pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29305 · v1 · pith:TB5UZM2Znew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recoil-regulated extreme mass-ratio inspirals in AGN disks

LingQin Xue , Zolt\'an Haiman , Hiromichi Tagawa , Imre Bartos This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 06:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords extreme mass-ratio inspiralsAGN disksrecoil kicksLISAstellar-mass black holeshierarchical mergersblack hole migrationactive galactic nuclei
0
0 comments X

The pith

Recoil kicks from mergers and binary interactions repeatedly eject stellar-mass black holes from AGN disks, suppressing extreme mass-ratio inspirals except in young systems.

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

This paper shows that binary formation, hierarchical mergers, and the resulting recoil kicks regulate extreme mass-ratio inspiral production in AGN disks by lifting stellar-mass black holes out of the gas plane and interrupting their inward migration. Detectable EMRIs therefore arise mainly in young AGN disks within roughly 10 to 20 million years of formation and frequently involve secondaries that have already grown through mergers. The work predicts LISA detection rates of about 1 to 30 events per year, with the observable population dominated by low-mass AGNs. A reader would care because these rates and the preference for young disks link future gravitational-wave observations directly to the lifetimes and demographics of active nuclei.

Core claim

Using semi-analytical AGN disk models combined with Monte Carlo simulations across supermassive black hole masses of 10^5 to 10^7 solar masses and Eddington ratios of 10^{-3} to 1, recoil kicks from mergers and binary-single interactions repeatedly lift stellar-mass black holes out of the disk plane, temporarily interrupting migration and strongly suppressing EMRI formation in much of parameter space. Detectable EMRIs are therefore preferentially produced in young AGNs, typically within ~10-20 Myr of disk formation, and often involve merger-grown secondary black holes, yielding LISA detection rates of ~1-30 yr^{-1}.

What carries the argument

Recoil kicks from mergers and binary-single interactions that lift stellar-mass black holes out of the AGN disk plane and interrupt migration.

If this is right

  • Detectable EMRIs form preferentially in AGN disks younger than about 20 million years.
  • Many EMRIs involve secondary black holes that have already grown through prior mergers.
  • LISA is expected to detect 1 to 30 EMRIs per year from this channel.
  • The observable population is dominated by low-mass AGNs and is sensitive to the demographics of faint active nuclei.
  • EMRI observations can probe both AGN disk physics and the low-mass AGN population.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • EMRI detections could serve as a clock for AGN disk ages and lifetimes.
  • The predicted rates imply that the fraction of young AGNs in the local universe sets the overall EMRI yield.
  • Similar recoil-regulated migration may operate in other gaseous environments around compact objects.
  • EMRI properties such as mass ratios or eccentricities might distinguish disk models once a sample is in hand.

Load-bearing premise

Semi-analytical AGN disk models combined with Monte Carlo simulations accurately capture the migration, binary formation, and recoil dynamics without requiring full hydrodynamic or N-body verification.

What would settle it

A hydrodynamic or N-body simulation of an AGN disk in which recoil kicks from mergers and binary encounters fail to lift a substantial fraction of stellar-mass black holes out of the plane would falsify the suppression mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29305 by Hiromichi Tagawa, Imre Bartos, LingQin Xue, Zolt\'an Haiman.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left: Eddington ratio distribution functions. The broken power law [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. EMRI formation rates Γ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Smoothed and normalized distributions of secondary sBH mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Migration rates and initial sBH radii distribution of all EMRI progenitors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The expected EMRI detection rate at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as Fig. 4 but restricted to EMRIs detected by LISA under ERDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs) are among the primary targets of future space-based gravitational-wave observatories, such as LISA, TianQin, and Taiji. Active galactic nucleus (AGN) disks provide a gas-rich environment in which stellar-mass black holes can migrate toward central supermassive black holes and form EMRIs. Previous studies of this ``wet'' channel have largely neglected stellar interactions within the disk. Here we show that binary formation, hierarchical mergers, and recoil kicks fundamentally regulate wet EMRI formation in AGN disks. Using semi-analytical AGN disk models combined with Monte Carlo simulations across supermassive black hole masses of $10^5$--$10^7M_\odot$ and Eddington ratios of $10^{-3}$-1, we find that recoil kicks from mergers and binary--single interactions repeatedly lift stellar-mass black holes out of the disk plane, temporarily interrupting migration and strongly suppressing EMRI formation in much of parameter space. Detectable EMRIs are therefore preferentially produced in young AGNs, typically within $\sim$ 10-20Myr of disk formation, and often involve merger-grown secondary black holes. We predict LISA detection rates of $\sim$ 1-30yr$^{-1}$, with the observable population dominated by low-mass AGNs and sensitive to the poorly constrained demographics of faint active nuclei. Our results identify stellar interactions as a key ingredient in the evolution of compact objects in AGN disks and show that future EMRI observations can probe both AGN disk physics and the low-mass AGN population.

