pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.27500 · v2 · pith:3C4HGZSSnew · submitted 2026-05-26 · 🌀 gr-qc

Constraining Gravitational Wave Memory with Hierarchical Inference

Keefe Mitman , Maximiliano Isi , Will M. Farr This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 15:29 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords gravitational wave memoryhierarchical inferencegeneral relativity testsbinary black holessupermomentum fluxnonlinear gravitypopulation analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hierarchical Bayesian inference on current binary black hole events constrains the memory enhancement factor to a value consistent with general relativity.

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

The paper applies hierarchical Bayesian inference across the population of binary black hole mergers to measure the memory enhancement factor, a constant that scales the supermomentum flux contribution to the gravitational wave strain. This method sidesteps issues with Bayes factors that affected earlier studies. The resulting constraint is 0.26 with a 68 percent credible interval spanning from negative 4.08 to positive 4.09, which includes the general relativity value of 1. The analysis also projects that roughly 2000 detections will be required to constrain the factor away from zero at the one-sigma level.

Core claim

Using hierarchical Bayesian inference on the catalog of binary black hole observations, the memory enhancement factor is measured to be 0.26 with uncertainties of minus 4.08 to plus 4.09 at the 68 percent credible interval, consistent with its general relativity value of 1. The work forecasts that approximately 2000 detections will be needed to constrain the memory enhancement factor away from zero at the 1 sigma level.

What carries the argument

The memory enhancement factor, the constant that multiplies the supermomentum flux contribution to the gravitational wave strain, constrained through hierarchical inference on the population of events.

If this is right

  • Current observations remain consistent with the general relativity prediction for the memory effect but do not yet yield a detection.
  • The hierarchical method combines information from many events in a way that is robust to certain prior choices.
  • Constraints on the memory effect will tighten as the number of detections grows.
  • The same population-level approach can be applied to test other nonlinear predictions of gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework could be extended to search for deviations in other strong-field nonlinear effects once more events accumulate.
  • If the factor is found away from 1 with larger catalogs, it could point either to new physics or to unaccounted waveform or selection systematics.
  • Next-generation detectors with higher event rates might reach the required sample size faster than current instruments.

Load-bearing premise

The hierarchical model is assumed to correctly incorporate all selection effects, waveform modeling uncertainties, and noise properties of the catalog such that any residual bias does not systematically shift the inferred memory enhancement factor.

What would settle it

Future data with a few thousand events producing a posterior on the memory enhancement factor that excludes 1 at high significance would test whether the general relativity prediction holds under the model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.27500 by Keefe Mitman, Maximiliano Isi, Will M. Farr.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Values of the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mean and standard deviation (see Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Evolution of the 68% half-width on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

With the multitude of gravitational wave observations that have been made in the past ten years, probing the dynamical and nonlinear nature of strong gravity is becoming more and more feasible. One promising way to test the nonlinear nature of Einstein's theory of general relativity (GR) is through the gravitational wave null memory effect: a nonlinear prediction of GR which corresponds to initially comoving observers being permanently displaced due to a burst of gravitational radiation. Previous studies have shown that, while it is unlikely that the memory effect will be observed in a single event by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) detectors, evidence for memory in the population of LVK events should be attainable after $\sim$2,000 gravitational wave detections. These works, however, largely relied on Bayes factors to perform their memory analyses: an approach that can depend sensitively on the analysis priors and, when naively multiplied across many events, can even favor incorrect conclusions. In this work, using the GWTC-5.0 catalog of binary black hole observations, we instead perform hierarchical Bayesian inference -- which is not subject to the issues associated with Bayes factors -- to measure the evidence for memory in current LVK observations. We find that we can constrain what we call the memory enhancement factor -- the constant appearing in front of the contribution to the strain from the supermomentum flux -- to $0.26_{-4.08}^{+4.09}$ (with $\pm$ values denoting the 68\% credible interval), consistent with its GR value of 1. We also forecast that $\sim$2,000 detections will be needed to constrain the memory enhancement factor away from zero at the $1\sigma$ level.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that hierarchical Bayesian inference applied to the GWTC-5.0 binary black hole catalog constrains the memory enhancement factor (the constant prefactor on the supermomentum-flux contribution to the strain) to 0.26_{-4.08}^{+4.09} (68% credible interval), consistent with its GR value of 1, while previous Bayes-factor approaches are shown to be prior-sensitive; it further forecasts that ~2000 detections will be required to exclude zero at 1σ.

