Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Gravitational Physics from Scattering Amplitudes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read These lecture notes claim that classical gravitational observables—light bending, time delay, and Mercury's perihelion precession—emerge from the classical limit of quantum scattering amplitudes, carried by the eikonal phase.

desk verdict A useful, honest set of lecture notes bridging amplitudes and classical GR, but the bound-state results rest on an analytic continuation the authors themselves flag as open. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11649 v1 pith:QOBVDX7C submitted 2024-12-16 hep-th

Miguel Correia , Holmfridur S. Hannesdottir , Giulia Isabella , Anna M. Wolz , Zihan Zhou , Mathieu Giroux , Sebastian Mizera , Celina Pasiecznik This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th PACS 11.55.-m04.25.Nx04.30.-w
keywords scatteringamplitudesclassicallimiteikonalphasegeneralrelativitygravitationalwavesworldlineeffectivefieldtheorythree-bodyproblemperihelionprecession
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

These lecture notes argue that classical gravitational physics—the bending of light, the gravitational time delay, and the precession of Mercury's orbit—can be derived from quantum scattering amplitudes by taking the classical limit, in which the impact parameter is much larger than the scale of particle production. The argument runs through the eikonal phase: a resummed amplitude in impact-parameter space whose derivatives give scattering angles and time delays, and whose analytic continuation below threshold gives bound-state periods and perihelion shifts. The notes first demonstrate the dictionary on the non-relativistic hydrogen atom, where the full answer is known, then build the relativistic potential-iteration series for gravity, and finally extend the machinery to gravitational radiation, tidal effects, and the three-body problem. If the argument is right, perturbative quantum field theory offers a practical and systematic route to predictions for compact binaries.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the eikonal phase $\delta(s,b)$, the exponent of the resummed amplitude in impact-parameter space, obtained by transforming the ladder diagrams to impact-parameter space at small momentum transfer. For gravity its leading form is $\delta(s,b)=-\alpha_G(s)\log(b/b_{\mathrm{IR}})$ with $\alpha_G(s)=Gm_1m_2(2\sigma^2-1)/\sqrt{\sigma^2-1}$. The phase acts as a classical action: derivatives with respect to energy and angular momentum produce the time delay and scattering angle, while analytic continuation through the radial action $I(E,J)$ produces the orbital period and perihelion precession. A second load-bearing element is the potential $V(p,q)$ defined through an integral equation whose propagator kernel is fixed by elastic unitarity; the order-$G^2$ piece of this potential, inserted into the radial action, is what produces the perihelion shift.