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 paper claims that recoil kicks from hierarchical mergers and binary-single encounters in AGN disks repeatedly lift stellar-mass black holes out of the midplane, interrupting Type-I/II migration and strongly suppressing EMRI formation except in young AGNs (within ~10-20 Myr of disk formation). Using semi-analytical disk models plus Monte Carlo sampling over SMBH masses 10^5-10^7 M_⊙ and Eddington ratios 10^{-3}-1, the authors predict that detectable EMRIs are preferentially produced by merger-grown secondaries in low-mass AGNs and yield LISA rates of ~1-30 yr^{-1}.

Significance. If the modeling of vertical excursions holds, the work identifies stellar interactions as a dominant regulator of the wet EMRI channel, supplies concrete, falsifiable predictions for LISA event rates and demographics, and links EMRI observations to the poorly constrained population of faint AGNs. The Monte Carlo exploration across parameter space is a strength that allows the young-AGN preference to be stated quantitatively.

major comments (2)
  1. [semi-analytical disk models and Monte Carlo implementation] The central suppression result rests on the semi-analytical prescriptions for post-recoil vertical damping and re-capture (described in the disk-model and migration sections). These prescriptions use analytic expressions for scale height, surface density, and gas-drag restoring force; if they systematically underestimate the vertical damping rate relative to 3D hydrodynamics (as the skeptic note suggests), the time spent out of the plane is overestimated and the claimed strong suppression in older AGNs does not follow.
  2. [results on detection rates] The predicted LISA rates (1-30 yr^{-1}) and the dominance of young, low-mass AGNs are obtained after integrating over the adopted ranges of Eddington ratio and SMBH mass; no convergence tests or sensitivity runs with respect to the vertical-damping parameters or the young-AGN timescale cutoff are reported, leaving the quantitative rates vulnerable to the modeling choice flagged above.
minor comments (2)
  1. [methods] Notation for the recoil velocity distribution and the binary-single encounter rate should be defined explicitly in the methods section rather than referenced only to external works.
  2. [figures] Figure captions for the Monte Carlo output panels should state the exact number of realizations and the binning used for the age and mass distributions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, proposing revisions where appropriate to enhance the robustness of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central suppression result rests on the semi-analytical prescriptions for post-recoil vertical damping and re-capture (described in the disk-model and migration sections). These prescriptions use analytic expressions for scale height, surface density, and gas-drag restoring force; if they systematically underestimate the vertical damping rate relative to 3D hydrodynamics (as the skeptic note suggests), the time spent out of the plane is overestimated and the claimed strong suppression in older AGNs does not follow.

    Authors: Our model employs standard semi-analytical prescriptions for AGN disk structure and gas drag that are widely used in the literature for similar problems. While we recognize that 3D hydrodynamical simulations could provide more precise damping rates, conducting such simulations across the full Monte Carlo parameter space is not feasible. We have adopted damping timescales that are conservative with respect to the suppression effect. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection discussing the potential uncertainties arising from the semi-analytical approximation, including references to relevant hydrodynamical studies, and argue that the qualitative conclusion of suppression in older AGNs remains valid even under variations in damping rates. revision: partial

  2. Referee: The predicted LISA rates (1-30 yr^{-1}) and the dominance of young, low-mass AGNs are obtained after integrating over the adopted ranges of Eddington ratio and SMBH mass; no convergence tests or sensitivity runs with respect to the vertical-damping parameters or the young-AGN timescale cutoff are reported, leaving the quantitative rates vulnerable to the modeling choice flagged above.

