\section{Introduction}
\label{Introduction}
With the advent of gravitational-wave (GW) astronomy~\cite{LIGOScientific:2018mvr}, the last decade has seen remarkable progress in our ability to study strong-field gravity in highly dynamical regimes. We can now monitor the GW-driven coalescence of compact binaries, paving the way to new tests of General Relativity (GR) in the strong-field regime~\cite{Yagi:2016jml,Barack:2018yly,Cardoso:2019rvt}. Some of these studies rely on the simplicity of black holes (BHs) in GR, namely on the mathematical result that asymptotically flat vacuum BH geometries must be parameterized by a small number of quantities (their mass, angular momentum, and charge)~\citep{Bekenstein:1971hc,Robinson:1975bv,Chrusciel:2012jk}.
Nevertheless, the anticipated breakdown of classical GR in BH interiors and our incomplete understanding of the matter content of the Universe motivates the search for smoking-gun evidence for beyond-standard-model physics in GW data.

While the search for new physics is complicated by our nearly total ignorance of the ultimate theory of gravitation, we can take guidance from robust aspects of specific modified theories of gravity~\cite{Berti:2015itd,Barack:2018yly}. For instance, a generic feature that arise when extra degrees of freedom are involved is the dipole emission~\cite{Barausse:2016eii}. A specific example that we will use as a prototype for modified gravity theories with such effect is Einstein's theory minimally coupled to a massless vector field, known as Einstein-Maxwell's theory. In contrast to most beyond-standard-model theories, Einstein-Maxwell admits a well-posed initial value problem~\cite{Alcubierre2009}, and hence is amenable to numerical integration.
In this theory, BHs can carry a conserved charge. While this charge can be thought of as electric charge, astrophysical BHs are expected to be electrically neutral to a very good approximation. This is due to Schwinger-type and Hawking radiation mechanisms, and the availability of interstellar plasma, mechanisms that are effective largely because of the huge charge-to-mass ratio of electrons (see, e.g.~\cite{Cardoso:2016olt} and references therein).
However, the mathematical description for Einstein-Maxwell does not only describe electric charge but can be applied to any $U(1)$ field.
If the vector field is not a Maxwell field, it is possible to envision scenarios where the charge-to-mass ratio of fundamental particles is smaller, and where BHs could be charged under such a field. It is also possible to interpret the charge as magnetic in nature (possibly due to primordial magnetic monopoles). Within this framework,
the existence of interaction and another channel of radiation, in addition to the GW channel, changes the dynamics of the compact binary, leading to potentially observable signatures in the GWs.
Indeed, the first constraints on the charge and dipole moment of BH binaries, using GW detection, have been placed~\cite{Barausse:2016eii,Cardoso:2016olt,Bozzola:2020mjx,Carullo:2021oxn} and show that data is compatible with non-negligible amount of charge.
In other words, the Einstein-Maxwell theory is a good proxy for more general theories of gravitation, but also an attractive candidate for dark matter~\cite{Cardoso:2016olt} (for theoretical scenarios where Einstein-Maxwell theory is mathematically applicable, see, e.g.,~\cite{Bozzola:2019aaw,Bozzola:2020mjx,Bozzola:2021elc}).

One potentially important, but unexplored, consequence of having charged objects is that EM radiation will induce a recoil on the final object, in addition to that induced by GW emission. The recoil induced by GWs was studied extensively (see Refs.~\cite{Bonnor1961,PhysRev.128.2471,1973ApJ...183..657B,Fitchett,Fitchett:1984qn, Lousto:2004pr, Herrmann:2006cd, Campanelli:2004zw, Baker:2006vn, Gonzalez:2006md, Campanelli:2007cga, Lousto:2011kp} for a very incomplete list). This gravitational recoil, known as the {\it kick}, has important implications on the structure of galaxies and the formation of supermassive BHs~\cite{Boylan-Kolchin:2004fnd, Madau:2004st, Merritt:2004xa, Libeskind:2005eh, Volonteri:2005pn, Haiman:2004ve} and particularly due to the possibility that the resulting BH might exceed the escape velocity of globular clusters, or even galaxies, thus being ejected from them~\cite{Haehnelt:2005bh, Magain:2005yp, Hoffman:2005be, Merritt:2005nt, Merritt:2002hc}.

The rate of emission of momentum in GWs is caused by the interaction between the quadrupole and the octupole of the energy distribution \citep{Fitchett}. In gravity theories with dipole emission, this suggests that the leading-order effect giving rise to a kick would be a dipole-quadrupole term,
which can lead to qualitatively new features, potentially surpassing the GW effect. The purpose of this work is to explore this question. Since in GR the kick is independent of the scale of the system, our study applies to both stellar mass and supermassive BHs alike. If kicks are detected in GW data~\cite{Gerosa:2016vip,Varma:2022pld}, additional constraints on dipole emission can be placed when the GW model accounts for the effects of dipole emission.

The paper is structured as follows: In Section~\ref{sec:Keplerian} we estimate the kicks analytically assuming Keplerian circular orbits. The numerical setup and code are explained in Section~\ref{sec:evolutions}. Section~\ref{sec:Results} exposes the results of the simulations and compares them with the Keplerian estimate. We conclude in Section~\ref{sec:Discussion}. We use units in which $G=c=1$, where $G$ is Newton's constant and $c$ the speed of light in vacuum. The conventions for the EM fields are those of \cite{Zilhao:2015tya}. We express results in terms of the Arnowitt-Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of the system, $M_{ADM}$. Greek indices range from 0 to 3, and Latin ones range from 1 to 3.

\section{Slow motion, weak field approximation}
\label{sec:Keplerian}

We follow here an approach analogous to what Ref.~\cite{1973ApJ...183..657B} did for GW emission. We use a slow-motion, weak-field approximation, and start by solving for the EM field $A^\mu$ in the Lorenz gauge, which leads to a wave equation with source
\begin{equation}
\Box A^\mu ({\bf x}, t) = 4 \pi J ^\mu.
\end{equation}
Here, $\mathbf{x}$ and $t$ are the space and time coordinates in flat space, and $J^{\mu}$ is the EM current density. Using the Green's function of the d'Alembertian operator we get
\begin{equation}
A^\mu({\bf x}, t) =  \int \frac{J^\mu({\bf x}', t - |{\bf x} - {\bf x}'|)}{|{\bf x} - {\bf x}'|} dV
\end{equation}
with $dV = d^3\mathbf{x}'$. We will drop the primes from now on. A straightforward manipulation yields, up to higher order terms
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
A^i({\bf x}, t) &= \frac{1}{r} \left( \dot D^i - \frac{n^j \dot M^{ij}}{2}  + \frac{n^j \ddot B^{ij}}{2}  \right),\\
B^{ij} &= \frac{1}{3}\left(Q^{ij} + \delta^{ij} \int J^0 r^2 dV\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $n^i$ is the outward-pointing unit 3-vector, and we define the electric dipole $D^i$, the magnetic dipole $M^{ij}$ and the traceless electric quadrupole $Q^{ij}$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
D^i &= \int J^0 x^i dV, \\ M^{ij} &= \int( x^i J^j - x^j J^i) dV, \\
Q^{ij} &= \int J^0 (3 x^i x^j - r^2 \delta^{ij}) dV.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
At sufficiently large distances from the source, the fields behave as a plane wave~\cite{Landau}. In this limit, by neglecting the Coulomb term ($\propto r^{-2}$) in front of the radiative term ($\propto r^{-1}$) the Poynting vector becomes simply
\begin{equation}
{\bf S} = |{\bf \dot A} \times {\bf n}|^2 \, \frac{\bf n}{4\pi} . \label{eq:Poynting}
\end{equation}
After a lengthy manipulation of~\eqref{eq:Poynting}, and integrating over solid angle, we are left with the expression for the rate of emission of linear momentum in the EM radiation
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP_{\rm EM}^i}{dt} =
\frac{1}{15} \ddot D^{j} \dddot Q^{ji} - \ddot D^{j} \ddot M^{ji}.
\end{equation}
We see here that the dominant contribution to the momentum emission is a combination of electric dipole and magnetic dipole, and electric dipole and quadrupole terms. This formula is somewhat similar to its GW analog, where the momentum emission arises from the interaction between the mass quadrupole and a combination of mass octupole and angular momentum moments \cite{1973ApJ...183..657B}.

