Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 75 references

Conformal compactification and affine-null metric formulation of the Einstein equations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read For spherically symmetric massless-scalar collapse, the conformal Einstein equations in affine-null coordinates form a regular hierarchy identical to the compactified physical-space system, yielding the Bondi mass-loss law directly at…

desk verdict Solid, narrow advance: the conformal/physical affine-null equivalence is real, and the news extraction is useful, but the boundary smoothness assumption and deferred algebra keep me from calling it fully resolved. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18973 v2 pith:D2UVP265 submitted 2025-04-26 gr-qc

Thomas Mädler , Emanuel Gallo This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords conformalcompactificationaffine-nullcoordinatesEinstein-scalarfieldequationsnullinfinityBondimasslossnewsfunctioncoordinatesphericalsymmetry
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

The paper establishes that, in spherical symmetry with a massless scalar field, the conformal Einstein equations written in affine-null coordinates can be rearranged into a regular hierarchy of hypersurface-evolution equations, and that this hierarchy is identical to the system obtained by compactifying the physical radial coordinate and renormalizing the fields. The identification works through $R=(1-x)r$, $\mathcal{W}=(1-x)V$, and $\Phi=\tilde{\Phi}/(1-x)$, where $x=1$ is null infinity and $1-x$ is the conformal factor; the same equivalence holds in Bondi–Sachs coordinates as well. Near the conformal boundary the paper derives the Bondi mass $m_B$ and the mass-loss balance $dm_B/du_b=-\kappa N^2/2$, with the news function $N$ defined purely from boundary data. A modified numerical code for supercritical collapse shows third-order convergence and verifies the balance law to about $10^{-7}$ for most of the evolution. If the claim is right, characteristic codes in compactified physical coordinates are already solving the conformal equations, so boundary quantities can be extracted from regular interior fields instead of by estimating limits at infinity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the affine-null coordinate chart with conformal factor $\Omega=1-x$, so that $x=1$ is future null infinity and the unphysical metric degenerates to a null hypersurface there. To restore a hierarchy the paper introduces auxiliary fields $Y$ and $L$, with the first integral $Z_0(u)$ arising from $Y$; these turn the hypersurface equations into a sequential system in $x$. The physical-space counterpart is obtained by the coordinate compactification $\tilde{\lambda}=x/(1-x)$ and the regularized fields $R=(1-x)r$, $\mathcal{W}=(1-x)V$, $\Phi=\tilde{\Phi}/(1-x)$, which absorb the coordinate singularities at $x=1$ and produce exactly the conformal hierarchy. The boundary expansion $\Phi(u,x)=\Phi_{[0]}(u)+\Phi_{[1]}(u)(1-x)+O((1-x)^2)$ then yields the Bondi mass, the redshift factor $H$, the scalar monopole $C$, and the news $N$, all expressed through boundary data.