What would settle it

Take the resummed hydrogen-atom amplitude, continue it below threshold, and compare the pole positions with the known hydrogen spectrum; a mismatch would show the continuation does not determine bound states. For gravity, derive the complete general-relativity perihelion precession at the next order from the continued order-$G^2$ amplitude and compare it with an independent calculation; any discrepancy would break the claimed dictionary.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the classical limit of gravitational scattering amplitudes reproduces the classic predictions of General Relativity. Tree-level graviton exchange gives the $1/r$ potential; exponentiated ladder diagrams give an eikonal phase whose saddle points yield the deflection angle $\theta = 4GM/b$ for massless particles and the logarithmic time delay of a signal passing a heavy body; the one-loop potential at order $G^2$, inserted into the radial action, yields the perihelion precession $6\pi GM/((1-e^2)a)$ of Mercury in the non-relativistic probe limit. The notes further claim that the same machinery governs radiation: the in-in expectation value of the graviton field is a well-defined classical observable, the waveshape, whose infrared divergences match the classical time delay of the emitted graviton, and the leading three-body potential at order $G^2$ follows from matching the connected $3\to3$ amplitude against the iterated potential series. The hydrogen atom serves as the controlled case in which the whole chain—amplitude, phase, radial action, bound-state poles—can be checked in full.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that bound-state observables can be obtained by analytically continuing scattering data below threshold; the notes themselves flag that this continuation remains an open problem in general.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Each order in the gravitational constant $G$ adds a new physical effect: leading order gives the $1/r$ potential and light bending, order $G^2$ gives perihelion precession, and higher orders bring radiation and tail effects.
  • The same eikonal phase that gives scattering angles also yields bound-state data wherever the below-threshold continuation is valid, so amplitude computations can feed directly into orbital dynamics.
  • The waveshape, after summing over unobserved states, has a finite classical limit; its infrared divergences encode the time delay of a graviton escaping the two-body potential.
  • A worldline-based effective field theory combines with amplitudes to constrain tidal heating and dissipation numbers from gravitational-wave data, and to compute universal renormalization-group running of tidal response coefficients.
  • The leading three-body potential at order $G^2$ can be isolated from connected and iterated amplitudes, with superclassical terms and matter poles cancelling only after all contributions are summed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the below-threshold continuation can be made rigorous at all orders, bound-state gravitational physics could be computed directly from scattering amplitudes, unifying the PM and PN expansion programs.
  • The hydrogen-atom check suggests the continuation is exact for a purely $1/r$ potential; testing it on the velocity-dependent gravitational potential may reveal the first order in $G$ at which the continuation fails.
  • The universal mass-dependent renormalization-group running found in the $\ell=0$ tidal response offers a model-independent observable: a measured deviation from that universal coefficient would indicate new physics in compact objects.
  • The cancellation of matter poles in the three-body potential hints that on-shell amplitude methods can handle N-body dynamics without superclassical artifacts, potentially extending to four-body and higher systems.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a lecture-notes chapter from the S-Matrix Marathon series. It argues that classical gravitational observables can be obtained from the classical limit of scattering amplitudes, using the non-relativistic hydrogen atom as a toy model. For gravity it derives the eikonal phase from the tree-level gravitational amplitude, recovering the Shapiro time delay and light bending, and constructs a relativistic Lippmann–Schwinger equation whose potential is fixed by matching to amplitudes and elastic unitarity. The O(G^2) potential is used to obtain the perihelion precession, and the Regge–Wheeler equation is recovered in the wave regime. Later sections review worldline EFT applications (tidal effects, gravitational Raman scattering), the one-loop gravitational waveform (waveshape) and its IR structure, and the hierarchical three-body problem at O(G^2). The notes are transparent about pedagogical shortcuts and explicitly flag the analytic continuation between scattering and bound states as an open problem.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the notes provide a compact and largely self-contained bridge between modern scattering-amplitude methods and classical GR predictions. The unbound-sector results (Shapiro delay, light bending, Regge–Wheeler potential, waveform IR divergences) are cross-checked against independent GR computations and other groups' results ([45], [30], [33,35–38]), which gives the presentation substantial credibility. The explicit derivation of the Lippmann–Schwinger kernel from elastic unitarity and the eikonal phase from Fourier transforms is pedagogically valuable. The authors also credit limitations honestly, including the unresolved scattering-to-bound continuation, which is an asset for a set of lecture notes. The main reservations are the continuation gap in the perihelion derivation and a factor error in Eq. (2.43), both of which are fixable without changing the paper's scope.

