Horizon flux-balance laws in the multiscale perturbation

Ali Seraj

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Horizon flux-balance laws in the multiscale perturbation

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Horizon evolution in a two-timescale expansion about Kerr makes the event horizon adiabatically rigid: leading-order averaged shear vanishes and slow corrections to angular velocity and inaffinity are uniform on each cut.

desk verdict Serious, genuinely new framework paper with an internally consistent central derivation; the headline rigidity claim is conditional on a gauge condition whose required operator inverse is asserted rather than proved. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.10093 v1 pith:LU4XRIRK submitted 2026-08-10 gr-qc hep-th

Ali Seraj This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783C2583C3583C40

keywords blackholehorizonstwo-timescaleperturbationtheoryextrememass-ratioinspiralsadiabaticrigidityingoingNewman–Untigaugehorizonflux-balancelawsabsorptionKerrholes

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 studies the evolution equations for an event horizon in a two-timescale perturbative expansion about Kerr and argues that the horizon behaves, on average, like a rigidly rotating membrane. At leading order the coarse-grained linear shear vanishes, and the first slow corrections to the horizon's angular velocity and its inaffinity—a temperature-related parameter—are uniform on each two-dimensional cut, depending only on the slow time. The paper also constructs a gauge pipeline that converts a generic bulk perturbation, such as one in Lorenz gauge, into a horizon-adapted ingoing Newman–Unti gauge from which the perturbed horizon geometry can be read off directly, and it derives covariant-phase-space conservation laws for energy, dynamical entropy, and angular momentum, with charges to second order and fluxes to third order in the mass ratio. This matters because it supplies the horizon side of the flux-balance accounting needed for absorption and backreaction in extreme-mass-ratio inspirals.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the two-timescale horizon evolution system: the Raychaudhuri equation, the Damour–Navier–Stokes equation, and the linearized shear equation, with fields split into coarse-grained and oscillatory parts by averaging along the background horizon generator. The load-bearing step is the positivity chain that contracts the averaged Damour equation with the incompressible velocity correction and integrates by parts, leaving $\int \sqrt{q}\,\langle \sigma^{(1)}_{AB}\rangle \langle \sigma^{AB}_1\rangle = 0$, which forces the averaged shear to vanish and reduces the velocity correction to a Killing vector of the background horizon metric. A second load-bearing element is the gauge pipeline: bulk INU conditions, horizon-locking and adiabatic gauge conditions for velocity and inaffinity, and the finite INU-to-Carter map that exhibits the order-mixing ambiguity. A third is the covariant-phase-space charge formula $Q_\xi = \frac{1}{2}\int \sqrt{q}\,[f(\kappa-\theta)+\partial_v f + Y^A\omega_A]$ together with the flux formula $F_\xi = \frac{1}{4}\int \sqrt{q}\,(\sigma_{AB}-\frac{1}{2}\theta q_{AB})\,\delta_\xi q^{AB}$, from which the dynamical-entropy, angular-momentum, and energy balance laws follow.

What would settle it

Take an explicit Lorenz-gauge, two-timescale metric perturbation for a circular equatorial inspiral into a non-extremal Kerr black hole away from corotation, transform it to the ingoing Newman–Unti gauge using equations (4.6)–(4.8), and compute $\langle \sigma^{(1)}_{AB}\rangle$, $\kappa_1$, and $V^A_1$ on coarse-grained horizon cuts. The central claim fails if the averaged shear is nonzero, if $\kappa_1$ depends on angles, or if $V^A_1$ is not proportional to $\phi^A$ with a slow-only coefficient; equivalently, the positivity identity (3.37) should hold for the numerically averaged data.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a two-timescale analysis of the Raychaudhuri, Damour–Navier–Stokes, and shear evolution equations forces an adiabatic rigidity on the perturbed Kerr horizon: $\langle \sigma^{(1)}_{AB}\rangle = 0$, while $V^A_1 = \Omega_1(\tilde v)\phi^A$ and $\kappa_1 = \kappa_1(\tilde v)$. The expansion starts only at second order, $\theta = \epsilon^2 \theta_2$, the coarse-grained ingoing Weyl component satisfies $\langle \Psi^{(1)}_{AB}\rangle = 0$, and the slow evolution of the primary is thereby encoded in the monopole $\kappa_1(\tilde v)$ and the rigid rotation $\Omega_1(\tilde v)$. The paper further claims that a bulk perturbation in a user gauge can be brought to the ingoing Newman–Unti gauge by an explicit sequence of bulk and boundary conditions, and that the Carter-frame global charges—dynamical entropy, axial angular momentum, and the energy defined through the Kerr equation of state—are invariant under the order-mixing ambiguity of the finite INU-to-Carter transformation, so a second-order bulk perturbation determines them unambiguously.

