pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.00124 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Merger remnant and eccentricity dynamics surrogates for eccentric nonspinning black hole binaries

Adhrit Ravichandran , Peter James Nee , Keefe Mitman , Tousif Islam , Scott E. Field , Vijay Varma , Michael Boyle , Andrea Ceja
show 17 more authors
Nils Deppe Noora Ghadiri Lawrence E. Kidder Prayush Kumar Marlo Morales Jordan Moxon Kyle C. Nelli Harald P. Pfeiffer Antoni Ramos-Buades Katie Rink Hannes R. R\"uter Mark A Scheel Md Arif Shaikh Leo C. Stein Daniel Tellez William Throwe Nils L. Vu
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-09 20:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords black hole binariesnumerical relativitysurrogate modelseccentric mergersgravitational wavesremnant propertieseccentricity evolutionmerger recoil
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two surrogate models trained on numerical-relativity simulations predict remnant properties and the time evolution of eccentricity for nonspinning black-hole binaries with mass ratios up to four.

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

The paper develops two new surrogate models from numerical relativity data on eccentric, nonspinning binary black holes. One model forecasts the final mass, spin, and recoil velocity of the merged black hole. The second tracks how eccentricity and mean anomaly change as the binary approaches merger. These tools address the fact that eccentricity leaves distinct signatures in the remnant and the gravitational-wave signal, which matter for ringdown tests of gravity, population inference, and hierarchical merger modeling. The models supply error estimates to support their use in parameter-estimation analyses.

Core claim

We present two new models trained on numerical-relativity simulations of unequal-mass, non-spinning eccentric binary black holes: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant, which predicts remnant properties, and NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics, a time-domain surrogate for the evolution of eccentricity and mean anomaly. Both models are trained on NR simulations over a three-dimensional parameter space with mass ratios q ≤ 4, eccentricity e < 0.23, and mean anomaly ℓ ∈ [0,2π) radians, where both e and ℓ are defined at t=-1000M relative to peak amplitude.

What carries the argument

The two trained surrogate models, NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant for remnant mass, spin and recoil and NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics for time-domain eccentricity and mean-anomaly evolution, that interpolate over the three-dimensional numerical-relativity dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The surrogates remain accurate only inside the trained range of mass ratios up to four, eccentricities below 0.23, nonspinning black holes, and initial conditions fixed at t = -1000M.