Significance. If the hierarchical model is correctly specified, the work supplies a prior-independent population-level test of a nonlinear GR prediction that improves on earlier Bayes-factor analyses. The explicit forecast supplies a concrete observational target. The manuscript does not report machine-checked proofs or fully reproducible code, but the hierarchical formulation itself is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the reported 68% interval 0.26_{-4.08}^{+4.09} includes zero and negative values; this renders the statement of consistency with the GR value of 1 true but uninformative, and the claim that the data support the GR prediction therefore requires additional quantitative support (e.g., a Bayes factor or posterior odds relative to a no-memory model) that is not supplied.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (and the hierarchical-model description): the central result and the 2000-event forecast rest on the assumption that the hierarchical likelihood fully marginalizes over catalog selection effects, waveform modeling uncertainties, and detector noise such that no residual systematic shifts the memory-enhancement-factor posterior; no validation tests, sensitivity analyses, or explicit checks against injected memory signals are described, making this assumption load-bearing for both the numerical constraint and the scaling projection.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract refers to "previous studies" on Bayes-factor analyses but does not supply the corresponding citations in the excerpt provided.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the reported 68% interval 0.26_{-4.08}^{+4.09} includes zero and negative values; this renders the statement of consistency with the GR value of 1 true but uninformative, and the claim that the data support the GR prediction therefore requires additional quantitative support (e.g., a Bayes factor or posterior odds relative to a no-memory model) that is not supplied.

    Authors: We agree that the broad posterior renders the consistency statement with the GR value of 1 somewhat uninformative on its own. The central contribution of the work is the demonstration that hierarchical inference yields a prior-independent posterior on the memory enhancement factor. To supply the requested quantitative support, we will compute and report the posterior odds between the model with free memory enhancement factor and a no-memory model (enhancement factor fixed at zero) and include this comparison in the revised abstract and results section. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (and the hierarchical-model description): the central result and the 2000-event forecast rest on the assumption that the hierarchical likelihood fully marginalizes over catalog selection effects, waveform modeling uncertainties, and detector noise such that no residual systematic shifts the memory-enhancement-factor posterior; no validation tests, sensitivity analyses, or explicit checks against injected memory signals are described, making this assumption load-bearing for both the numerical constraint and the scaling projection.

    Authors: The hierarchical likelihood is formulated to marginalize over per-event parameters while incorporating selection effects through the detection probability term and using the standard GWTC-5.0 posterior samples that already account for waveform and noise modeling. We acknowledge, however, that the manuscript would benefit from explicit validation. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection presenting sensitivity analyses to selection effects, waveform uncertainties, and injection-recovery tests with simulated memory signals to confirm that no residual systematics bias the memory-enhancement-factor posterior or the scaling forecast. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper derives its central posterior constraint (0.26_{-4.08}^{+4.09} on the memory enhancement factor) via hierarchical Bayesian inference applied directly to the external GWTC-5.0 catalog. This is an independent data-driven measurement rather than a self-fit, self-definition, or reduction to prior inputs by construction. The ~2000-event forecast is a forward projection under stated model assumptions and does not collapse to any fitted subset or self-citation chain. No load-bearing self-citations, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results appear in the derivation; the analysis remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis treats the memory enhancement factor as a free parameter to be inferred from data and assumes the memory effect is captured by scaling the supermomentum flux term by this constant.

