoulos, S.Dubovsky, N.Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010), arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[48]

Arvanitaki and S

A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044026 (2011), arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]

2011 arXiv
[49]

Zhang and H

J. Zhang and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D99, 064018 (2019), arXiv:1808.02905 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[50]

Berti, R

E. Berti, R. Brito, C. F. B. Macedo, G. Raposo, and J. L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104039 (2019), arXiv:1904.03131 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[51]

J.ZhangandH.Yang,Phys.Rev.D 101,043020(2020), arXiv:1907.13582 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[52]

Maselli, N

A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 141101 (2020), arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[53]

Traykova, K

D. Traykova, K. Clough, T. Helfer, E. Berti, P. G. Fer- reira, and L. Hui, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103014 (2021), arXiv:2106.08280 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[54]

D.Baumann, G.Bertone, J.Stout,andG.M.Tomaselli, Phys. Rev. D105, 115036 (2022), arXiv:2112.14777 [gr- qc]

2022 arXiv
[55]

Vicente and V

R. Vicente and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D105, 083008 (2022), arXiv:2201.08854 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[56]

D.Baumann, G.Bertone, J.Stout,andG.M.Tomaselli, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 221102 (2022), arXiv:2206.01212 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[57]

Khalvati, A

H. Khalvati, A. Santini, F. Duque, L. Speri, J. Gair, H. Yang, and R. Brito, Phys. Rev. D 111, 082010 (2025), arXiv:2410.17310 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[58]

Hernquist, Astrophys

L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J.356, 359 (1990)

1990
[59]

83,1719(1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

P.GondoloandJ.Silk,Phys.Rev.Lett. 83,1719(1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9906391

1999 arXiv
[60]

Ullio, H

P. Ullio, H. Zhao, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 64, 043504 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0101481

2001 arXiv
[61]

Zhao and J

H.-S. Zhao and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 011301 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0501625

2005 arXiv
[62]

K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 221101 (2013), arXiv:1301.5971 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[63]

K. Eda, Y. Itoh, S. Kuroyanagi, and J. Silk, Phys. Rev. D 91, 044045 (2015), arXiv:1408.3534 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[64]

Yue and W.-B

X.-J. Yue and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064003 (2018), arXiv:1711.09706 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[65]

Yue, W.-B

X.-J. Yue, W.-B. Han, and X. Chen, Astrophys. J.874, 34 (2019), arXiv:1802.03739 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[66]

O. A. Hannuksela, K. C. Y. Ng, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103022 (2020), arXiv:1906.11845 [astro- ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[67]

B. J. Kavanagh, D. A. Nichols, G. Bertone, and D. Gaggero, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083006 (2020), arXiv:2002.12811 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[68]

Cardoso, K

V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. Panosso Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 241103 (2022), arXiv:2210.01133 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[69]

Destounis, A

K. Destounis, A. Kulathingal, K. D. Kokkotas, and G. O. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D107, 084027 (2023), arXiv:2210.09357 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[70]

Duque, C

F. Duque, C. F. B. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 121404 (2024), arXiv:2312.06767 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[71]

Gliorio, E

S. Gliorio, E. Berti, A. Maselli, and N. Speeney, Ex- treme mass ratio inspirals in dark matter halos: dy- namics and distinguishability of halo models (2025), arXiv:2503.16649 [gr-qc]

2025
[72]

Mitra, N

S. Mitra, N. Speeney, S. Chakraborty, and E. Berti, Ex- treme mass ratio inspirals in rotating dark matter spikes (2025), arXiv:2505.04697 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[73]

H.YangandM.Casals,Phys.Rev.D 96,083015(2017), arXiv:1704.02022 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[74]

Bonga, H

B. Bonga, H. Yang, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 101103 (2019), arXiv:1905.00030 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[75]

H. Yang, B. Bonga, Z. Peng, and G. Li, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124056 (2019), arXiv:1910.07337 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[76]

S. A. Hughes, in 14th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theories,Vol.2(2017)pp.1953–1959,arXiv:1601.02042 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[77]

(LISAConsortiumWaveformWorking Group), Waveform Modelling for the Laser Interferom- eter Space Antenna (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

N.Afshordi et al. (LISAConsortiumWaveformWorking Group), Waveform Modelling for the Laser Interferom- eter Space Antenna (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[78]

Y. Mino, M. Sasaki, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D55, 3457 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9606018

1997 arXiv
[79]