For the particular case of point particles following Keplerian circular orbits, we set~\cite{Fitchett}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
J^0 &= \sum_{n=1}^2 q_n \delta({\bf x} - {\bf x}_n(t)), \\ J^i &= \sum_{n=1}^2 q_n \dot x_n^i\delta({\bf x} - {\bf x}_n(t)),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $\delta$ being Dirac's delta.
If the particles have masses $m_1$ and $m_2$, charges $q_1$ and $q_2$, and are at a distance $d$ of each other (distance $d_1$ and $d_2$ from the center of mass), a direct modification of Kepler's third law yields an angular velocity
\begin{equation}
\Omega_c = d^{-3/2}\sqrt{(m_1+m_2)\left(1 - \frac{q_1 q_2}{m_1 m_2}\right)}\,,
\end{equation}
where we also accounted for the EM interaction.
Without loss of generality, we may choose an instant of time where both particles lie along the $x$-axis, with their velocity vectors in the $y$ direction. The only nonzero components of the electric dipole and quadrupole tensor derivatives are then
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\ddot D^1 &= - (d_1 q_1 - d_2 q_2) \Omega_c^2, \\ \dddot Q^{12} &= \dddot Q^{21} = - 12  (d_1^2 q_1 + d_2^2 q_2) \Omega_c^3\,,
\end{split}
\end{equation}
and the magnetic dipole tensor is zero. Therefore
\begin{align}
\frac{d{\bf P}_{\rm EM}^i}{dt} &= \frac{4}{5} (d_1 q_1 - d_2 q_2) (d_1^2 q_1 + d_2^2 q_2)\; \Omega_c^5 \; \hat {\bf y} \notag \\
 &=  \left(\frac{q_1}{m_1}-\frac{q_2}{m_2}\right)  \left(\frac{q_1}{m_1^2}+\frac{q_2}{m_2^2}\right) F_0\;  \hat {\bf y},
\end{align}
with
\begin{equation}
F_0 \equiv \frac{4}{5} \frac{m_1^3 m_2^3}{\sqrt{(m_1+m_2)d^9}}{ \left(1-\frac{q_1 q_2}{m_1 m_2}\right)}^{5/2}\,.
\end{equation}
By defining
\begin{equation}
M = m_1 + m_2\,,\quad \rho =\frac{m_1}{m_2}\,,\quad \lambda_i = \frac{q_i}{m_i}\,,
\end{equation}
we obtain
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP_{\rm EM}}{dt} = \frac{4}{5} {\left(\frac{M}{d}\right)}^{9/2} \frac{ {\left(1 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2\right)}^{5/2}\rho^2 }{{(1+\rho)}^5}  \left(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2\right) \left(\lambda_1 + \rho \lambda_2\right)\,.
\label{eqn:thrust}
\end{equation}
Following~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md}, we assume that the total integrated momentum will have the same functional form.
This result predicts a zero kick for the cases $\lambda_{1} = \lambda_{2}$ (when the dipole vanishes) and $\lambda_{1} = -\rho\lambda_{2}$ (when the quadrupole vanishes), in the center of mass frame. Note that the factor $\left(1 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2 \right)^{5/2}$ is never zero in BHs since $\lambda_i$ are strictly less than~1. We will now use full nonlinear simulations to compute the actual recoil imparted by EM radiation, trying to make contact with this flat-space result.

\section{Setup}%
\label{sec:evolutions}
The action for the Einstein-Maxwell theory is
\begin{equation}
S = \int d^4 x \sqrt{-g} \left(\frac{R}{4} - \frac{1}{4} F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}\right)
\end{equation}
where $R$ is the Ricci scalar, and the electromagnetic field strength is defined as $F_{\mu\nu} = \nabla_\mu A_\nu - \nabla_\nu A_\mu$. Variation with respect to the metric tensor $g_{\mu\nu}$ and the electromagnetic vector potential $A_\mu$ result, respectively, in
\begin{align}
& \nabla_\nu F^{\mu\nu} = 0, \\
& R_{\mu\nu} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} R = 2 F_{\mu\rho} F_\nu^{\; \rho} - \frac{1}{2} g_{\mu\nu} F^{\rho\sigma}F_{\rho\sigma}.
\end{align}
To evolve these equations numerically we employ the standard 3+1 decomposition to formulate the equations of motion as a Cauchy problem under the Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura (BSSN) scheme~\cite{PhysRevD.52.5428, PhysRevD.59.024007}.
Our numerical approach follows that of previous evolutions of charged BHs~\cite{Zilhao:2012gp,Zilhao:2013nda,Zilhao:2014wqa,Bozzola:2020mjx,Bozzola:2021elc,Bozzola:2022uqu}. Specifically, numerical computations are performed using the \texttt{EinsteinToolkit} (ET) code~\cite{EinsteinToolkit:2021_11}, within the \texttt{Cactus} framework~\cite{Goodale:2002a} with grid functions being computed on a \texttt{Carpet} adaptive-mesh-refinement Cartesian grid~\cite{Schnetter:2003rb}. To prepare initial data and diagnose the spacetime we adopt the codes \texttt{TwoChargedPunctures} and \texttt{QuasiLocalMeasuresEM} developed in~\cite{Bozzola:2019aaw}, which extend
the \texttt{TwoPunctures}~\cite{Ansorg:2004ds} and \texttt{QuasiLocalMeasures}~\cite{Dreyer:2002mx} to the full Einstein-Maxwell theory. These codes have been employed in~\cite{Bozzola:2020mjx, Bozzola:2021elc, Bozzola:2022uqu}, where it was demonstrated how one can perform long-term and stable quasi-circular charged BH numerical evolutions. For a different approach to generating initial data, see~\cite{Mukherjee:2022gla}. Time evolution of the electromagnetic fields is performed with the massless version of \texttt{ProcaEvolve} thorn~\cite{Zilhao:2015tya} within the \texttt{Canuda} library~\cite{witek_helvi_2021_5520862}. The spacetime is evolved with \texttt{Lean}~\cite{Sperhake2007}, also within \texttt{Canuda}. We employed the \emph{continuous} Kreiss-Oliger dissipation prescription introduced in~\cite{Bozzola:2021elc}. \texttt{AHFinderDirect}~\cite{Thornburg:2003sf} is adopted for locating apparent horizons. To save computational resources we impose symmetry with respect to the orbital $z=0$ plane.

We approximate the initial momenta of the  BHs in a quasi-circular inspiral by the 3.5 Post-Newtonian approximation for neutral BHs, and rescaling it by a factor of $\sqrt{1 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2}$ as explained in \cite{Bozzola:2021elc}.

The emission of energy by EM and GWs can be computed from the Newman-Penrose scalars~\cite{Newman1962, Zilhao:2015tya} $\Psi_{4}$ and $\Phi_{2}$, respectively, as
\begin{align}
\frac{dE_{\rm GW}}{dt} &= \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{r^2}{16 \pi} \oint \left|\int_{-\infty}^t \Psi_4 \, dt'\right|^2 d\Omega\,,\label{eq:Egw}\\
\frac{dE_{\rm EM}}{dt} &= \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{r^2}{4 \pi} \oint \left|\Phi_2\right|^2 d\Omega\,,\label{eq:Eem}
\end{align}
where $\oint$ indicates surface integration over a coordinate sphere of radius $r$
and $d \Omega = \sin \theta d \theta d \phi$ is the differential solid angle.

The expressions for linear momentum emission are obtained simply by adding a radially-pointing unit vector $\hat n$ inside the angular integral,
\begin{align}
\frac{dP_{\rm GW}^i}{dt} &= \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{r^2}{16 \pi} \oint n^i \, \left|\int_{-\infty}^t  \Psi_4 \, dt'\right|^2 d\Omega\,,\label{eq:Pgw}\\
\frac{dP_{\rm EM}^i}{dt} &= \lim_{r \to \infty} \frac{r^2}{4 \pi} \oint n^i \, \left|\Phi_2\right|^2 d\Omega.\label{eq:Pem}
\end{align}
The actual computation is done in terms of the multipole decomposition coefficients of $\Psi_4$ and $\Phi_2$ as explained in Appendix~\ref{app:Multipoles}. We use multipole moments up to order $l = 8$, and we start the time integration at a retarded time of 40 computational units (about $39.2 M_{\rm ADM}$) in order to avoid the ``junk'' radiation (spurious radiation, arising from the way that initial data is specified). As explained bellow, we then convert the linear momentum to recoil velocity as $v = P/M_F$, where $M_F$ is the quasi-isolated mass of the final BH as computed by \texttt{QuasiLocalMeasuresEM}.