free parameters (1)
  • memory enhancement factor = 0.26 with 68% interval -4.08 to +4.09
    This constant is the central quantity being fitted to the hierarchical model of the observed events.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The gravitational wave memory effect can be parameterized by a single constant multiplier on the supermomentum flux contribution to the strain.
    This parameterization defines the quantity being constrained and is invoked to interpret the result as a test of GR.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5839 in / 1358 out tokens · 49322 ms · 2026-06-29T15:29:06.085156+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

145 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · 55 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hyperpriors that are used in the population analysis

    Primary mass The primary mass is supported on[ mmin,m max] = [3, 300]M⊙and described by a three-component mixture 10 TABLE I. Hyperpriors that are used in the population analysis. All hyperparameters carry independent uniform priors except for the mass-mixture weights, which are instead drawn from a flat Dirichlet. The bounds on the memory hyperparameters...

  2. [2]

    Mass ratio The mass ratioq≡m2/m1≤1follows a power law conditioned on the primary mass, p(q|m1,β)∝qβ onq∈[m min/m1,1],(A7) with the lower edge enforcingm2≥mmin = 3M⊙

  3. [3]

    For this we use a flatΛCDM cosmology with H0 = 67.90km/s/Mpc and Ωm = 0.3065, consistent with Planck 2015 [107], and restrict the support toz∈[0,2.5]

    Redshift The redshift distribution scales as a power law in1 +z that is multiplied by the differential comoving volume per source-frame time, p(z|λz)∝(1 +z)λz−1dVc dz ,(A8) where the factor of(1 +z)−1converts the detector-frame rate of mergers to the source frame. For this we use a flatΛCDM cosmology with H0 = 67.90km/s/Mpc and Ωm = 0.3065, consistent wit...

    2015

  4. [4]

    non-independently but identically distributed

    Spin tilts The cosines of the spin tilt angles, cosθ1,cosθ2 ∈ [−1, 1], are jointly modeled as a mixture between an isotropic component uniform on[−1, 1]2 with density1/4, and a product of[−1, 1]-truncated Gaussians with shared meanµθand widthσθ, p(cosθ1,cosθ2|Λθ) = fiso 4 (A9) + (1−fiso) 2∏ i=1 N[−1,1](cosθi|µθ,σθ). This is the “non-independently but iden...

  5. [5]

    Spin magnitudes The two dimensionless spin magnitudesχi are modeled using independent and identically distributed truncated Gaussians on[0,1], p(χi|µχ,σχ) =N [0,1](χi|µχ,σχ), i∈{1,2},(A10) with shared mean and width across the two components. 11

  6. [6]

    (3.17), which is evaluated as a Monte-Carlo average over the LVK Collaboration’s cu- mulative O1–O4a simulated-injection campaign [108, 109]

    Selection function Possible selection effects are accounted for through the detection efficiencyξ(Λ)in Eq. (3.17), which is evaluated as a Monte-Carlo average over the LVK Collaboration’s cu- mulative O1–O4a simulated-injection campaign [108, 109]. Both this Monte-Carlo sum and the per-eventN-sample sums approximatingLi(Λ)in Eq. (3.16) are combined with s...

  7. [7]

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

    Clifford M. Will, “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment,” Living Rev. Rel.17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameterized Tests

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameter- ized Tests,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. III. Tests of the Remnants

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. III. Tests of the Remnants,” (2026), arXiv:2603.19021 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity,

    Marc H. Goroff and Augusto Sagnotti, “The Ultraviolet Behavior of Einstein Gravity,” Nucl. Phys. B266, 709– 736 (1986)

    1986

  12. [12]

    Radiation of gravitational waves by a cluster of superdense stars,

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and A. G. Polnarev, “Radiation of gravitational waves by a cluster of superdense stars,” Sov. Astron.18, 17 (1974)

    1974

  13. [13]

    Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational wave experiments,

    D. Christodoulou, “Nonlinear nature of gravitation and gravitational wave experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 1486–1489 (1991)

    1991

  14. [14]

    Hereditary effects in gravitational radiation,

    Luc Blanchet and Thibault Damour, “Hereditary effects in gravitational radiation,” Phys. Rev. D46, 4304–4319 (1992)

