Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Black-hole - neutron-star mergers: new numerical-relativity simulations and multipolar effective-one-body model with spin precession and eccentricity

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims an order-of-magnitude improvement in black-hole–neutron-star merger waveform amplitude from a new effective-one-body model informed by 52 numerical-relativity simulations and validated on a precessing 12-orbit run.

desk verdict A serious BHNS catalog and EOB extension; the model claims are about as strong as the calibration allows, and the fit-generalization question is the one to press. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.00113 v2 pith:RA2XLOZ4 submitted 2025-06-30 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Alejandra Gonzalez , Sebastiano Bernuzzi , Alireza Rashti , Francesco Brandoli , Rossella Gamba This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords black-hole-neutron-starmergersgravitational-wavetemplateseffective-one-bodymodelnumericalrelativitytidaldisruptionspinprecessioneccentricitymultipolarwaveforms
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

Black-hole–neutron-star mergers are among the hardest systems for gravitational-wave template models, because the neutron star's tides reshape the signal near merger and most existing simulations cover only a few orbits. This paper presents 52 new numerical-relativity simulations targeting tidal disruption and uses them to build TEOBResumS-Dalí, a multipolar effective-one-body model (a resummed analytical template for the binary's inspiral, merger, and ringdown) that also includes spin precession and eccentricity. The paper's central claim is that the new model improves the waveform amplitude at merger by an order of magnitude over its predecessor, produces more consistent subdominant multipoles, and matches a new 12-orbit precessing simulation with phase and relative amplitude differences below about 0.5 rad through the inspiral and all-mode mismatches near 1% at low inclination. If right, this gives gravitational-wave searches a substantially more accurate template family for detecting and measuring BHNS events, and it supplies the first robust eccentric and precessing BHNS waveforms. The simulations also expose a tidal signature in the (2,0) and (3,0) modes that could help separate BHNS from binary black holes without an electromagnetic counterpart.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the NR-informed deviation fit for each multipole. For a modeled mode, quantities such as peak amplitude, merger frequency, ringdown quasi-normal-mode damping time and frequency, and the next-to-quasicircular (NQC) correction values and their derivatives are written as a ratio F_BHNS/F_BBH given by a Padé approximant in the tidal polarizability Λ, with polynomial coefficients in the symmetric mass ratio ν and black-hole spin a_BH fitted to the simulations; the BBH fit supplies the Λ=0 limit. The (2,2) peak-amplitude ratio A_BHNS/A_BBH < 0.85 marks tidal disruption (Type I) and selects a damped ringdown, while the NQC attachment time is set to Δt_NQC = 4 for BHNS. This combination turns a small set of short simulations into a smooth model over the tidal-disruption boundary.

What would settle it

Run a new, error-controlled BHNS simulation with at least ten orbits in an under-sampled region, for example q≈2 with Λ>3000 or a precessing spin with a different orientation, and compute the sky-maximized mismatch against TEOBResumS-Dalí over the same [276, 2048] Hz band used for BAM:0223; a low-inclination mismatch clearly above the one-percent level, or an inspiral phase difference growing beyond about 0.5 rad, would refute the generalization claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the strong-field BHNS waveform can be represented as a systematic, multipole-by-multipole deformation of the binary-black-hole waveform, with every merger/ringdown quantity written as a Padé-type ratio to its BBH value and fitted against new numerical data. The model, TEOBResumS-Dalí, models the (2,2), (2,1), (3,2), (3,3), and (4,4) modes; the (2,2) amplitude at merger is improved by an order of magnitude relative to the earlier BHNS model, and the ringdown is deformed according to a phenomenological classification of tidal-disruption type based on the (2,2) peak amplitude. Validation against the held-out 12-orbit precessing simulation BAM:0223 shows inspiral phase differences under 0.5 rad and low-inclination mismatches around 1%, and the same fits yield updated remnant mass, spin, and gravitational-recoil models. The numerics also find that the (2,0) and (3,0) modes carry proportionally more amplitude than in BBH systems, a memory-related tidal signature worth modeling in future templates.