Load-bearing premise

The leading-order rigidity rests on three coarse-graining assumptions: that fast oscillatory dependence in the horizon's inaffinity and velocity can be removed by residual horizon gauge freedom, that the horizon settles to a stationary state in the future so the advanced boundary condition applies, and that the companion never corotates exactly with the horizon; if any one fails, the averaged shear need not vanish.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral into a non-extremal Kerr primary, horizon absorption enters only at second order in the mass ratio: the averaged shear vanishes at leading order, and secular changes are driven by the averaged square $\langle \sigma^2_1\rangle$.
The slow horizon sector reduces to two functions of slow time, $\Omega_1(\tilde v)$ and $\kappa_1(\tilde v)$, so a flux-balance model of the primary's evolution does not need angle-resolved horizon data at leading order.
The explicit INU gauge transformation turns any second-order bulk perturbation in a user gauge into horizon data, so existing metric-perturbation solutions can be used to compute horizon charges without a separate horizon-adapted calculation.
Dynamical entropy, axial angular momentum, and horizon energy are protected against the order-mixing ambiguity; only angle-dependent supertranslation-type charges are affected at second order.
The entropy-production law $dS_{\rm dyn}/d\hat v = \frac{\epsilon^2}{4\kappa}\int \sqrt{\bar q}\,\sigma^{(1)}_{AB}\sigma^{AB}_1 + O(\epsilon^3)$ is manifestly non-negative, connecting the averaged shear to dissipation into the black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

If the rigidity theorem survives explicit numerical checks, it suggests that the horizon degrees of freedom entering EMRI flux-balance models can be compressed to two slow scalars, which would simplify the horizon-absorption subroutine in waveform codes.
The same averaging argument should extend to other axisymmetric non-extremal backgrounds whose horizon metric admits only the axial Killing vector; for a Schwarzschild background the paper itself notes that the first-order velocity becomes a slowly rotating vector about an arbitrary axis, so precessing and non-precessing orbits may select different axes through the bulk matching data.
Because the advanced boundary condition is essential to the argument, an attempt to replace the event horizon by a local apparent horizon would need a separate prescription to reproduce these averaged constraints; the teleological input may be the price of having a rigidity theorem.
The order-mixing invariance of the three global charges suggests they are robust observables of the slow inspiral, whereas angle-dependent horizon hair charges would require knowledge of the third-order completion before they can be assigned definite second-order values.

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

Worth a serious referee. This is not a repackaging: the two-timescale flow-averaged reduction of the horizon evolution equations, the adiabatic rigidity constraints (3.38)-(3.42), the user-gauge to INU-gauge pipeline, and the explicit charge/flux expansions through second and third order are all new and are organized in a way that EMRI modelers can actually use. The citation pattern is appropriate, there are no fitted parameters or invented entities, and the paper is honest about its own limitations, including the order-mixing obstruction and the non-uniqueness of the energy extension.

