Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Probing Spacetime Symmetries Using Gravitational Wave Ringdown

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that any nonzero fractional shift between the twin ringdown modes of a Kerr black hole signals a violation of Kerr spacetime symmetries, and the GW150914 ringdown shows no such shift.

desk verdict A worthwhile but modest ringdown test that reframes twin-mode degeneracy as a symmetry probe; the analysis is sound, the constraints are overstated, and a sign-convention slip needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.08942 v1 pith:V74O4SHD submitted 2024-12-12 gr-qc hep-th

Rajes Ghosh , Akash K Mishra , Sudipta Sarkar This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords gravitationalwavesblackholeringdownquasinormalmodesKerrspacetimecircularitytwinGW150914Bayesianparameterestimation
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

This paper builds a test of the hidden symmetries that single out Kerr black holes—stationarity, axisymmetry, and circularity—out of the ringdown signal that follows a binary merger. The test uses the fact that in a Kerr spacetime the ringdown splits into pairs of twin modes whose frequencies differ only by sign and whose damping times are equal; any fractional shift between the twins would signal a symmetry violation. Applied to the loud event GW150914, the measured shifts are consistent with zero, with Bayes factors of 2.1 and 2.4 favoring the Kerr model. The same test, run with the projected sensitivity of next-generation detectors, should be able to resolve deviations currently hidden by noise.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the twin-mode degeneracy of Kerr quasinormal modes: stationarity, axisymmetry, and circularity force the two modes at fixed angular and overtone numbers to satisfy equal damping times and frequencies opposite in sign. The paper converts this degeneracy into an observable by writing the non-circular template as the Kerr template with fractional shifts in frequency and damping time for the negative-frequency twin, then estimating those shifts with time-domain Bayesian parameter estimation. The degeneracy is what lets a single loud ringdown constrain a symmetry property of the spacetime.

What would settle it

Compute the ringdown of a known non-circular black hole solution from first principles and inject it with the signal-to-noise ratio of GW150914; if recovery with the two-mode template reports the shifts consistent with zero even though the spacetime breaks circularity, the test is not measuring what it claims.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the ringdown of a Kerr black hole contains a built-in symmetry meter: for each mode labeled by angular and overtone numbers there is a twin whose frequency is opposite in sign and whose damping time is equal, and any departure of the fractional shifts in frequency and damping time from zero indicates a violation of Kerr's spacetime symmetries. Under the assumption that stationarity and axisymmetry still hold, this becomes a direct test of circularity. The paper applies this to GW150914 with two templates, one using only the fundamental mode and one adding the first overtone, and finds the null hypothesis of zero shift lies inside the 90 percent credible region in all cases. Bayes factors computed with a density-ratio estimator are 2.1 and 2.4, both in favor of the circular Kerr model.

Load-bearing premise

The test assumes a circularity violation would show up only as small fractional shifts in the twin mode's frequency and damping time, with the rest of the two-mode template, including amplitudes, phases, and mode content, left unchanged.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A future detection of nonzero frequency or damping-time shifts in any ringdown would be direct, theory-independent evidence that the remnant is not a Kerr black hole, without needing to specify a modified-gravity model.
  • The GW150914 result provides a baseline: non-circular deviations are currently consistent with zero, so any theory predicting large symmetry violations is disfavored.
  • Projected sensitivity of next-generation ground-based detectors shrinks the credible regions enough to distinguish Kerr from circularity-violating templates with deviations as small as about 0.04 in both shifts.
  • Including the first overtone in the template allows the analysis to start at the merger and gives comparable constraints, so the test is not tied to the fundamental mode alone.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension not developed in the paper is to stack many ringdown events; the mass-spin degeneracy visible in the single-event posteriors could be broken by combining events, sharpening the same test.
  • Because the template only models small shifts in frequency and damping time, the quoted constraints do not cover a large violation that reshapes the ringdown entirely; computing the exact ringdown of a known non-circular solution would say how much of the parameter space the test actually covers.
  • If circularity breaking also breaks equatorial reflection symmetry, the main analysis would partly miss it; the paper's Appendix B indicates the posteriors barely change when twin amplitudes and phases are freed, suggesting the test is fairly insensitive to that specific extension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a test of Kerr spacetime symmetries, specifically circularity, using the ringdown of gravitational waves. Assuming that departures from circularity appear as small fractional shifts δω and δτ in the frequency and damping time of the negative-frequency twin QNM relative to its positive-frequency counterpart, the authors construct two phenomenological models (H1 with the 220 mode, H2 with the 220 and 221 modes) and perform Bayesian parameter estimation on the GW150914 ringdown data. They find that the deviation parameters are consistent with zero within the 90% credible regions, with Bayes factors B_Kerr/H1 = 2.1 and B_Kerr/H2 = 2.4 favoring the Kerr model. They also present injection studies for future detectors (O4 and Einstein Telescope) and a check of the equatorial Z2 symmetry assumption in Appendix B.

