pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.25623 · v1 · pith:UVNJWG5Bnew · submitted 2026-05-25 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

A pre-merger-informed spectral-level ringdown inference framework for black-hole spectroscopy

Shitong Guo , Yan-Gang Miao This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 20:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th
keywords black-hole spectroscopyquasinormal modesgravitational-wave ringdownpre-merger informationagnostic modelingBayesian inferencedamped sinusoid model
0
0 comments X

The pith

The SPRING framework incorporates pre-merger data into agnostic ringdown models to improve spectral inference for black hole remnants.

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

This paper presents SPRING as a way to use information from the full gravitational wave signal, including before the merger, to help analyze the ringdown part without assuming a specific theory for the quasinormal mode frequencies. The method estimates amplitude scales from the pre-merger data and applies them to an agnostic model of the ringdown. In the example with GW250114, this leads to stronger statistical support for models with two damped sinusoids and keeps the inferred properties of the final black hole consistent with analyses of the entire signal. Readers would care if this approach allows cleaner tests of whether the remnant spacetime matches predictions without circular assumptions.

Core claim

SPRING separates ringdown spectral inference from theory-side interpretation while propagating pre-merger information through amplitude-scale estimation. Applied to GW250114 with an agnostic two-component damped-sinusoid model for Kerr remnant inference, SPRING improves the Bayesian support for the agnostic 2DS signal model with an increase of ΔlnB ∼ 5–10. The resulting remnant posterior remains closely consistent with the inspiral-merger-ringdown estimate despite the extra freedom from the second component.

What carries the argument

The SPRING framework, which estimates quasinormal-mode amplitude scales from pre-merger data to inform agnostic spectral models of the ringdown.

If this is right

  • The Bayesian evidence for multi-mode ringdown models increases when pre-merger information is included.
  • Remnant parameter estimates from the ringdown stay consistent with full-signal estimates even with additional model freedom.
  • This provides a spectral-level method for black-hole spectroscopy that does not rely on theory-specific frequency relations.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Applying SPRING to additional events could reveal whether pre-merger information systematically affects mode identification in ringdown.
  • Future extensions might allow simultaneous inference of multiple events to build stronger constraints on remnant properties.

Load-bearing premise

Pre-merger data can estimate quasinormal mode amplitude scales without causing systematic bias in the frequency inference for models that remain agnostic to specific theoretical relations between the modes.

What would settle it

Demonstrating that including pre-merger amplitude estimates leads to remnant posteriors that disagree with those from inspiral-merger-ringdown analyses or produces no gain in Bayesian evidence for the signal model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.25623 by Shitong Guo, Yan-Gang Miao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic overview of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distributions of the fitted complex-amplitude magnitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Agnostic 2DS spectral posteriors at a 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Kerr remnant posteriors inferred from the pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Robustness of the Kerr remnant posterior under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Median windowed overlap between the projected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Median windowed projected retrograde-to-prograde [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Median relative residual norm of the complex [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Black-hole spectroscopy aims to infer properties of the remnant spacetime from the quasinormal-mode (QNM) spectrum of the gravitational-wave ringdown signal. In most implementations, however, this inference is performed with waveform models that already incorporate Kerr or other theory-specific QNM spectral relations, thereby entangling spectral measurement with remnant or beyond-Kerr parameter inference. At the same time, conventional ringdown analyses commonly excise the pre-merger data, which in principle contain information about the excitation amplitudes and phases of the QNMs. We introduce \texttt{SPRING} (\textit{Spectral-level Pre-merger-informed RINGdown inference}), a framework designed to separate ringdown spectral inference from theory-side interpretation while propagating pre-merger information through amplitude-scale estimation. As a demonstration, we apply \texttt{SPRING} to GW250114 using an agnostic two-component damped-sinusoid (2DS) model for Kerr remnant inference. \texttt{SPRING} improves the Bayesian support for the agnostic 2DS signal model relative to analyses that do not use pre-merger information, with an increase of \(\Delta\ln B\sim 5\)--\(10\). The resulting remnant posterior remains closely consistent with the inspiral-merger-ringdown estimate, despite the extra freedom introduced by the second DS component. This work bridges pre-merger information and ringdown inference, establishing a fully spectral-level route for future black-hole spectroscopy.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the SPRING framework, which propagates information from the pre-merger segment of a gravitational-wave signal into ringdown analysis by estimating QNM amplitude scales separately from frequency inference. Using an agnostic two-damped-sinusoid (2DS) model on GW250114, it reports an increase in Bayesian evidence of ΔlnB∼5–10 relative to analyses without pre-merger information, while the remnant posterior remains consistent with the full IMR estimate despite the added freedom of the second component.