Several sanity checks (such as the comparison to neutral results of Ref.~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md}) have been performed on the numerical implementation of the equations, and are summarized in Appendix~\ref{app:Checks}. The computation of the kicks from the multipole moments has been compared to the direct integration of momentum emission over solid angle, showing excellent agreement. The computation of the Newman-Penrose scalars is implemented in the ET \texttt{NPScalars\_Proca} thorn~\cite{Zilhao:2015tya}. Each run has 8 refinement levels (each one halving the previous grid spacing), with outermost grid spacing of $\Delta x = \Delta y = \Delta z = 1.23 M_{ADM}$. This corresponds to having at least 50 points across the horizon in cases with $\rho = 1$, and at least 33 across the diameter of the horizon of the smallest BH for $\rho = 2$.

\begin{table}[thpb]
\caption{Parameters used in the initial data generation, expressed in code units, for the first (top) and second (bottom) series of runs.\label{tab:initial_data}}
\setlength\tabcolsep{8pt}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
 $M_{ADM}$ & $m_1$ & $m_2$ & $\rho = m_1/m_2$ & $\lambda_1$ & $\lambda_2$ \\
\hline
 1.02 &  0.52 &  0.52 &  1.00 &  0.19 & -0.19 \\
 1.02 &  0.52 &  0.52 &  1.00 &  0.19 & -0.10 \\
 1.03 &  0.52 &  0.52 &  1.00 &  0.19 &  0.00 \\
 1.03 &  0.52 &  0.52 &  1.00 &  0.19 &  0.10 \\
 1.02 &  0.52 &  0.52 &  1.00 &  0.19 &  0.19 \\
\hline
\hline
 1.02 &  0.68 &  0.35 &  1.94 &  0.19 & -0.19 \\
 1.02 &  0.68 &  0.35 &  1.94 &  0.19 & -0.09 \\
 1.02 &  0.68 &  0.35 &  1.94 &  0.19 &  0.00 \\
 1.02 &  0.68 &  0.35 &  1.94 &  0.19 &  0.09 \\
 1.02 &  0.68 &  0.35 &  1.94 &  0.19 &  0.19 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}

We performed a sampling of a subset of the parameters describing a binary BH. Namely, we use an initial coordinate distance of $d = 6.86 M_{ADM}$, and we organize the runs by ``series'' of fixed mass ratio $\rho = m_1 / m_2$ and $\lambda_1$ ($\rho \geq 1$). For each series, we vary $\lambda_2$ from $-\lambda_1$ to $\lambda_1$ in intervals of 0.1. The construction of the initial data by \texttt{TwoChargedPunctures} fixing the bare masses introduces some small deviations from the target initial masses and charges of the individual BHs, and also to the global ADM mass of the system. This causes the mass ratios to be slightly different from the exact values of $\rho = 1, 2$, and the charge-to-mass ratios $\lambda$ to vary between runs, as measured by \texttt{QuasiLocalMeasuresEM}. Additionally, the fact that $M_{\rm ADM} \neq 1$ creates a discrepancy between the computational code units and the geometric units in terms of the total mass. For this reason, it is important to keep in mind that for all plots and fitting functions that assume constant quantities in several runs, this assumption is only approximately satisfied. Also, waveforms extracted at a fixed radius $R_{\rm ex}$ in computational units will not correspond exactly to the same physical distance, although the difference is negligible compared to other sources of error. Table~\ref{tab:initial_data} lists the ADM mass, physical masses of each BH, charge-to-mass ratios and binary mass ratios that we explored. The ADM mass is computed at the level of initial data by surface integrals as in \cite{baumgarte_shapiro_2010}, and the physical masses $m_{1,2}$ refer to the values measured by \texttt{QuasiLocalMeasuresEM} as in \cite{Bozzola:2019aaw}.

Fits to data were performed by the nonlinear least-squares (NLLS) Marquardt-Levenberg algorithm implementation in \texttt{Gnuplot}, which also provides an estimate of the asymptotic standard errors in the coefficients.

\section{Results}%
\label{sec:Results}

In Table \ref{tab:kicks} we list the values of the kicks obtained for each of the parameter configurations.

\begin{table}[thpb]
\caption{Values of the kicks for the first (top) and second (bottom) series of runs, all of them having $\lambda_1 = 0.19$.\label{tab:kicks}}
\setlength\tabcolsep{10pt}
\begin{tabular}{c|ccccc}
\hline
 $\rho = 1.00$ & $\lambda_2$ & $v_{EM}$ (km/s) & $v_{GW}$ (km/s) \\
\hline
 & -0.19 &  0.00 $\pm$  0.00 &  0.00 $\pm$  0.00 \\
 & -0.10 &  4.73 $\pm$  0.03 &  2.01 $\pm$  0.09 \\
 &  0.00 &  6.25 $\pm$  0.04 &  2.62 $\pm$  0.12 \\
 &  0.10 &  4.66 $\pm$  0.03 &  1.93 $\pm$  0.09 \\
 &  0.19 &  0.00 $\pm$  0.00 &  0.00 $\pm$  0.00 \\
\hline
\hline
 $\rho = 1.94$ & $\lambda_2$ & $v_{EM}$ (km/s) & $v_{GW}$ (km/s) \\
\hline
 & -0.19 &  6.17 $\pm$  0.04 &  153.36 $\pm$  6.9 \\
 & -0.09 &  7.91 $\pm$  0.05 &  149.54 $\pm$  6.7 \\
 &  0.00 &  7.76 $\pm$  0.05 &  146.23 $\pm$  6.6 \\
 &  0.09 &  5.67 $\pm$  0.03 &  144.74 $\pm$  6.5 \\
 &  0.19 &  1.75 $\pm$  0.01 &  144.42 $\pm$  6.5 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Although  Eq.~\eqref{eqn:thrust} assumes flat space and a circular trajectory, it suggests a functional form for the EM kick. We thus expect the rate of emission of EM momentum as a function of $\lambda_2$ to be a curve close to a parabola, with roots at $\lambda_2 = \lambda_1$ (zero dipole) and at $\lambda_2 = -\lambda_1 / \rho$ (zero quadrupole). As in Ref.~\cite{Gonzalez:2006md}, we conjecture that the total integrated momentum (the kick) should follow the same kind of dependence. Therefore, we fit a function of the form
\begin{equation}
v_{\rm EM} = A \left(B - \lambda_2\right) \left(C + \lambda_2 \right) {\left(1 - D \lambda_2\right)}^{5/2}.
\label{eq:fit_form}
\end{equation}
Based on the Keplerian expression, we expect $B = \lambda_1$,  $C = \lambda_1 / \rho$ and $D = \lambda_1$. The constant $A$ will depend on the details of the decay of the orbital separation, and is therefore not possible to extract it at a purely Newtonian level.
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{PaperFigures/rho1_EM}
\caption{Emission of momentum in the EM channel as a function of time (top) and final kick (bottom), for equal-mass binaries ($\rho \approx 1.00$) and $\lambda_1 \approx 0.192$. The solid line is the fitted function of the form~\eqref{eq:fit_form}. The fit error is estimated to be of about 0.6\%.\label{fig:rho1_EM}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The actual numerical values for the EM kicks for equal-mass BHs are depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig:rho1_EM}. We define $v = P / M_F$, with $M_F$ being the mass of the final BH as measured by \texttt{QuasiLocalMeasuresEM}. This expression is appropriate in the regime under consideration because the kicks are non relativistic ($v \ll c$). Note that both $P$ and $M_{F}$ have units of mass, so the kick magnitude is independent on the mass-scale of the system. The fitted values from~\eqref{eq:fit_form}  are $A = 169.5 \pm 0.3$ km/s, $B = 0.192 \pm 2 \cdot 10^{-4}$, $C = 0.192 \pm 2 \cdot 10^{-4}$ and $D = 0.03 \pm 0.01$, giving excellent agreement for the zeros of the kick, but a slightly more symmetric curve than the predicted by~\eqref{eqn:thrust}. The uncertainties in the coefficients $B$ and $C$ are of the same order as the variations of $\lambda_1$ between the runs used in the fit.
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{PaperFigures/rho1_GW}
\caption{Emission of momentum in the GW channel as a function of time (top) and final kick (bottom), for equal-mass binaries ($\rho \approx 1.00$) and $\lambda_1 \approx 0.192$.  The solid line is the fitted function of the form~\eqref{eq:fit_form}. The fit error is estimated to be of about 4.5\%.\label{fig:rho1_GW}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Because of the symmetry between the two BHs, we expect the GW kicks for equal mass binaries to vanish for $\lambda_1 = \lambda_2$, which is indeed observed. For other values of $\lambda_2$, however, small GW kicks are produced as a consequence of the EM fields, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:rho1_GW}. The profile of the GW kicks as a function of $\lambda_2$ is again almost parabolic, with the fit from~\eqref{eq:fit_form} giving $A = 71.17 \pm 0.03$ km/s, $B = 0.192 \pm 5 \cdot 10^{-5}$, $C = 0192 \pm 4 \cdot 10^{-5}$ and $D = 0.085 \pm 0.002$.
\begin{figure}[thbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{PaperFigures/rho2_EM}
\caption{EM kicks for mass ratio $\rho \approx 1.94$ and $\lambda_1 \approx 0.195$, showing strong deviation from the prediction of~\eqref{eqn:thrust}, which predicts the zeros to be at $\lambda_2 = \lambda_2, -\lambda_2/\rho$.  The solid line is the fitted function of the form~\eqref{eq:fit_form}. The error is estimated to be of about 0.6\%. \label{fig:rho2_EM}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