The central derivation of Section 3.4 checks out. Averaging, the integral identity, and the incompressibility argument are consistent under the stated gauge and teleological assumptions. I verified the Killing-vector conclusion for the oblate Kerr cross-section; it holds. The stress-test note is right that the corotation issue is not the decisive gap. The load-bearing assumption is (3.24), which upgrades the averaged statements to the claim that the actual perturbed shift and inaffinity are purely slow. The proof is deferred to Section 4.1.2, where Y1 and f1 are determined by equations of the form D Y1 = ... and (D+κ)(D f1 - ...) = ..., with D = ∂v + Ω_H L_φ. The paper never states a spectral or non-resonance condition ensuring that D is invertible on the zero-average oscillatory sector with a uniform bound as Ω → Ω_H. Without that bound, the conclusion about κ1 and V1 being exactly slow is supported but not closed. This is a gap in support, not an algebraic inconsistency, and it is fixable in revision by adding a spectral assumption or, better, working through a concrete example—say a circular equatorial orbit in Kerr to first order—where the inversion is exhibited.

Minor soft spots: the energy charge E = M_Kerr(S_dyn, J) is explicitly a non-unique extension of the Kerr equation of state off the family; the paper acknowledges this, so it is a limitation rather than a flaw. The bulk-to-horizon pipeline is never exercised on a concrete perturbation, leaving κ1 and Ω1 undetermined until bulk matching is performed. The teleological boundary condition is standard and is handled clearly in Appendix A.

Who this is for: EMRI and self-force theorists, null-boundary symplectic folks, and anyone building horizon absorption into LISA waveform codes. The framework deserves referee time. I would engage with it, and I would cite it — after checking whether the revised version closes the invertibility gap or at least states the required condition.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the horizon geometry of a perturbed Kerr black hole in a two-timescale expansion appropriate for extreme mass-ratio inspirals. Section 3 sets up the Raychaudhuri, Damour, and shear evolution equations on the horizon and derives, under the gauge condition (3.24) that fast dependence in the inaffinity and shift can be gauged away, that the coarse-grained linear shear vanishes, that the leading shift correction is a slow rigid rotation Ω_1(v-tilde) φ^A, and that the leading inaffinity correction is a slow monopole κ_1(v-tilde). Section 4 constructs the map from a user-gauge bulk perturbation to the ingoing Newman–Unti gauge and then to Carter coordinates, identifying an order-mixing ambiguity at second order. Section 5 builds horizon charges and fluxes from the covariant phase space, defines dynamical entropy, angular momentum, and an energy via the Kerr equation of state, and shows that the three global charges are invariant under the order-mixing ambiguity. The paper is presented as an automatable framework for future EMRI horizon-absorption and waveform calculations.

Significance. If the rigidity theorem survives the missing spectral-condition check, the paper provides a clean and useful result: adiabatic rigidity of the perturbed horizon in two-timescale perturbation theory, making precise the membrane-paradigm picture of a rigidly rotating horizon with a uniform inaffinity correction. The constructive bulk-to-horizon pipeline in Section 4 is practical, and the order-mixing analysis in Sections 4.3 and 5.4, with the proof that the dynamical entropy, axial angular momentum, and energy are protected, is careful and valuable. The paper contains no fitted parameters; the derivations are explicit, and the main limitations (the teleological boundary condition and the choice of Kerr equation of state for the energy) are acknowledged in the text, although their full consequences are not always reflected in the abstract. The paper should be of interest to the EMRI/self-force and null-boundary communities.

major comments (2)

[3.4 and 4.1.2] The step from averaged rigidity to the strong claims that κ_1 and V^A_1 are exactly slow is not fully justified. Equation (3.24) is imposed after stating that fast dependence can be gauged away, with the proof deferred to Section 4.1.2. There, the oscillatory parts are removed by solving D Y_1^A = ⟨S^A⟩_osc and (D+κ)(D f_1 − ⟨h^vs_1⟩_osc) = ... . No spectral condition or uniform bound on the inverse of D on the zero-average oscillatory sector is stated. Since D = ∂_v + Ω_H L_φ, its eigenvalues on modes e^{im(φ−Ωv)} are i m (Ω_H − Ω); near corotation the inverse grows as (Ω_H − Ω)^{-1}, and the second-order operator in the f_1 equation makes the behavior worse. Without a proof of bounded invertibility, or an explicit exclusion of a resonance neighborhood, the inference that V_1^A = Ω_1(v-tilde) φ^A and κ_1 = κ_1(v-tilde) is unsupported. Appendix A treats only first-order equations of the form (∂_v − κ) f = −g and does not cover the operator appearing in (4.8c). Please add the missing non-resonance condition and proof, or soften the conclusions to statements about coarse-grained averages away from corotation.
[5.3, Eqs. (5.34)–(5.41)] The energy definition is an added assumption rather than a charge derived from the horizon phase space. The relation E ≡ M_Kerr(S_dyn, J) is imposed by hand, the Smarr-based formula (5.40) is then an identity, and the first law (5.41) follows by the chain rule. The footnote correctly states that a first-principle charge for field-dependent symmetries is left for future work, but the abstract and summary present energy among the horizon conservation laws. Since the energy flux-balance law (5.42) is one of the paper's central outputs, the status of this definition should be made prominent in the abstract and in the summary, and ideally the identification should be derived using the field-dependent symmetry framework cited in [54,55].

