Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 88 references

Kicking gravitational wave detectors with recoiling black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Equal-mass, near-maximally-spinning black holes in the hangup-kick configuration recoil at up to ~4,700 km/s, with the kick set by the merger phase, and advanced LIGO could distinguish these waveforms at SNR around 30.

desk verdict Solid new simulations push hangup-kick recoils to spin 0.97 and show LIGO could tell the waveforms apart, but the 'excellent agreement' claim is softer than it looks. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.04382 v1 pith:JKLJLUOP submitted 2019-08-12 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Carlos O. Lousto , James Healy This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COastro-ph.GA PACS 04.25.dg04.25.Nx04.30.Db04.70.Bw
keywords gravitationalrecoilbinaryblackholeshangupkicknumericalrelativitywavedetectorswaveformmismatchholespinmergerphase
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper tries to show that the largest gravitational recoil kicks, up to about 4,700 km/s, are not just a numerical prediction but an observable signature. Eight new simulations of equal-mass, near-maximally-spinning binaries in the hangup-kick configuration show that the final black hole's kick depends on the merger phase, and that advanced LIGO could tell these waveforms apart at signal-to-noise ratios around 30. If true, a loud detection could identify a recoiling remnant and reveal the spin geometry at merger. The authors also introduce a gauge-invariant way to measure the merger phase using the waveform's peak amplitude.

What carries the argument

The central object is the hangup-kick configuration, a named family of spin setups in which equal-mass, near-maximally-spinning holes have spins tilted at polar angle 50.98 degrees and opposed in the orbital plane, leaving only the azimuthal phase free. The mechanism that carries the argument is the phase-dependent competition between the (2,2) and (2,-2) gravitational-wave modes, which produces the net linear momentum along the orbital angular momentum; when the modes nearly cancel, the simulation shows an anti-kick where two large opposing impulses nearly erase each other. The paper adds a gauge-invariant clock for this phase, defined as the phase of the waveform at its peak amplitude, and uses it to align the eight configurations with each other.

What would settle it

Evolve the same eight configurations with a second, independent method for constructing the starting spin states at spin 0.97 and compare the extrapolated recoils; if the peak value shifts by more than the roughly 2 km/s convergence error quoted for the phi=291 case, the maximum-kick estimate and the claimed detectability would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that equal-mass black holes with spin magnitude 0.97, configured in the hangup-kick family, produce recoil velocities ranging from about -4,622 to +4,579 km/s depending on the azimuthal spin phase at merger. The recoil follows a sinusoidal dependence on that phase, with a fitted leading amplitude near 4,679 km/s that matches the extrapolated prediction from earlier formulas. It introduces the phase of the waveform at peak amplitude as a gauge-invariant reference for the merger phase, and shows that this reference reproduces the predicted recoil curve. Finally, it computes waveform mismatches and finds that advanced LIGO could distinguish members of this family at signal-to-noise ratios around 30, so a detection could identify a highly recoiling black hole even when the binary parameters are otherwise essentially identical.

Load-bearing premise

The chain of results assumes that the spin tilt angle 50.98 degrees, extrapolated from lower-spin fits, is truly the angle that maximizes recoil at spin 0.97, and that the newly constructed near-maximal-spin starting configurations faithfully represent the astrophysical binary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The hangup-kick family at spin 0.97 yields a continuous range of recoils between about -4,622 and +4,579 km/s, so the same binary parameters can produce very different remnant kicks depending on merger phase.
  • The leading recoil amplitude fitted from the new simulations, near 4,679 km/s, agrees with the values extrapolated from earlier lower-spin formulas, supporting the extrapolation to near-maximal spin.
  • Advanced LIGO can distinguish these waveforms from one another at signal-to-noise ratios around 30, meaning a loud detection could reveal the recoil and the merger-phase information encoded in the last cycles.
  • Convergence tests on the lowest-recoil member show the extrapolated recoil differs from the standard-resolution value by about 1%, indicating the family's kick values are numerically stable at the few-percent level.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the maximum kick really reaches ~4,700 km/s at spin 0.97, many merged black holes in dense galactic environments would be ejected, so searches for offset active galactic nuclei and runaway black holes could be tied directly to high-spin, phase-tuned mergers.
  • The peak-amplitude phase method could generalize to fully precessing binaries by defining the orbital plane from the direction of peak gravitational-wave emission, which the authors flag as future work.
  • The near-zero-recoil member's anti-kick suggests that a small final kick does not imply a quiescent merger; instantaneous momentum fluxes can be large even when the net integrated recoil nearly vanishes, which may matter for astrophysical models of the surrounding medium.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents eight new numerical relativity simulations of equal-mass, near-maximally spinning binary black holes (spin magnitude alpha=0.97) in the hangup-kick configuration, with the spin polar angle fixed at theta=50.98 degrees and the azimuthal phase varied. The reported final recoil velocities range from approximately -4622 to +4579 km/s, and the authors fit these values with a cosine model to estimate the maximum recoil amplitude near 4,700 km/s. They introduce a gauge-invariant reference phase based on the waveform peak amplitude, compare it with the initial-angle and trajectory-based phase definitions, analyze which spherical-harmonic modes generate the recoil, and compute matched-filter overlaps to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio needed for advanced LIGO to distinguish different members of the family. The central claims are that the hangup-kick family at alpha=0.97 produces near-maximal recoils of about 4,700 km/s and that such highly recoiling remnants can be distinguished from essentially identical binaries with different merger phases at reachable SNR around 30.