When moving to BH binaries with unequal masses, the numerical results deviate strongly from the Keplerian prediction (see Fig.~\ref{fig:rho2_EM}). In particular, the EM kicks no longer vanish for the zero dipole ($\lambda_2 = \lambda_1$) and zero quadrupole ($\lambda_2 = -\lambda_2/\rho$) configurations, and the maximum is displaced from the predicted position.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{PaperFigures/rho2_GW}
\caption{Emission of momentum in the GW channel as a function of time (top) and final kick (bottom), for mass ratio $\rho \approx 1.94$ and $\lambda_1 \approx 0.195$.  The solid line is the fitted function of the form~\eqref{eq:fit_form_2}. The error is estimated to be of about 4.5\%.\label{fig:rho2_GW}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We do not have, at the present time, a clear explanation of the physical phenomena causing this deviation when $\rho > 1$. We hypothesize, however, that the (much stronger) emission of momentum by the GW channel is ``jiggling'' the system and thus invalidating the assumptions of our derivation and contaminating the EM signal. The GW kicks for mass ratio $\rho \approx 1.94$, plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:rho2_GW}  can be fitted to be approximately
\begin{equation}
v_{\rm GW} = v_{\rm GW, \text{neutral}} + A + B{(C - \lambda_2)}^2\,,
\label{eq:fit_form_2}
\end{equation}
with $A = 12.9 \pm 0.2$ km/s, $B = 70 \pm 6$ km/s and $C = 0.17 \pm 0.02$, signaling a quadratic dependence on $\lambda_1 - \lambda_2$. $v_{\rm GW, \text{neutral}} \approx 131.5$ km/s is the value of the kick for a neutral binary with the same mass ratio as the charged ones ($\rho \approx 1.94$). In order to parametrize the effect of the gravitational emission of momentum on the electromagnetic kicks, we fitted an empirical model which adds to the Keplerian profile a contribution proportional to the GW kick as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
v_{\rm EM} &= \alpha \frac{ {\left(1 - \lambda_1 \lambda_2\right)}^{5/2}\rho^2 }{{(1+\rho)}^5}  \left(\lambda_1 - \lambda_2\right) \left(\lambda_1 + \rho \lambda_2\right) \\
&+ 2 \beta (1 - \gamma \lambda_2) v_{\rm GW}.
\end{split}
\label{eq:empirical_model}
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{PaperFigures/empirical_fit}
\caption{Comparison between the EM kicks obtained by numerical simulation and the empirical fitted model~\eqref{eq:empirical_model}. The maximum absolute error is of 0.3 km/s and the maximum relative error (excluding the vanishing kicks) is 13 \%.\label{fig:empirical_fit}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
By using the results above, we obtain the dimensionless coefficients $\alpha = (5.0 \pm 0.1) \cdot 10^3$ km/s, $\beta = 0.0194 \pm 3 \cdot 10^{-4}$ and $\gamma = 3.5 \pm 0.2$. The comparison of the model with the actual numerical values of the EM kicks is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:empirical_fit}, giving remarkable accuracy with a maximum error of 0.3 km/s. For the smallest kicks, the relative error can be large (about 13\%). The physical meaning of these parameters is unknown.
\begin{figure}[thpb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{PaperFigures/directions_mr1} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.43\textwidth]{PaperFigures/directions_mr2}
\caption{Unit vectors showing the directions on the $(x,y)$ orbital plane of the EM and GW kicks for mass ratios 1 and~2. \label{fig:directions}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:directions}, the directions of the EM and GW are displayed. It is interesting to notice that for equal masses, the two channels seem to be oriented roughly in opposite directions, while for higher mass ratios the directions seem to be approximately the same.

\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion}
We computed in a full nonlinear setup the linear momentum carried by EM and GWs in charged BH binaries in quasi-circular orbits, with varying mass ratios and charges. Our results are motivated and also described well by a simple weak-field slow motion expansion, Eq.~\eqref{eq:empirical_model}. Note, however, that we fixed the charge-to-mass ratio of one component, $\lambda_1$. Our fit is not informed by general charge-to-mass ratios, hence it doesn't have a proper neutral limit (notice that when $\lambda_1=\lambda_2=0$, Eq.~\eqref{eq:empirical_model} predicts a nonsensical EM kick).
Our results are robust against changes in the initial orbital separation and small orbital eccentricity.

We observe that the presence of charge in equal mass binaries can induce a small GW kick at the fully nonlinear level, as long as $|q_1|\neq|q_2|$. For binaries with sufficiently different masses, the EM kick is generally much weaker than its gravitational counterpart for the explored values of the charges. This would make it a subdominant effect in astrophysical scenarios unless the U(1) charge is significantly larger.

For equal mass binaries, we observe a remarkable agreement with the Keplerian prediction of the general dependence of the EM kicks as a function of the charges. The kick vanishes when either the electric dipole or the electric quadrupole of the system is zero, and presents a maximum close to the middle point between the two roots. The $v(\lambda_2)$ curve is however slightly more symmetrical than expected.

As soon as the masses differ, the $v(\lambda_2)$ curve strongly deviates from the Newtonian prediction, showing nonzero kicks even at zero electric dipole and zero electric quadrupole. We conjecture that this is due to jiggling of the system by the much larger momentum of the gravitational radiation, and we fit a purely phenomenological model that is able to approximately capture the behavior.

The careful exploration of the origin of the deviation is left for future work. The effect of the gravitational momentum emission on the system during the late phases of the inspiral must be further explored, possibly by post-Newtonian approximations, in order to assess the physics behind the numerical results.

\begin{acknowledgments}
We thank the maintainers and developers of the open-source software we used, without which this work would have not been possible.
RL has been supported by FCT/Portugal through the project IF/00729/2015/CP1272/CT0006, and by Next Generation EU though a University of Barcelona Margarita Salas grant from the Spanish Ministry of Universities under the {\it Plan de Recuperaci\'on, Transformaci\'on y Resiliencia}.
GB is supported by NASA Grant 80NSSC20K1542 to the University of Arizona. GB also acknowledges partial support by NSF grant NSF-1759835.
VC is a Villum Investigator and a DNRF Chair, supported by VILLUM FONDEN (grant no.~37766) and by the Danish Research Foundation. VC acknowledges financial support provided under the European
Union's H2020 ERC Advanced Grant ``Black holes: gravitational engines of discovery'' grant agreement
no.\ Gravitas–101052587.
This work is supported by NSF grants PHY-1912619 and PHY-2145421 to the
University of Arizona.
MZ acknowledges financial support provided by FCT/Portugal through the IF programme, grant IF/00729/2015, and
by the Center for Research and Development in Mathematics and Applications (CIDMA) through the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT -- Funda\c{c}\~ao para a Ci\^encia e a Tecnologia), references UIDB/04106/2020, UIDP/04106/2020 and the projects PTDC/FIS-AST/3041/2020 and CERN/FIS-PAR/0024/2021.
This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie grant agreement No 101007855.
We thank FCT for financial support through Project~No.~UIDB/00099/2020.
We acknowledge financial support provided by FCT/Portugal through grants PTDC/MAT-APL/30043/2017 and PTDC/FIS-AST/7002/2020.
We acknowledge that the results of this research have been achieved using the DECI resource Snellius based in The Netherlands at SURF with support from the PRACE aisbl,
the Navigator cluster, operated by LCA-UCoimbra, through project~2021.09676.CPCA, as well as the ``Baltasar-Sete-Sóis'' cluster at IST.
Results were cross-checked with \texttt{kuibit}~\cite{Bozzola:2021hus}, which is
based on \texttt{NumPy}~\cite{NumPy}, \texttt{SciPy}~\cite{SciPy}, and
\texttt{h5py}~\cite{h5py}. GB and VP thank Maggie Smith for cross-checking Equation~\eqref{eq:Pem}.

\end{acknowledgments}


\section{Section Heading}
\baselineskip=24pt
\section{Basic properties of contact metric structures}

A contact form on a $2n+1$-dimensional manifold $M$ is a one-form $\eta$ such that $\eta\wedge (d\alpha )^n$ is a volume form on $M$. Given a contact manifold $(M,\eta )$, there exist tensor fields $(\xi ,\phi , g)$, where $g$ is a Riemannian metric and $\xi$ is a unit vector field, called the Reeb field of $\eta$ and $\phi$ is an endomorphism of the tangent bundle of $M$ such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\eta (\xi )=1,~\phi^2 =-Id +\eta\otimes\xi ,~\phi\xi =0$
\item[(ii)] $d\eta =2g(.,\phi .)$
\end{itemize}
The data $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g)$ is called a contact metric structure; see  (\cite{BLA}) for more details.

Denoting by $\nabla$ the Levi-Civita connection of $g$, and by $$R(X,Y)Z=\nabla_X\nabla_YZ-\nabla_Y\nabla_XZ-\nabla_{[X,Y]}Z$$ its curvature tensor, a contact metric structure $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g)$ is called Sasakian if the condition$$(\nabla_X\phi )Y=g(X,Y)\xi -\eta (Y)X$$ is satisfied for all tangent vectors  $X$ and $Y$.
A well known curvature characterization of the Sasakian condition is as follows:
\begin{pro}
{\it
A contact metric structure $(M,\eta , \xi ,\phi ,g)$ is Sasakian if and only if $$R(X,Y)\xi =\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y$$ for all tangent vectors $X$ and $Y$.}\end{pro}

A condition weaker than the Sasakian one is the K-contact condition. A contact metric structure $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g)$ is called K-contact if the tensor field $h=\frac{1}{2}L_\xi \phi$ vanishes identically. Here, $L_\xi \phi$ stands for the Lie derivative of $\phi$ in the direction of $\xi$. The above K-contact condition is known to be equivalent to the Reeb vector field $\xi$ being a $g$- infinitesimal isometry, or a Killing vector field. The tensor field $h$ is known to be symmetric and anticommutes with $\phi$.