    Authors: We concur that sensitivity analyses would better quantify the dependence on these parameters. Accordingly, we will conduct additional Monte Carlo runs in the revised paper, varying the vertical damping timescale by factors of 0.5 and 2, and the young-AGN cutoff from 5 to 30 Myr. The results of these tests will be presented, demonstrating that the predicted rate range of 1-30 yr^{-1} and the preference for young, low-mass AGNs are robust to these variations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external semi-analytical models and Monte Carlo sampling.

full rationale

The paper's central results on recoil-regulated EMRI suppression and LISA rates are obtained by running Monte Carlo simulations that incorporate standard recoil kick physics and semi-analytical AGN disk prescriptions across stated parameter ranges. These inputs are drawn from prior literature on disk structure and gravitational-wave recoil rather than being fitted or defined within the present work to produce the output quantities. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted parameter by construction, no uniqueness theorems are imported from the authors' own prior papers, and the simulation outputs remain falsifiable against independent hydrodynamic or N-body benchmarks. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; the central claims rest on semi-analytical disk models whose internal parameters (migration rates, disk scale heights, gas densities) are not enumerated here but are known from prior literature to contain multiple fitted quantities. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Eddington ratio range
    Simulations span 10^{-3} to 1; values chosen to sample AGN states.
  • SMBH mass range
    10^5 to 10^7 solar masses; sets the scale for migration and recoil effects.
  • Young AGN timescale
    ∼10-20 Myr cutoff for detectable EMRIs; appears as an output threshold.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Semi-analytical AGN disk models accurately represent gas-driven migration and disk structure.
    Invoked to justify the Monte Carlo setup across the quoted mass and Eddington ranges.
  • standard math Standard recoil kick velocities from binary mergers apply without modification in the disk environment.
    Used to lift objects out of the plane.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5820 in / 1541 out tokens · 20945 ms · 2026-06-29T06:30:08.590656+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Dynamics of Relativistic Binaries in Structured and Stochastic Environments: A Lagrange-Fourier-Hansen Framework

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A new framework projects perturbations onto resonant frequencies via Hansen coefficients to produce efficient coupled ODEs for orbital elements in GW-driven relativistic binaries, demonstrated on tidal fields and accr...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

125 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    changing- look

    =−2.81, log(M ∗SMBH/M⊙) = 8.46, α=−0.30. The third and fourth models are simple power law models adopted from [41], assuming an AGN fraction fAGN = 0.01: Φ3(MSMBH) = 10 −4 Mpc−3 MSMBH 3×10 6M⊙ −0.3 ,(21) Φ4(MSMBH) = 2×10 −5 Mpc−3 MSMBH 3×10 6M⊙ +0.3 .(22) These four models are shown in the right panel of Fig. 1, exhibiting substantial differences at the l...

  2. [2]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    M. Colpi, K. Danzmann, M. Hewitson, K. Holley- Bockelmann, P. Jetzer, G. Nelemans, A. Petiteau, D. Shoemaker, C. Sopuerta, R. Stebbins,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.07571 (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna: Unveiling the Millihertz Gravitational Wave Sky

    J. Baker, J. Bellovary, P. L. Bender, E. Berti, R. Cald- well, J. Camp, J. W. Conklin, N. Cornish, C. Cut- ler, R. DeRosa,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06482 (2019)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  4. [4]

    Luo, L.-S

    J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y.-G. Gong, S. Hu, J. Ji, Q. Liu, J. Mei, V. Milyukov, M. Sazhin,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016)

    2016

  5. [5]

    Mei, Y.-Z

    J. Mei, Y.-Z. Bai, J. Bao, E. Barausse, L. Cai, E. Canuto, B. Cao, W.-M. Chen, Y. Chen, Y.-W. Ding, et al., Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2021, 05A107 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Hu and Y.-L

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

    2017

  7. [7]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, International Journal of Modern Physics A35, 2050075 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X2050075X

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217751x2050075x 2020

  8. [8]

    Amaro-Seoane, J

    P. Amaro-Seoane, J. R. Gair, M. Freitag, M. C. Miller, I. Mandel, C. J. Cutler, and S. Babak, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, R113 (2007)

    2007

  9. [9]

    C. P. L. Berry, S. A. Hughes, C. F. Sopuerta, A. J. K. Chua, A. Heffernan, K. Holley-Bockelmann, D. P. Mi- haylov, M. C. Miller, and A. Sesana, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 42 (2019), arXiv:1903.03686 [astro-ph.HE]. 14

    work page arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Drasco and S

    S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology73, 024027 (2006)

    2006

  11. [11]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Physical Review D69, 082005 (2004)

    2004

  12. [12]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology75, 042003 (2007)

    2007

  13. [13]

    Tahura, H

    S. Tahura, H. Khalvati, and H. Yang, Physical Review D109, 124025 (2024)

    2024

  14. [14]

    C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C

    A. C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no and C. F. Sopuerta, inRecent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Future Per- spectives(Springer, 2024) pp. 275–359

    2024

  15. [15]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Physical Review D89, 104059 (2014)

    2014

  16. [16]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 610 (IOP Publishing,

  17. [17]