What would settle it

A new numerical-relativity run at mass ratio three, eccentricity 0.15 and mean anomaly π/2 at t=-1000M whose remnant spin, recoil or eccentricity trajectory deviates from the surrogate output by more than the quoted error bound.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.00124 by Adhrit Ravichandran, Andrea Ceja, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Daniel Tellez, Hannes R. R\"uter, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Jordan Moxon, Katie Rink, Keefe Mitman, Kyle C. Nelli, Lawrence E. Kidder, Leo C. Stein, Mark A Scheel, Marlo Morales, Md Arif Shaikh, Michael Boyle, Nils Deppe, Nils L. Vu, Noora Ghadiri, Peter James Nee, Prayush Kumar, Scott E. Field, Tousif Islam, Vijay Varma, William Throwe.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant three-dimensional pa￾rameter space coverage. Each circular marker represents an NR simulation. As explained in Sec. II A 4, crosses mark du￾plicated points used to enforce periodicity in ℓ, while triangles mark duplicated points used to enforce mean-anomaly degen￾eracy for quasi-circular systems. The gray region denotes the extended mean-anomaly domain and is filled with crosses. Th… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant properties that are mod￾eled. Each arrow marker represents the value of (top to bot￾tom): remnant mass, remnant spin, remnant kick velocity’s x-component, and remnant kick velocity’s y-component. The horizontal axis is the mass ratio, the color of the arrows repre￾sents the value of e−1000M, and the angle of the arrow with respect to the x axis represents the mean anomaly ℓ−1000M. F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics parameter-space cov￾erage. Each dot represents an NR simulation in the dataset. The coverage is less dense than in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Error histograms for NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant predictions. The panels show the distributions of absolute errors in the (left to right) remnant mass, remnant spin, and remnant kick-velocity components. The orange histograms denote 20-fold cross-validation errors, and the dashed black curves denote NR resolution errors. The close agreement between them indicates that the model achieves accuracy comparable to … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Error histograms for NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant predictions of the kick magnitude (left) and kick angle (right). The orange histograms denote K-fold cross-validation errors, and the dashed black curves denote NR resolution errors. The star (triangle) marker depicts the median (90th percentile) error for each histogram. In the right panel, ˆvf is the kick direction from NR, while ˆv ∗ f is the corresponding di… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Evaluations of NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant and an alternative model, NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant(No Periodicity), which does not enforce periodicity. Both models are evaluated at fixed q = 1.5 and e−1000M = 0.15, while ℓ−1000M is varied over its full range. The difference is that NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant includes the periodicity padding described in Sec. II A 4, whereas NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant(No Periodicity) does … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Histogram of the boundary relative errors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Error histograms of NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics predictions. Each histogram represents the distribution of RMS error in (left to right) eccentricity (e(t)) and mean anomaly (ℓ(t)) surrogates from K-fold cross-validation (or￾ange) and NR resolution error (dashed black). The validation errors are less than or comparable to the NR resolution errors, indicating that our model is comparable in accuracy to the NR s… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics compared with NR for the validation-set cases with the largest RMS errors in ℓ(t) and e(t). Top two panels: The case with the largest RMS error in ℓ(t), corresponding to a parameter value of q = 1.8, e−3000M = 0.001, and ℓ−1200M = 0.067π radians. The top panel shows ℓ(t) from the surrogate (orange solid) and NR (purple dashed), plotted modulo 2π, and the second panel shows the corr… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant evaluations at varying q, with e−1000M = 0. and ℓ−1000M = π radians (randomized e−1000M and ℓ−1000M) as the black dashed line (solid gray lines). Each arrow marker represents the value of remnant properties (top to bottom: remnant mass, remnant spin, rem￾nant kick velocity x − y components) for each point in the training set, like in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant evaluation at q = 1 along the two one-dimensional paths through the e−1000M ⊗ ℓ−1000M space defined in Eq. (3). The left panel shows mf as a function of e−1000M, with color indicating ℓ−1000M along each path. The right panel shows the same paths in polar coordinates, with e−1000M as the radial coordinate, ℓ−1000M as the polar angle, and mf shown by the color scale. The dotted curve… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Histograms of NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant model errors when parameterized using NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics to map from (e−3000M, ℓ−1200M) to (e−1000M, ℓ−1000M) (purple). These errors are compared to the K-fold cross-validation errors of NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant (orange) and NR resolution errors (dashed black). Each histogram represents the distribution of absolute errors in (left to right) remnant mass, remnant … view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Boundary error (see Eq. A1) for toy model surro￾gates as a function of the number of duplicated points added to the training set. Each point added was increasingly farther from the ℓ−1000M boundaries. It is evident that when dupli￾cated points are added, the differences decrease, indicating that the model is learning the periodic nature of the mean anomaly. As a proof of principle, we demonstrate the effe… view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The top (bottom) panel shows the toy-model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Accurate models of merger remnants are increasingly important for gravitational-wave science, including precision tests of gravity with ringdown, inference of black-hole populations, and modeling hierarchical mergers. For eccentric binaries, remnant mass, spin, and recoil carry nontrivial imprints of eccentricity that are both physically informative and more challenging to model, yet remain less developed than in the quasi-circular case. We present two new models trained on numerical-relativity (NR) simulations of unequal-mass, non-spinning eccentric binary black holes: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant, which predicts remnant properties, and NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics, a time-domain surrogate for the evolution of eccentricity and mean anomaly. Both models are trained on NR simulations over a three-dimensional parameter space with mass ratios $q \leq 4$, eccentricity $e < 0.23$, and mean anomaly $\ell \in [0,2\pi)$ radians, where both $e$ and $\ell$ defined at $t=-1000M$ relative to peak amplitude and $M$ is the total mass. We highlight some applications, including the phenomenological impact of eccentricity on remnant properties and the enhancement or suppression of recoil. We also provide error estimates for all modeled quantities, supporting reliable use in current and future gravitational-wave parameter-estimation analyses. Both models will be made available through open-source codes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper presents two surrogate models trained on NR simulations of non-spinning eccentric BBH binaries: NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant, which predicts remnant mass, spin, and recoil velocity, and NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics, a time-domain model for the evolution of eccentricity e(t) and mean anomaly ℓ(t). Both are trained over the domain q ≤ 4, e < 0.23, ℓ ∈ [0, 2π) with e and ℓ defined at fixed retarded time t = -1000M relative to peak amplitude; error estimates are supplied and applications to GW analyses and eccentricity effects on remnants/recoil are discussed.