Significance. If the results hold, this is one of the first systematic numerical relativity studies of precessing binaries at spin magnitudes as high as 0.97, and it directly probes the long-standing extrapolation that the maximum gravitational recoil is about 5,000 km/s. The new peak-phase reference is a useful idea that could be generalized to fully precessing systems, and the waveform-differentiability analysis connects the recoil question to actual gravitational-wave observations. The paper also includes an explicit three-resolution convergence study with Richardson extrapolation for one member of the family and a mode-pair analysis that explains the recoil generation. These are concrete strengths. The main caveat is that the headline maximum-recoil value and the claimed agreement with previous fitting formulas rest on assumptions and fit statistics that are weaker than the paper's language suggests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Table I, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The maximum-recoil claim is conditioned on the polar angle theta=50.98 degrees being the true maximizing angle at alpha=0.97, but this angle is taken from fits calibrated at lower spins and no other polar angle is simulated. The phrase in the abstract that this family leads to about +/-4,700 km/s is therefore a prediction within an assumed one-dimensional family, not a measured maximum over the full spin-orientation space. The manuscript should state this limitation explicitly, either by tempering the wording or by adding a second theta value to test the sensitivity of the maximum to this assumption.
  2. [Section III C, Table V] The convergence study is performed only for the phi=291 degrees member, whose final recoil is near zero because of a strong late-time cancellation. The large-kick members (for example phi=30 degrees and phi=203 degrees) are run at only the standard resolution N144. While the authors state that all eight configurations show comparable constraint and horizon-mass conservation, this does not directly demonstrate that a 4,600 km/s recoil has the same truncation error as the 186 km/s case. A lower-resolution run of one large-kick member, or an explicit estimate of the systematic error from the high-spin precessing initial data, would materially strengthen the quoted maximum and the SNR thresholds.
  3. [Section III A, Table III] The claim of excellent agreement with Eqs. (2) and (3) is not well supported by the fit statistics. The trajectory- and waveform-phase fits that agree with the predicted values have A1 relative errors of 8.7% and 11.0%, respectively, and the A3 amplitudes are consistent with zero to within errors of thousands of percent. The initial-angle fit has a small formal error but gives A1=4569.47 km/s, about 109 km/s below the predicted 4678.90 km/s. The agreement should therefore be presented as a rough consistency check, not as a precise validation of the peak-phase method or of the extrapolation formulas.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (1) and Table III] The phase convention is inconsistent: Eq. (1) writes V3 cos(3*Delta_phi + 3*phi_3), while Table III states A3 cos(3[Delta_phi - phi_3]). Please make the sign convention uniform and define the fitting parameters once.
  2. [Figure 4] The top panel labels the phi=203 degrees case as V=-4579 km/s, whereas Table II and Table IV give V=4579 km/s. The sign inconsistency should be corrected.
  3. [Section III C, Eq. (5)] The convergence order reported for Vrecoil in Table V is 8.4, which is above the formal eighth-order spatial differencing order. Please clarify whether this is expected from the combination of time integration and Richardson extrapolation, or whether it indicates that the three resolutions lie in an asymptotic regime.
  4. [Section IV] The sentence beginning "We compute the waveforms a and b matching as the inner product" is grammatically unclear and should be rewritten to define the match and the optimization variables.
  5. [Table I] The column headers m, Omega22, and d/m are not fully defined in the text. In particular, the relation between the stated initial coordinate separation D/m=9 and the tabulated d/m values should be clarified.
  6. [References] Reference [41] for the advanced LIGO sensitivity curve is incomplete; a full citation or a direct link to the data file should be provided.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the recoil values come from eight new numerical-relativity evolutions; Eqs. (2)-(3) are prior-data fits used as a prediction test, not inputs to the measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central recoil results are new numerical data, not derived from the fitting formulas. Table II lists recoil velocities computed from the radiative Weyl scalar via standard formulas (Refs. [66,67]) applied to the eight new simulations; Eqs. (2) and (3) are earlier fitting formulas from prior work, and the paper evaluates them at alpha=0.97 and theta=50.98 as a comparison. That comparison is a genuine external test: the parameters D, E, F in Eq. (3) were fixed by lower-spin simulations, not by the eight runs presented here. The choice of theta=50.98 degrees is motivated by those prior predictions, but the resulting recoil is measured independently; if the extrapolation were wrong, the disagreement would show up in Table III. The fit of Eq. (1) to the new data is used to extract the amplitude A1 and compare it with the prior-model prediction, so this is a prediction test rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The mismatch and SNR analysis uses the raw simulated waveforms and the advanced LIGO noise curve, with no recoil model entering the calculation. The convergence study is limited to one member of the family, which is an accuracy limitation, not a circular step. Self-citations are present (e.g., Refs. [28,30]), but they supply the ansatz and prior calibration, not the central quantitative claim; the new simulations are the evidence. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing claim is defined in terms of the quantity it is said to predict.