Load-bearing premise

The whole generalization rests on fits trained with 51 short (3–4 orbit) quasicircular simulations plus one precessing 12-orbit simulation, with some fits showing R²≈0.85 and artificial binary-black-hole data added to prevent extreme values; if those fits do not transfer to the uncalibrated parts of parameter space, the claimed merger accuracy and the eccentric/precessing predictions would not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BHNS template banks can reach merger/ringdown faithfulness near one percent at low inclination for precessing systems, rather than the order-of-magnitude-worse accuracy of the older model.
  • The enhanced (2,0) and (3,0) modes give a gravitational-wave-only route to recognizing tidal disruption, useful when no kilonova or gamma-ray counterpart is observed.
  • The greedy selection identifies the most informative next NR simulations: high tidal polarizability (Λ > 3000), mass ratio q ≤ 2, and large aligned spin.
  • Eccentric and precessing BHNS waveforms can now be produced, allowing parameter-estimation studies of events like GW200105 with an EOB model instead of post-Newtonian approximants only.
  • The new remnant mass, spin, and recoil fits quantify how tides suppress the gravitational-recoil kick in comparable-mass, tidal-disruption systems.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the (2,0)/(3,0) enhancement survives extraction at null infinity, which the paper itself notes requires Cauchy-characteristic evolution, gravitational-wave memory analyses could become a practical BHNS-versus-BBH diagnostic.
  • Because several fits have R² as low as 0.85 and artificial BBH points were added to tame extreme values, the claimed accuracy away from the calibration region, especially for eccentric orbits, is an extrapolation that an independent long simulation with different parameters would settle.
  • The early-inspiral oscillations seen in eccentric waveforms only when tides are active might be a genuine tidal effect or a model artifact; distinguishing them requires eccentric NR data that do not yet exist.
  • The validation mismatches rise to about 0.1 at edge-on inclination, so the one-percent claim should not be read as holding for all orientations.
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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents 52 new numerical-relativity (NR) simulations of black-hole–neutron-star mergers, with a detailed error budget including convergence tests, finite-extraction-radius estimates, and Richardson extrapolation. The data are used to build TEOBResumS-Dalí, a multipolar effective-one-body model with precession and eccentricity, by adding BHNS-specific next-to-quasicircular corrections and ringdown fits for the (2,2), (2,1), (3,2), (3,3), and (4,4) modes, together with remnant-mass, remnant-spin, and recoil-velocity fits. The central claims are that the new model improves the merger amplitude by an order of magnitude over TEOBResumS-GIOTTO, that it is validated against a new 12-orbit precessing simulation BAM:0223 with sub-0.5-rad phase differences in the inspiral and about 1% all-mode mismatches at low inclinations, and that it robustly produces the first eccentric and eccentric-plus-precessing BHNS waveforms.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a substantial advance for BHNS waveform modelling: it provides the largest set of publicly released convergent multipolar BHNS waveforms, a careful treatment of NR errors, and the first EOB model that combines tides, precession, and eccentricity in a single framework. The held-out precessing simulation BAM:0223 is a genuine independent check of the inspiral, and the open data/code release is a strong community resource. The main open risk is that the most novel model components—the multipolar NQC and ringdown fits of Appendix B—are calibrated on only 51 short (3–4 orbit) quasicircular simulations, with several fits of modest quality and with artificial BBH anchor points; the validation against BAM:0223 is restricted to the inspiral band and does not directly test the merger where those fits act. The eccentric and precessing waveform capability is explicitly unvalidated against NR.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. V B and Table III] The reported 1%-level mismatches for BAM:0223 use f_high = 2048 Hz, which for M ≈ 5 M⊙ is below the (2,2) merger frequency of about 3 kHz. Figure 12 shows the phase difference growing to 2.3 rad at merger. Since the new NQC and ringdown fits in Appendix B act precisely in this band, the validation does not test the component of the model that is most changed relative to TEOBResumS-GIOTTO. I ask for a mismatch budget restricted to the merger-ringdown band, or for validation against a simulation with a longer merger-band waveform, before the headline 'order-of-magnitude improvement at merger' is regarded as established.
  2. [Appendix B, esp. B1c and B2b] The out-of-sample test for the (3,2) peak amplitude reports a 9.92% relative error, and several fits have R² = 0.85–0.89 (e.g., ω_NQC^(21), A_dot_NQC^(22), A_dot_NQC^(44)). The appendix states that artificial BBH data were added 'to mitigate extreme values' and that results outside the data region 'could reach up to a 10% error.' These fits are used to claim accurate multipolar merger and ringdown behaviour. A leave-one-out cross-validation over the 51 calibration runs, with per-mode errors, would directly address whether the chosen Pade forms generalize rather than overfit the small dataset.
  3. [Sec. V B and Fig. 13] The 'median mismatch of about 0.01 against all available simulations' includes the CoRe runs that were used for calibration, so it is not an independent accuracy statement. The independent evidence is the single held-out BAM:0223, whose mismatch band ends before merger. The worst catalogue mismatch, 18% for SACRA 2H-Q2M12a75 (a_BH = 0.75, Λ = 4392), lies in the extrapolation region that the paper's own greedy analysis (Sec. VI A) identifies as most urgent. Please report calibration-set and held-out-set mismatches separately, with the parameter-space coverage of each.
  4. [Sec. VI B and Conclusions] The eccentric and eccentric-plus-precessing waveforms are explicitly not validated against NR data: the text says 'we cannot directly assess the faithfulness of our model against numerical data,' and Appendix C provides only smoothness checks and BBH-vs-BHNS mismatch trends. The abstract's claim of 'robust waveforms with both eccentricity and precession' should therefore be softened to a demonstration of numerical stability and internal consistency. In addition, the unexplained early-inspiral oscillations for high-Λ eccentric cases (Fig. 15 and Appendix C) should be investigated against known eccentric BBH and tidal behaviour before the word 'robust' is used.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (8)] The third term in the numerator for the remnant-spin model appears to be Λ³ p_2^(3), which is likely a typo for Λ³ p_3^(3).
  2. [Throughout] There are several typos, including 'paramaters' in the Table I caption, 'Aditionally' in Appendix A1, 'faiththful' in Sec. VI, 'verticle' in the Fig. 9 caption, and 'unfaithfullness' in Sec. V B.
  3. [Sec. II C and Sec. VI B] The initial eccentricity is said to be below e ~ 0.02 for the NR runs, while the generated waveforms use e_0 up to 0.5; the paper should state explicitly which eccentricity definition is used in each context.
  4. [Sec. VI A] The greedy-algorithm recommendations rely on the model's fidelity in the very region (Λ > 3000, q ≤ 2) where the fits are least tested; the paper should note this circularity when presenting the simulation priorities.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Genuine out-of-sample inspiral validation on the held-out precessing run BAM:0223, but the headline merger-amplitude improvement and the 1% median mismatch are partly demonstrated on the very calibration data that produced the fits.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Sec. II C; Sec. IV A and Fig. 9; fits in App. B1a/B2a]
    "We show an overall order of magnitude improvement in the waveform's amplitude at merger and more consistent multipoles over our older TEOBResumS-GIOTTO for BHNS. ... Since we are interested in extracting information from the merger and post-merger, we evolve the 51 configurations for 3-4 orbits which are used to inform our EOB model."

