Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

PhenomXPNR: An improved gravitational wave model linking precessing inspirals and NR-calibrated merger-ringdown

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new frequency-domain waveform model claims to be the most accurate for precessing black-hole mergers, combining spin-precession inspiral physics with numerical-relativity-calibrated merger-ringdown.

desk verdict PhenomXPNR is a real, useful step forward in FD precessing waveform modeling, with a clear accuracy claim backed by a large external mismatch study, but the headline 'most accurate' claim is partly an artifact of averaging and the single-spin mapping's weakest corner is not directly validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02604 v1 pith:7LV3VVRJ submitted 2025-07-03 gr-qc

Eleanor Hamilton , Marta Colleoni , Jonathan E. Thompson , Charlie Hoy , Anna Heffernan , Meryl Kinnear , Jorge Valencia , Felip A Ramis Vidal
show 5 more authors
Cecilio García-Quirós Shrobana Ghosh Lionel London Mark Hannam Sascha Husa
This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholesspinprecessionwaveformmodelsfrequencydomainnumericalrelativityparameterestimationPhenomXPNR
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper introduces PhenomXPNR, a frequency-domain gravitational-wave model for quasi-circular precessing black-hole binaries, and claims it is the most accurate inspiral-merger-ringdown model of its kind. The model combines a post-Newtonian SpinTaylor evolution of the precession angles through inspiral with merger-ringdown angles calibrated to numerical relativity, connected by a mapping that turns any two-spin configuration into an effective single-spin system at the moment of merger. It also includes a model of the asymmetry between the dominant positive and negative multipoles, which matters for recoil and for parameter recovery. The authors find that for heavy, near-face-on binaries PhenomXPNR recovers unbiased source properties where older frequency-domain models fail, while remaining far cheaper to evaluate than time-domain models.

What carries the argument

The central object is the twisting-up decomposition of a precessing waveform into an aligned-spin co-precessing waveform plus a set of Euler angles $\{\alpha,\beta,\gamma\}$ that rotate it into the inertial frame. The angle model is the load-bearing piece: $\alpha$ and $\beta$ follow the SpinTaylor post-Newtonian equations through inspiral and then an NR-calibrated rational ansatz through merger and ringdown, with a smooth connecting function. The single-spin mapping in Eqs. (3)--(6) is what lets this hybrid work: at the transition frequency it computes an effective spin magnitude $\chi$ and tilt angle $\theta_{LS}$ from the full two-spin state, so the single-spin NR calibration can be evaluated for any binary. The multipole asymmetry model for the $(2,\pm2)$ modes is added in the co-precessing frame and rotated to the inertial frame. Together these ingredients produce the improved accuracy claims.

What would settle it

Take a set of two-spin numerical-relativity waveforms with near-equal masses and spins arranged to cancel in the orbital plane; if PhenomXPNR mismatches those waveforms above the distinguishability threshold for signal-to-noise ratio 20 in more than a small fraction of cases, the single-spin mapping is not capturing two-spin merger physics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

PhenomXPNR's central claim is that a frequency-domain model can carry the full precession physics of a binary through merger and ringdown by fusing two previously separate ingredients: the SpinTaylor post-Newtonian angle evolution, which tracks two-spin oscillations accurately through inspiral, and an NR-calibrated phenomenological description of the Euler angles and co-precessing multipoles through merger and ringdown. The link is a single-spin mapping evaluated at the inspiral-to-merger transition frequency, which converts the full two-spin state into the effective spin magnitude and tilt that the NR-calibrated formulas require. On a large mismatch study against numerical relativity surrogates, the paper finds the model performs best for face-on and face-off systems, is slightly better on average than its predecessors, and in selected high-mass parameter-estimation injections recovers the true masses and spins where other models are biased. The paper concludes that PhenomXPNR supersedes previous frequency-domain precessing models, though time-domain models retain an average accuracy advantage for edge-on signals.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that at the transition to merger every two-spin binary is faithfully replaced by a single spinning black hole with an effective spin magnitude and tilt, and that this replacement preserves the precession information the numerical-relativity calibration needs.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Parameter-estimation analyses of heavy, near-face-on precessing binaries should recover unbiased masses and spins where older frequency-domain models fell short.
  • Catalog-scale analyses can adopt PhenomXPNR without sacrificing accuracy, since its frequency-domain likelihood remains roughly three to six times faster per evaluation than the leading time-domain model.
  • The dominant multipole asymmetry model measurably lowers mismatch against numerical relativity across the calibration space, improving recoil and spin estimates.
  • For edge-on binaries, higher-multipole effects keep the frequency-domain model about a factor of two worse on average than time-domain alternatives.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the single-spin mapping holds across the full two-spin space, the same construction could be reused to add NR-calibrated merger-ringdown to other frequency-domain models without new calibration runs.
  • The large precession recovered for GW200129 by some models but not by PhenomXPNR suggests that higher-order multipole asymmetries, absent here, may be required; testing that would discriminate between models.
  • A targeted two-spin NR campaign scanning near-equal-mass configurations with anti-aligned in-plane spins would probably expose the mapping's failure boundary, since the in-plane spin sum can cancel there.
  • Because the frequency-domain higher-multipole angles are obtained by frequency rescaling, improving that approximation is the most direct route to closing the edge-on accuracy gap.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents PhenomXPNR, a frequency-domain phenomenological waveform model for quasi-circular precessing binary black holes. It combines the SpinTaylor two-spin precession dynamics through the inspiral with the NR-calibrated merger-ringdown Euler-angle model of PhenomXO4a, connected by a new single-spin mapping defined in Eqs. (3)-(6), and adds a model for the dominant (2,±2) multipole asymmetries. The authors validate the model through Euler-angle comparisons against NR, a large mismatch study against NRSur7dq4 over approximately 4100 configurations, parameter-estimation studies on simulated and real signals (CF54, a high-mass NRSur7dq4 injection, GW190412, and GW200129), and timing benchmarks. They conclude that PhenomXPNR is the most accurate IMR frequency-domain model for non-eccentric precessing binaries and is competitive with time-domain models for face-on/face-off systems.