Significance. If the separation of amplitude-scale estimation from frequency inference proves robust, the approach would enable more agnostic spectral measurements in black-hole spectroscopy, reducing entanglement between data-driven QNM extraction and theory-specific relations such as Kerr QNM spectra. The reported posterior consistency with IMR results provides an internal cross-check, and the framework's focus on real-event application (GW250114) strengthens its relevance for future LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA analyses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (amplitude-scale estimation): the precise propagation method from pre-merger data to amplitude-scale priors is not specified with equations or pseudocode, leaving open whether the procedure can introduce systematic shifts into the frequency posterior when the model remains agnostic to Kerr relations; this is load-bearing for the central claim of unbiased spectral inference.
  2. [§4] §4 (results on GW250114): no injection-recovery tests or synthetic-signal validations are presented to quantify potential bias in the recovered frequencies or the ΔlnB values when pre-merger information is included; without such tests the reported consistency of the remnant posterior cannot be confirmed to hold under controlled conditions.
  3. [Table 1] Table 1 or equivalent evidence table: the ΔlnB∼5–10 improvement is stated without explicit comparison values, prior choices, or evidence-calculation details (e.g., nested-sampling settings) for the pre-merger-informed versus standard 2DS runs, making it impossible to assess whether the gain is driven by the amplitude-scale information or by other modeling choices.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] Notation for the two damped-sinusoid components (e.g., subscripts on A, ω, τ) should be defined explicitly in the first equation block of §2 to avoid ambiguity when comparing to standard QNM conventions.
  2. [Figure 3] Figure 3 (posterior corner plot): axis labels and units for the remnant mass and spin should be stated in the caption, and the IMR reference contour should be overlaid for direct visual comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive assessment of the SPRING framework's potential. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional details and validations as outlined.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §3] Abstract and §3 (amplitude-scale estimation): the precise propagation method from pre-merger data to amplitude-scale priors is not specified with equations or pseudocode, leaving open whether the procedure can introduce systematic shifts into the frequency posterior when the model remains agnostic to Kerr relations; this is load-bearing for the central claim of unbiased spectral inference.

    Authors: We agree that the description in §3 would benefit from greater formality. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit equations for the amplitude-scale prior construction from pre-merger data together with pseudocode for the full propagation step. These additions will make clear that amplitude-scale estimation is performed independently of frequency inference and does not couple to the agnostic frequency posterior, thereby preserving the unbiased character of the spectral measurement. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (results on GW250114): no injection-recovery tests or synthetic-signal validations are presented to quantify potential bias in the recovered frequencies or the ΔlnB values when pre-merger information is included; without such tests the reported consistency of the remnant posterior cannot be confirmed to hold under controlled conditions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that controlled injection studies provide an important internal validation. Although the present work is framed as a real-event demonstration, we will add an appendix containing a set of synthetic-signal injection-recovery tests that quantify any bias in recovered frequencies and in the reported ΔlnB values when pre-merger information is included. These tests will confirm that the remnant-posterior consistency observed for GW250114 holds under controlled conditions. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Table 1] Table 1 or equivalent evidence table: the ΔlnB∼5–10 improvement is stated without explicit comparison values, prior choices, or evidence-calculation details (e.g., nested-sampling settings) for the pre-merger-informed versus standard 2DS runs, making it impossible to assess whether the gain is driven by the amplitude-scale information or by other modeling choices.