    The claimed order-of-magnitude improvement at merger is displayed in Fig. 9 for BAM:0190 and BAM:0200, two configurations of the 52-run calibration set ('used to inform our EOB model'). The quantities that set the merger amplitude and ringdown shape - A_peak^22, A_NQC^22, omega_NQC^22, alpha_221 and omega_221 - are precisely the quantities fitted to those same runs in App. B (R^2 = 0.99 for A_NQC^22, 0.97 for the peak amplitude). The Fig. 9 agreement therefore largely restates the fits evaluated at their own training points. The independent validation, BAM:0223, is integrated over [276, 2048] Hz, which for M ~ 5 Msun terminates below the merger frequency, so the new NQC/ringdown content has no out-of-sample confirmation; the phase difference at merger is 2.3 rad (Fig. 12).

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V B and Fig. 13; Conclusions (Sec. VII)]
    "Finally, we comment on the mismatches previously computed in [105] for 184 BHNS simulations across the available datasets including the CoRe data produced in this work. ... Additionally, we obtained a median mismatch of 0.01 against all available simulations, demonstrating the accurate performance of the model."

    The 'median mismatch of 0.01 against all available simulations' is computed over a set that explicitly includes 'the CoRe data produced in this work' - i.e., the same 51+1 simulations used to inform the model's NQC, ringdown, and remnant fits. Low mismatch on calibration entries is the expected outcome of a fit, not independent evidence of accuracy. The genuine out-of-sample portion (SXS, SACRA) is reported collectively, with the 18% SACRA outlier honestly disclosed; but the summary sentence presents the aggregate median as 'demonstrating the accurate performance of the model' without separating the in-sample contribution, so part of that validation claim reduces to fit quality on the training set.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is otherwise self-contained: TEOBResumS-Dali's BHNS-specific content (NQC and ringdown fits, remnant and kick models) is calibrated to the 51 new short quasicircular NR runs plus older data, and the headline validation is a genuinely held-out 12-orbit precessing simulation (BAM:0223), never used to inform the model. That out-of-sample check endows the central claim (phase difference below ~0.5 rad through the inspiral; ~1% all-mode mismatches at low inclination) with independent content. Two milder circularity-adjacent points are flagged. First, the abstract's 'order of magnitude improvement in the waveform's amplitude at merger' is demonstrated in Fig. 9 on BAM:0190 and BAM:0200, both in the calibration set, and the merger-amplitude and ringdown quantities shown are exactly the ones fitted to those runs in Appendix B; the independent BAM:0223 mismatch band ([276, 2048] Hz for M ~ 5 Msun) ends below the merger frequency where the new fits act, so the novel merger/ringdown content lacks out-of-sample confirmation. Second, the 'median mismatch of 0.01 against all available simulations' includes the CoRe calibration data alongside the genuinely external SXS/SACRA runs, whose worst case (18% for SACRA 2H-Q2M12a75) lies outside the calibrated range and is honestly reported. Neither point destroys the central claim: the inspiral validation on BAM:0223 is real, the paper transparently discloses R^2 values (down to 0.85), artificial BBH anchor points, and the 'up to a 10% error' extrapolation caveat, and it explicitly admits that the eccentric+precessing capability cannot yet be assessed against NR ('we cannot directly assess the faithfulness of our model against numerical data'). No uniqueness theorem is invoked, and the cosh-rescaled ringdown ansatz is a standard published form adopted from prior work rather than smuggled in as an external fact. The circularity burden is therefore partial and localized to the in-sample basis of the merger-amplitude and aggregate-mismatch claims, yielding score 3.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central model is a calibration exercise: dozens of fit coefficients absorb the NR data, and the paper's own statements acknowledge artificial data and a technical NQC time shift. The physical assumptions are standard for this subfield, but the claim of robust generic-orbit waveforms goes beyond what the NR data can validate.