Significance. If the accuracy and error estimates hold within the stated domain, the models would fill a useful niche for eccentric BBH modeling in gravitational-wave science, where eccentricity imprints on remnants are physically informative but currently under-modeled compared to quasi-circular cases. The open-source release and explicit error estimates are strengths that support reproducibility and practical use in parameter estimation.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the models 'support reliable use in current and future gravitational-wave parameter-estimation analyses' is central but not fully supported by the training domain alone (q ≤ 4, e < 0.23); the manuscript must either demonstrate validated performance near or beyond the boundaries or supply explicit extrapolation error bounds, as the current restriction leaves the reliability assertion load-bearing and untested.
  2. [Abstract] Definition of e and ℓ (Abstract and training description): anchoring eccentricity and mean anomaly at a fixed retarded time t = -1000M couples the initial conditions to the inspiral duration, which varies with q; this choice risks reduced accuracy or inconsistent generalization even inside the quoted box when time-to-merger changes, and the paper should include robustness tests (e.g., re-anchoring at different times or variable peak offsets) to substantiate the surrogate's internal consistency.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the scope and robustness of the surrogate models. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the claim that the models 'support reliable use in current and future gravitational-wave parameter-estimation analyses' is central but not fully supported by the training domain alone (q ≤ 4, e < 0.23); the manuscript must either demonstrate validated performance near or beyond the boundaries or supply explicit extrapolation error bounds, as the current restriction leaves the reliability assertion load-bearing and untested.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract claim should be qualified to avoid implying performance outside the trained domain. In the revised version we will change the relevant sentence to state that the supplied error estimates support reliable use within the trained domain (q ≤ 4, e < 0.23). We will also add a short paragraph in the discussion section that explicitly notes the absence of validated extrapolation bounds and cautions against use beyond the quoted limits without further testing. This revision removes any load-bearing assertion that exceeds what the training data demonstrate. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Definition of e and ℓ (Abstract and training description): anchoring eccentricity and mean anomaly at a fixed retarded time t = -1000M couples the initial conditions to the inspiral duration, which varies with q; this choice risks reduced accuracy or inconsistent generalization even inside the quoted box when time-to-merger changes, and the paper should include robustness tests (e.g., re-anchoring at different times or variable peak offsets) to substantiate the surrogate's internal consistency.

    Authors: The fixed-time anchoring at t = -1000M was chosen to furnish a uniform, simulation-independent reference that precedes merger for all runs. We acknowledge that this couples the definition to the q-dependent inspiral length and could affect generalization. To substantiate consistency we will add a new subsection (or appendix) containing robustness tests in which e and ℓ are re-anchored at t = -500M and t = -1500M; the surrogate is retrained on the alternative definitions and the resulting errors are compared to the original model. These tests will be reported in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: surrogates are standard interpolants of independent NR data

full rationale

The paper describes the construction of two surrogate models (NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Remnant and NRSurE_q4NoSpin_Dynamics) by training on a set of numerical-relativity simulations spanning a bounded three-dimensional parameter space (q ≤ 4, e < 0.23, ℓ ∈ [0, 2π) with e and ℓ fixed at t = −1000M). The claimed outputs are direct approximations to quantities computed from those simulations, accompanied by error estimates derived from the training residuals. No step in the described workflow equates a model output to its own training inputs by definition, renames a fitted parameter as an independent prediction, or relies on a load-bearing self-citation whose validity is presupposed by the present work. The derivation therefore remains an ordinary data-driven interpolation whose accuracy is independently testable against the underlying NR runs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption that numerical relativity simulations provide accurate ground-truth data for training and that the surrogate interpolation is faithful within the stated bounds; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • surrogate fitting coefficients
    Surrogate models are constructed by fitting to NR data; the abstract does not list explicit coefficient values but implies their presence in the training process.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Numerical relativity simulations accurately capture the physics of eccentric nonspinning black hole mergers
    The models are trained directly on NR data, treating those simulations as the reference truth.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5661 in / 1367 out tokens · 36908 ms · 2026-05-09T20:37:24.163605+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    Advanced LIGO

