pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.12531 · v1 · pith:NJAACK3Lnew · submitted 2026-06-10 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Gotta light? Illuminating AGN disks with LISA EMRIs

Federico Fantocolli , Francisco Duque , Jonathan Gair This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 08:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords LISAextreme-mass-ratio inspiralsAGN accretion disksgas torquesBayesian inferencesurface densityaccretion raterelativistic models
0
0 comments X

The pith

LISA can simultaneously estimate AGN disk surface density and accretion rate from EMRI signals using relativistic torque models in a Bayesian analysis.

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

The paper investigates LISA's capacity to detect gas torques on EMRIs inside AGN accretion disks with recently developed relativistic interaction models. It demonstrates that a full Bayesian treatment yields joint constraints on disk surface density and accretion rate (or total luminosity) even without any electromagnetic counterpart. Earlier Newtonian-based forecasts are shown to be unreliable here. For typical events the torque strength itself is recovered to roughly 10 percent precision. These results would let observers examine accretion flows at sub-microparsec distances deep in the strong-gravity region and strengthen LISA's utility for black-hole growth studies and dark-siren cosmology.

Core claim

Using a fully Bayesian setup with relativistic models for the binary-disk interaction, LISA observations of EMRIs can provide simultaneous estimates of the disk surface density and the accretion rate without the need for an electromagnetic counterpart, with the torque amplitude constrained to within ~10%.

What carries the argument

Relativistic models of the torque exerted by the accretion disk on the EMRI, used inside a Bayesian likelihood for the gravitational-wave signal.

If this is right

  • Simultaneous estimates of disk surface density and accretion rate are possible from LISA data alone.
  • The torque amplitude is constrained to within approximately 10 percent for typical EMRIs.
  • Accretion physics can be probed at submicroparsec scales in the strong-field regime.
  • Host-galaxy identification via AGN catalogues improves the use of EMRIs as dark sirens.
  • Questions about massive black hole growth and coevolution with galaxies receive additional constraints.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method could be applied to multiple EMRIs to test consistency of inferred disk parameters across different systems.
  • It provides an independent check on disk structure models even when electromagnetic data are absent or ambiguous.
  • Future analyses might incorporate these torque constraints to refine predictions of EMRI event rates in AGN environments.

Load-bearing premise

The relativistic models accurately capture the torque acting on the EMRI across the relevant parameter space and the Bayesian likelihood fully incorporates all relevant noise and signal features.