minor comments (5)

[Figure 1] In the left branch of Figure 1, "knight transformation" appears to be a typo for "gauge transformation".
[3.3, Eq. (3.17)] The mode phase e^{im(φ−Ωv)} with Ω = Ω(v-tilde) is a common adiabatic shorthand, but for consistency with the two-timescale expansion it should be noted that the correct fast phase is the integrated form e^{im(φ−ε^{-1}∫^{v-tilde} Ω(s) ds)} or a related explicit statement.
[3.4, Eq. (3.23)] The expansion (3.23) introduces θ = ε θ_1, but the subsequent analysis shows θ_1 = 0 and θ = ε^2 θ_2. The initial expansion should mention that θ_1 will be shown to vanish, to avoid apparent inconsistency.
[4.1.2, Eqs. (4.8)] The symbol D in the gauge-fixing equations (4.8) is not explicitly defined in that subsection; it should be stated that D denotes the background convective derivative D = ∂_v + L_{Vbar}.
[5.4, Eq. (5.53)] The O(ε^3) Lorentz flux contains the term ∂_v θ_3, which is not determined by a second-order bulk perturbation. If this term integrates to zero over the cut because ψ̄ is time-independent, that should be stated explicitly; otherwise the O(ε^3) flux appears to require third-order input not supplied by the pipeline.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the rigidity and flux-balance results are derived from the stated evolution equations, gauge conditions, and boundary conditions, not from their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are derived, not assumed. The vanishing of the coarse-grained shear (3.38) follows by contracting the averaged Damour equation (3.34) with V1^A, integrating by parts, and using the incompressibility condition (3.32) and the averaged shear equation (3.31); the argument reduces to ∫⟨σ⟩⟨σ⟩=0 with a positive definite metric, so the conclusion is a consequence of the evolution equations, not of a definition. The adiabatic rigidity statements (3.40) and (3.42) use the gauge condition (3.24), but that condition is explicitly implemented in §4.1.2: equations (4.8b)-(4.8c) fix the gauge generators Y1^A and f1 so that the oscillatory parts of V1^A and κ1 vanish, with residual homogeneous solutions discarded by the teleological boundary condition. Thus no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Section 5's charges and fluxes are imported from the cited null-boundary phase space literature ([15], [22]) and the paper states that its flux formula agrees with existing results; the energy is explicitly introduced as a proposed extension (E ≡ M_Kerr(S_dyn,J)) rather than as a derived first-principles charge. Importing a framework by citation is not circular, and the paper flags the open issue of a first-principle energy definition. The only concerns—unstated spectral invertibility for the gauge-fixing operators and the corotation/resonance behavior—are support gaps, not circular reductions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numbers are fitted anywhere in the paper; the inputs are Kerr background parameters and the imported phase-space construction. The framework's postulates are the multiscale boundedness ansatz, the gauge condition (3.24), the teleological solution sector, the generic-frequency assumption Ω_orb ≠ Ω_H, the c = 2 null-boundary phase space, and the declared non-unique energy extension. No new particles, fields, or dimensions are introduced.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption Vacuum Einstein equations hold in a neighborhood of the horizon, and the background is a stationary, non-extremal, axisymmetric black hole with background data (3.21).
Section 3.2. This excludes matter near the horizon and extremal or non-vacuum backgrounds from the rigidity analysis.
domain assumption Two-timescale ansatz (3.10): f(v, ṽ, x) with ṽ = εv, coefficients bounded in the fast variable, and time derivatives split via the chain rule (3.11).
Section 3.3. The averaging (3.12) and its properties (3.14) are well-defined only inside this boundedness assumption.
domain assumption Teleological boundary condition: the horizon settles to stationarity as v → ∞, implemented by selecting the advanced Green function in Appendix A, Eqs. (A.2)-(A.3).
Used at (3.26)-(3.27) to set θ_1 = 0 and at (4.8a) to fix Q_1. A retarded boundary condition would keep the excluded exponential mode and invalidate the rigidity chain.
domain assumption Gauge condition (3.24): ⟨κ⟩_osc = 0 = ⟨V^A⟩_osc, so κ and V^A equal their coarse-grained parts; feasibility deferred to Section 4, Eqs. (4.8b)-(4.8c), with residual homogeneous symmetries (4.9)-(4.10).
Section 3.4. The rigidity results are statements in this gauge; the residual symmetries are angle-dependent adiabatic functions that re-enter at second order in (4.11)-(4.13).
domain assumption Generic orbital frequency: Ω_orb ≠ Ω_H, so the average (3.19) projects horizon fields onto their axisymmetric mode; at corotation all azimuthal modes survive.
Eqs. (3.17)-(3.20) in Section 3.3. The paper notes the corotation case, but the rigidity derivation does not cover it.
ad hoc to paper The Kerr equation of state extends off the Kerr family: energy E = M_Kerr(S_dyn, J), Eqs. (5.34)-(5.40), making the first law (5.41) a consequence of the chain rule.
Section 5.3. The paper explicitly labels this a non-unique proposal and leaves the field-dependent-symmetry derivation for future work.
domain assumption Null-boundary phase space of Chandrasekaran-Flanagan-Prabhu with fixed [ℓ, κ] and c = 2 charge formula (5.9)-(5.10).
Section 5.2. The charge and flux definitions are imported from the cited literature, including the sign convention and Wald-Zoupas selection, rather than derived in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Horizon flux-balance laws in the multiscale perturbation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LU4XRIRK