Significance. If the interpretation were as general as claimed, the paper would provide a conceptually clean way to probe black-hole spacetime symmetries from gravitational-wave ringdowns, complementing standard no-hair tests. The analysis uses standard, reproducible Bayesian tools (dynesty, pyRing) and public LIGO data, which is a strength. However, the result is model-dependent: the constraints apply only to the specific two-mode phenomenological deformation adopted in Eq. (3), and the posteriors are broad enough to be prior-dominated. The novelty lies more in the interpretation of twin-mode relations as symmetry tests than in the data analysis itself, which is a modest but reasonable contribution to the ringdown testing literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Introduction and 'Models with non-circular deviations' (Eq. 3)] The paper's central interpretive claim—that consistency of {δω,δτ} with zero constrains departures from Kerr circularity—is limited by the small-deviation ansatz. As the authors themselves state in the Introduction, 'loss of circularity may cause more severe modifications and even a complete breakdown of the ringdown model in Eq. (1).' Within the parameterization of Eq. (3), a non-circular spacetime that changes amplitude ratios, induces mode mixing, or alters the angular eigenfunctions would not produce a nonzero δω or δτ in this template. The abstract and conclusions should therefore be rephrased to say that the analysis constrains this specific two-mode deformation, not general non-circular spacetimes, and the one-way logical statement ('any deviation from zero signifies a violation') should be accompanied by an explicit statement that the converse is not established.
  2. [Introduction, definition of δω, and Eq. (3)] There is a sign/notation inconsistency in the definition of δω. The text defines δω_ℓmn = (ω'_{ℓmn} − ω_{ℓmn})/ω_{ℓmn} and states that for Kerr spacetimes ω'_{ℓmn} = −ω_{ℓmn}, which would imply δω = −2. Yet Eq. (3) sets ω'_{220} = ω_{220}(1 + δω1), for which the Kerr limit, with the negative-frequency mode at e^{−iωt}, corresponds to δω1 = 0. The symbol ω' in Eq. (3) is evidently the magnitude of the frequency appearing in the exponential of the negative-frequency term, not the signed frequency used in Eq. (1). This must be clarified, because the reported posterior values and the location of the null hypothesis (δω = 0) depend entirely on the second convention.
  3. [Parameter Estimation with GW150914, Fig. 1] The reported 90% credible intervals for δω and δτ are comparable to the prior width: the priors are uniform in [−0.5, 0.5], and the posterior for δω1 in H1 is 0.08^{+0.25}_{−0.28}, so the half-width of the interval is only modestly smaller than the prior's 90% width of 0.45. The Bayes factors of 2.1 and 2.4 are, by Jeffreys' scale, only 'worth mentioning' and are not strong evidence. The abstract's phrase 'place significant constraints on such deviations' is therefore overstated, and I recommend reporting prior-scaled upper limits or explicitly stating that the data are prior-dominated for these parameters.
  4. [Appendix B (Fig. 6)] The check of the equatorial Z2 symmetry assumption does not validate the small-deviation mapping. While the posteriors of δω1 and δτ1 are similar with and without the Z2 amplitude/phase relation, the amplitude A'_{220} in the symmetry-broken model is essentially unconstrained (A'_{220} = 1.16^{+3.49}_{−0.54} × 10^{−20}). This means that the data cannot distinguish whether a violation of circularity would primarily affect amplitudes or phases rather than frequencies and damping times, so the conclusion that the test is robust to Z2 breaking should be tempered.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'degenaracies' (should be 'degeneracies'), 'constraint' used for 'constrain', and 'well-known fact' in the Introduction. A careful proofread is needed.
  2. [Parameter Estimation with GW150914] The analysis fixes the sky location to (α, δ) = (1.95, −1.27) and uses different ringdown start times for H1 and H2 (10 M_f after peak versus at the merger). These choices should be justified explicitly; in particular, the fixed sky location could bias the recovered parameters if the IMR-based values are not accurate for the ringdown-only analysis.
  3. [Fig. 1 caption and main text] The main text mentions only GW150914 in the parameter-estimation section, but Appendix B (Fig. 3) also presents results for GW190521_074359 without a corresponding discussion in the main text. The relationship between these analyses should be clarified.