What would settle it

An observation in which the joint posterior on surface density and accretion rate from LISA data is inconsistent with independent electromagnetic measurements of the same AGN's luminosity or density profile.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.12531 by Federico Fantocolli, Francisco Duque, Jonathan Gair.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left panel: Marginal 2D posteriors of the environment parameters in units of the relative deviation from the injected value, (X − Xtrue)/Xtrue. Colors correspond to the different torque models, ordered by increasing dephasing. Right panel: Relative uncertainty (defined by Eq. (14)) as a function of the dephasing. Colors are consistent with the left panel. Triangles and squares indicate the relative uncerta… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The 2D contours of the relative deviation with respect to the true values for the viscosity parameter α and the accretion rate fEdd. the relative deviation for α has been transformed through a sigmoid function for visualization purposes. function of dephasing ∆Φ scales as a power laws, with slope γu ∼ −1 and γv ∼ −1/2 respectively; the power law slope on v may reflect the departure from the Gaussian regime… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the ability of the upcoming Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) to constrain gas torques acting on extreme-mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) when these are embedded in accretion disks, using recently developed relativistic models for the binary-disk interaction. Using a fully Bayesian setup, we find that, contrary to previous forecasts based on Newtonian results, these observations can provide simultaneous estimates of the disk surface density and the accretion rate (or, equivalently, its total luminosity) without the need for an electromagnetic counterpart. Our analysis also indicates that simpler measurement constraints based on the linear-signal (Fisher matrix) approximation are not valid for these systems. For typical EMRI observations, the torque amplitude can be constrained to within ~10%, strengthening the prospect of probing accretion physics at (sub)microparsec scales, deep in the strong-field gravity regime and complementing electromagnetic observations. This also strengthens LISA's ability to help answering questions such as how massive black holes grow and coevolve with their host galaxies and, by helping to identify the EMRI's host galaxy through cross-correlation with AGN catalogues, to improve the use of these sources as (dark) sirens for cosmology.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines LISA's potential to constrain gas torques on EMRIs embedded in AGN disks via recently developed relativistic binary-disk interaction models. Employing a fully Bayesian framework, it concludes that simultaneous constraints on disk surface density and accretion rate (or luminosity) are achievable without an electromagnetic counterpart, that the torque amplitude can be recovered to ~10% precision for typical EMRIs, and that the linear-signal Fisher-matrix approximation is invalid for these systems. These results are positioned to probe sub-microparsec accretion physics in the strong-field regime and to aid both MBH-galaxy coevolution studies and cosmological applications via improved EMRI host-galaxy identification.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work meaningfully expands LISA's science case by demonstrating an electromagnetic-independent route to accretion-disk parameters at scales inaccessible to other probes. The explicit use of a fully Bayesian setup with relativistic torque models, rather than Newtonian approximations or Fisher forecasts, is a clear methodological strength that directly addresses prior limitations. The ~10% torque-amplitude precision and the invalidity of the Fisher approximation are falsifiable predictions that, if confirmed, would strengthen LISA's role in addressing how massive black holes grow and coevolve with hosts while also improving dark-siren cosmology through AGN cross-correlation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Results) and associated figures/tables: the reported ~10% constraint on torque amplitude and the simultaneous recovery of surface density and accretion rate are presented as quantitative outcomes, yet the text provides no explicit error budgets, recovery fractions from injection campaigns, or posterior-width comparisons against injected signals. This absence is load-bearing for the central claim that Bayesian LISA observations can deliver these constraints without an EM counterpart.
  2. [§3] §3 (Bayesian setup and likelihood construction): the assertion that the Fisher-matrix approximation is invalid rests on the Bayesian results, but no direct side-by-side comparison (e.g., Fisher-predicted uncertainties versus full posterior widths, or bias introduced by the linear-signal assumption) is shown for the same relativistic torque model and noise realization. Without this, the claim that simpler measurement constraints are not valid remains unquantified.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the torque amplitude and disk parameters should be defined once in a dedicated table or equation block rather than reintroduced in multiple sections to improve readability.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from an explicit statement of the prior ranges adopted for the disk surface density and accretion rate, even if they are standard in the literature.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the quantitative support for our claims.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results) and associated figures/tables: the reported ~10% constraint on torque amplitude and the simultaneous recovery of surface density and accretion rate are presented as quantitative outcomes, yet the text provides no explicit error budgets, recovery fractions from injection campaigns, or posterior-width comparisons against injected signals. This absence is load-bearing for the central claim that Bayesian LISA observations can deliver these constraints without an EM counterpart.

    Authors: We agree that the presentation of the quantitative results in §4 would be strengthened by explicit error budgets and recovery statistics. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or expanded appendix) reporting recovery fractions from a set of injection campaigns, together with direct comparisons of posterior widths to the injected parameter values for the torque amplitude, surface density, and accretion rate. These additions will make the ~10% precision claim fully traceable to the underlying Bayesian runs. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3] §3 (Bayesian setup and likelihood construction): the assertion that the Fisher-matrix approximation is invalid rests on the Bayesian results, but no direct side-by-side comparison (e.g., Fisher-predicted uncertainties versus full posterior widths, or bias introduced by the linear-signal assumption) is shown for the same relativistic torque model and noise realization. Without this, the claim that simpler measurement constraints are not valid remains unquantified.

    Authors: We concur that a direct, quantitative comparison is needed to substantiate the statement that the linear-signal approximation is invalid. In the revised version we will include, in §3 or a new subsection of §4, a side-by-side table (or figure) that reports Fisher-matrix uncertainties alongside the corresponding full posterior widths for the same relativistic torque model, noise realization, and injected signals. This will explicitly quantify any bias or underestimation introduced by the Fisher approximation. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on applying external relativistic models of binary-disk torques within a Bayesian framework to LISA EMRI signals. No load-bearing step reduces by the paper's own equations or self-citation to a fitted parameter or input quantity presented as a prediction. The derivation chain is self-contained against the cited external models and standard likelihood construction, with no self-definitional, renaming, or ansatz-smuggling patterns exhibited in the provided text.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are identifiable from the provided text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5738 in / 1197 out tokens · 18150 ms · 2026-06-27T08:57:38.559943+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    G., et al., 2025a

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025a

  2. [2]

    G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c , 993, L25

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2041

  3. [3]

    A., & Fragile, P

    Abramowicz M. A., Fragile P. C., 2013, @doi [Living Rev. Rel.] 10.12942/lrr-2013-1 , 16, 1

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2013-1 2013

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Abramowicz M. A., Czerny B., Lasota J. P., Szuszkiewicz E., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1086/166683 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...332..646A 332, 646

    work page doi:10.1086/166683 1988

  5. [5]