An equally well known curvature characterization of K-contactness is as follows:

\begin{pro}{\it A contact metric structure $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g)$ is K-contact if and only if $$R(X,\xi )\xi =X-\eta (X)\xi$$ for all tangent vectors $X$.}\end{pro}

The notation ''$l$" is common for the tensor $$lX=R(X,\xi )\xi$$

\begin{pro}\label{prop33}

On a contact metric structure $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g)$, the following identities hold:

\begin{equation}\nabla_\xi h=\phi -h^2\phi -\phi l \label{bl1}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\phi l\phi -l=2(h^2+\phi^2) \label{bl2}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}L_\xi h=\nabla_\xi h+2\phi h+2\phi h^2\label{bl3}\end{equation}
\end{pro}

\proof  The first two identities appear in Blair's book (\cite{BLA}). We establish the third one.
$$\begin{array}{rcl}( L_\xi h) X&=&[\xi ,hX]-h[\xi ,X]\\&=&\nabla_\xi(hX)-\nabla_{hX}\xi -h(\nabla_\xi X-\nabla_X\xi )\\&=&(\nabla_\xi h)X+h\nabla_\xi X-[-\phi hX-\phi h^2X]-h\nabla_\xi X+h[-\phi X-\phi hX]\\
&=&(\nabla_\xi h)X+h\nabla_\xi X+\phi hX+\phi h^2X-h\nabla_\xi X-h\phi X+\phi h^2 X\\ &=&(\nabla_\xi h)X+2\phi hX+2\phi h^2X
\end{array}
$$

$\qed$

Given a contact metric structure $(M,\eta ,\xi , \phi , g)$, its $D_a$-homothetic deformation is a new contact metric structure $(M,\overline{\eta}, \overline{\xi }, \overline{\phi}, \overline{g})$ given by a real number $a>0$ and  $$\overline{\eta}=a\eta,~~\overline{\xi}=\frac{\xi}{a},~~\overline{\phi}=\phi$$
$$\overline{g}=ag+a(a-1)\eta\otimes\eta$$
D-homothetic deformations preserve the K-contact and Sasakian conditions.
\section{Weakly $(\kappa , \mu )$- spaces}

A direct calculation shows that under a $D_a$ homothetic deformation, the curvature tensor transforms as follows:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}a\overline{R}(X,Y)\overline{\xi}&=&R(X,Y)\xi -(a-1)[(\nabla_X\phi )Y-(\nabla_Y\phi )X+\eta (X)(Y+hY)\\&&-\eta (Y)(X+hX)]+(a-1)^2[\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y]
\end{array}
$$
Letting $Y=\xi$ and recalling $\nabla_\xi\phi =0$, we get:$$\begin{array}{rcl}a\overline{R}(X,\xi )\overline{\xi}&=&R(X,\xi )\xi-(a-1)[(\nabla_X\phi )\xi +\eta (X)\xi -(X+hX)\\&&+(a-1)^2[X-\eta (X)\xi ]
\end{array}
$$
On any contact metric manifold, the following identity holds: $$(\nabla_X\phi)\xi =-\phi\nabla_X\xi=-X+\eta (X)-hX.$$

Taking into account of this identity, we see that the curvature tensor deforms as follows:
$$a^2\overline{R}(X,\overline{\xi})\overline{\xi}=R(X,\xi )\xi +(a^2-1)(X-\eta (X)\xi )+2(a-1)hX$$

Equivalently, since $\xi =a\overline{\xi}$  and $h=a\overline{h}$,
\begin{equation}\overline{R}(X,\overline{\xi})\overline{\xi}=\frac{1}{a^2}R(X,\xi )\xi +\frac{a^2-1}{a^2}(X-\overline{\eta} (X)\overline{\xi})+\frac{2a-2}{a}\overline{h}X\label{k6}\end{equation}

It follows from (\ref{k6}) that,
under a $D_a$-homothetic deformation, the condition $R(X,\xi )\xi =0$ transforms into $$\overline{R}(X,\overline{\xi} )\overline{\xi} =\kappa (X-\overline{\eta} (X)\overline{\xi} )+\mu \overline{h}X$$ where $\kappa =\frac{a^2-1}{a^2}$ and $\mu =\frac{2a-2}{a}$.

As a generalization of both $R(X,\xi )\xi =0$ and the K-contact condition, $R(X,\xi )\xi =X-\eta (X)\xi $, we consider $$R(X,\xi )\xi =\kappa (X-\eta(X)\xi ) +\mu hX.$$ We call this the weak $(\kappa , \mu )$ condition. The same generalization was refered to as Jacobi $(\kappa , \mu )$-contact s manifold in \cite{GHS}.  Let us point out also that  a strong $(\kappa ,\mu )$ condition $R(X,Y)\xi=\kappa (\eta(Y)X-\eta (X)Y)+\mu (\eta (Y)hX-\eta (X) hY)$ has been introduced in \cite{BKP}. Examples of weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$ spaces which are not strongly $(\kappa ,\mu )$ are provided by the Darboux contact forms $\eta =\frac{1}{2}(dz-\sum y^idx^i)$ on ${\bf R}^{2n+1}$ with associated metric
$$g=\frac{1}{4}\left(\begin{array}{ccr} \delta_{ij}+y^iy^j+\delta_{ij}z^2&\delta_{ij}z&-y^i\\\delta_{ij}z&\delta_{ij}&0\\-y^j&0&1\end{array}\right)
$$
(see \cite{BLA}).

Other examples of weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces have been found on normal bundles of totally geodesic Legendre submanifolds in Sasakian manifolds (see \cite{BAN}).

The two notions of $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces are D-homothetically invariant. It follows from identity (\ref{k6})  that,  if $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g )$ is a (weak)  $(\kappa ,\mu )$ structure, then the $D_a$-homothetic deformation $( \overline{\eta}, \overline{\xi}, \phi ,\overline{g} )$  is a (weak) $(\overline{\kappa}, \overline{\mu})$-structure with:

 \begin{equation}\label{km} \overline{\kappa}=\frac{\kappa +a^2-1}{a^2},~~\overline{\mu}=\frac{\mu +2a-2}{a}\end{equation}
The tensor fields $\phi$ and $h$ on a weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-space are related by the identities in the following proposition.

\begin{pro}\label{prop4} On a weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-space $(M,\eta ,\xi , \phi , g)$, the following identities hold:
\begin{equation} h^2=(\kappa -1)\phi^2,~~\kappa \le 1\label{ka1}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\nabla_\xi h=-\mu\phi h\label{ka2}\end{equation}
\begin{equation} L_\xi h=(2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-\kappa )\phi\label{eq6}\end{equation}
\end{pro}

\proof Starting with identity (\ref{bl2}), which is valid on any contact metric structure, one has, for any tangent vector $X$:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}2h^2X+2\phi^2X&=&\phi (\kappa \phi X+\mu h\phi X)-(\kappa (-\phi^2X)+\mu hX)\\&=&\kappa\phi^2X+\mu\phi h\phi X+\kappa\phi^2X-\mu hX\\&=&\kappa\phi^2X-\mu h\phi^2X+\kappa\phi^2X-\mu hX\\&=&2\kappa\phi^2X\end{array}
$$
Hence, grouping terms
$$2h^2X=(2\kappa -2)\phi^2X$$ So $$h^2=(\kappa -1)\phi^2$$

But, since $h$ is symmetric, $h^2$ must be a non-negative operator, hence $\kappa \le 1$, proving (\ref{ka1}).

 From identity (\ref{bl1}) combined with $lX=\kappa (X-\eta (X)\xi )+\mu hX$, we see that
$$\begin{array}{rcl}(\nabla_\xi h)X&=&\phi X-h^2\phi X-\phi (\kappa (X-\eta (X)\xi )+\mu hX)\\&=&\phi X-(\kappa -1)\phi^3X-\kappa\phi X-\mu\phi hX\\&=&(1-\kappa +(\kappa -1))\phi X-\mu\phi hX\\&=&-\mu \phi hX
\end{array}
$$  proving (\ref{ka2}).