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

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central numbers rest on the numerical relativity framework, the specific initial-data construction at alpha=0.97, the extrapolated optimal polar angle, and the detector noise model.

free parameters (4)
  • V1 (leading cosine amplitude) = 4569.47, 4678.96, 4678.88 km/s for initial, trajectory, and peak-phase fits
    Amplitude of the cos(Delta-phi) term in Eq. (1), fitted to the 8 recoil data points for each phase definition (Table III).
  • phi1 (leading cosine phase) = 0.4353, 0.7960, 0.2447 rad for the three phase definitions
    Phase offset of the cos(Delta-phi) term in Eq. (1), fitted to the data (Table III).
  • V3 (third harmonic amplitude) = 152.22, 10.03, 9.96 km/s for the three phase definitions
    Amplitude of the cos(3 Delta-phi) term in Eq. (1), fitted to the data (Table III). For the trajectory and peak-phase fits, this parameter is essentially unconstrained.
  • phi3 (third harmonic phase) = 0.8814, 0.0617, 0.7434 rad for the three phase definitions
    Phase offset of the cos(3 Delta-phi) term in Eq. (1), fitted to the data (Table III).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Superposition-of-two-Kerr-BHs initial data at separation D/m=9 accurately represent quasi-circular binaries with spin magnitude 0.97.
    The initial data construction (Refs. [51,52]) is validated for aligned spins, but for this precessing hangup-kick family at alpha=0.97 it is used without an external check.
  • domain assumption The polar angle theta=50.98 degrees, chosen to maximize recoil, is correctly predicted by the fitting formulas Eqs. (2)-(3) at alpha=0.97.
    The simulation design assumes the extrapolated theta_max from lower-spin fits; if wrong, the maximum kick could differ.
  • domain assumption The advanced LIGO design sensitivity curve and the reference total mass of 74 solar masses are appropriate for assessing distinguishability of these waveforms.
    The mismatch analysis assumes this noise curve and mass; different detectors or masses would change the required SNR.
  • domain assumption The perturbative extrapolation of radiated energy-momentum to infinite radius is accurate at the claimed level.
    The recoil values depend on this standard extrapolation procedure described in Ref. [68].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Kicking gravitational wave detectors with recoiling black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JKLJLUOP

@misc{pith2026190804382,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Kicking gravitational wave detectors with recoiling black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JKLJLUOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.04382}
}
abstract