    J. R. Gair, S. Babak, A. Sesana, P. Amaro-Seoane, E. Barausse, C. P. Berry, E. Berti, and C. Sopuerta, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 840 (IOP Publishing, 2017) p. 012021

    2017

  18. [18]

    Laghi, N

    D. Laghi, N. Tamanini, W. Del Pozzo, A. Sesana, J. Gair, S. Babak, and D. Izquierdo-Villalba, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society508, 4512 (2021)

    2021

  19. [19]

    G.-L. Li, Y. Tang, and Y.-L. Wu, SCIENCE CHINA Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy65, 100412 (2022)

    2022

  20. [20]

    Duque, C

    F. Duque, C. F. Macedo, R. Vicente, and V. Cardoso, Physical Review Letters133, 121404 (2024)

    2024

  21. [21]

    Derdzinski, D

    A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society501, 3540 (2021)

    2021

  22. [22]

    Derdzinski, D

    A. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society486, 2754 (2019)

    2019

  23. [23]

    Derdzinski and L

    A. Derdzinski and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society521, 4522 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    A. P. Lightman and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophysical Jour- nal, vol. 211, Jan. 1, 1977, pt. 1, p. 244-262.211, 244 (1977)

    1977

  25. [25]

    Amaro-Seoane, Living Reviews in Relativity21, 4 (2018)

    P. Amaro-Seoane, Living Reviews in Relativity21, 4 (2018)

    2018

  26. [26]

    J. G. Hills, Nature331, 687 (1988)

    1988

  27. [27]

    M. C. Miller, M. Freitag, D. P. Hamilton, and V. M. Lauburg, The Astrophysical Journal631, L117 (2005)

    2005

  28. [28]

    X. Chen, A. Sesana, P. Madau, and F. Liu, The Astro- physical Journal729, 13 (2011)

    2011

  29. [29]

    J. N. Bode and C. Wegg, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society438, 573 (2014)

    2014

  30. [30]

    S. Naoz, S. C. Rose, E. Michaely, D. Melchor, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, B. Mockler, and J. D. Schnittman, The Astrophysical Journal Letters927, L18 (2022)

    2022

  31. [31]

    Mazzolari, M

    G. Mazzolari, M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, R. M. Colombo, M. Dotti, G. Lodato, and D. Izquierdo-Villalba, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516, 1959 (2022)

    1959

  32. [32]

    Baruteau, J

    C. Baruteau, J. Cuadra, and D. Lin, The Astrophysical Journal726, 28 (2010)

    2010

  33. [33]

    Y.-P. Li, A. M. Dempsey, S. Li, H. Li, and J. Li, The Astrophysical Journal911, 124 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    J. Li, D. Lai, and L. Rodet, The Astrophysical Journal 934, 154 (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Rowan, T

    C. Rowan, T. Boekholt, B. Kocsis, and Z. Haiman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society524, 2770 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Cui, W.-B

    Q. Cui, W.-B. Han, and Z. Pan, Physical Review D111, 103044 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Sun, Y.-P

    H. Sun, Y.-P. Li, Z. Pan, and H. Yang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00469 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Duque, S

    F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Physical Review D111, 084006 (2025)

    2025

  39. [39]

    Y.-P. Li, H. Yang, and Z. Pan, Physical Review D111, 063074 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society374, 515 (2007)

    Y. Levin, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society374, 515 (2007)

    2007

  41. [41]

    Pan and H

    Z. Pan and H. Yang, Physical Review D103, 103018 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Physical Review D104, 063007 (2021)

    2021

  43. [43]

    Z. Pan, Z. Lyu, and H. Yang, Physical Review D105, 083005 (2022)

    2022

  44. [44]

    Y. Yang, I. Bartos, V. Gayathri, K. E. S. Ford, Z. Haiman, S. Klimenko, B. Kocsis, S. M´ arka, Z. M´ arka, B. McKernan, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 181101 (2019), arXiv:1906.09281 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    Y. Yang, V. Gayathri, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, M. Sa- farzadeh, and H. Tagawa, ApJ Lett.901, L34 (2020), arXiv:2007.04781 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, B. Koc- sis, and K. Omukai, MNRAS507, 3362 (2021), arXiv:2104.09510 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Samsing, I

    J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, Nature (London)603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    L. Xue, H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and I. Bartos, Physical Review D112, 063034 (2025)

    2025

  49. [49]

    Sirko and J

    E. Sirko and J. Goodman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society341, 501 (2003)

    2003

  50. [50]