major comments (2)
  1. [§2.3, Eqs. (2.40)–(2.44)] The perihelion precession derivation applies the potential V(p,q) matched in the scattering regime s ≥ (m1+m2)^2 (reality condition (2.23)) to the radial action (1.41) at negative energy E<0. The notes themselves flag in §1.3 (Audience question 1.1) and §2.3 that the analytic continuation from unbound scattering to bound states is an open problem, with O(G^4) distributions like G^4 ρ(E) not admitting a good continuation. Since the Mercury result (2.44) is obtained through this continuation, the claim that this bound-state observable 'emerges' from amplitudes is not fully established at the displayed level of rigor: the O(G^2) continuation is assumed, not proven. Please add an explicit statement before Eq. (2.43) that this step is an assumption at O(G^2) and explain what is known about its uniqueness; as written the text moves from 'open problem' to a definitive prediction without bridging the gap.
  2. [§2.3, Eq. (2.43)] Equation (2.43) as written, ∆Φ = π + ∂I_J(E)/∂J, is inconsistent with the definition of I_J in Eq. (1.41) and with the standard meaning of perihelion precession: for a closed orbit the advance over one orbit is 2π plus a small correction, whereas the displayed RHS is π plus a small O(G^2) correction. The final numerical result (2.44) is the standard GR value, so the intended formula is presumably ∆Φ = π + 2∂I_J/∂J (or the action must be defined with an explicit factor 1/π). Please correct the factor and verify the sign conventions against Eq. (1.34).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§1.4] Equation (1.37) should make explicit that V((p−k)^2) denotes the potential in momentum transfer q=p−k, and the notation for 3-vectors versus 4-vectors should be rechecked.
  2. [§2.4] The derivation leading from Eq. (2.46) to Eq. (2.47) is summarized by 'after the dust settles'; please include at least the Fourier transforms of the distributions 1/|q|^2, 1/|q| and p·q/|q|, or cite the standard results, so the reader can verify the potential.
  3. [§5.3] The cancellation of the O(q^−5) scaling and of the matter pole (5.17) in the 3-body potential is asserted but not demonstrated; a short explanation or an explicit reference to [43] would make the cross-check reproducible.
  4. [References] References [31] and [39] carry placeholder identifiers '24xx.xxxxx'; these should be updated before publication.
  5. [§0, Eq. (0.2)] The four-regime diagram in Eq. (0.2) is difficult to parse; a small table with the inequalities and the corresponding physical regime would be clearer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No structural circularity: classical GR observables are computed from amplitude/potential machinery and cross-checked against independent GR results; the only flagged weakness is the acknowledged scattering-to-bound analytic continuation, which is a rigor gap rather than a reduction to inputs.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The eikonal phase (2.8) is built from the tree amplitude (2.7) computed from the Einstein–Hilbert action; the Shapiro time delay (2.13) and light bending (2.12) follow by differentiation and are matched to classical GR. The O(G^2) potential (2.40) is fixed by matching the one-loop amplitude through the Lippmann–Schwinger equation (2.21), with the Green's function fixed by elastic unitarity (2.30); the perihelion shift (2.43)–(2.44) is then obtained from the radial action (1.41). No observable is fitted back into the potential: the potential is an intermediate object defined by amplitude matching, and the final numbers are compared with known GR results. The three-body potential (5.15) is cross-checked against the independent computation [45]. The paper does use several self-citations ([9] for coordinate choices, [24]/[25] for tidal/Raman results, [30]/[31] for waveforms, [44] for the hierarchical three-body problem), but these are reviews of the authors' own prior work and are not the load-bearing justification for the main amplitude-to-GR derivations, which are exhibited in the text. The one significant flagged limitation is the analytic continuation from unbound scattering to bound orbits: Sec. 1.3 (Audience question 1.1) states 'Understanding this type of continuation, in general, remains an open problem,' and Sec. 2.3 calls the continuation at O(G^4) 'a big open problem' because G^4 rho(E) 'does not admit a good analytic continuation.' This is an honest assumption/rigor gap in the bound-state derivation, not a circular reduction: the perihelion formula is a known GR result, and the calculation does not define its input as its output. Overall circularity burden is low; score 2 reflects the presence of minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