Binary black holes emit gravitational radiation with net linear momentum leading to a retreat of the final remnant black hole that can reach up to $\sim5,000$ km/s. Full numerical relativity simulations are the only tool to accurately compute these recoils since they are largely produced when the black hole horizons are about to merge and they are strongly dependent on their spin orientations at that moment. We present eight new numerical simulations of BBH in the hangup-kick configuration family, leading to the maximum recoil. Black holes are equal mass and near maximally spinning ($|\vec{S}_{1,2}|/m_{1,2}^2=0.97$). Depending on their phase at merger, this family leads to $\sim\pm4,700$ km/s and all intermediate values of the recoil along the orbital angular momentum of the binary system. We introduce a new invariant method to evaluate the recoil dependence on the merger phase via the waveform peak amplitude used as a reference phase angle and compare it with previous definitions. We also compute the mismatch between these hangup-kick waveforms to infer their observable differentiability by gravitational wave detectors, such as advanced LIGO, finding currently reachable signal-to-noise ratios, hence allowing for the identification of highly recoiling black holes having otherwise essentially the same binary parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.04382 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The hangup-kick configurations to maximize the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The plots show the fits for the three different eval [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. This figure displays the use of the method to de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Plots of the (2,2) (red) and (2,-2) (blue) modes of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. We display the SNR required to differentiate the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The orbits in the maximum likelihood ln [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Mer- ritt, Astrophys. J. 659, L5 (2007), gr-qc/0701164

    arXiv 2007

  2. [2]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Mer- ritt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231102 (2007), gr-qc/0702133

    arXiv 2007

  3. [3]

    Volonteri, Astrophys

    M. Volonteri, Astrophys. J. 663, L5 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0703180 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2007

  4. [4]

    Loeb, Phys

    A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 041103 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0703722

    work page arXiv 2007

  5. [5]

    Holley-Bockelmann, K

    K. Holley-Bockelmann, K. G¨ ultekin, D. Shoemaker, and N. Yunes, Astrophys. J. 686, 829 (2008), arXiv:0707.1334

    arXiv 2008

  6. [6]

    Extreme recoils: impact on the detection of gravitational waves from massive black hole binaries

    A. sesana, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 382, 6 (2007), arXiv:0707.4677 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2007

  7. [7]

    Effects of gravitational-wave recoil on the dynamics and growth of supermassive black holes

    L. Blecha and A. Loeb, mnras 390, 1311 (2008), arXiv:0805.1420

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    A Runaway Black Hole in COSMOS: Gravitational Wave or Slingshot Recoil?

    F. Civano et al. , Astrophys. J. 717, 209 (2010), arXiv:1003.0020 [Unknown]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2010

Show all 88 references
  1. [9]

    Blecha, F

    L. Blecha, F. Civano, M. Elvis, and A. Loeb, (2012), 9 arXiv:1205.6202 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lanzuisi et al

    G. Lanzuisi et al. , Astrophys. J. 778, 62 (2013), arXiv:1310.1399 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Bogdanovi´ c, M

    T. Bogdanovi´ c, M. Eracleous, and S. Sigurdsson, Astro- phys. J. 697, 288 (2009), arXiv:0809.3262 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Komossa, H

    S. Komossa, H. Zhou, and H. Lu, Astrop. J. Letters 678, L81 (2008), arXiv:0804.4585 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Vivek, R

    M. Vivek, R. Srianand, P. Noterdaeme, V. Mo- han, and V. Kuriakose, mnras 400, L6 (2009), arXiv:arXiv:0909.0018 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    G. A. Shields, E. W. Bonning, and S. Salviander, Astro- phys. J. 696, 1367 (2009), arXiv:0810.2563 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Decarli, M

    R. Decarli, M. Dotti, C. Mazzucchelli, C. Montuori, and M. Volonteri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445, 1558 (2014), arXiv:1409.1585 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. G. Jonker, M. A. P. Torres, A. C. Fabian, M. Heida, G. Miniutti, and D. Pooley, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 407, 645 (2010), arXiv:1004.5379 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    G. A. Shields, D. J. Rosario, K. L. Smith, E. W. Bon- ning, S. Salviander, et al., Astrophys. J. 707, 936 (2009), arXiv:0907.3470 [astro-ph.CO]

    2009 arXiv

  10. [18]

    G. A. Shields and E. W. Bonning, Astrophys. J. 772, L5 (2013), arXiv:1302.4458 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Eracleous, T

    M. Eracleous, T. A. Boroson, J. P. Halpern, and J. Liu, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement 201, 23 (2012), arXiv:1106.2952 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  12. [20]

    D. Lena, A. Robinson, A. Marconi, D. J. Axon, A. Capetti, D. Merritt, and D. Batcheldor, Astrophys. J. 795, 146 (2014), arXiv:1409.3976 [astro-ph.GA]

    2014 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. C. Runnoe, M. Eracleous, G. Mathes, A. Pen- nell, T. Boroson, S. Sigurdsson, T. Bogdanovic, J. P. Halpern, and J. Liu, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 221, 7 (2015), arXiv:1509.02575 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    J. C. Runnoe, M. Eracleous, A. Pennell, G. Mathes, T. Boroson, S. Sigurdsson, T. Bogdanovi´ c, J. P. Halpern, J. Liu, and S. Brown, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 468, 1683 (2017), arXiv:1702.05465 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Chiaberge et al., Astron