free parameters (8)
  • Remnant mass model polynomial coefficients c_kji = Table V coefficients
    Fitted to apparent-horizon remnant masses of the new NR simulations; the model is a Pade-type fit to 52 data points with R^2=0.930.
  • Remnant spin model polynomial coefficients = Table V coefficients
    Fitted to remnant spins; R^2=0.914.
  • Kick velocity model coefficients c_kji = Table VI coefficients
    Fitted to GW recoil velocities computed from the waveforms; R^2=0.926.
  • Ringdown fit coefficients for (2,2),(2,1),(3,2),(3,3),(4,4) = Tables VII-XI coefficients
    Each mode's peak amplitude, peak frequency, QNM damping, and QNM frequency are fit as deviations from BBH fits in (nu, Lambda, aBH); several R^2 values are 0.89-0.99.
  • NQC fit coefficients for (2,2),(2,1),(3,3),(4,4) = Tables XII-XV coefficients
    NQC amplitude, its derivative, frequency, and frequency derivative at extraction points are fit to NR; R^2 ranges from 0.85 to 0.99.
  • NQC time shift Delta t_NQC = 4 (in units of M)
    Hand-set in Sec. IV B; the authors call it purely technical and without physical meaning.
  • Type I/II/III classification thresholds = A_BHNS/A_BBH < 0.85 for Type I and > 0.99 for Type II
    Chosen contour in amplitude-peak ratio space to select ringdown behavior in the model (Sec. IV B, Fig. 11).
  • Artificial BBH data points in higher-mode fits = unspecified count and placement
    Inserted in relevant regions of the parameter space to control higher-order fit behavior (Appendix B); the number and placement are not specified, adding a data-selection degree of freedom.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption General relativity and the Z4c formulation with BAM's finite-difference discretization provide a faithful representation of BHNS merger dynamics.
    Used throughout the numerical evolution; no comparison to an independent code for these runs is shown.
  • domain assumption The neutron star is irrotational and described by piecewise polytropic EoS SLy, MS1b, or ALF2, ignoring temperature, magnetic fields, and neutrino transport.
    Section II B-C; microphysical effects are explicitly outside the scope, though the abstract claims the data inform real BHNS events.
  • domain assumption The EOB BBH baseline from TEOBResumS-Dalí accurately describes the point-particle sector of BHNS inspiral before tidal and near-merger corrections.
    The BHNS model is built as tidal, NQC, and ringdown deviations from the BBH fits of Refs. [90,122], as stated in Sec. IV and Appendix B.
  • domain assumption The waveform is the strain obtained from Psi_4 via fixed-frequency integration; the m=0 modes are not modelled, but their contribution is assumed negligible for the model's target accuracy.
    Section IIID and IV; the authors note m=0 modes are memory-dominated and require CCE for further study, yet TEOBResumS-Dalí does not include them.
  • domain assumption Finite-extraction-radius and truncation errors are captured by the M8 grid choice and the reported error budget.
    Appendix A1; the error budget gives phase errors around 10% at merger for the convergence series, which may be marginal for high-accuracy claims.
  • domain assumption Eccentricity e~0.02 in the initial data is small enough that quasicircular templates can be calibrated without eccentricity reduction.
    Section II C; no eccentricity reduction is applied to any simulation, so residual eccentricity contaminates the calibration data.
  • ad hoc to paper Artificial BBH data added to higher-mode fits behave like physical data and do not distort the BHNS parameter dependence.
    Appendix B: 'we include artificial BBH data in the relevant regions of the parameter space and ensure a physical behaviour of the fits.' This is an unvalidated modeling choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Black-hole - neutron-star mergers: new numerical-relativity simulations and multipolar effective-one-body model with spin precession and eccentricity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RA2XLOZ4

@misc{pith2026250700113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Black-hole - neutron-star mergers: new numerical-relativity simulations and multipolar effective-one-body model with spin precession and eccentricity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RA2XLOZ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.00113}
}
abstract

In this paper, we present 52 new numerical-relativity (NR) simulations of black-hole-neutron-star merger (BHNS) mergers and employ the data to inform TEOBResumS-Dal\'i: a multipolar effective-one-body model also including precession and eccentricity. Our simulations target quasicircular mergers and the parameter space region characterized by significant tidal disruption of the star. Convergent gravitational waveforms are produced with a detailed error budget after extensive numerical tests. We study in detail the multipolar amplitude hierarchy and identify a characteristic tidal signature in the $(\ell,m)=(2,0)$, and $(3,0)$ modes. We also develop new NR-informed models for the remnant black hole and for the recoil velocity. The numerical data is then used to inform next-to-quasicircular corrections and the ringdown of TEOBResumS-Dal\'i for BHNS. We show an overall order of magnitude improvement in the waveform's amplitude at merger and more consistent multipoles over our older TEOBResumS-GIOTTO for BHNS. TEOBResumS-Dal\'i is further validated with a new 12 orbit precessing simulation, showing phase and relative amplitude differences below $\sim 0.5$ (rad) throughout the inspiral. The computed mismatches including all the modes lie at the one percent level for low inclinations. Finally, we demonstrate for the first time that TEOBResumS-Dal\'i can produce robust waveforms with both eccentricity and precession, and use the model to identify the most urgent BHNS to simulate for waveform development. Our new numerical data are publicly released as part of the CoRe database.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.00113 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Available NR simulations for different BHNS config [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Quasiequilibrium sequences of BHNS configurations with the SLy EoS. These are computed for two mass ratios [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Density profile at three different moments of the merger and postmerger of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (25 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Remnant BH mass (top) and spin (bottom) model as a function of the tidal polarizability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Multipolar amplitude hierarchy comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Overview of the multipolar amplitudes of the data produced for this work as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Kick velocity obtained for different configurations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Kick velocity model as a function of symmetric mass ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Ringdown waveform of the (2,2) mode for different BHNS binary configurations from the fitting set: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Similar to Fig. 9 but showing the correponding subdominant modes’ ringdown waveforms and amplitudes for NR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Fits for the peak of the (2,2) amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Alignment against EOB of the real part of the waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Mismatches for all NR simulations on the three [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Greedy basis waveforms obtained in terms of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Gravitational waveforms produced by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Alignment between the best waveform obtained in the analysis of [9] with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: shows the norm of the Hamiltonian con￾straint for all the resolutions with eight refinement levels for the BH. The norm stays at low values for most of the simulation time and decreases notably as we increase the resolution. The resulting waveforms are presented in […
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Real part of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19. Uncertainties due to finite extraction radii for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20. Uncertainties due to finite extraction radii for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_20.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22. Error budget for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23. Amplitude and phase comparisons between the dif [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_23.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26. Same as Fig. 25 but for different resolutions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_26.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: FIG. 28. Same as Fig. 21 but considering the M8, H8 and F8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: FIG. 29. Same as Fig. 22 but considering the M8, H8 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: FIG. 30. Sanity check for eccentric waveform amplitudes em [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: FIG. 31. Mismatches between BHNS and its corresponding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: FIG. 32. Gravitational waveforms from eccentric binary configurations with increasing initial eccentricity and spin. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_32.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Fast gravitational waveform models for quasi-circular coalescences of neutron star--black hole binaries

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Presents new NSBH waveform models IMRPhenomXHM_NSBH, SEOBNRv5HM_ROM_NRTidalv3_NSBH, and IMRPhenomXPHM_NSBH incorporating higher modes and tidal effects via NRTidalv3 extensions, validated against NR simulations and ap...