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(Virgo), “Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), “Overview of KAGRA: Detec- tor design and construction history,” PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Prospects for Ob- 23 serving and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA,

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), “Prospects for Observing and Localizing Gravitational- Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced 14 Virgo and KAGRA,” Living Rev. Rel.21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3,” (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Antonini, S

    Fabio Antonini, Silvia Toonen, and Adrian S. Hamers, “Binary black hole mergers from field triples: properties, rates and the impact of stellar evolution,” Astrophys. J. 841, 77 (2017), arXiv:1703.06614 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Repeated mergers and ejection of black holes within nuclear star clusters,

    Giacomo Fragione and Joseph Silk, “Repeated mergers and ejection of black holes within nuclear star clusters,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 4591–4604 (2020), arXiv:2006.01867 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  11. [11]

    Lidov-Kozai Cycles with Gravitational Radiation: Merging Black Holes in Isolated Triple Systems,

    Kedron Silsbee and Scott Tremaine, “Lidov-Kozai Cycles with Gravitational Radiation: Merging Black Holes in Isolated Triple Systems,” Astrophys. J.836, 39 (2017), arXiv:1608.07642 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Or- der in the chaos - Eccentric black hole binary mergers in triples formed via strong binary–binary scatterings,

    Manuel Arca-Sedda, Gongjie Li, and Bence Kocsis, “Or- der in the chaos - Eccentric black hole binary mergers in triples formed via strong binary–binary scatterings,” Astron. Astrophys.650, A189 (2021), arXiv:1805.06458 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Massive Stellar Triples Leading to Sequential Binary Black-Hole Mergers in the Field,

    Alejandro Vigna-Gómez, Silvia Toonen, Enrico Ramirez- Ruiz, Nathan W. C. Leigh, Jeff Riley, and Carl-Johan Haster, “Massive Stellar Triples Leading to Sequential Binary Black-Hole Mergers in the Field,” Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L19 (2021), arXiv:2010.13669 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, and Jonathan Gair, “Bayesian inference of binary black holes with inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms using two ec- centric parameters,” Phys. Rev. D108, 124063 (2023), arXiv:2309.15528 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    Morras, G

    Gonzalo Morras, Geraint Pratten, and Patricia Schmidt, “Orbital eccentricity in a neutron star - black hole binary merger,” (2025), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA

    Nihar Gupteet al., “Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO- Virgo-KAGRA,” Phys. Rev. D112, 104045 (2025), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Gravitational-wave inference for eccen- tric binaries: the argument of periapsis,

    Teagan A. Clarke, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, and Eric Thrane, “Gravitational-wave inference for eccen- tric binaries: the argument of periapsis,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 3778–3784 (2022), arXiv:2206.14006 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Reanalysis of binary black hole gravitational wave events for orbital eccentricity signatures,

    Maria de Lluc Planas, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Cecilio García-Quirós, Héctor Estellés, Sascha Husa, and Maria Haney, “Reanalysis of binary black hole gravitational wave events for orbital eccentricity signatures,” Phys. Rev. D 112, 123004 (2025), arXiv:2504.15833 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    Kacanja, K

    Keisi Kacanja, Kanchan Soni, and Alexander Harvey Nitz, “Eccentricity signatures in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s binary neutron star and neutron-star black holes,” Phys. Rev. D112, 122007 (2025), arXiv:2508.00179 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Jan, B.-J

    Aasim Jan, Bing-Jyun Tsao, Richard O’Shaughnessy, Deirdre Shoemaker, and Pablo Laguna, “GW200105: A detailed study of eccentricity in the neutron star- black hole binary,” Phys. Rev. D113, 024018 (2026), arXiv:2508.12460 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Ramos-Buades, S