    Authors: We will expand the evidence table (or introduce a supplementary table) to report the precise ΔlnB values, the full set of prior choices, and the nested-sampling settings used for both the pre-merger-informed and standard 2DS analyses. This will allow readers to verify that the reported improvement originates from the amplitude-scale information propagated by SPRING. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The SPRING framework separates pre-merger amplitude-scale estimation from agnostic ringdown frequency inference using independent data segments. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted inputs, self-definitions, or self-citation chains; the reported ΔlnB improvement and posterior consistency with IMR serve as external cross-checks rather than tautological outputs. The derivation remains self-contained against the described benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claim rests on standard domain assumptions in gravitational-wave analysis rather than new free parameters or invented entities.

free parameters (1)
  • amplitude scales
    Estimated from pre-merger data rather than fitted directly to ringdown; no explicit numerical values given.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Ringdown signals can be represented as sums of damped sinusoids whose frequencies are to be measured independently of Kerr or other theory-specific relations.
    Invoked in the description of the agnostic 2DS model and the separation of spectral inference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5786 in / 1422 out tokens · 33183 ms · 2026-06-29T20:50:06.477719+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

89 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 26 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    S. A. Teukolsky, ApJ185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  2. [2]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. Detweiler, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences344, 441 (1975). 18

    1975

  3. [3]

    E. W. Leaver, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  4. [4]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Relativ. 2, 2 (1999)

    1999

  5. [5]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quan- tum Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    Black Hole Spectroscopy: Testing General Relativity through Gravitational Wave Observations

    O. Dreyer, B. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garrison, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quantum Grav.21, 787 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    Multi-mode black hole spectroscopy

    V. Baibhav and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D99, 024005 (2019), arXiv:1809.03500 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment

    E. Bertiet al., Black hole spectroscopy: From theory to experiment (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Berti, M

    E. Berti, M. H.-Y. Cheung, and S. Yi, Physics Today78, 32 (2025)

    2025

  10. [10]

    Carullo, Gen Relativ Gravit57, 76 (2025)

    G. Carullo, Gen Relativ Gravit57, 76 (2025)

    2025

  11. [11]

    Giesler, M

    M. Giesler, M. Isi, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. X9, 041060 (2019)

    2019

  12. [12]

    Cotesta, G

    R. Cotesta, G. Carullo, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 111102 (2022), arXiv:2201.00822 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  13. [13]

    C. D. Capano, M. Cabero, J. Westerweck, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, A. H. Nitz, Y.-F. Wang, A. B. Nielsen, and B. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 221402 (2023)

    2023

  14. [14]

    Siegel, N

    H. Siegel, N. M. Khusid, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, GW231123 ringdown: Interpretation as multimodal Kerr signal (2025), arXiv:2511.02691 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Baibhav, and R. Cotesta, Phys. Rev. D109, 044069 (2024), arXiv:2310.04489 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    Y. Yang, C. Shi, and Y.-M. Hu, Contribution from Nonlinear Quasi-normal Modes in GW250114 (2025), arXiv:2510.16903 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Giesler, S

    M. Giesler, S. Ma, K. Mitman, N. Oshita, S. A. Teukol- sky, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, K. C. Nelli, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, Phys. Rev. D111, 084041 (2025), arXiv:2411.11269 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Y.-F. Wang, S. Ma, N. Khera, and H. Yang, A nonlinear voice from GW250114 ringdown (2026), arXiv:2601.05734 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Tests of General Relativity with Binary Black Holes from the second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Siegel, M