  2. Accurate waveforms for generic planar-orbit binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model SEOBNRv6EHM

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    SEOBNRv6EHM is a multipolar EOB model for eccentric planar-orbit BBHs calibrated to NR simulations, showing low waveform mismatches up to eccentricity 0.9.

  3. From the confluent Heun equation to a new factorized and resummed gravitational waveform for circularized, nonspinning, compact binaries

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new resummation absorbs all test-mass logarithms and transcendental numbers into closed-form factors, leaving rational polynomial waveform corrections up to 10PN.

  4. GWTC-5.0: Methods for Identifying and Characterizing Gravitational-wave Transients

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Describes the methods for producing the fifth gravitational-wave transient catalog (GWTC-5.0) from O4b data of LIGO, Virgo and KAGRA.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

138 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    cheapest

    Data quality In this section we assess the convergence of our simu- lations and justify our grid configuration choices for the production runs. We consider four resolutions and three different refinement levels on the BH, see Table IV. For these studies we employ the configuration ofBAM:0206 to find the "cheapest", highest resolution configuration to empl...

  2. [2]

    Table V shows the best coefficients obtained fora • andM • as a deviation from the BBH case

    Remnant Black Hole In this appendix we present the fitting parameters for the updated remnant BH model. Table V shows the best coefficients obtained fora • andM • as a deviation from the BBH case

  3. [3]

    The 22 TABLE V

    Kick velocity In the following, we describe the effects of resolution and integration errors on the computation ofvGW kick. The 22 TABLE V. Fitting parameters fora• andM • withR 2 = 0.914andR 2 = 0.930respectively. Here, we make a fit of a quantity FasF BHNS/F BBH. Fk c k12 ck11 ck10 ck22 ck21 ck20 ck32 ck31 ck30 a• 11.4×10 −3 4.6×10 −3 9.1×10 −4 −5.0×10 ...

    2000

  4. [4]

    V we compared our model to a new 12 orbit precessing simulation,BAM:0223, performed in 3 different resolutions: M8, H8, F8 (see Table IV)

    Long simulation accuracy In Sec. V we compared our model to a new 12 orbit precessing simulation,BAM:0223, performed in 3 different resolutions: M8, H8, F8 (see Table IV). We inspect the self convergence of the configuration in Fig. 28, where we show the amplitude and phase differences between the available datasets. The amplitude differences for all reso...

    2000

  5. [5]

    Ringdown model parameters Here we present the fit models and corresponding co- efficients for the quantities needed to build the ringdown model described in Sec. IVA. All fitting models for each quantityF, are based on a deviation from the BBH fits from [90] asF BHNS/F BBH and modelled using a Pade approximant function with dependence on masses, spins and...

  6. [6]

    IVB for more details on how these fits are used

    NQC extraction points In this subsection we present the fits developed for the NQC extraction points for all multipoles available (not available for the (3,2) mode), namely the quanti- ties (ANQC ℓm , ˙ANQC ℓm ,ω NQC ℓm ,˙ωNQC ℓm ), see Sec. IVB for more details on how these fits are used. Note that both the amplitudeA NQC ℓm and its time derivative ˙ANQC...

  7. [7]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 138 references
  1. [9]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo„ KA- GRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.970, L34 (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Zappa, S

    F. Zappa, S. Bernuzzi, F. Pannarale, M. Mapelli, and N. Giacobbo, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 041102 (2019), arXiv:1903.11622 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kunnumkai, A

    K. Kunnumkai, A. Palmese, M. Bulla, T. Diet- rich, A. M. Farah, and P. T. H. Pang, (2024), arXiv:2409.10651 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  4. [12]

    Xinget al., (2024), arXiv:2410.20415 [astro-ph.HE]

    Z. Xinget al., (2024), arXiv:2410.20415 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Colombo, O

    A. Colombo, O. S. Salafia, G. Ghirlanda, F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, F. S. Broekgaarden, L. Nava, B. Giaco- mazzo, and M. Colpi, (2025), arXiv:2503.00116 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025

  6. [14]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, (2025), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  8. [16]

    M.Pillaset al., (2025),arXiv:2503.15422[astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Mahapatra, D

    P. Mahapatra, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gupta, F. An- tonini, M. Favata, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. G. Arun, (2025), arXiv:2503.17872 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Chandra, I

    K. Chandra, I. Gupta, R. Gamba, R. Kashyap, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gonzalez, S. Bernuzzi, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Astrophys. J.977, 167 (2024), arXiv:2405.03841 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Y.-W. Xue, Y. Qin, L. Yuan, W.-H. Guo, J.-Q. Li, Y.- Q. Zhang, Z.-Y. Wang, and D.-H. Wu, Res. Astron. Astrophys.25, 045009 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    J. A. Faber, T. W. Baumgarte, S. L. Shapiro, K. Taniguchi, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev.D73, 024012 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0511366