  4. [Future Observations] The comparison of 'GW150914', 'O4', 'ET', and 'Zero Noise' in Fig. 2 mixes different injections: the GW150914 points are from real data, while the others are from injections with known parameters. The caption and text should state this difference explicitly to avoid implying that the real-event posterior can be directly compared with the injection-recovery posteriors on equal footing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Kerr null prediction is external and the deviation parameters are measured, not imposed; the small-deviation ansatz is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The central prediction that δω = δτ = 0 for Kerr comes from the external QNM twin-mode relations ω' = −ω and τ' = τ, cited to Refs. [18,66–68], which are not the authors' own results. The deviation parameters δω1, δτ1 are free parameters in the H1/H2 models, estimated from GW150914 with uniform priors; the null hypothesis δ = 0 is found to lie within the 90% credible region, and the Bayes factors BKerr/H1 = 2.1 and BKerr/H2 = 2.4 are computed from the posterior via the Savage-Dickey density ratio. The conclusion is therefore a measurement outcome, not an input. The paper itself explicitly concedes that the template is "essentially an effective bottom-up prescription valid solely when the non-GR deviations are tiny" and that a genuine loss of circularity could cause "a complete breakdown of the ringdown model in Eq. (1)"; this is a stated limitation of scope, not a circular derivation. The self-citations are not load-bearing: Ref. [42] (co-authored by Mishra) provides the time-domain Bayesian analysis framework, a computational tool, and Ref. [57] (co-authored by Ghosh) is cited only as a pointer to the non-circular spacetime literature; neither supplies the Kerr symmetry prediction. There is a sign-convention inconsistency between Eq. (1), where ω' = −ω would imply δω = −2, and Eq. (3), where ω' = ω(1+δω1) with the minus sign made explicit; this is a presentational error rather than a tautology. The interpretive overreach in calling vanishing δ a "necessary and sufficient condition" for preserved Kerr isometries is an overclaim about the ansatz's completeness, not a circular step, since the null hypothesis is not constructed from the data being tested.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of search parameters (δω, δτ) and standard assumptions of ringdown analysis; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • δω1 = 0.08^{+0.25}_{-0.28} (H1, 90% CI)
    Fractional frequency shift of the twin 220 mode; free parameter introduced to model circularity violation.
  • δτ1 = 0.02^{+0.29}_{-0.29} (H1, 90% CI)
    Fractional damping-time shift of the twin 220 mode; free parameter introduced to model circularity violation.
  • δω2 = 0.02^{+0.25}_{-0.23} (H2, 90% CI)
    Fractional frequency shift of the twin 221 overtone in model H2.
  • δτ2 = 0.01^{+0.30}_{-0.31} (H2, 90% CI)
    Fractional damping-time shift of the twin 221 overtone in model H2.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The post-merger gravitational wave signal can be described as a linear superposition of quasinormal modes.
    Used throughout, particularly Eq. (1); standard in ringdown analysis but relies on the remnant settling to a perturbed black hole.
  • standard math Kerr spacetime has twin-mode degeneracy: the m and -m modes have related frequencies and damping times.
    The paper cites Refs. [18,66-68] for these relations; the central observable δω, δτ is built on this theorem. Note the sign convention inconsistency discussed in red flags.
  • domain assumption Zero δω and δτ is a necessary and sufficient condition for preservation of Kerr isometries (circularity), independent of the specifics of new physics.
    Stated in the paragraph after Eq. (3); this equates the phenomenological parameters with symmetry violation.
  • ad hoc to paper Deviations from circularity are small enough that the two-mode model with shifted frequencies and damping times remains valid.
    The paper states this is an effective bottom-up prescription valid for tiny deviations; the model Eq. (3) relies on it.
  • domain assumption The perturbation has equatorial reflection symmetry, fixing the amplitude and phase of the twin mode.
    Assumed in Eq. (3) and (4); checked in Appendix B by allowing independent amplitudes and phases, with minimal impact.
  • domain assumption The noise is a wide-sense stationary Gaussian process characterized by the estimated autocorrelation function.
    Appendix A defines the likelihood with a Toeplitz covariance; standard in time-domain ringdown analysis.
  • domain assumption Fixing the sky location to (α, δ) = (1.95, -1.27) does not bias the deviation parameter estimates.
    Used in the main analysis; the paper justifies it as a maximum-likelihood position from full IMR analysis but does not marginalize over it.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Spacetime Symmetries Using Gravitational Wave Ringdown." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V74O4SHD