    H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. Farr, The Ringdown of GW190521: Hints of Multiple Quasinormal Modes with a Precessional Interpretation (2023), arXiv:2307.11975 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Gennari, G

    V. Gennari, G. Carullo, and W. D. Pozzo, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 233 (2024), arXiv:2312.12515 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, Probing quadratic gravity with black-hole ringdown gravitational waves measured by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detectors (2025), arXiv:2506.14695 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativity with GW250114 (2025), arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Observational Black Hole Spectroscopy: A time-domain multimode analysis of GW150914

    G. Carullo, W. D. Pozzo, and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123029 (2019), arXiv:1902.07527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    Guo and Y.-G

    S. Guo and Y.-G. Miao, A theory-agnostic hierarchical Bayesian framework for black-hole spectroscopy: A case study on GW250114 in Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet gravity (2025), arXiv:2512.03713 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Kamaretsos, M

    I. Kamaretsos, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D85, 024018 (2012)

    2012

  30. [30]

    Kamaretsos, M

    I. Kamaretsos, M. Hannam, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 141102 (2012)

    2012

  31. [31]

    L. C. Stein, J. Open Source Softw.4, 1683 (2019), arXiv:1908.10377 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, H. Es- telles, L. Pompili, M. P¨ urrer, and A. Ramos-Buades, py- SEOBNR: A software package for the next generation of effective-one-body multipolar waveform models (2023), arXiv:2303.18203 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D64, 124013 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0103018

    work page arXiv 2001

  36. [36]

    Transition from inspiral to plunge in precessing binaries of spinning black holes

    A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104005 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0508067

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  37. [37]

    Sources of Gravitational Waves: Theory and Observations

    A. Buonanno and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Sources of Gravitational Waves: Theory and Observations (2015), arXiv:1410.7832 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    Ramos-Buades, A

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    Pompiliet al., Phys

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  40. [40]

    Pompili, E

    L. Pompili, E. Maggio, H. O. Silva, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D111, 124040 (2025)

    2025

  41. [41]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016)

    2016

  42. [42]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  43. [43]

    X. J. Forteza, S. Bhagwat, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D102, 044053 (2020), arXiv:2005.03260 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Dhani, Phys

    A. Dhani, Phys. Rev. D103, 104048 (2021), arXiv:2010.08602 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  45. [45]

    X. Li, L. Sun, R. K. L. Lo, E. Payne, and Y. Chen, Phys- ical Review D105, 10.1103/physrevd.105.024016 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.024016 2022

  46. [46]

    Mitmanet al., Probing the ringdown perturba- tion in binary black hole coalescences with an im- proved quasi-normal mode extraction algorithm (2025), arXiv:2503.09678 [gr-qc]

    K. Mitmanet al., Probing the ringdown perturba- tion in binary black hole coalescences with an im- proved quasi-normal mode extraction algorithm (2025), arXiv:2503.09678 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    L. Gao, G. B. Cook, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, N. Deppe, W. Throwe, N. L. Vu, K. C. Nelli, J. Moxon, and M. Boyle, Physical Review D112, 10.1103/3jj6-jc8q (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/3jj6-jc8q 2025

  48. [48]

    Buonanno, G

    A. Buonanno, G. B. Cook, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D75, 124018 (2007)

    2007

  49. [49]

    Modeling Ringdown: Beyond the Fundamental Quasi-Normal Modes

    L. London, J. Healy, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124032 (2014), arXiv:1404.3197 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  50. [50]

    Pacilio, S

    C. Pacilio, S. Bhagwat, F. Nobili, and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D110, 103037 (2024), arXiv:2408.05276 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    L. M. Zertuche, L. C. Stein, K. Mitman, S. E. Field, V. Varma, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, K. C. Nelli, W. Throwe, 19 and N. L. Vu, Phys. Rev. D112, 024077 (2025), arXiv:2408.05300 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Prix,Bayesian QNM search on black hole ring- down modes (applied to GW150914), Tech