    M. Chiaberge et al., Astron. Astrophys. 600, A57 (2017), arXiv:1611.05501 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and M. Campanelli, As- trophys. J. 841, L28 (2017), arXiv:1704.00809 [astro- ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chiaberge, G

    M. Chiaberge, G. R. Tremblay, A. Capetti, and C. Nor- man, Astrophys. J. 861, 56 (2018), arXiv:1805.05860 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Komossa, Adv

    S. Komossa, Adv. Astron. 2012, 364973 (2012), arXiv:1202.1977 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Blecha, D

    L. Blecha, D. Sijacki, L. Z. Kelley, P. Torrey, M. Vogels- berger, D. Nelson, V. Springel, G. Snyder, and L. Hern- quist, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 456, 961 (2016), arXiv:1508.01524 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    NXXX”, where XXX is a number related to the resolution in the wavezone. For example, “N144

    for more details. In addition, we proposed the alternative modeling ˜V1 = (1 +Eα cosθ 1 +Fα cosθ ) Dα sinθ (3) which can be thought of as a resummation of Eq. (2) with an additional term Eα cosθ, and fit to D, E, F (where we used the prediction of [71] to model the ˜V1 for θ = ...

  21. [29]

    Zlochower and C

    Y. Zlochower and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D92, 024022 (2015), arXiv:1503.07536 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    world heat map

    For comparison, the matching between different res- olutions of the reference case, ϕ = 291◦, gives us SNR of the order of 96 and 25 for N120 and N100 respectively. Extrapolation to infinite resolution of the simulations N∞ leads to a SNR of over 100 in order to differentiate the...

    2000

  23. [31]

    C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, M. Dotti, and M. Volonteri, Phys. Rev. D85, 084015 (2012), arXiv:1201.1923 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, I. Ruchlin, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D97, 104026 (2018), arXiv:1711.09041 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 231102 (2011), arXiv:1108.2009 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D90, 104004 (2014), arXiv:1406.7295 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Sperhake, Class

    U. Sperhake, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 124011 (2015), arXiv:1411.3997 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    J. A. Gonz´ alez, U. Sperhake, B. Brugmann, M. Hannam, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 091101 (2007), gr- qc/0610154

    2007

  29. [37]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D96, 024031 (2017), arXiv:1705.07034 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Meliani, Y

    Z. Meliani, Y. Mizuno, H. Olivares, O. Porth, L. Rezzolla, and Z. Younsi, Astron. Astrophys. 598, A38 (2017), arXiv:1606.08192 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sijacki, V

    D. Sijacki, V. Springel, and M. Haehnelt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 414, 3656 (2011), arXiv:1008.3313 [astro- ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ponce, J

    M. Ponce, J. A. Faber, and J. Lombardi, James C., Astrophys. J. 745, 71 (2012), arXiv:1107.1711 [astro- ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Advanced ligo anticipated sensitivity curves,

    “Advanced ligo anticipated sensitivity curves,”

  34. [42]

    Top panel shows the fit to the ln L and recoil separately that together form the ellipses in the bottom panel

    for GW150914. Top panel shows the fit to the ln L and recoil separately that together form the ellipses in the bottom panel. The recoil velocity uses a fitV =A1 cos(ϕ−φ1) and the log-likelihood uses lnL =A2 cos(ϕ−φ2)+A3 cos(3ϕ−3φ3)+ B, where A1,φ 1,A 2,φ 2,A 3,φ 3, andB are fitti...

  35. [43]

    Gerosa and C

    D. Gerosa and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 011101 (2016), arXiv:1606.04226 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Calder´ on Bustillo, J

    J. Calder´ on Bustillo, J. A. Clark, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 191102 (2018), arXiv:1806.11160 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, Y. Zlochower, and M. Campanelli, Phys. Rev. D100, 024021 (2019), arXiv:1901.02553 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pretorius, Phys

    F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005), gr- qc/0507014

    2005

  39. [47]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006), gr- qc/0511048

    2006

  40. [48]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006), gr- qc/0511103

    2006

  41. [49]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D74, 041501(R) (2006), gr-qc/0604012

    2006 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. O. Lousto, J. Healy, and H. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D93, 044031 (2016), arXiv:1506.04768 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kesden, D