    M., Broggi L., Sesana A., Bonetti M., 2026

    Allievi C. M., Broggi L., Sesana A., Bonetti M., 2026

    2026

  6. [6]

    B., Gieles M., Mapelli M., 2025

    Antonini F., Romero-Shaw I., Callister T., Dosopoulou F., Chattopadhyay D., Ginat Y. B., Gieles M., Mapelli M., 2025

    2025

  7. [8]

    Artymowicz P., 1993b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/173469 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1993ApJ...419..155A 419, 155

    work page doi:10.1086/173469

  8. [9]

    J., Stern D., Noirot G., Jun H

    Assef R. J., Stern D., Noirot G., Jun H. D., Cutri R. M., Eisenhardt P. R. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/aaa00a , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJS..234...23A 234, 23

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaa00a 2018

  9. [10]

    Babak S., et al., 2017, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/physrevd.95.103012 , 95

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.103012 2017

  10. [11]

    Barack L., Pound A., 2019, @doi [Rept. Prog. Phys.] 10.1088/1361-6633/aae552 , 82, 016904

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6633/aae552 2019

  11. [12]

    Barausse E., Cardoso V., Pani P., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059 , 89, 104059

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.104059 2014

  12. [13]

    Bardeen, J.A

    Bardeen J. M., Petterson J. A., 1975, @doi [ ] 10.1086/181711 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975ApJ...195L..65B 195, L65

    work page doi:10.1086/181711 1975

  13. [14]

    C., Vajpeyi A., Burke O., 2025, ] 10.1103/9678-764y

    Boumerdassi A., Edwards M. C., Vajpeyi A., Burke O., 2025, ] 10.1103/9678-764y

    work page doi:10.1103/9678-764y 2025

  14. [15]

    R., Katz M

    Burke O., Marsat S., Gair J. R., Katz M. L., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/5jr8-k2ss , 111, 124053

    work page doi:10.1103/5jr8-k2ss 2025

  15. [16]

    Burke O., Muratore M., Woan G., 2026, @doi [Phys. Rev. Applied] 10.1103/xpvf-syrw , 25, 034041

    work page doi:10.1103/xpvf-syrw 2026

  16. [17]

    Cardoso, K

    Cardoso V., Destounis K., Duque F., Macedo R. P., Maselli A., 2022a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L061501 , 105, L061501

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.l061501

  17. [18]

    Cardoso V., Destounis K., Duque F., Panosso Macedo R., Maselli A., 2022b, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.241103 , 129, 241103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.241103

  18. [19]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae003b , 992, 120

    Chakraborty J., et al., 2025, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ae003b , 992, 120

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae003b 2025

  19. [20]

    E., et al., 2025, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/scbp-75pf , 112

    Chapman-Bird C. E., et al., 2025, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/scbp-75pf , 112

    work page doi:10.1103/scbp-75pf 2025

  20. [21]

    Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557029 , 707, A89

    Chiesa A., Izquierdo-Villalba D., Sesana A., Cocchiararo F., Franchini A., Lupi A., Spinoso D., Bonoli S., 2026, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202557029 , 707, A89

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202557029 2026

  21. [22]

    S., Bertone G., Coogan A., Gaggero D., Karydas T., Kavanagh B

    Cole P. S., Bertone G., Coogan A., Gaggero D., Karydas T., Kavanagh B. J., Spieksma T. F. M., Tomaselli G. M., 2023, @doi [Nature Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-023-01990-2 , 7, 943

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-023-01990-2 2023

  22. [23]

    S., Alvey J., Speri L., Weniger C., Bhardwaj U., Gerosa D., Bertone G., 2026, @doi [Phys

    Cole P. S., Alvey J., Speri L., Weniger C., Bhardwaj U., Gerosa D., Bertone G., 2026, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/4cd3-wfjr , 113, 063030

    work page doi:10.1103/4cd3-wfjr 2026

  23. [24]

    Colpi M., et al., 2024, LISA Definition Study Report ( @eprint arXiv 2402.07571 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07571

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [25]

    S., Barausse E., 2025a

    Copparoni L., Chandramouli R. S., Barausse E., 2025a

  25. [26]

    Copparoni L., Barausse E., Speri L., Sberna L., Derdzinski A., 2025b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.104079 , 111, 104079

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.104079

  26. [27]

    W., Banagiri S., Delfavero V., Bustamante-Rosell M

    Criswell A. W., Banagiri S., Delfavero V., Bustamante-Rosell M. J., Taylor S. R., Rosati R., 2026