@misc{pith2026260810093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Horizon flux-balance laws in the multiscale perturbation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LU4XRIRK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.10093}
}

read the original abstract

Black-hole event horizons obey a set of evolution equations governing their intrinsic and extrinsic geometry. We study these equations in a \textit{two-timescale} perturbative expansion about a Kerr background and derive strong constraints on the coarse-grained horizon dynamics. At leading order, the coarse-grained linear shear vanishes, while the horizon exhibits an \textit{adiabatic rigidity}: the leading corrections to its angular velocity and inaffinity remain uniform on each horizon cut, while evolving on the slow timescale. We then provide a systematic procedure for transforming a perturbative bulk solution, given for example in Lorenz gauge, to an ingoing Newman--Unti gauge adapted to the horizon, allowing the perturbed horizon geometry to be extracted directly from the bulk metric. Finally, we formulate black-hole conservation laws associated with horizon symmetries, including energy, dynamical entropy, and angular momentum. We expand the charges through second order and their fluxes through third order in perturbation theory, providing a framework for future applications to horizon absorption and backreaction in extreme mass-ratio inspirals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.10093 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

[1]

R. K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity. 6. The outgoing radiation condition, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A264(1961) 309–338. 30

work page 1961
[2]

Newman and R

E. Newman and R. Penrose,An Approach to gravitational radiation by a method of spin coefficients, J. Math. Phys.3(1962) 566–578

1962
[3]

R. K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A270(1962) 103–126

work page 1962
[4]

J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking,The Four laws of black hole mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.31(1973) 161–170

1973
[5]

S. W. Hawking and J. B. Hartle,Energy and angular momentum flow into a black hole, Commun. Math. Phys.27(1972) 283–290

work page 1972
[6]

H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Can outside fields destroy black holes?, Journal of Mathematical Physics 15(1974), no

P. H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Can outside fields destroy black holes?, Journal of Mathematical Physics 15(1974), no. 9 1554–1558

work page 1974
[7]