    M. Kesden, D. Gerosa, R. O’Shaughnessy, E. Berti, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081103 (2015), arXiv:1411.0674 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  44. [52]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Phys. Rev. D93, 124074 (2016), arXiv:1601.05086 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  45. [53]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Phys. Rev. D99, 064023 (2019), arXiv:1805.08127 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ruchlin, J

    I. Ruchlin, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D95, 024033 (2017), arXiv:1410.8607 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Healy, I

    J. Healy, I. Ruchlin, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D94, 104020 (2016), arXiv:1506.06153 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Zlochower, J

    Y. Zlochower, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and I. Ruchlin, Phys. Rev. D96, 044002 (2017), arXiv:1706.01980 [gr- qc]

    2017 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A. H. Mroue, M. A. Scheel, B. Szilagyi, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle, et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 241104 (2013), arXiv:1304.6077 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Zlochower, J

    Y. Zlochower, J. G. Baker, M. Campanelli, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D72, 024021 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0505055

    2005

  51. [59]

    Marronetti, W

    P. Marronetti, W. Tichy, B. Br¨ ugmann, J. Gonza- lez, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D77, 064010 (2008), arXiv:0709.2160 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  52. [60]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D77, 024034 (2008), arXiv:0711.1165 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  53. [61]

    D. Alic, C. Bona-Casas, C. Bona, L. Rezzolla, and C. Palenzuela, Phys. Rev. D85, 064040 (2012), arXiv:1106.2254 [gr-qc]. 10

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    L¨ offler, J

    F. L¨ offler, J. Faber, E. Bentivegna, T. Bode, P. Diener, R. Haas, I. Hinder, B. C. Mundim, C. D. Ott, E. Schnet- ter, G. Allen, M. Campanelli, and P. Laguna, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 115001 (2012), arXiv:1111.3344 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Einstein Toolkit home page: http://einsteintoolkit.org

  56. [64]

    Cactus Computational Toolkit home page: http://cactuscode.org

  57. [65]

    Schnetter, S

    E. Schnetter, S. H. Hawley, and I. Hawke, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1465 (2004), gr-qc/0310042

    2004 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Thornburg, Class

    J. Thornburg, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 743 (2004), gr- qc/0306056

    2004

  59. [67]

    Dreyer, B

    O. Dreyer, B. Krishnan, D. Shoemaker, and E. Schnet- ter, Phys. Rev. D67, 024018 (2003), gr-qc/0206008

    2003 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, B. Krish- nan, and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. D75, 064030 (2007), gr-qc/0612076

    2007 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Campanelli and C

    M. Campanelli and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D59, 124022 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811019 [gr-qc]

    1999 arXiv

  62. [70]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D76, 041502(R) (2007), gr-qc/0703061

    2007 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Nakano, J

    H. Nakano, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D91, 104022 (2015), arXiv:1503.00718 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, H. Nakano, and Y. Zlochower, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 145011 (2017), arXiv:1702.00872 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D89, 104052 (2014), arXiv:1312.5775 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D83, 024003 (2011), arXiv:1011.0593 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  67. [75]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D87, 084027 (2013), arXiv:1211.7099 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D97, 084002 (2018), arXiv:1801.08162 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. Ruiz, R. Takahashi, M. Alcubierre, and D. Nunez, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 2467 (2008), arXiv:0707.4654 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D95, 024037 (2017), arXiv:1610.09713 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  71. [79]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D94, 064035 (2016), arXiv:1606.01262 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [81]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), (2018), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Healy et al

    J. Healy et al. , Phys. Rev. D97, 064027 (2018), arXiv:1712.05836 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D91, 024043 (2015), arXiv:1408.1810 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Chamberlain, C

    K. Chamberlain, C. J. Moore, D. Gerosa, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D99, 024025 (2019), arXiv:1809.04799 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Gerosa, F

    D. Gerosa, F. H´ ebert, and L. C. Stein, Phys. Rev. D97, 104049 (2018), arXiv:1802.04276 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  77. [86]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X6, 041014 (2016), arXiv:1606.01210 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Vallisneri, J

    M. Vallisneri, J. Kanner, R. Williams, A. Weinstein, and B. Stephens, Proceedings, 10th International LISA Sym- posium: Gainesville, Florida, USA, May 18-23, 2014 , J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012021 (2015), arXiv:1410.4839 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Pankow, P

    C. Pankow, P. Brady, E. Ochsner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023002 (2015), arXiv:1502.04370 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Lange, R

    J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, (2018), arXiv:1805.10457 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

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