    2026

  27. [28]

    Deng S., Babak S., Le Jeune M., Marsat S., Plagnol \'E ., Sartirana A., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.103014 , 111, 103014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.103014 2025

  28. [29]

    Derdzinski A., Mayer L., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad749 , 521, 4522

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad749 2023

  29. [30]

    Derdzinski A., D'Orazio D., Duffell P., Haiman Z., MacFadyen A., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa3976 , 501, 3540

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3976 2021

  30. [31]

    Derdzinski A., et al., 2025

    2025

  31. [32]

    Duque F., Macedo C. F. B., Vicente R., Cardoso V., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.121404 , 133, 121404

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.121404 2024

  32. [33]

    Duque F., Sberna L., Spiers A., Vicente R., 2025a

  33. [34]

    Duque F., Kejriwal S., Sberna L., Speri L., Gair J., 2025b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084006 , 111, 084006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.084006

  34. [35]

    J., 2026

    Dyson C., D'Orazio D. J., 2026

    2026

  35. [36]

    Dyson C., Spieksma T. F. M., Brito R., van de Meent M., Dolan S., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.211403 , 134, 211403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.211403 2025

  36. [37]

    W., Dittmann A

    Fairbairn C. W., Dittmann A. J., 2025, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/staf1399 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2025MNRAS.543..565F 543, 565

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1399 2025

  37. [38]

    , keywords =

    Franchini A., et al., 2023, @doi [Astron. Astrophys.] 10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 , 675, A100

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202346565 2023

  38. [39]

    Gair J., Yunes N., 2011, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/physrevd.84.064016 , 84

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.064016 2011

  39. [40]

    R., Mayer L., 2022, @doi [Mon

    Garg M., Derdzinski A., Zwick L., Capelo P. R., Mayer L., 2022, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stac2711 , 517, 1339

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2711 2022

  40. [41]

    Garg M., Mayer L., Wu Y., Ali-Ha \" moud Y., Lin D. N. C., 2026

    2026

  41. [42]

    Goldreich P., Tremaine S., 1980, @doi [ ] 10.1086/158356 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...241..425G 241, 425

    work page doi:10.1086/158356 1980

  42. [43]

    M., & Best, P

    Heckman T. M., Best P. N., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..589H 52, 589

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035722 2014

  43. [44]

    Hegade K. R. A., Gammie C. F., Yunes N., 2025a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/9src-p7sp , 112, 124012

    work page doi:10.1103/9src-p7sp

  44. [45]

    Hegade K. R. A., Gammie C. F., Yunes N., 2025b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/g83s-jdld , 112, 124068

    work page doi:10.1103/g83s-jdld

  45. [46]

    , keywords =

    Hirata C. M., 2011a, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18617.x , 414, 3198

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18617.x 2011

  46. [47]

    , keywords =

    Hirata C. M., 2011b, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18619.x , 414, 3212–3230

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18619.x 2011

  47. [48]

    W., Foreman-Mackey D., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab76e , 236, 11

    Hogg D. W., Foreman-Mackey D., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/1538-4365/aab76e , 236, 11

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aab76e 2018

  48. [49]

    A., Warburton N., Khanna G., Chua A

    Hughes S. A., Warburton N., Khanna G., Chua A. J. K., Katz M. L., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104014 , 103, 104014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.104014 2021

  49. [50]

    Ivezi \'c Z ., et al., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...873..111I 873, 111

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c 2019

  50. [51]

    , keywords =

    Jiang Y.-F., Blaes O., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00 , 885, 144

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00 2019

  51. [52]

    , keywords =

    Kao W.-B., Capelo P. R., Cenci E., Mayer L., Lupi A., Sala L., 2026, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stag003 , 546, stag003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stag003 2026

  52. [53]

    L., Korsakova N., Gair J

    Karnesis N., Katz M. L., Korsakova N., Gair J. R., Stergioulas N., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad2939 , 526, 4814

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2939 2023

  53. [54]

    L., Chua A

    Katz M. L., Chua A. J. K., Speri L., Warburton N., Hughes S. A., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.064047 , 104, 064047

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.064047 2021

  54. [55]

    L., Karnesis N., Korsakova N., Gair J

    Katz M. L., Karnesis N., Korsakova N., Gair J. R., Stergioulas N., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.024060 , 111, 024060

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.024060 2025

  55. [56]

    R., Chua A

    Kejriwal S., Witzany V., Zajacek M., Pasham D. R., Chua A. J. K., 2024, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stae1599 , 532, 2143