What would settle it

Evolve supercritical scalar-collapse data with an initial tail designed to produce a logarithmic contribution $\ln(1-x)\,(1-x)^p$ in $\Phi$ near $x=1$, and test whether the news read from the right-hand side of (3.13d) plus the Bondi mass (2.45) still satisfy the balance (2.51); any violation, or any need to add logarithmic terms to (2.36), would show the smooth-extension assumption is load-bearing rather than a gauge artefact.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the conformal field equations for a spherically symmetric Einstein-massless-scalar system in affine-null coordinates can be cast, after introduction of auxiliary fields, as a four-equation hierarchy that is regular all the way to the conformal boundary at $x=1$, and that this hierarchy is exactly the same system as the compactified physical-space equations with regularized fields $R=(1-x)r$, $\mathcal{W}=(1-x)V$, and $\Phi=\tilde{\Phi}/(1-x)$. The near-boundary solution of this hierarchy gives $m_B=\frac{1}{2}[H(1-Z_0)+R_{[1]}]$ and, in a Bondi frame where $du_b=du/H$, the balance $dm_B/du_b=-\frac{\kappa}{2}N^2$, with $N=dC/du_b$ and $C=\lim_{x\to 1}R\Phi=H\Phi_{[0]}$. This is the conformal-space analogue of the Bondi mass-loss formula for a massless scalar field. The numerical section implements the regularized scalar field $\Phi=(1-x)\tilde{\Phi}$ in an existing compactified affine-null code, reads the news from the right-hand side of the evolution equation at the outer boundary, and verifies the balance law to numerical precision until nearly black-hole formation.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the conformal scalar field and metric are smooth at null infinity as expressed by the expansion $\Phi(u,x)=\Phi_{[0]}(u)+\Phi_{[1]}(u)(1-x)+O((1-x)^2)$, a condition the field equations do not prove and that the supercritical numerical data simply assume.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any code that evolves the compactified physical system with $R$, $\mathcal{W}$, and $\Phi$ is, by the proved equivalence, solving the conformal field equations on the closed domain including null infinity, so no separate conformal solver is required for boundary diagnostics.
  • The Bondi mass-loss balance $dm_B/du_b=-\kappa N^2/2$ is derived from the near-boundary solution alone and confirmed numerically, giving a closed consistency check for characteristic codes in spherical symmetry.
  • The news function can be read from the right-hand side of the evolution equation (3.13d) at $x=1$, avoiding the second mixed $u$-$x$ derivative whose numerical evaluation was noisy; this is demonstrated on supercritical data.
  • The conformal/compactified equivalence also holds in Bondi–Sachs coordinates, as shown in Appendix A, so the result is not tied to the affine-null parametrization and covers the standard characteristic formulation.
  • The auxiliary-field construction provides a systematic route to build regularized fields at null infinity for less symmetric spacetimes or other matter couplings, which the paper suggests as a next step.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the authors do not pursue is to add a self-interaction such as $\tilde{\Phi}^4$ or a charged scalar: if the conformal and compactified hierarchies still coincide after the same renormalization, the equivalence is driven by the conformal structure of the massless scalar, whereas a mismatch would locate the property in the specific field equations.
  • The smooth-expansion assumption (2.36) is the point most likely to fail in realistic data, since massless-field tails often contain logarithms; such terms would change the news and Bondi-mass extraction formulas even though the interior hierarchy (2.28) could remain valid.
  • The paper's identification of $H$ as a redshift factor suggests a practical numerical test: monitor how fast the balance-law error grows as $H\to 0$ in subcritical versus supercritical runs, which would calibrate the onset of horizon formation purely from boundary data.
  • One could seed initial data with a controlled non-integer-power tail at $x=1$ and compare the extracted news with a high-resolution Bondi–Sachs reference; a divergence would quantify the breakdown of the smooth-extension expansion (2.36).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the spherically symmetric Einstein-massless-scalar system in outgoing affine-null coordinates. It derives a hierarchical set of conformal field equations after introducing auxiliary fields, claims that the same hierarchy is obtained in physical spacetime with a compactified radial coordinate and suitably regularized fields, derives a near-null-infinity expansion that yields the Bondi mass-loss balance law for the massless scalar field, and tests the balance law numerically for supercritical scalar collapse. The central conceptual claim is that conformal compactification and physical-space coordinate compactification with renormalized fields produce identical field equations in this setting.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper gives a useful bridge between conformal methods and practical compactified characteristic codes: it identifies the regularized fields used in earlier numerical work with conformal fields, provides a new hierarchical form of the affine-null conformal equations, and derives an analytic near-boundary expansion recovering the Bondi mass-loss law. The algebraic comparison is transparent, and the numerical balance-law check with convergence is a genuine consistency test rather than a fitted prediction. The main open point is the smoothness assumption underlying the boundary expansion, which is stated but not justified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (2.36)] The derivation of the near-boundary solution (2.40) and of the Bondi mass-loss law (2.45)-(2.51) rests on the assumed expansion Phi(u,x)=Phi[0](u)+Phi[1](u)(1-x)+O((1-x)^2) and analogous smooth expansions for R, W, and L. This is an assumption about the smooth conformal extension of the fields at I, not a consequence established from the hierarchy (2.28). The issue is directly relevant to the supercritical data of Sec. IV: near the Choptuik critical solution the scalar field exhibits echoing and log-periodic behavior, and no argument is given that this is compatible with integer-power, logarithmic-free expansions in Omega=1-x on the approach to I. If subleading terms contain (1-x)^p with non-integer p or (1-x)^p log(1-x), then the identification mB=1/2[H(1-Z0)+R[1]] and the news-extraction formulas in Sec. IV would require modification. I request that the authors either justify, by theorem or by a quantitative numerical check on the data used, that the chosen data have a smooth conformal extension, or explicitly state the smoothness condition as a limitation of the extraction formulas. A concrete check would be to fit Phi(u,x) at fixed late u to a(1-x)^p and test whether the best-fit p is consistent with 0, 1, 2, ... and whether adding a log term changes the extracted mB and N.