This review introduces no free parameters or new entities. The axioms are the standard assumptions of the amplitudes-to-observables program, with the analytic continuation assumption being the most fragile and explicitly flagged by the authors.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The classical limit is defined by b >> lambda_C, with hbar -> 0 and the gravitational coupling scaling as G ~ 1/hbar (Sec. 0.1, Sec. 4.2).
    This scaling is the foundation for extracting classical physics from amplitudes; it is standard in the post-Minkowskian program but not derived in the notes.
  • standard math Elastic unitarity plus the reality of the potential fixes the Green's function of the Lippmann-Schwinger equation up to analytic terms (Sec. 2.2, Eqs. 2.23-2.31).
    The notes derive G-G* = 1 from unitarity and select 'the simplest choice' of G; other choices correspond to coordinate changes, but the O(G^2) potential depends on this choice.
  • domain assumption Analytic continuation from scattering to bound states is valid (Sec. 1.3, Eqs. 1.31-1.34; Sec. 2.3).
    Used to compute the orbital period and the Mercury perihelion shift. The notes themselves flag this as an open problem in general (Audience question 1.1).
  • domain assumption The worldline EFT with a finite multipole expansion and a low-frequency expansion of the response function (Eqs. 3.1, 3.11, 3.15) captures tidal effects.
    The EFT is standard, but the notes state that eigenmode data must come from matching to a UV theory (stellar perturbation theory or Teukolsky), so the EFT alone is not predictive without external input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Gravitational Physics from Scattering Amplitudes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOBVDX7C

@misc{pith2026241211649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Gravitational Physics from Scattering Amplitudes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOBVDX7C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11649}
}
read the original abstract

These lecture notes explain how classical gravitational physics emerges from scattering amplitudes. We emphasize the role of different kinematic regimes in probing various aspects of bound and unbound problems, as illustrated by the Hydrogen atom example. Classical predictions of General Relativity, such as the Shapiro time delay and perihelion precession, emerge from these considerations. We also explain a number of recent approaches to probing black hole physics from the perspective of amplitudes, including applications of worldline effective field theory in astrophysics, predictions of gravitational waveforms, and the hierarchical three-body problem. These notes are based on a series of lectures held during the S-Matrix Marathon workshop at the Institute for Advanced Study on 11--22 March 2024.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11649 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. vitatio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Supersymmetry, Supergravity and the Consistency of On-Shell Massive Superamplitudes

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Consistent scattering amplitudes force a massless spin-3/2 particle to be the gravitino of a supergravity theory, and constrain massive BPS vector couplings to form a Lie algebra.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arkani-Hamed, P

    N. Arkani-Hamed, P. Benincasa, S. Caron-Huot, M. Correia, S. Curry, M. Giroux, F. M. Haehl, H. S. Hannesdottir, M. T. Hansen, A. Hebbar, G. Isabella, J. Lebl, M. H. G. Lee, S. Mizera, E. Pajer, C. Pasiecznik, E. Passemar, M. Rangamani, B. C. van Rees, F. Vaz˜ ao, A. M. Wolz and Z. Zhou,Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Selected Topics on Scattering Ampl...

    work page 2025

  2. [31]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Giroux, H. S. Hannesdottir, S. Mizera and C. Pasiecznik, Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Asymptotic Observables , 24xx.xxxxx. – 49 –

    work page

  3. [39]

    Haehl and M

    F. Haehl and M. Rangamani, Records from the S-Matrix Marathon: Schwinger–Keldysh Formalism, 24xx.xxxxx

    work page

  4. [45]

    Loebbert, J

    F. Loebbert, J. Plefka, C. Shi and T. Wang, Three-body effective potential in general relativity at second post-Minkowskian order and resulting post-Newtonian contributions, Phys. Rev. D 103 (2021) 064010 [ 2012.14224]. – 50 –

    arXiv 2021

  5. [30]

    Caron-Huot, M

    S. Caron-Huot, M. Giroux, H. S. Hannesdottir and S. Mizera, What can be measured asymptotically?, JHEP 01 (2024) 139 [ 2308.02125]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [2]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 061102 [1602.03837]

    arXiv 2016

  7. [3]

    I. T. Todorov, Quasipotential equation corresponding to the relativistic Eikonal approximation, Phys. Rev. D 3 (1971) 2351

    work page 1971

  8. [4]