    1992

  15. [15]

    Christodoulou’s nonlinear gravitational wave memory: Evaluation in the quadrupole approximation,

    Alan G. Wiseman and Clifford M. Will, “Christodoulou’s nonlinear gravitational wave memory: Evaluation in the quadrupole approximation,” Phys. Rev. D44, R2945– R2949 (1991)

    1991

  16. [16]

    Gravitational-wave bursts with memory: The christodoulou effect,

    Kip S. Thorne, “Gravitational-wave bursts with memory: The christodoulou effect,” Phys. Rev. D45, 520–524 (1992)

    1992

  17. [17]

    Evidence for a New Soft Graviton Theorem

    Freddy Cachazo and Andrew Strominger, “Evidence for a New Soft Graviton Theorem,” (2014), arXiv:1404.4091 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  18. [18]

    New Gravitational Memories

    Sabrina Pasterski, Andrew Strominger, and Alexander Zhiboedov, “New Gravitational Memories,” JHEP12, 053 (2016), arXiv:1502.06120 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Center-of-mass angular momentum and memory effect in asymptotically flat spacetimes

    David A. Nichols, “Center-of-mass angular momentum and memory effect in asymptotically flat spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D98, 064032 (2018), arXiv:1807.08767 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Persistent gravitational wave observables: general framework,

    Éanna É. Flanagan, Alexander M. Grant, Abraham I. Harte, and David A. Nichols, “Persistent gravitational wave observables: general framework,” Phys. Rev. D99, 084044 (2019), arXiv:1901.00021 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Persistent gravitational wave observables: Nonlinear plane wave spacetimes,

    Éanna É. Flanagan, Alexander M. Grant, Abraham I. Harte, and David A. Nichols, “Persistent gravitational wave observables: Nonlinear plane wave spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D101, 104033 (2020), arXiv:1912.13449 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Persis- tent gravitational wave observables: Curve deviation in asymptotically flat spacetimes,

    Alexander M. Grant and David A. Nichols, “Persis- tent gravitational wave observables: Curve deviation in asymptotically flat spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D105, 024056 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 109902 (2023)], arXiv:2109.03832 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Persistent gravitational wave ob- servables: Nonlinearities in (non-)geodesic deviation,

    Alexander M. Grant, “Persistent gravitational wave ob- servables: Nonlinearities in (non-)geodesic deviation,” (2023), arXiv:2401.00047 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    SMARR’S ZERO FREQUENCY LIMIT CALCULATION,

    P. N. Payne, “SMARR’S ZERO FREQUENCY LIMIT CALCULATION,” Phys. Rev. D28, 1894–1897 (1983)

    1983

  25. [25]

    Luc Blanchet,Contribution à l’étude du rayonnement gravitationnel émis par un système isolé, Thèse d’habilitation à diriger des recherches, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (Paris VI), Paris, France (1990)

    1990

  26. [26]

    A perturbative and gauge invariant treatment of gravitational wave memory

    Lydia Bieri and David Garfinkle, “Perturbative and gauge invariant treatment of gravitational wave memory,” Phys. Rev. D89, 084039 (2014), arXiv:1312.6871 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

    Note on the Bondi- Metzner-Sachs group,

    E. T. Newman and R. Penrose, “Note on the Bondi- Metzner-Sachs group,” J. Math. Phys.7, 863–870 (1966)

    1966

  29. [29]

    Symplectic Geometry of Radiative Modes and Conserved Quantities at Null Infinity,

    A. Ashtekar and M. Streubel, “Symplectic Geometry of Radiative Modes and Conserved Quantities at Null Infinity,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376, 585–607 (1981)

    1981

  30. [30]

    Linkages in general relativity,

    Robert P. Geroch and J. Winicour, “Linkages in general relativity,” J. Math. Phys.22, 803–812 (1981)

    1981

  31. [31]

    Angular momentum at null infinity,

    T. Dray and M. Streubel, “Angular momentum at null infinity,” Class. Quant. Grav.1, 15–26 (1984). 12

    1984

  32. [32]