H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Stationary electrovacuum spacetimes with bifurcate horizons, Journal of Mathematical Physics16(1975), no

P. H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Stationary electrovacuum spacetimes with bifurcate horizons, Journal of Mathematical Physics16(1975), no. 3 518–522

work page 1975
[8]

Damour,Black Hole Eddy Currents, Phys

T. Damour,Black Hole Eddy Currents, Phys. Rev. D18(1978) 3598–3604

work page 1978

Show all 56 references

[9]

Damour,Quelques proprietes mecaniques, electromagnet iques, thermodynamiques et quantiques des trous noir

T. Damour,Quelques proprietes mecaniques, electromagnet iques, thermodynamiques et quantiques des trous noir. PhD thesis, Paris U., VI-VII, 1979

1979
[10]

R. H. Price and K. S. Thorne,Membrane Viewpoint on Black Holes: Properties and Evolution of the Stretched Horizon, Phys. Rev. D33(1986) 915–941

1986
[11]

K. S. Thorne, R. H. Price and D. A. Macdonald, eds.,BLACK HOLES: THE MEM- BRANE PARADIGM. 1986

1986
[12]

Gourgoulhon and J

E. Gourgoulhon and J. L. Jaramillo,A 3+1 perspective on null hypersurfaces and isolated horizons, Phys. Rept.423(2006) 159–294 [gr-qc/0503113]

2006 arXiv
[13]

Hopfm¨ uller and L

F. Hopfm¨ uller and L. Freidel,Gravity Degrees of Freedom on a Null Surface, Phys. Rev. D95(2017), no. 10 104006 [1611.03096]

2017 arXiv
[14]

Hopfm¨ uller and L

F. Hopfm¨ uller and L. Freidel,Null Conservation Laws for Gravity, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018), no. 12 124029 [1802.06135]

2018 arXiv
[15]

Chandrasekaran, ´E

V. Chandrasekaran, ´E. ´E. Flanagan and K. Prabhu,Symmetries and charges of general relativity at null boundaries, JHEP11(2018) 125 [1807.11499]. [Erratum: JHEP 07, 224 (2023)]

2018 arXiv
[16]

Donnay and C

L. Donnay and C. Marteau,Carrollian Physics at the Black Hole Horizon, Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019), no. 16 165002 [1903.09654]

2019 arXiv
[17]

Chandrasekaran, E

V. Chandrasekaran, E. E. Flanagan, I. Shehzad and A. J. Speranza,Brown-York charges at null boundaries, JHEP01(2022) 029 [2109.11567]

2022 arXiv
[18]

Adami, D

H. Adami, D. Grumiller, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, V. Taghiloo, H. Yavartanoo and C. Zwikel,Null boundary phase space: slicings, news & memory, JHEP11(2021) 155 [2110.04218]

2021 arXiv
[19]

Ciambelli, L

L. Ciambelli, L. Freidel and R. G. Leigh,Null Raychaudhuri: canonical structure and the dressing time, JHEP01(2024) 166 [2309.03932]

2024 arXiv
[20]

G. Odak, A. Rignon-Bret and S. Speziale,General gravitational charges on null hypersurfaces, JHEP12(2023) 038 [2309.03854]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Chandrasekaran and E

V. Chandrasekaran and E. E. Flanagan,Horizon phase spaces in general relativity, JHEP07(2024) 017 [2309.03871]. 31

2024 arXiv
[22]

Ashtekar, N

A. Ashtekar, N. Khera, M. Kolanowski and J. Lewandowski,Charges and fluxes on (perturbed) non-expanding horizons, JHEP02(2022) 066 [2112.05608]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Ashtekar, N

A. Ashtekar, N. Khera, M. Kolanowski and J. Lewandowski,Non-expanding hori- zons: multipoles and the symmetry group, JHEP01(2022) 028 [2111.07873]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Ashtekar and S

A. Ashtekar and S. Speziale,Null infinity and horizons: A new approach to fluxes and charges, Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 4 044049 [2407.03254]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Ashtekar and B