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1599 2024

  56. [57]

    Kejriwal S., Duque F., Chua A. J. K., Gair J., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/7f8h-w4yz , 112, 024005

    work page doi:10.1103/7f8h-w4yz 2025

  57. [58]

    Kejriwal S., Barausse E., Chua A. J. K., 2026, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/rnvp-jbj4 , 113, 064001

    work page doi:10.1103/rnvp-jbj4 2026

  58. [59]

    C., Vestergaard M., Fan X., Hopkins P., Hernquist L., Siemiginowska A., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1315 , 719, 1315–1334

    Kelly B. C., Vestergaard M., Fan X., Hopkins P., Hernquist L., Siemiginowska A., 2010, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1315 , 719, 1315–1334

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1315 2010

  59. [60]

    Khalvati H., Santini A., Duque F., Speri L., Gair J., Yang H., Brito R., 2025, @doi [Physical Review D] 10.1103/physrevd.111.082010 , 111

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.082010 2025

  60. [61]

    N., Kaiser C

    King A. R., Pringle J. E., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006MNRAS.373L..90K 373, L90

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1745-3933.2006.00249.x 2006

  61. [62]

    Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics , author =

    Kley W., Nelson R. P., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50..211K 50, 211

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125523 2012

  62. [63]

    Kocsis B., Yunes N., Loeb A., 2011, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.049907 , 84, 024032

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.049907 2011

  63. [64]

    A., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/505646 , 648, 128

    Kollmeier J. A., et al., 2006, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/505646 , 648, 128

    work page doi:10.1086/505646 2006

  64. [65]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5012K 505, 5012

    Kova c evi \'c A. B., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1595 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.505.5012K 505, 5012

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1595 2021

  65. [66]

    Laghi D., 2021, Gravitational wave cosmology with EMRIs ( @eprint arXiv 2106.02053 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.02053

    arXiv 2021

  66. [67]

    Laghi D., Tamanini N., Del Pozzo W., Sesana A., Gair J., Babak S., Izquierdo-Villalba D., 2021, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stab2741 , 508, 4512

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2741 2021

  67. [68]

    Lenk V., Labiano A., Circosta C., Alonso-Herrero A., Wylezalek D., 2026, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202554930 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2026A&A...707A.110L 707, A110

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554930 2026

  68. [69]

    Li D., Weller C., Bourg P., LaHaye M., Yunes N., Yang H., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/7l9s-g21j , 112, 084057

    work page doi:10.1103/7l9s-g21j 2025

  69. [70]

    , keywords =

    Linial I., Metzger B. D., 2023, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b , 957, 34

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf65b 2023

  70. [71]

    B., Cornish N

    Littenberg T. B., Cornish N. J., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063004 , 107, 063004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063004 2023

  71. [72]

    Liu H.-Y., Liu W.-J., Dong X.-B., Zhou H., Wang T., Lu H., Yuan W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJS..243...21L 243, 21

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab298b 2019

  72. [73]

    Liu J.-D., Han W.-B., Yun Q., 2025, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/adfc3e , 991, 223

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adfc3e 2025

  73. [74]

    Liu J.-D., Han W.-B., Tagawa H., 2026b

  74. [75]

    Liu K., Liu S.-F., Pan Z., Deng H., Shen R., Yu C., 2026a

  75. [76]

    Lops G., Izquierdo-Villalba D., Colpi M., Bonoli S., Sesana A., Mangiagli A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad058 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.519.5962L 519, 5962

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad058 2023

  76. [77]

    V., Torres-Orjuela A., 2026

    Lui L., Drummond L. V., Torres-Orjuela A., 2026

    2026

  77. [78]

    Lyu Z., Pan Z., Mao J., Jiang N., Yang H., 2026, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/337c-g6x1 , 113, 043002

    work page doi:10.1103/337c-g6x1 2026

  78. [79]

    S., 2002, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020240 , 387, 605–623

    Masset F. S., 2002, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361:20020240 , 387, 605–623

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20020240 2002

  79. [80]

    P., Pozzo W

    Morton S., Rinaldi S., Torres-Orjuela A., Derdzinski A., Vaccaro M. P., Pozzo W. D., 2023, GW190521: a binary black hole merger inside an active galactic nucleus? ( @eprint arXiv 2310.16025 ), https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.16025

    arXiv 2023

  80. [81]

    M \"u ller T. W. A., Kley W., Meru F., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201118737 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012A&A...541A.123M 541, A123

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201118737 2012

Showing first 80 references.