    Singh, Analyticity in the Complex Angular Momentum Plane of the Coulomb Scattering Amplitude, Phys

    V. Singh, Analyticity in the Complex Angular Momentum Plane of the Coulomb Scattering Amplitude, Phys. Rev. 127 (1962) 632

    work page 1962

Show all 45 references
  1. [5]

    Cheung, I

    C. Cheung, I. Z. Rothstein and M. P. Solon, From Scattering Amplitudes to Classical Potentials in the Post-Minkowskian Expansion , Phys. Rev. Lett. 121 (2018) 251101 [1808.02489]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [6]

    K¨ alin and R

    G. K¨ alin and R. A. Porto,Post-Minkowskian Effective Field Theory for Conservative Binary Dynamics , JHEP 11 (2020) 106 [ 2006.01184]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [7]

    Z. Bern, J. P. Gatica, E. Herrmann, A. Luna and M. Zeng, Scalar QED as a toy model for higher-order effects in classical gravitational scattering , JHEP 08 (2022) 131 [2112.12243]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [8]

    Bellazzini, G

    B. Bellazzini, G. Isabella and M. M. Riva, Classical vs quantum eikonal scattering and its causal structure , JHEP 04 (2023) 023 [ 2211.00085]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [9]

    Correia and G

    M. Correia and G. Isabella, The Born regime of gravitational amplitudes , 2406.13737

    arXiv

  6. [10]

    J. J. Sakurai and J. Napolitano, Modern Quantum Mechanics , Quantum physics, quantum information and quantum computation. Cambridge University Press, 10, 2020, 10.1017/9781108587280

    2020 doi

  7. [11]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 084006 [ gr-qc/9811091]

    1999 arXiv

  8. [12]

    P. P. Fiziev and I. T. Todorov, Effective one-body approach to the relativistic two-body problem, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 104007 [ gr-qc/0010104]

    2001 arXiv

  9. [13]

    D. A. Kosower, B. Maybee and D. O’Connell, Amplitudes, Observables, and Classical Scattering, JHEP 02 (2019) 137 [ 1811.10950]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [14]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. Wiley, 1998

    1998

  11. [15]

    W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, An Effective field theory of gravity for extended objects, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 104029 [ hep-th/0409156]. – 48 –

    2006 arXiv

  12. [16]

    I. Z. Rothstein, Progress in effective field theory approach to the binary inspiral problem, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46 (2014) 1726

    2014

  13. [17]

    R. A. Porto, The effective field theorist’s approach to gravitational dynamics , Phys. Rept. 633 (2016) 1 [ 1601.04914]

    2016 arXiv

  14. [18]

    W. D. Goldberger, Effective Field Theory for Compact Binary Dynamics , 2212.06677

    arXiv

  15. [19]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Gravity, Gravity (2014)

    2014

  16. [20]

    Pitre and E

    T. Pitre and E. Poisson, General relativistic dynamical tides in binary inspirals without modes, Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 064004 [ 2311.04075]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [21]

    Van Velzen, G

    S. Van Velzen, G. R. Farrar, S. Gezari, N. Morrell, D. Zaritsky, L. ¨Ostman, M. Smith, J. Gelfand and A. J. Drake, Optical discovery of probable stellar tidal disruption flares, The Astrophysical Journal 741 (2011) 73

    2011

  18. [22]

    Mockler, J

    B. Mockler, J. Guillochon and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Weighing Black Holes using Tidal Disruption Events , Astrophys. J. 872 (2019) 151 [ 1801.08221]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [23]

    Hammerstein et al., The Final Season Reimagined: 30 Tidal Disruption Events from the ZTF-I Survey , Astrophys

    E. Hammerstein et al., The Final Season Reimagined: 30 Tidal Disruption Events from the ZTF-I Survey , Astrophys. J. 942 (2023) 9 [ 2203.01461]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [24]