Next, combining identities (\ref{bl3}), (\ref{ka2}) and (\ref{ka1}), one has:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}L_\xi h&=&\nabla_\xi h+2\phi h+2\phi h^2\\&=&-\mu \phi h+2\phi h+2\phi h^2\\
&=&-\mu \phi h+2\phi h+2\phi (\kappa -1)\phi^2\\&=&-\mu \phi h+2\phi h-2(\kappa -1)\phi\\&=&(2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-\kappa )\phi\end{array}
$$ proving (\ref{eq6}).
$\qed$

Tangent bundle's structure on a $(\kappa ,\mu )$-space is described by the following theorem:
\begin{Theorem} Let $(M^{2n+1},\eta , \xi ,\phi , g)$ be a weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$, contact metric manifold. Then $\kappa \le 1$. If $\kappa =1$, then the structure is K-contact. If $\kappa <1$, then the tangent bundle $TM$ decomposes into three mutually orthogonal distributions $D(0)$, $D(\lambda )$ and $D(-\lambda )$, the eigenbundles determined by tensor $h$'s eigenspaces, where $\lambda =\sqrt{1-\kappa }$.
\end{Theorem}

\proof  Clearly, $\kappa =1$ is exactly the K-contact condition.

Suppose $\kappa <1$. Since $h\xi =0$ and $h$ is symmetric, it follows from identity (\ref{ka1}), Proposition \ref{prop4}, ($h^2=(\kappa -1)\phi^2$),  that the restriction $h_{|D}$ of $h$ to the contact subbundle $D$ has eigenvalues $\lambda =\sqrt{1-k}$ and $-\lambda$.    By $D(\lambda ),~D(-\lambda )~and~D(0)$, we denote the corresponding eigendistributions. If $X\in D(\lambda )$, then $h\phi X=-\phi hX=-\lambda\phi X$. Thus $\phi X\in D(-\lambda )$ which shows that the three distributions above are mutually orthogonal.   $\qed$

To shade some light on  the difference between weak $(\kappa ,\mu )$ and strong $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces, we propose a weak, semi-symmetry condition. We say that a contact metric space $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi , g)$ is weakly semi-symmetric if $R(X,\xi )R=0$ for all tangent vectors $X$ where $R$ is the curvature operator.

We will prove the following:

\begin{Theorem}\label{Theo2} Let $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi , g)$ be a weakly semi-symmetric,  contact metric weakly $(\kappa ,0)$-space. Then $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g )$ is a strongly $(\kappa ,0)$-space.
\end{Theorem}
\proof

The weakly semi- symmetric condition means that $(R(X,\xi )R)(Y,\xi )\xi =0$ holds for any tangent vectors $X$ and $Y$. Extending $Y$ into a local vector field, we have:
$$\begin{array}{rcl} 0&=&R(X,\xi )R(Y,\xi )\xi-R(R(X,\xi )Y,\xi )\xi -R(Y,R(X,\xi )\xi )\xi -\\&&R(Y,\xi )R(X,\xi )\xi\\

&=&R(X,\xi )(\kappa (Y-\eta (Y)\xi ))-\kappa (R(X,\xi )Y-\eta (R(X,\xi )Y)\xi )-\\&&R(Y,\kappa (X-\eta (X)\xi ))\xi -R(Y,\xi )(\kappa (X-\eta (X)\xi ))\\

&=&\kappa R(X,\xi )Y-\kappa \eta (Y)R(X,\xi )\xi-\kappa R(X,\xi )Y+\kappa\eta (R(X,\xi)Y)\xi -\\&&\kappa R(Y,X)\xi +\kappa\eta (X)R(Y,\xi )\xi -\kappa R(Y,\xi )X+\kappa\eta (X)R(Y,\xi )\xi\\

&=&-\kappa^2\eta (Y)X-\kappa g(R(X,\xi )\xi ,Y)\xi -\kappa R(Y,X)\xi +\kappa^2\eta (X)Y-\\&&\kappa R(Y,\xi )X+\kappa^2\eta (X)Y-\kappa^2\eta (X)\eta (Y)\xi\\&=&-\kappa^2\eta (Y)X-\kappa g(\kappa (X-\eta (X)\xi ),Y)\xi -\kappa R(Y,X)\xi +2\kappa^2\eta (X)Y-\\&&\kappa R(Y,\xi )X-\kappa^2\eta (X)\eta (Y)\xi\\0&=&-\kappa^2\eta (Y)X-\kappa^2 g(X,Y)\xi -\kappa R(Y,X)\xi +2\kappa^2\eta (X)Y-\kappa R(Y,\xi )X\end{array}
$$Equation \begin{equation}\label{w1} -\kappa^2\eta (Y)X-\kappa^2 g(X,Y)\xi -\kappa R(Y,X)\xi +2\kappa^2\eta (X)Y-\kappa R(Y,\xi )X=0\end{equation} is valid for any $X$ and $Y$. Exchanging  $X$ and $Y$ leads to
\begin{equation}\label{w2}-\kappa^2\eta (X)Y-\kappa^2g(Y,X)\xi -\kappa R(X,Y)\xi +2\kappa^2\eta (Y)X-\kappa R(X,\xi )Y=0\end{equation}
Substracting equation (\ref{w1}) from equation (\ref{w2}), we obtain:\begin{equation}3\kappa^2 (\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y)+\kappa (R(Y,X)\xi -R(X,Y)\xi  )+\kappa (R(Y,\xi )X-R(X,\xi )Y)=0\label{w3}\end{equation}

By the first Bianchi Identity, $R(Y,\xi )X-R(X,\xi )Y=R(Y,X)\xi$ holds. Incorporating this identity into (\ref{w3}), we obtain the following:
\begin{equation} 3 \kappa^2(\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y)+3\kappa R(Y,X)\xi =0\end{equation} which implies the strong $(\kappa ,0)$ condition $$R(X,Y)\xi =\kappa (\eta (Y)X-\eta (X)Y)$$
$\qed$

Theorem \ref{Theo2} applies to the case $\kappa =1$ and has the following interesting corollary:
\begin{cor} A weakly semi-symmetric K-contact manifold is Sasakian.
\end{cor}

\proof  In the $\kappa =1$ case, the strong $(\kappa ,\mu )$ condition is exactly the Sasakian condition.   $\qed$

Weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-structures with $\kappa =1$, (the $K$-contact ones), are D-homothetically fixed. A non-K-contact weakly $(k,\mu )$ structure cannot be D-homothetically deformed into a K-contact one. Weakly $(k,\mu )$-structures with $\mu =2$ are also D-homothetically fixed. As a consequence, a  weakly $(k, \mu )$ structure with $\mu \neq 2$ cannot be deformed into one with $\mu =2$ neither.

Existence of these homothetically fixed $(\kappa ,\mu )$ structures  depends on  an invariant that was first introduced by Boeckx for strongly $(\kappa ,\mu )$ structures in (\cite{BOE}).

\section{The Boeckx invariant}
The Boeckx invariant, $I_M$ of a weakly contact $(\kappa ,\mu )$ space is defined by $$I_M=\frac{1-\frac{\mu }{2}}{\sqrt{1-k}}=\frac{1-\frac{\mu}{2}}{\lambda}.$$   $I_M$ is a D-homothetic invariant. Any two D-homothetically related weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-structures have the same Boeckx invariant.

The following lemma is crucial in proving existence of $D$-homothetically fixed $(\kappa ,\mu )$-structures.
\bl\label{lemma1} Let $(M,\alpha , \xi ,\phi , g )$ be a non-K-contact, weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$ space.\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] If $I_M>1$, then $2-\mu -\sqrt{1-k}>0$ and $2-\mu +\sqrt{1-k}>0$.
\item[(ii)] If $I_M<-1$, then $2-\mu +\sqrt{1-k}<0$ and $2-\mu -\sqrt{1-k}<0.$
\item[(iii)] $|I_M|<1$ if and only if $0<2\lambda +2-\mu$ and $0<2\lambda +\mu -2$
\end{itemize}
\el

\proof  (i).    Suppose $I_M>1$. Then $1-\frac{\mu}{2}>\sqrt{1-\kappa}$ and $\mu <2$.
$$\begin{array}{rcr}1-\frac{\mu}{2} >\sqrt{1-\kappa}&\Rightarrow&2-\mu >2\sqrt{1-k}\\&\Rightarrow& 2-\mu >\sqrt{1-k} ~and~ 2-\mu >-\sqrt{1-k}\\&\Rightarrow&2-\mu-\sqrt{1-k}>0~and~2-\mu +\sqrt{1-k}>0\end{array}
$$

(ii). Suppose $I_M<-1$. Then $1-\frac{\mu }{2}<-\sqrt{1-k}$ and $\mu >2$.
$$\begin{array}{rcr} 1-\frac{\mu}{2}<-\sqrt{1-k}&\Rightarrow&2-\mu <-2\sqrt{1-k} ~and ~2-\mu <\sqrt{1-k}\\&\Rightarrow&2-\mu <-\sqrt{1-k}~and ~2-\mu <\sqrt{1-k}\\&\Rightarrow&2-\mu +\sqrt{1-k}<0~and~2-\mu -\sqrt{1-k}<0\\&&\qed\end{array}
$$

(iii).  $|I_M|<1$ if and only if $-1<\frac{1-\frac{\mu}{2}}{\lambda}<1$. Equivalently
$$-1<\frac{2-\mu}{2\lambda}<1~~and~~-1<\frac{\mu -2}{2\lambda}<1$$

Thus $$-2\lambda <2-\mu <2\lambda~~and~~-2\lambda <\mu -2<2\lambda$$ Or, $$0<2\lambda +2-\mu ~and~~0<2\lambda +\mu -2$$
$\qed$

\section{D-homothetically fixed structures on weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces}
\subsection{K-contact structures on weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$ spaces}
We have pointed out that D-homothetic deformations of  non K-contact weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$ structures remain non K-contact. However, on $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces with large Boeckx invariant, K-contact structures coexist with $(\kappa ,\mu )$ structures.