  2. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (2.27)] The key hypersurface equation W,xx (2.27) is introduced with the phrase "After a lengthy and tedious calculation using (2.20b)" and no derivation or appendix is provided. Since this equation is the essential step that restores the hierarchy in the conformal setting, the central claim of the paper cannot be fully verified from the manuscript as it stands. The authors should include the derivation in an appendix or provide a clear reference where the equivalent calculation is carried out.
  3. [Sec. III, Eqs. (3.13) and (2.35)] The statement that (3.13) is equivalent to (2.35) is not literally correct for general Z0: (3.13b) and (3.13c) contain the integration function Z0(u), while (2.35) is the Z0=0 specialization obtained in Sec. II.B under vertex regularity conditions. The matching system is (2.28), not (2.35). If Z0 is intended to vanish for the class of coordinate systems considered, this should be stated before the equivalence claim; otherwise the comparison should be made with (2.28). This is a small but load-bearing precision issue in the statement of the paper's main result.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV, near Fig. 2] The extraction formulas contain apparent typos: "H(u) = R(u,-1)/4" should presumably read R(u,1)/4 (the outer boundary), and "mB(u) = H(u)-R,x(u,1)/2" appears to be missing parentheses and should likely be (H(u)-R,x(u,1))/2 to agree with (2.45). Please correct and clarify the exact definitions used for the numerical quantities.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. I] There are small language issues: "solution of Einstein equations" should be "solutions of the Einstein equations," and "vaccum" should be "vacuum."
  3. [Eq. (2.20a)] The term displaying a subscript y in the second line of (2.20a) appears to be a typo for u; please check the index.
  4. [Sec. II.C and App. A] Notation for the integration functions is inconsistent: Z0, L[0]/L0, and W[0]/W0 are used interchangeably; it would help to define each symbol once and use it consistently.
  5. [Sec. V] There are several typographical errors, such as "compatified" and "completness" in the appendices; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conformal/physical-system identity is a direct coordinate substitution and the Bondi mass-loss balance law is derived from the field equations, not fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations do not reduce to their inputs. The identity between the conformal hierarchy (2.35) and the compactified physical-space hierarchy (3.13) is obtained through the explicit regularized-field substitutions R=(1-x)r, W=(1-x)V, and Phi=Phi_tilde/(1-x); both systems are separately derived from the Einstein-massless-scalar field equations, so the equivalence is a direct variable transformation rather than a fitted or assumed prediction. The near-boundary solution and Bondi mass-loss balance law are likewise derived rather than assumed: the paper states the smooth conformal-boundary expansion (2.36) as an explicit hypothesis, integrates the hypersurface equations to obtain (2.40), and then substitutes into the supplementary equation (2.20a) to obtain the balance law (2.46), which becomes (2.51) in an inertial Bondi frame. The smoothness of the conformal fields at null infinity is an assumption and a possible validity caveat for the extraction formulas, but it is not the same as the claimed conclusion, so this does not constitute circularity. The numerical section is a consistency check: mB, C, and N are extracted from independent hypersurface data and compared through (2.51), with no parameter fitted to enforce the balance law. Reliance on the authors' earlier physical-space hierarchy and numerical code [58,59,60] is supporting tooling; the present paper rederives the conformal hierarchy and the balance law from the field equations, so those self-citations are not load-bearing substitutes for the claimed results.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on standard structural assumptions of the conformal approach: a smooth conformal boundary, a regular central vertex, and Sommerfeld decay of the scalar field. No free parameters are fitted to data; the integration functions H, R[1] and Phi[0] at the boundary are arbitrary data of the problem, not fitted constants. No new physical entities are introduced; all auxiliary fields Y, Z0, L, R, W and Phi are mathematical redefinitions.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The physical spacetime is four-dimensional, spherically symmetric, and satisfies the Einstein-massless-scalar field equations R_tilde_ab = kappa grad_tilde_a Phi_tilde grad_tilde_b Phi_tilde and grad_tilde^a grad_tilde_a Phi_tilde = 0 (Eq. 2.1).
    Defines the physical system under study; all subsequent equations are restricted to this matter model and symmetry.
  • domain assumption A smooth conformal compactification exists, with Omega positive in the physical manifold, Omega=0 on I, grad Omega nonzero on I, and a smooth extension of Phi=Phi_tilde/Omega to the boundary (Sec. II, Eqs. 2.3 and 2.4).
    Needed to give meaning to null infinity and to justify the Taylor expansion (2.36); this is not derived from the field equations.
  • domain assumption The null-cone vertex on the central worldline is regular, with R(u,0)=0, R,x(u,0)=1, W(u,0)=1 and W,x(u,0)=-1 (Eq. 2.29).
    Used to impose Z0=0 and to reduce the conformal hierarchy to the simplified system (2.35). Regularity of the central geodesic is assumed, not proven.
  • domain assumption The scalar field obeys the Sommerfeld radiation condition lim_{lambda->infinity} lambda Phi_tilde < infinity (Eq. 2.11).
    Equivalent, for Omega=1/(1+lambda), to finiteness of the conformal scalar at I; it selects the allowed class of initial data.
  • standard math The twice-contracted Bianchi identities imply that the supplementary equation (2.20a) is automatically satisfied when the hierarchical equations and the vertex regularity conditions hold, so it may be used only to fix boundary data.
    This is a standard structural property of characteristic formulations, but the paper does not show the explicit verification for this particular system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Conformal compactification and affine-null metric formulation of the Einstein equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D2UVP265