A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan,Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications, Living Rev. Rel.7(2004) 10 [gr-qc/0407042]

2004 arXiv
[26]

Krishnan,The spacetime in the neighborhood of a general isolated black hole, Class

B. Krishnan,The spacetime in the neighborhood of a general isolated black hole, Class. Quant. Grav.29(2012) 205006 [1204.4345]

2012 arXiv
[27]

S. J. Fletcher and A. W. C. Lun,The Kerr spacetime in generalized Bondi–Sachs coordinates, Class. Quant. Grav.20(2003), no. 19 4153–4167

2003
[28]

Scholtz, A

M. Scholtz, A. Flandera and N. G¨ urlebeck,Kerr-Newman black hole in the formalism of isolated horizons, Phys. Rev. D96(2017), no. 6 064024 [1708.06383]

2017 arXiv
[29]

Kofroˇ n,Kerr black hole in the formalism of isolated horizons, Phys

D. Kofroˇ n,Kerr black hole in the formalism of isolated horizons, Phys. Rev. D109 (2024), no. 8 084029 [2404.09887]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Flandera, D

A. Flandera, D. Kofroˇ n and T. Ledvinka,Kerr isolated horizon revisited: Caustic-free congruence and adapted tetrad, Phys. Rev. D113(2026), no. 6 064027 [2512.20517]

2026
[31]

Poisson, A

E. Poisson, A. Pound and I. Vega,The Motion of point particles in curved spacetime, Living Rev. Rel.14(2011) 7 [1102.0529]

2011 arXiv
[32]

Barack and A

L. Barack and A. Pound,Self-force and radiation reaction in general relativity, Rept. Prog. Phys.82(2019), no. 1 016904 [1805.10385]

2019 arXiv
[33]

Pound and B

A. Pound and B. Wardell,Black hole perturbation theory and gravitational self-force, 2101.04592

arXiv
[34]

Hinderer and E

T. Hinderer and E. E. Flanagan,Two timescale analysis of extreme mass ratio in- spirals in Kerr. I. Orbital Motion, Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 064028 [0805.3337]

2008 arXiv
[35]

Pound,Singular perturbation techniques in the gravitational self-force problem, Phys

A. Pound,Singular perturbation techniques in the gravitational self-force problem, Phys. Rev. D81(2010) 124009 [1003.3954]

2010 arXiv
[36]

Poisson,Absorption of mass and angular momentum by a black hole: Time- domain formalisms for gravitational perturbations, and the small-hole / slow-motion approximation, Phys

E. Poisson,Absorption of mass and angular momentum by a black hole: Time- domain formalisms for gravitational perturbations, and the small-hole / slow-motion approximation, Phys. Rev. D70(2004) 084044 [gr-qc/0407050]

2004 arXiv
[37]

Miller and A

J. Miller and A. Pound,Two-timescale evolution of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals: waveform generation scheme for quasicircular orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime, Phys. Rev. D103(2021), no. 6 064048 [2006.11263]

2021 arXiv
[38]

Mathews and A

J. Mathews and A. Pound,Postadiabatic waveform-generation framework for asym- metric precessing binaries, Phys. Rev. D112(2025), no. 10 104078 [2501.01413]

2025
[39]

Carter,Republication of: Black hole equilibrium states part ii

B. Carter,Republication of: Black hole equilibrium states part ii. general theory of stationary black hole states, General Relativity and Gravitation42(2010), no. 3 653–744

2010
[40]

E. T. Newman and T. W. J. Unti,Behavior of Asymptotically Flat Empty Spaces, J. Math. Phys.3(1962), no. 5 891. 32

1962
[41]

D. R. Brill and J. B. Hartle,Method of the Self-Consistent Field in General Relativity and its Application to the Gravitational Geon, Phys. Rev.135(1964) B271–B278

1964
[42]

R. A. Isaacson,Gravitational Radiation in the Limit of High Frequency. I. The Linear Approximation and Geometrical Optics, Phys. Rev.166(1968) 1263–1271

1968
[43]

R. A. Isaacson,Gravitational Radiation in the Limit of High Frequency. II. Nonlinear Terms and the Ef fective Stress Tensor, Phys. Rev.166(1968) 1272–1279