    2006 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Grandclement, Phys

    P. Grandclement, Phys. Rev. D74, 124002 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 129903 (2007)], arXiv:gr- qc/0609044

    2006

  14. [22]

    Taniguchi, T

    K. Taniguchi, T. W. Baumgarte, J. A. Faber, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D75, 084005 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0701110

    2007

  15. [23]

    Taniguchi, T

    K. Taniguchi, T. W. Baumgarte, J. A. Faber, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D77, 044003 (2008), arXiv:0710.5169 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Z. B. Etienneet al., Phys. Rev.D77, 084002 (2008), arXiv:0712.2460 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev.D78, 104015 (2008), arXiv:0809.0002 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Z. B. Etienne, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev.D79, 044024 (2009), arXiv:0812.2245 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Foucart, D

    F. Foucart, D. Desai, W. Brege, M. D. Duez, D. Kasen, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 044002 (2017), arXiv:1611.01159 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Brege, M

    W. Brege, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, M. B. Deaton, J. Caro, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, E. O’Connor, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D98, 063009 (2018), arXiv:1804.09823 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Matur, I

    R. Matur, I. Hawke, and N. Andersson, (2024), arXiv:2407.18045 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chawla, M

    S. Chawla, M. Anderson, M. Besselman, L. Lehner, S.L.Liebling,et al.,Phys.Rev.Lett.105,111101(2010), arXiv:1006.2839 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Paschalidis, M

    V. Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J.Lett.806,L14(2015),arXiv:1410.7392[astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kiuchi, Y

    K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, K. Taniguchi, and T. Wada, Phys. Rev. D92, 064034 (2015), arXiv:1506.06811 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Wan, Phys

    M.-B. Wan, Phys. Rev. D95, 104013 (2017), arXiv:1606.09090 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. Ruiz, V. Paschalidis, A. Tsokaros, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D102, 124077 (2020), arXiv:2011.08863 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    W. E. East, L. Lehner, S. L. Liebling, and C. Palenzuela, Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L18 (2021), arXiv:2101.12214 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  28. [36]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, S. D. Tootle, and L. Rez- zolla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 3511 (2021), arXiv:2106.06391 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    M. R. Izquierdo, M. Bezares, S. Liebling, and C. Palen- zuela, (2024), arXiv:2403.09770 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Foucart, E

    F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, M. D. Duez, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, andB.Szilagyi,Phys.Rev.D91,124021(2015), arXiv:1502.04146 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Kyutoku, K

    K. Kyutoku, K. Kiuchi, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D97, 023009 (2018), arXiv:1710.00827 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Hayashi, K

    K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D107, 123001 (2023), arXiv:2211.07158 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, and S. A. Teukol- sky, Phys. Rev.D83, 024005 (2011), arXiv:1007.4203 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lovelace, M

    G. Lovelace, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilágyi, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 135004 (2013), arXiv:1302.6297 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Kyutoku, H

    K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D84, 064018 (2011), arXiv:1108.1189 [astro- ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Pannarale, Phys

    F. Pannarale, Phys. Rev.D89, 044045 (2014), arXiv:1311.5931 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Foucart, L

    F. Foucart, L. Buchman, M. D. Duez, M. Grudich, L. E. Kidder, I. MacDonald, A. Mroue, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, andB.Szilagyi,Phys.Rev.D88,064017(2013), arXiv:1307.7685 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Kyutoku, K

    K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, and M. Shibata, Phys.Rev.D88, 041503 (2013), arXiv:1305.6309 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Yamamoto, M

    T. Yamamoto, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev.D78, 064054 (2008), arXiv:0806.4007 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev.D96, 084060 (2017), arXiv:1708.08926 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Kyutoku, M

    K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev.D82, 044049 (2010), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D84,049902(2011)], arXiv:1008.1460 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Hayashi, K

    K. Hayashi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D103, 043007 (2021), 40 arXiv:2010.02563 [astro-ph.HE]. [45]http://www.black-holes.org/SpEC.html, spEC - Spectral Einstein Code

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    SXS Gravitational Waveform Database,

    “SXS Gravitational Waveform Database,”https:// data.black-holes.org/waveforms/index.html

  44. [52]

    Foucartet al., Phys

    F. Foucartet al., Phys. Rev. D99, 044008 (2019), arXiv:1812.06988 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Foucartet al., Phys

    F. Foucartet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 064007 (2021), arXiv:2010.14518 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Bernuzzi, M

    S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder, and B. Brügmann, Phys.Rev.D85, 104030 (2012), arXiv:1109.3611 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Bernuzzi and T

    S. Bernuzzi and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev.D94, 064062 (2016), arXiv:1604.07999 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kyohei, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, (2019), arXiv:1907.03790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    G.Doulis, F.Atteneder, S.Bernuzzi, andB.Brügmann, Phys. Rev. D106, 024001 (2022), arXiv:2202.08839 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    B. D. Lackey, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, P. R. Brady, and J. L. Friedman, Phys.Rev.D85, 044061 (2012), arXiv:1109.3402 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [59]

    B. D. Lackey, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, P. R. Brady, and J. L. Friedman, Phys.Rev.D89, 043009 (2014), arXiv:1303.6298 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Pannarale, E

    F. Pannarale, E. Berti, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev.D88, 084011 (2013), arXiv:1307.5111 [gr- qc]

    2013 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Pannarale, E

    F. Pannarale, E. Berti, K. Kyutoku, B. D. Lackey, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev.D92, 084050 (2015), arXiv:1509.00512 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Pannarale, E