@misc{pith2026250418973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Conformal compactification and affine-null metric formulation of the Einstein equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D2UVP265}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18973}
}
read the original abstract

In principle, global properties of solution of Einstein equations need to be addressed using the conformal Einstein equations, because this conformal compactification allows a clean definition of the `infinities' (spacelike, timelike and null infinity) of General Relativity. However, in numerical calculations often compactified coordinates in the physical space are used to reach these infinities. In this note, we discuss the conformal Einstein equations in spherical symmetry coupled to a massless scalar field and compare them with corresponding equations using a compactified coordinate in physical spacetime. The derivation of the field equations is based on metrics, in which the radial coordinate is an affine parameter along outgoing null rays. We show that the conformal equations within an affine-null metric formulation can be cast in a natural hierarchical form after the introduction of suitable auxiliary fields. The system of partial differential equations associated with the resulting (unphysical) conformal field equations proves to be identical to a system that employs a compactified coordinate in physical space along with well-constructed regularized fields. The reason for this equivalence is the introduction of new regularized fields in the physical spacetime after coordinate compactification to obtain a regular system of equations on the complete domain of the compactified coordinate. As part of this work, we also present the solution of the conformal field equations in affine-null coordinates near the conformal boundary, where the Bondi mass loss formula for a massless scalar field is recovered. The validity of the balance law of the mass loss at null infinity is demonstrated numerically.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Absolute error of the scalar field Φ as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. In all three panels, quantities are evaluated at null [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Evolution of the scalar field and its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The transition from the physical spacetime to the con- formally unphysical spacetime is given by gab(yc) = Ω2(yc)˜gab(yc) , Φ(yc) = ˜Φ(yc) Ω(yc)

    Conformal field equations in unphysical spacetime In this section, we consider the field equations (2.6) for the metric (A1). The transition from the physical spacetime to the con- formally unphysical spacetime is given by gab(yc) = Ω2(yc)˜gab(yc) , Φ(yc) = ˜Φ(yc) Ω(yc) . (A2) By restriction of the coordinate chart ya to ˜ya, we may equally consider the f...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (A21) 14 The Misner-Sharp mass is given by (see eq

    Regularized field equations in physical spacetime with coordinate compactification In physical spacetime the relevant components of the field equations for (A1) are 0 =− 2V ˜r2 (˜rβ,˜u),˜r + V 2˜r3 e−2β(˜rVe 2β),˜r ,˜r + V,˜u ˜r2 − VV,˜r ˜r3 −κ ˜Φ,˜u 2 , (A18) β,˜r =κ˜r 4 ˜Φ,˜r 2 , (A19) V,˜r =e2β, (A20) 2˜r(˜r ˜Φ),˜u˜r =(˜rV ˜Φ,˜r),˜r. (A21) 14 The Misne...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 66 (1963)

    work page 1963

  4. [4]

    Penrose, Conformal treatment of infinity, edited by C

    R. Penrose, Conformal treatment of infinity, edited by C. DeWitt and B. DeWitt (1964) pp. 565–586

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Geroch, Asymptotic Structure of Space-Time (1977)