S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 61, 084004 (2000), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 63, 049902 (2001), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 65, 069902 (2002), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 67, 089901 (2003), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 109902 (2008), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 109904 (2014)], arXiv:gr-qc/9910091

2000 arXiv
[80]

C. O. Lousto and B. F. Whiting, Phys. Rev. D 66, 024026 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0203061

2002 arXiv
[81]

Barack and A

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

2019 arXiv
[82]

Pound and B

A. Pound and B. Wardell, Black hole perturbation the- oryandgravitationalself-force(2021),arXiv:2101.04592 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[83]

van de Meent, Phys

M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104033 (2018), arXiv:1711.09607 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[84]

S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton, G. Khanna, A. J. K. Chua, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104014 (2021), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 089901 (2023)], 20 arXiv:2102.02713 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[85]

Isoyama, R

S. Isoyama, R. Fujita, A. J. K. Chua, H. Nakano, A. Pound, and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 231101 (2022), arXiv:2111.05288 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[86]

A. J. K. Chua, C. J. Moore, and J. R. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044005 (2017), arXiv:1705.04259 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[87]

A. J. K. Chua, M. L. Katz, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 051102 (2021), arXiv:2008.06071 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[88]

Barack and C

L. Barack and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D72, 104026 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0510019

2005 arXiv
[89]

Barack and N

L. Barack and N. Sago, Phys. Rev. D75, 064021 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701069

2007 arXiv
[90]

Wardell, A

B. Wardell, A. Pound, N. Warburton, J. Miller, L.Durkan,andA.LeTiec,Phys.Rev.Lett. 130,241402 (2023), arXiv:2112.12265 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[91]

Bourg, B

P. Bourg, B. Leather, M. Casals, A. Pound, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044007 (2024), arXiv:2403.12634 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[92]

Panosso Macedo, P

R. Panosso Macedo, P. Bourg, A. Pound, and S. D. Up- ton, Phys. Rev. D110, 084008 (2024), arXiv:2404.10083 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[93]

Pound, B

A. Pound, B. Wardell, N. Warburton, and J. Miller, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 021101 (2020), arXiv:1908.07419 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[94]

Warburton, A

N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, J. Miller, and L. Durkan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151102 (2021), arXiv:2107.01298 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[95]

Mathews, A

J. Mathews, A. Pound, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084031 (2022), arXiv:2112.13069 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[96]

S. R. Dolan, C. Kavanagh, and B. Wardell, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 151101 (2022), arXiv:2108.06344 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[97]

Toomani, P

V. Toomani, P. Zimmerman, A. Spiers, S. Hollands, A. Pound, and S. R. Green, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 015019 (2022), arXiv:2108.04273 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[99]

Wardell, C

B. Wardell, C. Kavanagh, and S. R. Dolan, Sourced metric perturbations of Kerr spacetime in Lorenz gauge (2024), arXiv:2406.12510 [gr-qc]

2024
[100]

Mathews and A

J. Mathews and A. Pound, Post-adiabatic waveform- generation framework for asymmetric precessing bina- ries (2025), arXiv:2501.01413 [gr-qc]

2025
[101]

S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

1973
[102]

W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 649 (1973)

1973
[103]

S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

1974
[104]

Newman and R

E. Newman and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 3, 566 (1962)

1962
[106]

A. Z. Petrov, Gen. Rel. Grav.32, 1661 (2000)

2000
[107]

Yunes and F

N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D79, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0902.4669 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[108]

K. Yagi, N. Yunes, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044037 (2012), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 049902 (2014)], arXiv:1206.6130 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[109]

C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett.112, 221101 (2014), arXiv:1403.2757 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[110]

Kleihaus, J

B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, S. Mojica, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044047 (2016), arXiv:1511.05513 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[111]

Bamber, O

J. Bamber, O. J. Tattersall, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124013 (2021), arXiv:2103.00026 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[112]

De Luca and P

V. De Luca and P. Pani, JCAP 08, 032, arXiv:2106.14428 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[113]

C. B. Owen, N. Yunes, and H. Witek, Phys. Rev. D103, 124057 (2021), arXiv:2103.15891 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[114]

P. G. S. Fernandes and D. J. Mulryne, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 165001 (2023), arXiv:2212.07293 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[115]

K. Yagi, S. Lomuscio, T. Lowrey, and Z. Carson, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044017 (2024), arXiv:2311.08659 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[116]

D. Li, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021029 (2023), arXiv:2206.10652 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[117]

Hussain and A

A. Hussain and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104018 (2022), arXiv:2206.10653 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[118]