@misc{pith2026241208942,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Spacetime Symmetries Using Gravitational Wave Ringdown},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V74O4SHD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.08942}
}
read the original abstract

The uniqueness and rigidity theorems assert that the asymptotically flat, vacuum, stationary rotating black hole solution in general relativity must be the Kerr solution, exhibiting novel symmetries such as axisymmetry and circularity. In our analysis of post-merger ringdown signal from coalescing black hole binary systems, we identify potential observational signatures for deviations from these Kerr symmetries. Utilizing ringdown data from the gravitational wave event GW150914, we place significant constraints on such deviations. Our analysis introduces a new and novel approach for testing spacetime symmetries through gravitational wave observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.08942 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Marginalized posterior distribution of the non-circularity parameters obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Marginalized posterior distribution for the non [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. In this figure, we present the full corner plot for all the search parameters corresponding to model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The posterior distribution for all search parameters derived from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Future Observations: In this figure, we show the full corner plot for all the search parameters corresponding to model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. This figure presents a comparative analysis of the posterior distributions for the search parameters associated with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Testing non-circular black hole spacetime with X-ray reflection

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    X-ray reflection data for EXO 1846–031 cannot distinguish the non-circular deformation parameter ℓ_NP from zero, remaining consistent with the Kerr hypothesis.

  2. Black Hole Spectroscopy with Conditional Variational Autoencoder

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A CVAE trained on simulated ringdown waveforms produces posterior estimates of remnant black hole parameters that match Bayesian inference, including overtones and a braneworld tidal charge parameter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.6, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.24, 241102 (2016)

    2016

  3. [3]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. [KAGRA, VIRGO and LIGO Scientific], Phys. Rev. X13, no.4, 041039 (2023)

    2023

  5. [5]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. [LIGO Scientific], Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  6. [6]

    [VIRGO],Class.Quant.Grav

    F.Acernese et al. [VIRGO],Class.Quant.Grav. 32, no.2, 024001 (2015)

    2015

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.22, 221101 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. D 103, no.12, 122002 (2021)

    2021

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. [LIGO Scientific, VIRGO and KAGRA], [arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Berti, E

    E. Berti, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, U. Sperhake, L. C. Stein, N. Wex, K. Yagi and T. Baker, et al., Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Berti, K

    E. Berti, K. Yagi, H. Yang and N. Yunes, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, no.5, 49 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev.108, 1063-1069 (1957)

    1957

  5. [13]

    C. V. Vishveshwara, Nature227, 936-938 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 737-738 (1970)

    1970

  7. [15]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635-647 (1973)

    1973

  8. [16]

    Dreyer, B

    O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garri- son and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 787- 804 (2004)

    2004

  9. [17]

    S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J. 239, 292 (1980)

    1980

  10. [18]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D73, 064030 (2006)

    2006

  11. [19]

    Gossan, J

    S. Gossan, J. Veitch and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124056 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel.22, no.1, 4 (2019)

    2019

  13. [21]

    Maggio, L

    E. Maggio, L. Buoninfante, A. Mazumdar and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D102, no.6, 064053 (2020)

    2020

  14. [22]

    Maggio, P

    E. Maggio, P. Pani and G. Raposo, arXiv:2105.06410 [gr- qc]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Maggio, Lect

    E. Maggio, Lect. Notes Phys.1017, 333-346 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Carullo, W

    G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 99, no.12, 123029 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Isi and W