    GEODESIC DEVIATION AT NULL INFINITYANDTHEPHYSICALEFFECTSOFVERY LONG WAVE GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION,

    M. Ludvigsen, “GEODESIC DEVIATION AT NULL INFINITYANDTHEPHYSICALEFFECTSOFVERY LONG WAVE GRAVITATIONAL RADIATION,” Gen. Rel. Grav.21, 1205–1212 (1989)

    1989

  33. [33]

    Observer dependence of angular momentum in general relativity and its relationship to the gravitational-wave memory effect

    Éanna É. Flanagan and David A. Nichols, “Observer de- pendence of angular momentum in general relativity and its relationship to the gravitational-wave memory effect,” Phys. Rev. D92, 084057 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 93, 049905 (2016)], arXiv:1411.4599 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  34. [34]

    Infrared photons and gravitons,

    Steven Weinberg, “Infrared photons and gravitons,” Phys. Rev.140, B516–B524 (1965)

    1965

  35. [35]

    On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering

    Andrew Strominger, “On BMS Invariance of Gravitational Scattering,” JHEP07, 152 (2014), arXiv:1312.2229 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  36. [36]

    Gravitational Memory, BMS Supertranslations and Soft Theorems

    Andrew Strominger and Alexander Zhiboedov, “Gravi- tational Memory, BMS Supertranslations and Soft The- orems,” JHEP01, 086 (2016), arXiv:1411.5745 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  37. [37]

    Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms,

    Keefe Mitmanet al., “Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D104, 024051 (2021), arXiv:2105.02300 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms with BMS charges,

    Keefe Mitmanet al., “Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms with BMS charges,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 084029 (2022), arXiv:2208.04356 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Andrew Strominger,Lectures on the Infrared Structure of Gravity and Gauge Theory(2017) arXiv:1703.05448 [hep-th]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Lectures on Celestial Holography,

    Ana-Maria Raclariu, “Lectures on Celestial Holography,” (2021), arXiv:2107.02075 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Celestial Holography,

    Sabrina Pasterski, Monica Pate, and Ana-Maria Raclariu, “Celestial Holography,” inSnowmass 2021 (2021) arXiv:2111.11392 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Lectures on celestial amplitudes,

    Sabrina Pasterski, “Lectures on celestial amplitudes,” Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1062 (2021), arXiv:2108.04801 [hep- th]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Infrared finite scattering theory in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,

    Kartik Prabhu, Gautam Satishchandran, and Robert M. Wald, “Infrared finite scattering theory in quantum field theory and quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D106, 066005 (2022), arXiv:2203.14334 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  46. [46]

    Overview of KAGRA: De- tector design and construction history,

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Detecting gravitational-wave memory with LIGO: implications of GW150914

    Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, Yuri Levin, Jonathan Black- man, and Yanbei Chen, “Detecting gravitational-wave memory with LIGO: implications of GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1605.01415 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    Measuring gravitational-wave memory in the first LIGO/Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,

    Moritz Hübner, Colm Talbot, Paul D. Lasky, and Eric Thrane, “Measuring gravitational-wave memory in the first LIGO/Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,” Phys. Rev. D101, 023011 (2020), arXiv:1911.12496 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Forecasts for detecting the gravitational-wave memory effect with Advanced LIGO and Virgo,

    Oliver M. Boersma, David A. Nichols, and Patricia Schmidt, “Forecasts for detecting the gravitational-wave memory effect with Advanced LIGO and Virgo,” Phys. Rev. D101, 083026 (2020), arXiv:2002.01821 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Mem- ory remains undetected: Updates from the second LIGO/Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,

    Moritz Hübner, Paul Lasky, and Eric Thrane, “Mem- ory remains undetected: Updates from the second LIGO/Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog,” Phys. Rev. D104, 023004 (2021), arXiv:2105.02879 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Outlook for detecting the gravitational-wave displacement and spin memory effects with current and future gravitational- wave detectors,