    F. Pannarale, E. Berti, K. Kyutoku, B. D. Lackey, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev.D92, 081504 (2015), arXiv:1509.06209 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, S. Khan, E. Ni- toglia, F. Pannarale, T. Dietrich, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D101, 124059 (2020), arXiv:2002.08383 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Mataset al., Phys

    A. Mataset al., Phys. Rev. D102, 043023 (2020), arXiv:2004.10001 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Dietrich, A

    T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev.D100, 044003 (2019), arXiv:1905.06011 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Gonzalez, R

    A. Gonzalez, R. Gamba, M. Breschi, F. Zappa, G. Carullo, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084026 (2023), arXiv:2212.03909 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Schmidt, F

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

    2015 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Rashti, F

    A. Rashti, F. M. Fabbri, B. Brügmann, S. V. Chaurasia, T. Dietrich, M. Ujevic, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104027 (2022), arXiv:2109.14511 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Rashti and A

    A. Rashti and A. Noe, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 015007 (2025), arXiv:2407.01701 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    York, James W., Phys.Rev.Lett.82, 1350 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9810051 [gr-qc]

    J. York, James W., Phys.Rev.Lett.82, 1350 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9810051 [gr-qc]

    1999 arXiv

  63. [71]

    H. P. Pfeiffer and J. W. York, Jr., Phys. Rev.D67, 044022 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0207095 [gr-qc]

    2003 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Tichy, Phys

    W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D86, 064024 (2012), arXiv:1209.5336 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  65. [73]

    G. B. Cook and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev.D70, 104016 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407078 [gr-qc]

    2004 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Brügmann, J

    B. Brügmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake,et al., Phys.Rev.D77, 024027 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0610128 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Thierfelder, S

    M. Thierfelder, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Brügmann, Phys.Rev.D84, 044012 (2011), arXiv:1104.4751 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Kurganov and E

    A. Kurganov and E. Tadmor, J. Comp. Phys.160, 214 (2000)

    2000

  69. [77]

    Nessyahu and E

    H. Nessyahu and E. Tadmor, J. Comp. Phys.87, 408–463 (1990)

    1990

  70. [78]

    Borges, M

    R. Borges, M. Carmona, B. Costa, and W. S. Don, Journal of Computational Physics227, 3191 (2008)

    2008

  71. [79]

    J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Fried- man, Phys. Rev.D79, 124032 (2009), arXiv:0812.2163 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Alford, M

    M. Alford, M. Braby, M. W. Paris, and S. Reddy, As- trophys. J.629, 969 (2005), arXiv:nucl-th/0411016

    2005 arXiv

  73. [81]

    F. S. Broekgaarden, E. Berger, C. J. Neijssel, A. Vigna- Gómez, D. Chattopadhyay, S. Stevenson, M. Chruslin- ska, S. Justham, S. E. de Mink, and I. Man- del, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508, 5028 (2021), arXiv:2103.02608 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Nagar, D. Pollney, and C. Reisswig, Phys.Rev.Lett.108, 131101 (2012), arXiv:1110.2938 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Bernuzzi, T

    S. Bernuzzi, T. Dietrich, W. Tichy, and B. Brügmann, Phys.Rev.D89, 104021 (2014), arXiv:1311.4443 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Topolski, S

    K. Topolski, S. D. Tootle, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D111, 064022 (2025), arXiv:2409.06767 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Gonzalezet al., Class

    A. Gonzalezet al., Class. Quant. Grav.40, 085011 (2023), arXiv:2210.16366 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Kyutoku, K

    K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev.D92, 044028 (2015), arXiv:1502.05402 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Kawaguchi, N

    K. Kawaguchi, N. Domoto, S. Fujibayashi, H. Hami- dani, K. Hayashi, M. Shibata, M. Tanaka, and S. Wanajo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535, 3711 (2024), arXiv:2404.15027 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  80. [88]

    S. Chen, L. Wang, K. Hayashi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Ki- uchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D110, 063016 (2024), arXiv:2404.18714 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Christodoulou and R

    D. Christodoulou and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D4, 3552 (1971)

    1971

  82. [90]

    Reisswig and D

    C. Reisswig and D. Pollney, Class.Quant.Grav.28, 195015 (2011), arXiv:1006.1632 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, and A. Zenginoglu, Phys.Rev. D83, 064010 (2011), arXiv:1012.2456 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Nagar, J

    A. Nagar, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Albertini, Phys. Rev. D105, 124061 (2022), arXiv:2202.05643 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Scheel, M

    J.Blackman, S.E.Field, C.R.Galley, B.Szilágyi, M.A. Scheel, M. Tiglio, and D. A. Hemberger, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 121102 (2015), arXiv:1502.07758 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Boyleet al., Class

    M. Boyleet al., Class. Quant. Grav.36, 195006 (2019), arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Messina, Phys

    A.Nagar, G.Riemenschneider, G.Pratten, P.Rettegno, and F. Messina, Phys. Rev. D102, 024077 (2020), arXiv:2001.09082 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  88. [96]

    N. T. Bishop, R. Gomez, L. Lehner, and J. Winicour, Phys.Rev.D54, 6153 (1996)

    1996

  89. [97]

    Moxon, M

    J. Moxon, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D102, 044052 (2020), arXiv:2007.01339 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Mitman, J

    K. Mitman, J. Moxon, M. A. Scheel, S. A. Teukolsky, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, and W. Throwe, Phys. Rev. D102, 104007 (2020), arXiv:2007.11562 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  91. [99]