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Sascha Husa, Geraint Pratten, Héctor Estellés, Cecilio García-Quirós, Maite Mateu- Lucena, Marta Colleoni, and Rafel Jaume, “First sur- vey of spinning eccentric black hole mergers: Numer- ical relativity simulations, hybrid waveforms, and pa- rameter estimation,” Phys. Rev. D101, 083015 (2020), arXiv:1909.11011 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Expanding RIFT: Improving per- formance for GW parameter inference,

    J. Woffordet al., “Expanding RIFT: Improving per- formance for GW parameter inference,” (2022), arXiv:2210.07912 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    A Numerical Relativity Waveform Surrogate Model for Generically Precessing Binary Black Hole Mergers

    Jonathan Blackman, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Chad R. Galley, Christian D. Ott, Michael Boyle, Lawrence E. Kidder, Harald P. Pfeiffer, and Béla Szilá- gyi, “Numerical relativity waveform surrogate model for generically precessing binary black hole mergers,” Phys. Rev. D96, 024058 (2017), arXiv:1705.07089 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Surrogate mod- els for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,

    Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Blackman, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, Lawrence E. Kid- der, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate models for precess- ing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,” Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Eccentric binary black hole surrogate models for the gravitational waveform and remnant properties: comparable mass, nonspinning case,

    Tousif Islam, Vijay Varma, Jackie Lodman, Scott E. Field, Gaurav Khanna, Mark A. Scheel, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Da- vide Gerosa, and Lawrence E. Kidder, “Eccentric binary black hole surrogate models for the gravitational waveform and remnant properties: comparable mass, nonspinning case,” Phys. Rev. D103, 064022 (2021), arXiv:2101.11798 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Targeted large mass ratio numerical relativity surrogate waveform model for GW190814,

    Jooheon Yoo, Vijay Varma, Matthew Giesler, Mark A. Scheel, Carl-Johan Haster, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Michael Boyle, “Targeted large mass ratio numerical relativity surrogate waveform model for GW190814,” Phys. Rev. D106, 044001 (2022), arXiv:2203.10109 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Numerical relativity surrogate model with memory effects and post-Newtonian hybridization,

    Jooheon Yooet al., “Numerical relativity surrogate model with memory effects and post-Newtonian hybridization,” Phys. Rev. D108, 064027 (2023), arXiv:2306.03148 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Eccentric binary black holes: A new framework for numerical relativity waveform surro- gates,

    Peter James Neeet al., “Eccentric binary black holes: A new framework for numerical relativity waveform surro- gates,” (2025), arXiv:2510.00106 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Black- hole kicks from numerical-relativity surrogate models,

    DavideGerosa, FrançoisHébert, andLeoC.Stein,“Black- hole kicks from numerical-relativity surrogate models,” Phys. Rev. D97, 104049 (2018), arXiv:1802.04276 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    High-accuracy mass, spin, and recoil predictions of generic black-hole merger remnants

    Vijay Varma, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, François Hébert, and Hao Zhang, “High-accuracy mass, spin, and recoil predictions of generic black-hole merger remnants,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 011101 (2019), arXiv:1809.09125 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    Mapping the asymptotic inspiral of precessing bi- nary black holes to their merger remnants,

    Luca Reali, Matthew Mould, Davide Gerosa, and Vijay Varma, “Mapping the asymptotic inspiral of precessing bi- nary black holes to their merger remnants,” Class. Quant. Grav.37, 225005 (2020), arXiv:2005.01747 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Remnant black hole properties from numerical-relativity- informed perturbation theory and implications for wave- form modeling,

    Tousif Islam, Scott E. Field, and Gaurav Khanna, “Remnant black hole properties from numerical-relativity- informed perturbation theory and implications for wave- form modeling,” Phys. Rev. D108, 064048 (2023), arXiv:2301.07215 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Predicting the properties of black-hole merger remnants with deep neural networks,

    Leïla Haegel and Sascha Husa, “Predicting the properties of black-hole merger remnants with deep neural networks,” 15 Class. Quant. Grav.37, 135005 (2020), arXiv:1911.01496 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Formation and evo- lution of binary black holes in n-body simulations of star clusters with up to two million stars,

    Jordan Barber and Fabio Antonini, “Formation and evo- lution of binary black holes in n-body simulations of star clusters with up to two million stars,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society538, 639–658 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    A Surrogate Model of Gravitational Waveforms from Numerical Relativity Simulations of Precessing Binary Black Hole Mergers