    Alexander M. Grant and David A. Nichols, “Outlook for detecting the gravitational-wave displacement and spin memory effects with current and future gravitational- wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D107, 064056 (2023), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 029901 (2023)], arXiv:2210.16266 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Does spacetime have memories? Searching for gravitational-wave memory in the third LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA gravitational-wave transient catalogue,

    Shun Yin Cheung, Paul D. Lasky, and Eric Thrane, “Does spacetime have memories? Searching for gravitational-wave memory in the third LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA gravitational-wave transient catalogue,” Class. Quant. Grav.41, 115010 (2024), arXiv:2404.11919 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Gravitational-wave memory: waveforms and phenomenology

    Colm Talbot, Eric Thrane, Paul D. Lasky, and Fuhui Lin, “Gravitational-wave memory: waveforms and phenomenology,” Phys. Rev. D98, 064031 (2018), arXiv:1807.00990 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Hierarchical test of general relativity with grav- itational waves,

    Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, and Will M. Farr, “Hierarchical test of general relativity with grav- itational waves,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 121101 (2019), arXiv:1904.08011 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources

    Aaron Zimmerman, Carl-Johan Haster, and Katerina Chatziioannou, “On combining information from multi- ple gravitational wave sources,” Phys. Rev. D99, 124044 (2019), arXiv:1903.11008 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  56. [56]

    Comparing Bayes factors and hierarchical inference for testing general relativity with gravitational waves,

    Maximiliano Isi, Will M. Farr, and Katerina Chatziioan- nou, “Comparing Bayes factors and hierarchical inference for testing general relativity with gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D106, 024048 (2022), arXiv:2204.10742 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Fortifying gravitational-wave tests of general relativity against astrophysical assumptions,

    Ethan Payne, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, and Will M. Farr, “Fortifying gravitational-wave tests of general relativity against astrophysical assumptions,” Phys. Rev. D108, 124060 (2023), arXiv:2309.04528 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  58. [58]

    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: UpdatingtheGravitational-WaveTransient 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 Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    The gravitational-wave memory effect

    Marc Favata, “The gravitational-wave memory effect,” Class. Quant. Grav.27, 084036 (2010), arXiv:1003.3486 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  60. [60]

    Gravitational memory in binary black hole mergers

    Denis Pollney and Christian Reisswig, “Gravitational memory in binary black hole mergers,” Astrophys. J. Lett.732, L13 (2011), arXiv:1004.4209 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  61. [61]

    Computationofdisplacement and spin gravitational memory in numerical relativity,

    Keefe Mitman, Jordan Moxon, Mark A. Scheel, Saul A. Teukolsky, Michael Boyle, Nils Deppe, Lawrence E. Kid- der, andWilliamThrowe,“Computationofdisplacement and spin gravitational memory in numerical relativity,” Phys. Rev. D102, 104007 (2020), arXiv:2007.11562 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  62. [62]

    The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations,

    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

  63. [63]

    Cauchy-characteristic extraction in numerical relativity

    Nigel T. Bishop, Roberto Gomez, Luis Lehner, and Jeffrey Winicour, “Cauchy-characteristic extraction in numericalrelativity,”Phys.Rev.D54,6153–6165(1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9705033

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  64. [64]

    High-powered Gravitational News

    Nigel T. Bishop, Roberto Gomez, Luis Lehner, Manoj Maharaj, and Jeffrey Winicour, “High powered grav- 13 itational news,” Phys. Rev. D56, 6298–6309 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9708065

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  65. [65]

    Cauchy-characteristic matching

    Nigel T. Bishop, Roberto Gomez, Luis Lehner, Bela Szilagyi, Jeffrey Winicour, and Richard A. Isaacson, “Cauchy characteristic matching,” inBlack Holes, Gravi- tational Radiation and the Universe: Essays in Honor of C.V. Vishveshwara, edited by Bala R. Iyer and B. Bhawal (1998) pp. 383–408, arXiv:gr-qc/9801070

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  66. [66]

    Characteristic extraction in numerical relativity: binary black hole merger waveforms at null infinity