    H. S. Chia, Z. Zhou and M. M. Ivanov, Bring the Heat: Tidal Heating Constraints for Black Holes and Exotic Compact Objects from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Data , 2404.14641

    arXiv

  21. [25]

    M. M. Ivanov, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez and Z. Zhou, Gravitational Raman Scattering in Effective Field Theory: A Scalar Tidal Matching at O(G3) , Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 (2024) 131401 [ 2401.08752]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [26]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Perturbations of a rotating black hole. 1. Fundamental equations for gravitational electromagnetic and neutrino field perturbations , Astrophys. J. 185 (1973) 635

    1973

  23. [27]

    Bonelli, C

    G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, D. P. Lichtig and A. Tanzini, Exact solution of Kerr black hole perturbations via CFT2 and instanton counting: Greybody factor, quasinormal modes, and Love numbers , Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) 044047 [ 2105.04483]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [28]

    Bonelli, C

    G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, D. Panea Lichtig and A. Tanzini, Irregular Liouville Correlators and Connection Formulae for Heun Functions , Commun. Math. Phys. 397 (2023) 635 [2201.04491]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [29]

    Y. F. Bautista, G. Bonelli, C. Iossa, A. Tanzini and Z. Zhou, Black hole perturbation theory meets CFT2: Kerr-Compton amplitudes from Nekrasov-Shatashvili functions , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 084071 [ 2312.05965]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [32]

    Adamo, R

    T. Adamo, R. Gonzo and A. Ilderton, Gravitational Bound Waveforms from Amplitudes, 2402.00124

    arXiv

  27. [33]

    Elkhidir, D

    A. Elkhidir, D. O’Connell, M. Sergola and I. A. Vazquez-Holm, Radiation and Reaction at One Loop , 2303.06211v1

    arXiv

  28. [34]

    Cristofoli, R

    A. Cristofoli, R. Gonzo, D. A. Kosower and D. O’Connell, Waveforms from amplitudes, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 056007 [ 2107.10193]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Brandhuber, G

    A. Brandhuber, G. R. Brown, G. Chen, S. De Angelis, J. Gowdy and G. Travaglini, One-loop Gravitational Bremsstrahlung and Waveforms from a Heavy-Mass Effective Field Theory, 2303.06111v3

    arXiv

  30. [36]

    Herderschee, R

    A. Herderschee, R. Roiban and F. Teng, The Sub-Leading Scattering Waveform from Amplitudes, 2303.06112v2

    arXiv

  31. [37]

    Georgoudis, C

    A. Georgoudis, C. Heissenberg and I. Vazquez-Holm, Inelastic Exponentiation and Classical Gravitational Scattering at One Loop , 2303.07006v1

    arXiv

  32. [38]

    Georgoudis, C

    A. Georgoudis, C. Heissenberg and I. Vazquez-Holm, Addendum to: Inelastic exponentiation and classical gravitational scattering at one loop , JHEP 2024 (2024) 161 [2312.14710]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Bohnenblust, H

    L. Bohnenblust, H. Ita, M. Kraus and J. Schlenk, Gravitational Bremsstrahlung in Black-Hole Scattering at O(G3): Linear-in-Spin Effects , 2312.14859

    arXiv

  34. [41]

    D. Bini, T. Damour and A. Geralico, Comparing one-loop gravitational bremsstrahlung amplitudes to the multipolar-post-Minkowskian waveform , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 124052 [ 2309.14925]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [42]

    D. Bini, T. Damour, S. De Angelis, A. Geralico, A. Herderschee, R. Roiban and F. Teng, Gravitational waveforms: A tale of two formalisms , Phys. Rev. D 109 (2024) 125008 [ 2402.06604]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [43]

    C. R. T. Jones and M. Solon, Scattering amplitudes and N-body post-Minkowskian Hamiltonians in general relativity and beyond , JHEP 02 (2023) 105 [ 2208.02281]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    M. P. Solon and A. M. Wolz, The Hierarchical Three-Body Problem at O(G2), 2408.08850

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.