    Jonathan Blackman, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Chad R. Galley, Daniel A. Hemberger, Patricia Schmidt, and Rory Smith, “A Surrogate Model of Gravitational Waveforms from Numerical Relativity Simulations of Pre- cessing Binary Black Hole Mergers,” Phys. Rev. D95, 104023 (2017), arXiv:1701.00550 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  36. [36]

    Defining eccentricity for gravitational wave astronomy,

    Md Arif Shaikh, Vijay Varma, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Antoni Ramos-Buades, and Maarten van de Meent, “Defining eccentricity for gravitational wave astronomy,” Phys. Rev. D108, 104007 (2023), arXiv:2302.11257 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Post-Newtonian theory-inspired framework for characterizing eccentricity in gravitational waveforms,

    Tousif Islam and Tejaswi Venumadhav, “Post-Newtonian theory-inspired framework for characterizing eccentricity in gravitational waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D112, 104039 (2025), arXiv:2502.02739 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Consistent Eccentricities for Gravitational-wave Astronomy: Resolving Discrepancies between Astrophysical Simulations and Waveform Models,

    Aditya Vijaykumar, Alexandra G. Hanselman, and Michael Zevin, “Consistent Eccentricities for Gravitational-wave Astronomy: Resolving Discrepancies between Astrophysical Simulations and Waveform Models,” Astrophys. J.969, 132 (2024), arXiv:2402.07892 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Defining eccentricity for spin-precessing binaries,

    Md Arif Shaikh, Vijay Varma, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Michael Boyle, Lawrence E. Kid- der, and Mark A. Scheel, “Defining eccentricity for spin-precessing binaries,” Class. Quant. Grav.42, 195012 (2025), arXiv:2507.08345 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    The SXS collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,

    Mark A. Scheelet al., “The SXS collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,” Class. Quant. Grav.42, 195017 (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Boyle, M

    Latham Boyle, Michael Kesden, and Samaya Nis- sanke, “Binary black hole merger: Symmetry and the spin expansion,” Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 151101 (2008), arXiv:0709.0299 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Linear momentum flux from inspiralling compact binaries in quasielliptical orbits at 2.5 post- Newtonian order,

    Shilpa Kastha, “Linear momentum flux from inspiralling compact binaries in quasielliptical orbits at 2.5 post- Newtonian order,” Phys. Rev. D105, 064039 (2022), arXiv:2110.12807 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  43. [43]

    Ap- proximate helical symmetry in compact binaries,

    Aniket Khairnar, Leo C. Stein, and Michael Boyle, “Ap- proximate helical symmetry in compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D111, 024072 (2025), arXiv:2410.16373 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Impact of eccentricity and mean anomaly in numerical relativity mergers,

    Peter James Neeet al., “Impact of eccentricity and mean anomaly in numerical relativity mergers,” Class. Quant. Grav.42, 135011 (2025), arXiv:2503.05422 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Multipole expansions for energy and momenta carried by gravitational waves

    Milton Ruiz, Ryoji Takahashi, Miguel Alcubierre, and Dario Nunez, “Multipole expansions for energy and mo- menta carried by gravitational waves,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 2467 (2008), arXiv:0707.4654 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Extrapolating gravitational-wave data from numerical simulations,

    Michael Boyle and Abdul H. Mroue, “Extrapolating gravitational-wave data from numerical simulations,” Phys. Rev.D80, 124045 (2009), arXiv:0905.3177 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2009

  47. [47]

    Transformations of asymptotic gravitational-wave data,

    Michael Boyle, “Transformations of asymptotic gravitational-wave data,” Phys. Rev.D93, 084031 (2016), arXiv:1509.00862 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Comparing Remnant Prop- erties from Horizon Data and Asymptotic Data in Nu- merical Relativity,

    Dante A. B. Iozzoet al., “Comparing Remnant Prop- erties from Horizon Data and Asymptotic Data in Nu- merical Relativity,” Phys. Rev. D103, 124029 (2021), arXiv:2104.07052 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  49. [49]