    M. Isi and W. M. Farr, [arXiv:2107.05609 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cotesta, G

    R. Cotesta, G. Carullo, E. Berti and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, no.11, 111102 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Siegel, M

    H. Siegel, M. Isi and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D108, no.6, 064008 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Correia and C

    A. Correia and C. D. Capano, Phys. Rev. D110, no.4, 044018 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Meidam, M

    J. Meidam, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D90, no.6, 064009 (2014)

    2014

  22. [30]

    Carullo, L

    G. Carullo, L. Van Der Schaaf, L. London, P. T. H. Pang, K. W. Tsang, O. A. Hannuksela, J. Meidam, M. Agathos, A. Samajdar and A. Ghosh, et al. , Phys. Rev. D 98, no.10, 104020 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, no.11, 111102 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Calderón Bustillo, P

    J. Calderón Bustillo, P. D. Lasky and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.2, 024041 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    Carullo, Phys

    G. Carullo, Phys. Rev. D103, no.12, 124043 (2021)

    2021

  26. [34]

    Westerweck, Y

    J. Westerweck, Y. Sherf, C. D. Capano and R. Brustein, arXiv:2108.08823 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Carullo, D

    G. Carullo, D. Laghi, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, W. Del Pozzo, O. J. C. Dias, M. Godazgar and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. D105, no.6, 062009 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    K. Dey, E. Barausse and S. Basak, Phys. Rev. D108, no.2, 2 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    H. O. Silva, A. Ghosh and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.4, 044030 (2023)

    2023

  30. [38]

    Franchini and S

    N. Franchini and S. H. Völkel, [arXiv:2305.01696 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pacilio and S

    C. Pacilio and S. Bhagwat, Phys. Rev. D 107, no.8, 083021 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Destounis and F

    K. Destounis and F. Duque, arXiv:2308.16227 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    D’Addario, A

    G. D’Addario, A. Padilla, P. M. Saffin, T. P. Sotiriou and A. Spiers, Phys. Rev. D109, no.8, 084046 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    A. K. Mishra, G. Carullo and S. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.2, 024025 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Baibhav, M

    V. Baibhav, M. H. Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, W. Del Pozzo and F. Duque, Phys. Rev. D108, no.10, 104020 (2023)

    2023

  36. [44]

    P. A. Cano, L. Capuano, N. Franchini, S. Maenaut and S. H. Völkel, arXiv:2407.15947 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    P. A. Cano, L. Capuano, N. Franchini, S. Maenaut and S. H. Völkel, arXiv:2409.04517 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pani, arXiv:2408.08956 [gr-qc]

    F.Crescimbeni, X.J.Forteza, S.Bhagwat, J.Westerweck and P. Pani, arXiv:2408.08956 [gr-qc]

  39. [47]

    J. R. Gair, C. Li and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D77, 024035 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Johannsen and D

    T. Johannsen and D. Psaltis, Phys. Rev. D83, 124015 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Johannsen, Phys

    T. Johannsen, Phys. Rev. D88, no.4, 044002 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Rezzolla and A

    L. Rezzolla and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 90, no.8, 084009 (2014)

    2014

  43. [51]

    Konoplya, L

    R. Konoplya, L. Rezzolla and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D 93, no.6, 064015 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Destounis, A

    K. Destounis, A. G. Suvorov and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, no.14, 141102 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Destounis and K

    K. Destounis and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D104, no.6, 064023 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Fransen and D

    K. Fransen and D. R. Mayerson, Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 064035 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    C. Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D106, no.4, 044009 (2022)

    2022

  48. [56]

    C. Y. Chen, H. W. Chiang and A. Patel, Phys. Rev. D 108, no.6, 064016 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Ghosh and K

    R. Ghosh and K. Chakravarti, arXiv:2406.02454 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  50. [58]

    Israel, Phys

    W. Israel, Phys. Rev.164, 1776 (1967)

    1967

  51. [59]

    R. P. Geroch, J. Math. Phys.11, 2580 (1970)

    1970

  52. [60]

    Carter, Phys

    B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

    1971

  53. [61]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D5, 1239 (1972)

    1972

  54. [62]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D5, 2403 (1972)

    1972

  55. [63]