    M. J. Fitchett and S. L. Detweiler, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.211, 933 (1984)

    1984

  92. [100]

    Favata, S

    M. Favata, S. A. Hughes, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. 41 J.607, L5 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402056

    2004 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Pollney, C

    D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, L. Rezzolla, B. Szilagyi, M. Ansorg,et al., Phys.Rev.D76, 124002 (2007), arXiv:0707.2559 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Reisswig, N

    C. Reisswig, N. T. Bishop, D. Pollney, and B. Szilagyi, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 075014 (2010), arXiv:0912.1285 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Bernuzzi and A

    S. Bernuzzi and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev.D81, 084056 (2010), arXiv:1003.0597 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  96. [104]

    J. A. Gonzalez, M. D. Hannam, U. Sperhake, B. Brüg- mann, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 231101 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702052 [GR-QC]

    2007 arXiv

  97. [105]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt, Astrophys. J.659, L5 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0701164 [gr-qc]

    2007

  98. [106]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt, Phys.Rev.Lett.98, 231102 (2007), arXiv:gr- qc/0702133 [GR-QC]

    2007

  99. [107]

    D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, L. Pompili, M. Pürrer, and A. Ramos-Buades, (2023), arXiv:2303.18203 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Updated Advanced LIGO sensitivity design curve,

    “Updated Advanced LIGO sensitivity design curve,” https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800044/public

  102. [110]

    Albanesi, R

    S. Albanesi, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, J. Fontbuté, A. Gonzalez, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D112, L121503 (2025), arXiv:2503.14580 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  103. [111]

    Kesden, U

    M. Kesden, U. Sperhake, and E. Berti, Astrophys. J. 715, 1006 (2010), arXiv:1003.4993 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Borchers and F

    A. Borchers and F. Ohme, in55th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation(2021) arXiv:2106.02414 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Borchers, F

    A. Borchers, F. Ohme, J. Mielke, and S. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D110, 024037 (2024), arXiv:2405.03607 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys.Rev.D90, 044018 (2014), arXiv:1406.6913 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Nagar, T

    A. Nagar, T. Damour, C. Reisswig, and D. Pollney, Phys. Rev.D93, 044046 (2016), arXiv:1506.08457 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Nagaret al., Phys

    A. Nagaret al., Phys. Rev.D98, 104052 (2018), arXiv:1806.01772 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Nagar, G

    A. Nagar, G. Pratten, G. Riemenschneider, and R. Gamba, Phys. Rev. D101, 024041 (2020), arXiv:1904.09550 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Riemenschneider, P

    G. Riemenschneider, P. Rettegno, M. Breschi, A. Alber- tini, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D104, 104045 (2021), arXiv:2104.07533 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Nagar, P

    A. Nagar, P. Rettegno, R. Gamba, S. Albanesi, A. Al- bertini, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D108, 124018 (2023), arXiv:2304.09662 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  112. [120]

    D.ChiaramelloandA.Nagar,Phys.Rev.D101,101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Nagar, A

    A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Nagar and P

    A. Nagar and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D104, 104004 (2021), arXiv:2108.02043 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Grilli, A

    E. Grilli, A. Placidi, S. Albanesi, G. Grignani, and M. Orselli, Phys. Rev. D111, 044045 (2025), arXiv:2410.05386 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Albanesi, Phys

    S. Albanesi, Phys. Rev. D111, L121501 (2025), arXiv:2411.04024 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys.Rev.D90, 024054 (2014), arXiv:1406.0401 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Cotesta, A

    R. Cotesta, A. Buonanno, A. Bohé, A. Taracchini, I. Hinder, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev.D98, 084028 (2018), arXiv:1803.10701 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  119. [127]

    Pompiliet al., Phys

    L. Pompiliet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 124035 (2023), arXiv:2303.18039 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, M. Thierfelder, and B. Brüg- mann, Phys.Rev.D86, 044030 (2012), arXiv:1205.3403 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, T. Dietrich, and T. Damour, Phys.Rev.Lett.114, 161103 (2015), arXiv:1412.4553 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Akcay, S

    S. Akcay, S. Bernuzzi, F. Messina, A. Nagar, N. Or- tiz, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev.D99, 044051 (2019), arXiv:1812.02744 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  123. [131]

    Gamba, S

    R. Gamba, S. Akçay, S. Bernuzzi, and J. Williams, Phys. Rev. D106, 024020 (2022), arXiv:2111.03675 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  124. [132]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello, and S. Neogi, Phys. Rev. D110, 024031 (2024), arXiv:2404.15408 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  125. [133]

    Hild, Class.Quant.Grav.29, 124006 (2012), arXiv:1111.6277 [gr-qc]

    S. Hild, Class.Quant.Grav.29, 124006 (2012), arXiv:1111.6277 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  126. [134]

    S. E. Field, C. R. Galley, F. Herrmann, J. S. Hes- thaven, E. Ochsner, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 221102 (2011), arXiv:1101.3765 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  127. [135]

    Canizares, S

    P. Canizares, S. E. Field, J. R. Gair, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev.D87, 124005 (2013), arXiv:1304.0462 [gr- qc]

    2013 arXiv

  128. [136]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084052 (2025), arXiv:2502.03929 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  129. [137]

    Prattenet al., Phys

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]. [133]https://bitbucket.org/teobresums/teobresums/ src/Dali, TEOBResumS-Dalí code

    2021 arXiv

  130. [138]

    CoRe: Computational Relativity,

    “CoRe: Computational Relativity,”http://www. computational-relativity.org/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.