    SpECTRE v2023.10.11 ,

    Nils Deppe, William Throwe, Lawrence E. Kidder, Nils L. Vu, Kyle C. Nelli, Cristóbal Armaza, Marceline S. Bonilla, François Hébert, Yoonsoo Kim, Prayush Kumar, Geoffrey Lovelace, Alexandra Macedo, Jordan Moxon, Eamonn O’Shea, HaraldP.Pfeiffer, MarkA.Scheel, SaulA.Teukol- sky, Nikolas A. Wittek,et al., “SpECTRE v2023.10.11 ,” 10.5281/zenodo.8431874 (2023)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8431874 2023

  50. [50]

    ImprovedCauchy-characteristicevolutionsystemforhigh- precision numerical relativity waveforms,

    Jordan Moxon, Mark A. Scheel, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “ImprovedCauchy-characteristicevolutionsystemforhigh- precision numerical relativity waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 044052 (2020), arXiv:2007.01339 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [51]

    SpECTRE Cauchy-characteristic evolution system for rapid, precise waveform extraction,

    Jordan Moxon, Mark A. Scheel, Saul A. Teukolsky, Nils Deppe, Nils Fischer, Francois Hébert, Lawrence E. Kidder, and William Throwe, “SpECTRE Cauchy-characteristic evolution system for rapid, precise waveform extraction,” Phys. Rev. D107, 064013 (2023), arXiv:2110.08635 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Asymptotic structure of spacetime and the Newman-Penrose formal- ism: a brief review,

    L. A. Gómez López and G. D. Quiroga, “Asymptotic structure of spacetime and the Newman-Penrose formal- ism: a brief review,” Rev. Mex. Fis.63, 275 (2017), arXiv:1711.11381 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2017

  53. [53]

    Momentum flux at null infinity,

    T Dray, “Momentum flux at null infinity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity2, L7 (1985)

    1985

  54. [54]

    Angular momentum at null infinity,

    T Dray and M Streubel, “Angular momentum at null infinity,” Classical and Quantum Gravity1, 15 (1984)

    1984

  55. [55]

    “conserved

    Michael Streubel, ““conserved” quantities for isolated gravitational systems,” General Relativity and Gravita- tion9, 551–561 (1978)

    1978

  56. [56]

    A review of gravitational memory and BMS frame fixing in numerical relativity,

    Keefe Mitmanet al., “A review of gravitational memory and BMS frame fixing in numerical relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav.41, 223001 (2024), arXiv:2405.08868 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Modeling the BMS transformation induced by a binary black hole merger,

    Guido Da Reet al., “Modeling the BMS transformation induced by a binary black hole merger,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 124019 (2025), arXiv:2503.09569 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V. Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V. Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Passos, D. Cour- napeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay, “Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python,” Journal of Machine Learning Research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    2011

  59. [59]

    Characterizing the merger of equatorial-eccentric-geodesic plunges in ro- tating black holes,

    Guglielmo Faggioli, Maarten van de Meent, Alessan- dra Buonanno, and Gaurav Khanna, “Characterizing the merger of equatorial-eccentric-geodesic plunges in ro- tating black holes,” Phys. Rev. D112, 084009 (2025), arXiv:2507.05870 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Boyle et al., Class

    Michael Boyleet al., “The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations,” Class. Quant. Grav.36, 195006 (2019), arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Fast prediction and evaluation of gravitational waveforms using surrogate models,

    Scott E. Field, Chad R. Galley, Jan S. Hesthaven, Jason Kaye, and Manuel Tiglio, “Fast prediction and evaluation of gravitational waveforms using surrogate models,” Phys. Rev. X4, 031006 (2014), arXiv:1308.3565 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2014

  62. [63]

    An ‘empirical interpolation’ method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretiza- tion of partial differential equations,

    Maxime Barrault, Yvon Maday, Ngoc Cuong Nguyen, and Anthony T. Patera, “An ‘empirical interpolation’ method: application to efficient reduced-basis discretiza- tion of partial differential equations,” Comptes Rendus Mathematique339, 667–672 (2004)

    2004

  63. [64]

    A general multipurpose interpolation procedure: the magic points,

    Yvon Maday, Ngoc Cuong Nguyen, Anthony T. Patera, and S. H. Pau, “A general multipurpose interpolation procedure: the magic points,” Communications on Pure 16 and Applied Analysis8, 383–404 (2009)

    2009

  64. [65]