    R. Geroch, Asymptotic Structure of Space-Time (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Dealing with delicate issues in waveforms calculations

    L. Lehner and O. M. Moreschi, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124040 (2007), arXiv:0706.1319 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Estimating total momentum at finite distances

    E. Gallo, L. Lehner, and O. Moreschi, Phys. Rev. D 78, 084027 (2008), arXiv:0806.4340 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Zenginoglu, Class

    A. Zenginoglu, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 045015 (2010), arXiv:0911.2450 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    A. D. Helfer, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084001 (2010), arXiv:0907.3461 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Penrose, Proc

    R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 284, 159 (1965)

    1965

  3. [11]

    L. A. Tamburino and J. H. Winicour, Phys. Rev. 150, 1039 (1966)

    1966

  4. [12]

    Hawking, J

    S. Hawking, J. Math. Phys. 9, 598 (1968)

    1968

  5. [13]

    V. P. Frolov, Fortsch. Phys. 26, 455 (1978)

    1978

  6. [14]

    Ashtekar, Phys

    A. Ashtekar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 573 (1981)

    1981

  7. [15]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Streubel, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 376, 585 (1981)

    1981

  8. [16]

    Penrose, J

    R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys. 8, 345 (1967)

    1967

  9. [17]

    Penrose, Int

    R. Penrose, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 1, 61 (1968)

    1968

  10. [18]

    Penrose and M

    R. Penrose and M. A. H. MacCallum, Phys. Rept. 6, 241 (1972)

    1972

  11. [19]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    1998 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/9905111

    2000

  13. [21]

    R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys. 9, 450 (1968)

    1968

  14. [22]

    R. P. Geroch, E. H. Kronheimer, and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 327, 545 (1972)

    1972

  15. [23]

    Friedrich, Proc

    H. Friedrich, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 375, 169 (1981)

    1981

  16. [24]

    Friedrich, Proc

    H. Friedrich, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 378, 401 (1981)

    1981

  17. [25]

    Friedrich, Commun

    H. Friedrich, Commun. Math. Phys. 107, 587 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    Friedrich, J

    H. Friedrich, J. Diff. Geom. 34, 275 (1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    Friedrich, J

    H. Friedrich, J. Geom. Phys. 17, 125 (1995)

    1995

  20. [28]

    Frauendiener, Phys

    J. Frauendiener, Phys. Rev. D 58, 064002 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9712050

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Frauendiener, Phys

    J. Frauendiener, Phys. Rev. D 58, 064003 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9712052

    1998 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Frauendiener, Class

    J. Frauendiener, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 373 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9808072

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Hubner, Class

    P. Hubner, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, 2823 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9903088

    1999 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Frauendiener and H

    J. Frauendiener and H. Friedrich, eds., Lecture notes in physics, Vol. 604 (2002) The conformal structure of space-time: Geometry, analysis, numerics

    2002

  25. [33]

    Frauendiener, Living Rev

    J. Frauendiener, Living Rev. Rel. 3, 4 (2000)

    2000

  26. [34]

    Zenginoglu, Ph.D

    A. Zenginoglu, Ph.D. thesis, Potsdam U., Inst. of Math. (2007), A conformal approach to numerical calculations of asymptotically flat spacetimes , arXiv:0711.0873 [gr- qc]

    2007 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hubner, Class

    P. Hubner, Class. Quant. Grav. 18, 1421 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0010052

    2001 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Zenginoglu, Class

    A. Zenginoglu, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 195025 (2008), arXiv:0808.0810 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Rinne, Class

    O. Rinne, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 035014 (2010), arXiv:0910.0139 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Beyer, J

    F. Beyer, J. Frauendiener, C. Stevens, and B. Whale, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084020 (2017), arXiv:1706.01416 [gr- qc]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Doulis, J

    G. Doulis, J. Frauendiener, C. Stevens, and B. Whale, SoftwareX 10, 100283 (2019), arXiv:1903.12482 [cs.MS]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Frauendiener, C

    J. Frauendiener, C. Stevens, and S. Thwala, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 161401 (2025), arXiv:2504.02188 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Newman and R

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

    1962

  34. [42]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 269, 21 (1962)

    1962

  35. [43]

    R. K. Sachs, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 270, 103 (1962)

    1962

  36. [44]