    R. O. Hansen, J. Math. Phys.15, 46 (1974)

    1974

  56. [64]

    D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. D10, 458 (1974)

    1974

  57. [65]

    D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 905 (1975)

    1975

  58. [66]

    Krivan, P

    W. Krivan, P. Laguna, P. Papadopoulos and N. Anders- son, Phys. Rev. D56, 3395-3404 (1997)

    1997

  59. [67]

    E. N. Dorband, E. Berti, P. Diener, E. Schnetter and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D74, 084028 (2006)

    2006

  60. [68]

    Giesler, S

    M. Giesler, S. Ma, K. Mitman, N. Oshita, S. A. Teukol- sky, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon and K. C. Nelli,et al., arXiv:2411.11269 [gr-qc]. 12

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    G. Faye, S. Marsat, L. Blanchet and B. R. Iyer, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 175004 (2012)

    2012

  62. [70]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel.17, 2 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    C. D. Capano, M. Cabero, J. Westerweck, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, A. H. Nitz, Y. F. Wang, A. B. Nielsen and B. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, no.22, 22 (2023)

    2023

  64. [72]

    H. Lim, G. Khanna, A. Apte and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.8, 084032 (2019)

    2019

  65. [73]

    X. Li, L. Sun, R. K. L. Lo, E. Payne and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.2, 024016 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Black hole physics: Basic concepts and new developments,

    V. P. Frolov and I. D. Novikov, “Black hole physics: Basic concepts and new developments,” Fundamental Theories of Physics series (1998), Springer Netherlands

    1998

  67. [75]

    Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems,

    M. Heusler, “Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems,” Cam- bridge Lecture Notes in Physics, Cambridge University Press, 1996

    1996

  68. [76]

    Y. Xie, J. Zhang, H. O. Silva, C. de Rham, H. Witek and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, no.24, 241104 (2021)

    2021

  69. [77]

    Anson, E

    T. Anson, E. Babichev, C. Charmousis and M. Hassaine, JHEP 01, 018 (2021)

    2021

  70. [78]

    Ben Achour, H

    J. Ben Achour, H. Liu, H. Motohashi, S. Mukohyama and K. Noui, JCAP11, 001 (2020)

    2020

  71. [79]

    Anson, E

    T. Anson, E. Babichev and C. Charmousis, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.12, 124035 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling pack- age for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences

    J. Speagle, “dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling pack- age for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493(3), 3132–3158 (2020)

    2020

  73. [81]

    Koposov, J

    S. Koposov, J. Speagle, K. Barbary, G. Ashton, E. Ben- nett, J.Buchneret.al., dynesty: v2.1.3, doi: 10.5281/zen- odo.8408702 (2023)

    2023 doi

  74. [82]

    Carullo, W

    G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, pyRing: v2.3.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.8165508 (2023)

    2023 doi

  75. [83]

    J. M. Dickey, Ann. Math. Statist. 42(1): 204-223 (1971)

    1971

  76. [84]

    The Theory of Probability,

    H. Jeffreys, “The Theory of Probability,” Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences, 1939

    1939

  77. [85]

    M.Punturo, M.Abernathy, F.Acernese, B.Allen, N.An- dersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia and M. Beker, et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  78. [86]

    S. Hild, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsug- lia and M. Beker,et al. Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094013 (2011)

    2011

  79. [87]

    Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna,

    P. Amaro-Seoane,et al., “Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna,” doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786

    doi arXiv

  80. [88]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, LIGO Algorithm Library- LALSuite, free software (GPL), doi: 10.7935/GT1W- FZ16 (2018)

    2018 doi

  81. [89]

    J. D. Hunter, Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environ- ment, Computing in Science & Engineering, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 (2007)

    2007 doi

  82. [90]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P.Virtanen, D.Cournapeauet.al., Arrayprogram- ming with NumPy, Nature 585, 357 (2020)

    2020

  83. [91]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau et. al. and SciPy 1.0 Contrib- utors, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python, Nature Methods 17, 261 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Foreman-Mackey, corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python, The Journal of Open Source Software, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 (2016)

    D. Foreman-Mackey, corner.py: Scatterplot matrices in Python, The Journal of Open Source Software, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024 (2016)

    2016 doi

Pith tools

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