    Efficient greedy algorithms for high-dimensional param- eter spaces with applications to empirical interpolation and reduced basis methods,

    Hesthaven, Jan S., Stamm, Benjamin, and Zhang, Shun, “Efficient greedy algorithms for high-dimensional param- eter spaces with applications to empirical interpolation and reduced basis methods,” ESAIM: M2AN48, 259–283 (2014)

    2014

  65. [66]

    Wang, Y.-C

    Hao Wang, Yuan-Chuan Zou, Qing-Wen Wu, Yu Liu, and Xiaolin Liu, “Characterizing the effect of eccentric- ity on the dynamics of binary black hole mergers in nu- merical relativity,” Phys. Rev. D109, 084063 (2024), arXiv:2310.04777 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  66. [67]

    Complete waveform comparison of post- Newtonian and numerical relativity in eccentric orbits,

    Hao Wang, Yuan-Chuan Zou, Qing-Wen Wu, Xiaolin Liu, and Zhao Li, “Complete waveform comparison of post- Newtonian and numerical relativity in eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D111, 064018 (2025), arXiv:2409.17636 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [68]

    Unveiling the Fingerprint of Eccentric Binary Black Hole Mergers,

    Hao Wang, Yuan-Chuan Zou, Qing-Wen Wu, and Yu Liu, “Unveiling the Fingerprint of Eccentric Binary Black Hole Mergers,” (2023), arXiv:2311.08822 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  68. [69]

    Radia, U

    Miren Radia, Ulrich Sperhake, Emanuele Berti, and Robin Croft, “Anomalies in the gravitational recoil of eccentric black-hole mergers with unequal mass ratios,” Phys. Rev. D103, 104006 (2021), arXiv:2101.11015 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [70]

    Unveiling the Merger Structure of Black Hole Binaries in Generic Planar Orbits,

    Gregorio Carullo, Simone Albanesi, Alessandro Nagar, Rossella Gamba, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Tomas Andrade, and Juan Trenado, “Unveiling the Merger Structure of Black Hole Binaries in Generic Planar Orbits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101401 (2024), arXiv:2309.07228 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  70. [71]

    Amplification of superkicks in black-hole binaries through orbital eccentricity,

    U. Sperhake, R. Rosca-Mead, D. Gerosa, and E. Berti, “Amplification of superkicks in black-hole binaries through orbital eccentricity,” Phys. Rev. D101, 024044 (2020), arXiv:1910.01598 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  71. [72]

    Prabhu, Axion production in pulsar magneto- sphere gaps, Physical Review D104, 10.1103/phys- revd.104.055038 (2021)

    Lawrence Kidder, Mark Scheel, Saul Teukolsky, Eric Carl- son, and Gregory Cook, “Black hole evolution by spectral methods,” Physical Review D62(2000), 10.1103/phys- revd.62.084032

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2000

  72. [73]

    vi- jayvarma392/surfinbh: Surrogate final bh properties,

    Vijay Varma, Leo C. Stein, and Davide Gerosa, “vi- jayvarma392/surfinbh: Surrogate final bh properties,” (2018)

    2018

  73. [74]

    GWSurrogate: A Python package for gravitational wave surrogate models,

    Scott E. Field, Vijay Varma, Jonathan Blackman, Bhooshan Gadre, Chad R. Galley, Tousif Islam, Keefe Mitman, Michael Pürrer, Adhrit Ravichandran, Mark A. Scheel, Leo C. Stein, and Jooheon Yoo, “GWSurrogate: A Python package for gravitational wave surrogate models,” J. Open Source Softw.10, 7073 (2025), arXiv:2504.08839 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    Uiuc-ppl/charm: Charm++ version 6.10.2,

    Laxmikant Kale, Bilge Acun, Seonmyeong Bak, Aaron Becker, Milind Bhandarkar, Nitin Bhat, Abhinav Bhatele, Eric Bohm, Cyril Bordage, Robert Brunner, Ronak Buch, Sayantan Chakravorty, Kavitha Chandrasekar, Jaemin Choi, Michael Denardo, Jayant DeSouza, Matthias Di- ener, Harshit Dokania, Isaac Dooley, Wayne Fenton, Juan Galvez, Fillipo Gioachin, Abhishek Gup...

    2020