    C. Reisswig, N. T. Bishop, D. Pollney, and B. Szilagyi, “Characteristic extraction in numerical relativity: binary black hole merger waveforms at null infinity,” Class. Quant. Grav.27, 075014 (2010), arXiv:0912.1285 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  67. [67]

    Unambiguous determination of gravitational waveforms from binary black hole mergers

    C. Reisswig, N. T. Bishop, D. Pollney, and B. Szilagyi, “Unambiguous determination of gravitational waveforms from binary black hole mergers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 221101 (2009), arXiv:0907.2637 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  68. [68]

    A Characteristic Extraction Tool for Gravitational Waveforms

    M. C. Babiuc, B. Szilagyi, J. Winicour, and Y. Zlo- chower, “A Characteristic Extraction Tool for Gravi- tational Waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D84, 044057 (2011), arXiv:1011.4223 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  69. [69]

    Spectral Characteristic Evolution: A New Algorithm for Gravitational Wave Propagation

    Casey J. Handmer and B. Szilagyi, “Spectral Charac- teristic Evolution: A New Algorithm for Gravitational Wave Propagation,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 025008 (2015), arXiv:1406.7029 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  70. [70]

    Gauge Invariant Spectral Cauchy Characteristic Extraction

    Casey J. Handmer, Béla Szilágyi, and Jeffrey Wini- cour, “Gauge Invariant Spectral Cauchy Characteristic Extraction,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 235018 (2015), arXiv:1502.06987 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  71. [71]

    Spectral Cauchy Characteristic Extraction of strain, news and gravitational radiation flux

    Casey J. Handmer, Béla Szilágyi, and Jeffrey Winicour, “Spectral Cauchy Characteristic Extraction of strain, news and gravitational radiation flux,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, 225007 (2016), arXiv:1605.04332 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  72. [72]

    Improved Cauchy-characteristic evolution system for high-precision numerical relativity waveforms,

    Jordan Moxon, Mark A. Scheel, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “Improved Cauchy-characteristic evolution system for high-precision numerical relativity waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D102, 044052 (2020), arXiv:2007.01339 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    SpECTRE Cauchy- characteristic evolution system for rapid, precise wave- form 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 wave- form extraction,” Phys. Rev. D107, 064013 (2023), arXiv:2110.08635 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Effective-one-body model for black-hole binaries with generic mass ratios and spins

    Andrea Taracchiniet al., “Effective-one-body model for black-hole binaries with generic mass ratios and spins,” Phys. Rev. D89, 061502 (2014), arXiv:1311.2544 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  75. [75]

    Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms of spinning, precessing black-hole binaries in the effective-one-body formalism

    Yi Pan, Alessandra Buonanno, Andrea Taracchini, Lawrence E. Kidder, Abdul H. Mroué, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Mark A. Scheel, and Béla Szilágyi, “Inspiral-merger- ringdown waveforms of spinning, precessing black-hole binaries in the effective-one-body formalism,” Phys. Rev. D89, 084006 (2014), arXiv:1307.6232 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  76. [76]

    A simple model of complete precessing black-hole-binary gravitational waveforms

    Mark Hannam, Patricia Schmidt, Alejandro Bohé, Leïla Haegel, Sascha Husa, Frank Ohme, Geraint Pratten, and Michael Pürrer, “Simple Model of Complete Precessing Black-Hole-Binary Gravitational Waveforms,” Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 151101 (2014), arXiv:1308.3271 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  77. [77]

    An improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors

    Alejandro Bohéet al., “Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with ad- vanced detectors,” Phys. Rev. D95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  78. [78]

    Multipolar Effective-One-Body Waveforms for Precessing Binary Black Holes: Construc- tion and Validation,

    Serguei Ossokineet al., “Multipolar Effective-One-Body Waveforms for Precessing Binary Black Holes: Construc- tion and Validation,” Phys. Rev. D102, 044055 (2020), arXiv:2004.09442 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Surrogate models 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. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with un- equal masses,” Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and sub-dominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

    Geraint Prattenet al., “Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.