    C. J. Handmer, B. Szil´ agyi, and J. Winicour, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 235018 (2015), arXiv:1502.06987 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  37. [45]

    R. A. Isaacson, J. S. Welling, and J. Winicour, J. Math. Phys. 24, 1824 (1983)

    1983

  38. [46]

    N. T. Bishop, R. Gomez, L. Lehner, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6153 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9705033

    1996 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G´ omez, L

    R. G´ omez, L. Lehner, R. L. Marsa, J. Winicour, A. M. Abrahams, A. Anderson, P. Anninos, T. W. Baumgarte, N. T. Bishop, S. R. Brandt, J. C. Browne, K. Camarda, M. W. Choptuik, G. B. Cook, R. Correll, C. R. Evans, 16 L. S. Finn, G. C. Fox, T. Haupt, M. F. Huq, L. E. Kid- der, ...

    1998 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Linke, J

    F. Linke, J. A. Font, H.-T. Janka, E. Muller, and P. Papadopoulos, Astron. Astrophys. 376, 568 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0103144

    2001 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Siebel, J

    F. Siebel, J. A. Font, E. Muller, and P. Papadopoulos, Phys. Rev. D 65, 064038 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0111093

    2002 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 9 (1993)

    1993

  43. [51]

    Gundlach and J

    C. Gundlach and J. M. Martin-Garcia, Living Rev. Rel. 10, 5 (2007), arXiv:0711.4620 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Gundlach, T

    C. Gundlach, T. W. Baumgarte, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024019 (2024), arXiv:2404.15839 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Purrer, S

    M. Purrer, S. Husa, and P. C. Aichelburg, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104005 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0411078

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ma et al., Phys

    S. Ma et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 124027 (2024), arXiv:2308.10361 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Winicour, Living Rev

    J. Winicour, Living Rev. Rel. 15, 2 (2012)

    2012

  48. [56]

    M¨ adler and J

    T. M¨ adler and J. Winicour, Scholarpedia 11, 33528 (2016), arXiv:1609.01731 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Winicour, Phys

    J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 87, 124027 (2013), arXiv:1303.6969 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    S. Husa, Y. Zlochower, R. Gomez, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084034 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0108075

    2002 arXiv

  51. [59]

    M¨ adler, Phys

    T. M¨ adler, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104048 (2019), arXiv:1810.04743 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    J. A. Crespo, H. P. de Oliveira, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104017 (2019), arXiv:1910.03439 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M¨ adler, R

    T. M¨ adler, R. Gannouji, and E. Gallo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124015 (2025), arXiv:2503.24162 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    M¨ adler, O

    T. M¨ adler, O. Baake, H. Hosseini, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044061 (2024), arXiv:2405.19122 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571 (1964)

    1964

  56. [64]

    J. B. Griffiths and J. Podolsky, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009) Exact Space-Times in Einstein’s Gen- eral Relativity

    2009

  57. [65]

    F. K. Manasse and C. W. Misner, J. Math. Phys. 4, 735 (1963)

    1963

  58. [66]

    Poisson, (Cambridge University Press, 2009) A Rela- tivist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechan- ics

    E. Poisson, (Cambridge University Press, 2009) A Rela- tivist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechan- ics

    2009

  59. [67]

    Madler and E

    T. Madler and E. Muller, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 055019 (2013), arXiv:1211.4980 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M¨ adler and E

    T. M¨ adler and E. Gallo, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104010 (2023), arXiv:2301.05092 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Poisson, A

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, Living Rev. Rel. 14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Gomez and J

    R. Gomez and J. Winicour, J. Math. Phys. 33, 1445 (1992)

    1992

  63. [71]

    Shu and S

    C.-W. Shu and S. Osher, Journal of Computational Physics 77, 439 (1988)

    1988

  64. [72]

    Barreto, Phys

    W. Barreto, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084071 (2014), arXiv:1404.4016 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Barreto, H

    W. Barreto, H. P. de Oliveira, and B. Rodriguez- Mueller, Gen. Rel. Grav. 49, 107 (2017), arXiv:1707.04938 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Israel, Phys

    W. Israel, Phys. Rev. 143, 1016 (1966)

    1966

  67. [75]

    Gallo, C

    E. Gallo, C. Kozameh, T. M¨ adler, O. M. Moreschi, and A. P´ erez, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084048 (2021), arXiv:2107.10120 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.