1968
[44]

Spiers, A

A. Spiers, A. Pound and J. Moxon,The Bondi–Sachs gauge, BMS frames, and memory in black hole perturbation theory,2606.24816

arXiv
[45]

Heisenberg, N

L. Heisenberg, N. Yunes and J. Zosso,Gravitational wave memory beyond general relativity, Phys. Rev. D108(2023), no. 2 024010 [2303.02021]

2023 arXiv
[46]

Bruni, S

M. Bruni, S. Matarrese, S. Mollerach and S. Sonego,Perturbations of space-time: Gauge transformations and gauge invariance at second order and beyond, Class. Quant. Grav.14(1997) 2585–2606 [gr-qc/9609040]

1997 arXiv
[47]

Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes

S. Chandrasekhar,The mathematical theory of black holes. 1985

1985
[48]

Aghapour, G

S. Aghapour, G. Jafari and M. Golshani,On variational principle and canonical structure of gravitational theory in double-foliation formalism, Class. Quant. Grav. 36(2019), no. 1 015012 [1808.07352]

2019 arXiv
[49]

Jafari,Stress Tensor on Null Boundaries, Phys

G. Jafari,Stress Tensor on Null Boundaries, Phys. Rev. D99(2019), no. 10 104035 [1901.04054]

2019 arXiv
[50]

R. M. Wald and A. Zoupas,A General definition of ’conserved quantities’ in general relativity and other theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 084027 [gr-qc/9911095]

2000 arXiv
[51]

Hollands, R

S. Hollands, R. M. Wald and V. G. Zhang,Entropy of dynamical black holes, Phys. Rev. D110(2024), no. 2 024070 [2402.00818]

2024 arXiv
[52]

M. R. Visser and Z. Yan,Properties of dynamical black hole entropy, JHEP10(2024) 029 [2403.07140]

2024 arXiv
[53]

R. M. Wald,Black hole entropy is the Noether charge, Phys. Rev. D48(1993), no. 8 R3427–R3431 [gr-qc/9307038]

1993 arXiv
[54]

Barnich and C

G. Barnich and C. Troessaert,Aspects of the BMS/CFT correspondence, JHEP05 (2010) 062 [1001.1541]

2010 arXiv
[55]

Barnich and C

G. Barnich and C. Troessaert,BMS charge algebra, JHEP12(2011) 105 [1106.0213]

2011 arXiv
[56]

Bonetto, A

R. Bonetto, A. Pound and Z. Sam,Deformed Schwarzschild horizons in second-order perturbation theory: Mass, geometry, and teleology, Phys. Rev. D105(2022), no. 2 024048 [2109.09514]. 33

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

R. K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity. 6. The outgoing radiation condition, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A264(1961) 309–338. 30

work page 1961

[2] [2]

Newman and R

E. Newman and R. Penrose,An Approach to gravitational radiation by a method of spin coefficients, J. Math. Phys.3(1962) 566–578

1962

[3] [3]

R. K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A270(1962) 103–126

work page 1962

[4] [4]

J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking,The Four laws of black hole mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.31(1973) 161–170

1973

[5] [5]

S. W. Hawking and J. B. Hartle,Energy and angular momentum flow into a black hole, Commun. Math. Phys.27(1972) 283–290

work page 1972

[6] [6]

H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Can outside fields destroy black holes?, Journal of Mathematical Physics 15(1974), no

P. H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Can outside fields destroy black holes?, Journal of Mathematical Physics 15(1974), no. 9 1554–1558

work page 1974

[7] [7]

H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Stationary electrovacuum spacetimes with bifurcate horizons, Journal of Mathematical Physics16(1975), no

P. H´ aj ´ ıˇ cek,Stationary electrovacuum spacetimes with bifurcate horizons, Journal of Mathematical Physics16(1975), no. 3 518–522

work page 1975

[8] [8]

Damour,Black Hole Eddy Currents, Phys

T. Damour,Black Hole Eddy Currents, Phys. Rev. D18(1978) 3598–3604

work page 1978