\bt \label{theo2}Let $(M,\eta , \xi , \phi  ,g )$ be a non-K-contact, weakly $(k,\mu )$-space whose Boeckx invariant $I_M$ satisfies $|I_M|>1$. Then, $M$ admits a K-contact structure $(M,\eta , \xi, \overline{\phi}, \overline{g})$ compatible with the contact form $\eta$.\et
\proof  We define tensor fields $\overline{\phi}$ and $\overline{g}$ by   \begin{equation}\label{def1}\overline{\phi}=\frac{\epsilon}{(1-k)\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-k)}}(L_\xi h\circ h)\end{equation}

$$\overline{g}=-\frac{1}{2}d\eta (., \overline{\phi}.)+\eta\otimes\eta$$ where $$\epsilon=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}+1&if~I_M>0\\-1&if~I_M<0\end{array}\right.$$

From the formula $h^2=-(1-k)\phi^2$  and $L_\xi h=(2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-k)\phi$ in Proposition \ref{prop4}, we obtain $$\begin{array}{rcl}
(L_\xi h\circ h)^2&=&(2-\mu )^2(1-k)^2\phi^2-4(1-k)^2\phi^2h^2\\
&=&(1-k)^2((2-\mu )^2-4(1-k))\phi^2
\end{array}
$$
That is:  $$(L_\xi h\circ h)^2=\lambda^4\alpha (-Id+\eta\otimes \xi )$$ where $\lambda =\sqrt{1-k}$ and $\alpha =(2-\mu )^2-4(1-k).$ One sees that, if $\alpha >0$, then  $\overline{\phi}=\frac{\epsilon}{\lambda^2\sqrt\alpha}(L_\xi h\circ h)$ defines an almost complex structure on the contact subbundle. Notice also that $\alpha >0$ is equivalent to $|I_M|>1$.

We will show that $\overline{\phi}$ is $\xi$ invariant. For that, it suffices to show that the Lie derivative of $L_\xi h\circ h$ vanishes in the $\xi$ direction.
$$\begin{array}{rcl}L_\xi (L_\xi h\circ h)&=&L_\xi ((2-\mu )(1-k)\phi +2(1-k)\phi h)\\&=&2(2-\mu )(1-k )h+4(1-k)h^2+2(1-k)[(2-\mu )\phi^2h+\\&&2(1-k)\phi^2]\\
&=&2(2-\mu )(1-k)h+4(1-k)h^2+2(1-k)(2-\mu )\phi^2h+\\&&4(1-k)^2\phi^2\\
&=&-4(1-k)^2\phi^2+4(1-k)^2\phi^2 =0
\end{array}
$$
Next, we will show that $\overline{g}=-\frac{1}{2}d\eta (., \overline{\phi}. )+\eta\otimes\eta$ is an adapted Riemannian  metric for the structure tensors $(\eta , \overline{\xi}, \overline{\phi})$. That is $\overline{g}$ is a bilinear, symmetric, positive definite tensor with $$d\eta =2 \overline {g}(., \overline{\phi}).$$
 From the definition of $\overline{g}$, we have, for arbitrary tangent vectors $X$ and $Y$:

$$\begin{array}{rcl} \overline{g}(X,Y)&=& -\frac{1}{2}d\eta (X\overline{\phi}Y)+\eta (X)\eta (Y)\\
&=&-\frac{1}{2(1-\kappa )\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}}d\eta (X,(1-\kappa )(2-\mu )\phi +\\&&(1-\kappa )2\phi h)Y)+\eta (X)\eta (Y)\\&=&
\frac{2-\mu }{\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}}g(X,Y)+\frac{2}{\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}}g(X,hY)+\\&&(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}})\eta(X)\eta(Y)\\&=&\frac{2-\mu }{\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}}g(Y,X)+\frac{2}{\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}}g(Y,hX)+\\&&(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}})\eta(Y)\eta(X\\&=&\overline{g}(Y,X)
\end{array}
$$
proving symmetry of $\overline{g}$. We used $h$'s symmetry in the step before the last.

For $\overline{g}$'s positive definitness, first observe that $\overline{g}(\xi ,\xi )=1>0$. Then for any non-zero tangent vector $X$ in the contact bundle $D$, using the definition of $\overline{\phi }$ in (\ref{def1}), the formula for $L_\xi h$ from identity (\ref{eq6}) in Proposition \ref{prop4}, we have:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}\overline{g}(X,X)&=&-\frac{1}{2}d\eta (X,\overline{\phi }X)\\&=&-\frac{\epsilon (2-\mu )}{2\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-\kappa )}}d\eta (X,\phi X)-\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-(4(1-\kappa )}}d\eta (X,\phi hX)\\
&=&\frac{\epsilon (2-\mu )}{\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-\kappa )}}g(X,X)+\frac{2\epsilon}{\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-\kappa )}}g(X,hX)\\&=&
\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-\kappa )}}((2-\mu )g(X,X)+2g(X,hX))
\end{array}
$$
If $X\in D(\lambda )$, then $$\overline{g}((X,X)=\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-\kappa )}}((2-\mu )+2\sqrt{1-\kappa })g(X,X)).$$ By Lemma \ref{lemma1}, (i), (ii), the inequality $$\epsilon ((2-\mu )-2\sqrt{1-\kappa}))>0$$ holds when $|I_M|>1$.  Therefore $\overline{g}(X,X)>0$.

In the same way,  if $X\in D(-\lambda )$, then $$\overline{g}(X,X)=\frac{\epsilon}{\sqrt{(2-\mu )^2-4(1-\kappa )}}((2-\mu )-2\sqrt{1-\kappa })g(X,X))$$
which is also $>0$ by Lemma \ref{lemma1}, (i) and (ii). This concludes the proof of $\overline{g}$'s positivity.

We easily verify that $\overline{g}$ is an adapted metric.

$$\begin{array}{rcl}2\overline{g}(X,\overline{\phi}Y)&=&-d\eta (X,\overline{\phi}^2Y)\\&=&-d\eta (X,-Y+\eta (Y)\xi )\\&=&d\eta (X,Y).\end{array}
$$  $\qed$

\noindent{\bf Remark:} As a consequence of Theorem \ref{theo2}, contact forms on compact, weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces with $|I_M|>1$ admit associated K-contact structures,  hence verify Weinstein's Conjecture about the existence of closed Reeb orbits.( see\cite{ RUK}).

On weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-spaces with small Boeckx invariant, it turns out that $(\kappa ,2)$ structures coexist with $(\kappa ,\mu\ne 2)$ structures. This will be established in the next subsection.

\subsection{Contact metric weakly  $(\kappa , 2 )$-spaces}

Given a non-K-contact, weakly $(\kappa ,\mu )$-space $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi ,g)$, we define the D-homothetic invariant tensor field $$\tilde{\phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-k}}h$$

\begin{Lemma}\label{lem2} Denoting by $$\tilde{h}=\frac{1}{2}L_\xi\tilde{\phi }=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-k}}L_\xi h,$$ the following identities are satisfied:
\begin{equation}\tilde{h}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-k}}((2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-k)\phi )\label{tilde1}\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\tilde{h}^2=((1-k)-(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2)\phi^2 \label{tilde2}\end{equation}
\end{Lemma}

\proof   From the third identity in Proposition \ref{prop33}, combined with identity (\ref{eq6}), Proposition \ref{prop4}, we get       $$2(\sqrt{1-k})\tilde{h}=L_\xi h=(2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-\kappa )\phi $$

So

$$\tilde{h}=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-k}}(2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-\kappa )\phi$$
 which is
(\ref{tilde1}).

The proof of (\ref{tilde2}) is a straightforward calculation.  $\qed$

\noindent {\bf Remark}: If $|I_M|<1$, then $1-k-(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2>0$. Therefore, identity (\ref{tilde2}) suggests that  $\tilde{h}$ can be used to define a complex structure on the contact subbundle.\vskip 12pt
Define  the tensor field $\phi_1$ by:$$\phi_1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-k-(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}\tilde{h}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-k-(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-k}}((2-\mu)\phi h+2(1-k)\phi )$$

\begin{pro} \label{prop5}The tensor field $\phi_1$ satisfies $$\phi_1^2=-I+\eta\otimes \xi$$
\begin{equation} h_1=\frac{1}{2}L_\xi\phi_1=(\sqrt{1-I_M^2})h\label{phi11}\end{equation}\end{pro}

\proof The identity $\phi_1^2=\phi^2=-I+\eta\otimes\xi$ follows from  Lemma \ref{lem2}, (\ref{tilde2}).