P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D108, 024040 (2023), arXiv:2304.02663 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[119]

P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D108, 124032 (2023), arXiv:2307.07431 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[120]

P. A. Cano, L. Capuano, N. Franchini, S. Maenaut, and S. H. Völkel, Higher-derivative corrections to the Kerr quasinormal mode spectrum (2024), arXiv:2409.04517 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[121]

Maenaut, G

S. Maenaut, G. Carullo, P. A. Cano, A. Liu, V. Car- doso, T. Hertog, and T. G. F. Li, Ringdown Analysis of Rotating Black Holes in Effective Field Theory Ex- tensions of General Relativity (2024), arXiv:2411.17893 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[122]

Wagle, D

P. Wagle, D. Li, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104029 (2024), arXiv:2311.07706 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[123]

D. Li, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Perturba- tionsofspinningblackholesindynamicalChern-Simons gravity: Slow rotation quasinormal modes (2025), arXiv:2503.15606 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[124]

Baumann, H

D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[125]

Dyson, J

C. Dyson, J. Redondo-Yuste, M. van de Meent, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104038 (2024), arXiv:2402.07981 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[126]

C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Grav- itation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

1973
[127]

Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes, The International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press, 1983)

S. Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes, The International series of monographs on physics (Clarendon Press, 1983)

1983
[128]

Wagle, N

P. Wagle, N. Yunes, and H. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. D105, 124003 (2022), arXiv:2103.09913 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[129]

Srivastava, Y

M. Srivastava, Y. Chen, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D104, 064034 (2021), arXiv:2106.06209 [gr- qc]

2021 arXiv
[130]

E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A402, 285 (1985)

1985
[131]

S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D 76, 084001 (2007), arXiv:0705.2880 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[132]

Ma and H

S. Ma and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D109, 104070 (2024), arXiv:2401.15516 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[133]

Arvanitaki, M

A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084011 (2015), arXiv:1411.2263 [hep-ph]

2015 arXiv
[134]

Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit, (bhptoolkit.org)
[135]

Wardell, N

B. Wardell, N. Warburton, K. Fransen, S. D. Upton, K. Cunningham, A. Ottewill, and M. Casals, Spin- weightedspheroidalharmonics (2024)

2024
[136]

J. M. Cohen and L. S. Kegeles, Physics Letters A54, 5 (1975). 21

1975
[137]

P. L. Chrzanowski, Phys. Rev. D11, 2042 (1975)

1975
[138]

L. S. Kegeles and J. M. Cohen, Phys. Rev. D19, 1641 (1979)

1979
[139]

Ori, Phys

A. Ori, Phys. Rev. D 67, 124010 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0207045

2003
[140]

S. R. Green, S. Hollands, and P. Zimmerman, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 075001 (2020), arXiv:1908.09095 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[141]

Spiers, Phys

A. Spiers, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104059 (2024), arXiv:2402.00604 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[142]

Li, https://github.com/dongjun826/EMRI-in- scalar-clouds.git

D. Li, https://github.com/dongjun826/EMRI-in- scalar-clouds.git
[143]

Annulli, V

L. Annulli, V. Cardoso, and R. Vicente, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063022 (2020), arXiv:2009.00012 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[144]

Yunes, A

N. Yunes, A. Buonanno, S. A. Hughes, M. Cole- man Miller, and Y. Pan, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 091102 (2010), arXiv:0909.4263 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[145]

D. Li, A. Hussain, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, N. Yunes, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104026 (2024), arXiv:2310.06033 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[146]

R. P. Geroch, A. Held, and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 14, 874 (1973)

1973

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [105]

Dyson, T

C. Dyson, T. F. M. Spieksma, R. Brito, M. van de Meent, and S. Dolan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 211403 (2025), arXiv:2501.09806 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2025

[2] [98]

S. R. Dolan, L. Durkan, C. Kavanagh, and B. Wardell, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 155011 (2024), arXiv:2306.16459 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2024

[3] [1]

B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

[4] [2]

Abbott et al

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

arXiv 2023

[5] [3]

Yunes, K

N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D94, 084002 (2016), arXiv:1603.08955 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

[6] [4]

B. P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

[7] [5]

R. Nair, S. Perkins, H. O. Silva, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev.Lett. 123,191101(2019),arXiv:1905.00870[gr-qc]

arXiv 2019

[8] [6]

H. O. Silva, A. M. Holgado, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 181101 (2021), arXiv:2004.01253 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2021