    R. Prix,Bayesian QNM search on black hole ring- down modes (applied to GW150914), Tech. Rep. LIGO- T1500618-v4 (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, 2016) lIGO Technical Report

    2016

  53. [53]

    D. W. Hogg, A. M. Price-Whelan, and B. Leistedt, Data Analysis Recipes: Products of multivariate Gaussians in Bayesian inferences (2020), arXiv:2005.14199 [stat]

    work page arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    Isi and W

    M. Isi and W. M. Farr, Analyzing black-hole ringdowns (2021), arXiv:2107.05609 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Siegel, M

    H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D111, 044070 (2025), arXiv:2410.02704 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Veitch, W

    J. Veitch, W. D. Pozzo, Cody, M. Pitkin, and Ed1d1a8d, Johnveitch/cpnest: Minor optimisation, Zenodo (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estell´ es, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and A. Ramos-Buades, Theo- retical groundwork supporting the precessing-spin two- body dynamics of the effective-one-body waveform mod- els seobnrv5 (2023), arXiv:2303.18143 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    van de Meent, A

    M. van de Meent, A. Buonanno, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Os- sokine, L. Pompili, N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Enhancing the seobnrv5 effective-one-body waveform model with second-order gravitational self-force fluxes (2023), arXiv:2303.18026 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and I. Mandel, Physical Review D109, 10.1103/phys- revd.109.024024 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2024

  60. [60]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and S. Hourihane, Physical Review D112, 10.1103/xq5g- zm7z (2025)

    work page doi:10.1103/xq5g- 2025

  61. [61]

    S. J. Miller, S. Hourihane, M. Isi, R. Udall, and K. Chatziioannou,tdinf: time domain parameter esti- mation for gravitational-wave signals (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    S. Ma, L. Sun, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, 084010 (2023)

    2023

  63. [63]

    Testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns using TIGER

    J. Meidam, M. Agathos, C. V. D. Broeck, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D90, 064009 (2014), arXiv:1406.3201 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  64. [64]

    Empirical tests of the black hole no-hair conjecture using gravitational-wave observations

    G. Carullo, L. van der Schaaf, L. London, P. T. H. Pang, K. W. Tsang, O. A. Hannuksela, J. Meidam, M. Agathos, A. Samajdar, A. Ghosh, T. G. F. Li, W. D. Pozzo, and C. V. D. Broeck, Phys. Rev. D98, 104020 (2018), arXiv:1805.04760 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  65. [65]

    M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 111102 (2019), arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    Bhagwat, X

    S. Bhagwat, X. J. Forteza, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. D101, 044033 (2020), arXiv:1910.08708 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    J. C. Bustillo, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024041 (2021), arXiv:2010.01857 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  68. [68]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016)

    2016

  69. [69]

    Mezzasoma and N

    S. Mezzasoma and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D106, 024026 (2022), arXiv:2203.15934 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Chandra and J

    K. Chandra and J. C. Bustillo, Black-hole ringdown anal- ysis with inspiral-merger informed templates and limita- tions of classical spectroscopy (2025), arXiv:2509.17315 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs

    M. Branchesiet al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2023 (07), 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [72]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evanset al., A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

    J. Luoet al., Class. Quantum Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  74. [74]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    The Astropy Collaboration, A&A558, A33 (2013), arXiv:1307.6212 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    The Astropy Collaboration, AJ156, 123 (2018), arXiv:1801.02634 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    The Astropy Collaboration, ApJ935, 167 (2022), arXiv:2206.14220 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    Foreman-Mackey, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware1, 24 (2016)

    D. Foreman-Mackey, The Journal of Open Source Soft- ware1, 24 (2016)

    2016

  80. [80]

    D. M. Macleod, J. S. Areeda, S. B. Coughlin, T. J. Massinger, and A. L. Urban, SoftwareX13, 100657 (2021)

    2021

Showing first 80 references.