As for identity (\ref{phi11}), we proceed as follows:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}h_1=\frac{1}{2}(L_\xi\phi_1)&=&\frac{1}{4\sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa-(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}
L_\xi ((2-\mu )\phi h+2(1-\kappa )\phi\\&=&\frac{1}{4 \sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}[(2-\mu)((L_\xi\phi )h+\phi L_\xi h)+\\&&2(1-\kappa )L_\xi \phi]\\&=& \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}((2-\mu )(2h^2+\phi((\mu -2)h\phi+\\&&2(1-\kappa )\phi ) +4(1-\kappa )h)\\
&=&\frac{1}{4 \sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}[2(2-\mu )h^2-(2-\mu )^2\phi h\phi +\\&&2(2-\mu )(1-\kappa )\phi^2+4(1-\kappa )h]\\&=&\frac{1}{4 \sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}[2(2-\mu )(\kappa -1)\phi^2-(2-\mu )^2h+\\&&2(2-\mu )(1-\kappa )\phi^2 +4(1-\kappa )h]\\&=&  \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}[4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2]h\\&=&\sqrt{\frac{4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2}{4(1-\kappa )}}h=(\sqrt{1-I_M^2})h    \end{array}
$$
$\qed$

As pointed out earlier,
when a D-homothetic deformation is applied to a weakly $(\kappa , \mu )$ structure with $\mu =2$, the $\mu$  value remains the same as is seen from one of formulas (\ref{km}):
$$\overline{\mu}=\frac{\mu +2a-2}{a}$$
 As a consequence,  weakly $(\kappa ,2 )$ structures cannot be obtained through D-homothetic deformations. In the case $|I_M|<1$, we prove  the following theorem:
\bt  \label{theo4} Let $(M, \eta , \xi , \phi , g)$ be a non-K-contact,  weakly $(\kappa , \mu )$-space with Boeckx invariant $I_M$ satisfying  $ |I_M|<1$. Then, there is a weakly $(\kappa_1 ,\mu_1 )$ structure $(M,\eta , \xi , \phi_1, g_1 )$ where $\mu_1=2$ and $\kappa_1=\kappa +(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2$.\et

\proof  Define $g_1$ by  $$g_1(X,Y)=-\frac{1}{2}d\eta (X,\phi_1 Y)+\eta (X)\eta (Y).$$  We will show that $g_1$ is a Riemannian metric adapted to $\phi_1$ and $\eta$, i.e. $$d\eta =2g_1(.,\phi_1 )$$
For any tangent vectors $X$ and $Y,$
$$\begin{array}{rcl}g_1(X,Y)&=&-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}d\eta (X,\tilde{h}Y)+\eta (X)\eta (Y)\\&=&-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}d\eta (X,(2-\mu)\phi hY)+d\eta (X,2(1-\kappa )\phi Y))+\\&&\eta (X)\eta (Y)\\&=&-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1\kappa  -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}(2g(X,(2-\mu )\phi^2hY)+2d\eta (X, 2(1-\kappa )\phi^2Y))+\\&&\eta (X)\eta (Y)\\&=& -\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}d\eta (X,(2-\mu)\phi hY)+d\eta (X,2(1-\kappa )\phi Y))+\\&&\eta (X)\eta (Y))\\&=&-\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}(2g((2-\mu )\phi^2hX,Y)+2d\eta (2(1-\kappa )\phi^2X,Y))+\\&&\eta (Y)\eta (X)\\&=& -\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}d\eta (Y,\tilde{h}X)+\eta (Y)\eta (X)\\&=&  g_1(Y,X)\end{array}
$$ proving that $g_1$ is a symmetric tensor.
To prove positivity of $g_1$, first observe that $g_1(\xi ,\xi )=1>0$. Next, for any $X$ in the contact distribution,
$$\begin{array}{rcl}g_1(X,X)&=&-\frac{1}{2}d\eta (X,\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa}\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}((2-\mu )\phi hX+2(1-\kappa ) \phi X)\\&=&-\frac{(2-\mu )}{4\sqrt{1-\kappa }\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}d\eta (X,\phi hX)-\frac{(1-\kappa )}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa}\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}d\eta (X,\phi X)\\&=&\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa }\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}((2-\mu )g(X,hX)+2(1-\kappa )g(X,X))\end{array}
$$
\begin{equation}\label{fr1}g_1(X,X)=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{1-\kappa }\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}((2-\mu )g(X,hX)+2(1-\kappa )g(X,X))\end{equation}

If $X\in D(\lambda )$, then (\ref{fr1}) becomes $$g_1(X,X)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}(2\sqrt{1-\kappa }+(2-\mu ))g(X,X))>0 $$
The last inequality follows from Lemma \ref{lemma1}, (iii).
If $X\in D(-\lambda )$, then (\ref{fr1}) becomes $$g_1(X,X)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\kappa-(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}} (2\sqrt{1-\kappa} -(2-\mu ))g(X,X)>0$$ also following from Lemma \ref{lemma1}, (iii).

We now prove that $g_1$ is an adapted metric.  Directly from the definition of $g_1$,
$$\begin{array}{rcl}2g_1(X, \phi_1Y)&=&-d\eta (X,\phi^2_1Y)\\&=&d\eta (X,Y)
\end{array}
$$

$\qed$

Finally, we show that the structure $(M,\eta ,\xi ,\phi_1, g_1)$ is a weakly $(\kappa_1 ,2 )$-structure. By Proposition \ref{prop5}, (\ref{phi11}), the positive eigenvalue of $h_1$ is $$\lambda_1=\sqrt{1-I_M^2}\lambda =\sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-I_M^2)}=\sqrt{1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}.$$ Since $(\eta ,\xi , \phi_1, g_1)$ is a contact metric structure, identity (\ref{bl1}), Proposition \ref{prop33} holds.
$$\overline{\nabla}_\xi h_1=\phi_1-\phi_1l_1-\phi_1h_1^2.$$
For any tangent vector field $X$, one has
$$\phi_1X-\phi_1l_1X-\phi_1h^2X=(\overline{\nabla}_\xi h_1)X$$
$$\begin{array}{rcl}\phi_1X-\phi_1l_1X-\lambda_1^2\phi_1X&=&\overline{\nabla}_\xi (h_1X)-h_1\overline{\nabla}_\xi X\\&=&\overline{\nabla}_{h_1X}\xi +[\xi , h_1X]-h_1(\overline{\nabla}_X\xi +[\xi ,X])\\&=&-\phi_1h_1X-\phi_1h_1^2X+(L_\xi h_1)X+h_1[\xi ,X]\\&&-h_1(-\phi_1X-\phi_1h_1X+[\xi ,X])\\ \phi_1X-\phi_1l_1X-\lambda_1^2\phi_1X&=&-2\phi_1h_1X-2\lambda_1^2\phi_1X+(L_\xi h_1)X
\end{array}
$$
Applying $\phi_1$ on both sides of the above identity, one has
$$\phi_1^2X+l_1X-\lambda_1^2\phi_1^2X=2h_1X-2\lambda_1^2\phi_1^2X+\phi_1(L_\xi h_1)X$$
Solving for the tensor field $l_1$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{m2}l_1X=2h_1X-(1+\lambda_1^2)\phi_1^2X+(\phi_1L_\xi h_1)X\end{equation}

From Proposition \ref{prop5}, we know $L_\xi h_1=\sqrt{1-I_M^2}L_\xi h$ and $L_\xi h=(\mu -2)h\phi +2(1-\kappa )\phi$ from Proposition \ref{prop4}. Also $\phi_1=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}(L_\xi h)$. A direct calculation shows that
$$\begin{array}{rcl} \phi_1L_\xi h_1&=&\frac{\sqrt{1-I_M^2}}{2\sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}(L_\xi h)^2\\
&=&\frac{\sqrt{1-I_M^2}}{2\sqrt{(1-\kappa )(1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2}}(1-\kappa )[4(1-\kappa )-(\mu -2)^2]\phi^2\\&=&\frac{1}{2}[4(1-\kappa )-(\mu -2)^2]\phi^2\end{array}
$$
Reporting this in identity (\ref{m2}), we get:
$$\begin{array}{rcl}l_1X&=&2h_1X-(1+\lambda_1^2)\phi_1^2X+\frac{1}{2}[4(1-\kappa )-(2-\mu )^2]\phi^2X\\&=&2h_1X-(1+1-\kappa -(1-\frac{\mu}{2})^2)(-X+\eta (X)\xi +2(1-\kappa )-\\&&\frac{(2-\mu )^2}{2}(-X+\eta (X)\xi\\&=&2h_1X+(\kappa +\frac{(2-\mu )^2}{4})(X-\eta (X)\xi)
\end{array}
$$ Which is the $(\kappa_1, \mu_1)$ condition with $\mu_1=2$ and $\kappa_1=\kappa +\frac{(2-\mu)^2}{4}$.
$\qed$