    Whitehead, C

    H. Whitehead, C. Rowan, and B. Kocsis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23899 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Rowan, H

    C. Rowan, H. Whitehead, G. Fabj, P. Kirkeberg, M. E. Pessah, and B. Kocsis, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.23739 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Gangardt, A

    D. Gangardt, A. A. Trani, C. Bonnerot, and D. Gerosa, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society530, 3689 (2024)

    2024

  53. [53]

    K. D. Kanagawa, H. Tanaka, and E. Szuszkiewicz, The Astrophysical Journal861, 140 (2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    P. C. Peters, Physical Review136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  55. [55]

    M. Katz, L. Speri, C. Chapman-Bird, A. J. K. Chua, N. Warburton, and S. Hughes, FastEMRIWaveforms

  56. [56]

    A. J. Chua, M. L. Katz, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review Letters126, 051102 (2021)

    2021

  57. [57]

    M. L. Katz, A. J. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D104, 064047 (2021)

    2021

  58. [58]

    Speri, M

    L. Speri, M. L. Katz, A. J. Chua, S. A. Hughes, N. War- burton, J. E. Thompson, C. E. Chapman-Bird, and J. R. Gair, Frontiers in Applied Mathematics and Statistics 9, 1266739 (2024)

    2024

  59. [59]

    C. E. Chapman-Bird, L. Speri, Z. Nasipak, O. Burke, M. L. Katz, A. Santini, S. Kejriwal, P. Lynch, J. Mathews, H. Khalvati,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.09470 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Babak, J

    S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, Physical Review D95, 103012 (2017). 15

    2017

  61. [61]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.00786 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    T. T. Ananna, A. K. Weigel, B. Trakhtenbrot, M. J. Koss, C. M. Urry, C. Ricci, R. C. Hickox, E. Treister, F. E. Bauer, Y. Ueda,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series261, 9 (2022)

    2022

  63. [63]

    J. A. Kollmeier, C. A. Onken, C. S. Kochanek, A. Gould, D. H. Weinberg, M. Dietrich, R. Cool, A. Dey, D. J. Eisenstein, B. T. Jannuzi,et al., The Astrophysi- cal Journal648, 128 (2006)

    2006

  64. [64]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and B. Kocsis, The Astrophys- ical Journal898, 25 (2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    Bartos, B

    I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, and S. M´ arka, The Astrophysical Journal835, 165 (2017)

    2017

  66. [66]

    J. E. Greene and L. C. Ho, The Astrophysical Journal 667, 131 (2007)

    2007

  67. [67]

    J. E. Greene and L. C. Ho, The Astrophysical Journal 704, 1743 (2009)

    2009

  68. [68]

    Shankar, D

    F. Shankar, D. H. Weinberg, and J. Miralda-Escud´ e, The Astrophysical Journal690, 20 (2008)

    2008

  69. [69]

    A. W. Graham, S. P. Driver, P. D. Allen, and J. Liske, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society378, 198 (2007)

    2007

  70. [70]

    Advection-Dominated Accretion: Underfed Black Holes and Neutron Stars

    R. Narayan and I. Yi, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9411059 (1994)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  71. [71]

    A. A. Esin, J. E. McClintock, and R. Narayan, The Astrophysical Journal489, 865 (1997)

    1997

  72. [72]

    L. C. Ho, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.46, 475 (2008)

    2008

  73. [73]

    Yuan and R

    F. Yuan and R. Narayan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics52, 529 (2014)

    2014

  74. [74]

    Narayan, R

    R. Narayan, R. Mahadevan, and E. Quataert, Theory of Black Hole Accretion Disks , 148 (1998)

    1998

  75. [75]

    Liu and E

    B. Liu and E. Meyer-Hofmeister, Astronomy & Astro- physics372, 386 (2001)

    2001

  76. [76]

    R. S. Nemmen, T. Storchi-Bergmann, and M. Eracleous, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society438, 2804 (2014)

    2014

  77. [77]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Annual Review of Astron- omy and Astrophysics51, 511 (2013)

    2013

  78. [78]

    Aghanimet al., Astron

    N. Aghanimet al., Astron. Astrophys641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  79. [79]

    Satyapal, N

    S. Satyapal, N. Abel, N. Secrest, A. Singh, and S. El- lison, Active Galactic Nuclei: What’s in a Name? , 82 (2016)

    2016

  80. [80]

    L. F. Sartori, K. Schawinski, E. Treister, B. Trakhten- brot, M. Koss, M. Shirazi, and K. Oh, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society454, 3722 (2015)

    2015

Showing first 80 references.