Significance. If the headline accuracy claims hold, this is a valuable incremental contribution to gravitational-wave modeling: it is the first semi-analytic frequency-domain precessing model with NR calibration in the precessing sector and with dominant multipole asymmetries, and the code has been reviewed and included in LALSuite. The large NRSur7dq4 mismatch study, the real-event parameter-estimation comparisons, and the timing benchmarks are useful resources for the community. The model's efficiency (at most 1.9x slower than PhenomXPHM-SpinTaylor per likelihood evaluation, and 3.1-6.6x faster than SEOBNRv5PHM) is practically important for catalog-scale analyses. However, the improvement over predecessors is modest in aggregate, and several validation steps are partly circular or under-sampled in the parameter-space region most sensitive to the new single-spin mapping, so the strength of the central claim currently exceeds the evidence.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eqs. (3)-(6); Sec. IV C] The single-spin mapping in Eqs. (3)-(6) is the load-bearing bridge between the two-spin inspiral dynamics and the single-spin NR-calibrated merger-ringdown model, but its direct validation is sparse: Fig. 1 uses only four BAM cases with moderate spins and Fig. 3 uses three SXS cases, two of which have small spin magnitudes. The large NRSur7dq4 mismatch study samples random two-spin configurations and averages over masses and inclinations, so a localized breakdown in the near-equal-mass, high-spin, near-antiparallel in-plane-spin corner---where the instantaneous vector sum in Eq. (6) can nearly cancel even when chi_p is large---could be masked. Please add targeted validation in this corner, for example by binning mismatches by (q, chi1, chi2, Delta-phi) or by comparing against additional two-spin NR waveforms with comparable, high-magnitude spins, and by testing the sensitivity of the mapped chi_perp to the choice of transition frequency.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 5] The demonstration that including the dominant multipole asymmetries improves accuracy is performed against the same 80 BAM simulations used to calibrate the model, and only for the (2,±2) multipoles in the co-precessing frame. Because the asymmetry parameters (the phase-transition parameter p and the phase offsets) are calibrated to these simulations, the observed improvement is partly circular and does not directly establish the inertial-frame accuracy benefit claimed in the abstract. Please provide a holdout validation, for example by comparing model versions with and without asymmetries against SXS or NRSur7dq4 waveforms not used in the calibration, or clearly restrict the claim to the calibration region.
  3. [Sec. IV C, Fig. 8 and text] The headline statement that PhenomXPNR 'supersedes all of its predecessors' rests on a small reduction in mean mismatch (0.00468 versus 0.00508 for PhenomXPHM-SpinTaylor and 0.00485 for PhenomXO4a) with no reported uncertainty, while Fig. 8 is described as 'largely symmetric' about the diagonal. As presented, the aggregate evidence is too weak to support the superlative claim. Please report the distribution of per-configuration differences, a bootstrap or significance test, and the fraction of configurations where PhenomXPNR improves over each predecessor by more than the relevant mismatch threshold.
  4. [Sec. IV C and Conclusions] The mismatch study covers only the NRSur7dq4 calibration range, with q in [0.25,1] (mass ratio Q up to 4) and dimensionless spin magnitudes up to 0.8, yet the abstract and conclusions make unqualified claims about 'non-eccentric BBH' signals and 'the most accurate IMR FD model.' Since the model's precessing calibration and the smooth transitions described in Secs. III B and III E extend to larger mass ratios, the central claim should be explicitly scoped to the tested parameter range, or additional validation at higher mass ratios and spin magnitudes should be provided.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III F] The word 'descbribed' should be 'described'.
  2. [Sec. III E] In the text preceding Eq. (18), 'it's derivative' should be 'its derivative'.
  3. [Sec. V] The sentence 'In Sec. ??, we have demonstrated...' contains an unresolved cross-reference; the section number should be filled in.
  4. [Sec. IV E, Fig. 14] The model label 'PhenomXPNR-ST' appears to refer to PhenomXPHM-SpinTaylor; please clarify the naming to avoid confusion with PhenomXPNR.
  5. [Sec. IV D 2, Fig. 12] The statement that PhenomXPNR 'more accurately captures the binary's true mass ratio and total mass than NRSur7dq4 despite the simulation being made with NRSur7dq4' is potentially misleading because the comparison is on a marginalized two-dimensional slice and the authors note that NRSur7dq4 has higher overall evidence; please add an explicit qualifier that this refers to the marginalized slice only.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Central accuracy claims are benchmarked against external NRSur7dq4 and SXS data, but two supporting validations (asymmetry improvement and the CF54 injection) are evaluated on the model's own BAM calibration set, so the paper is only mildly circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV B (Asymmetry model accuracy), Fig. 5]
    "We compute the mismatch between the model and the 80 BAM NR simulations [39] used in calibrating the model. ... We demonstrate that the mismatches between PhenomXPNR and the BAM NR simulations show noticeable improvement with the inclusion of mode asymmetries across the parameter space of calibration."

    The improvement attributed to mode asymmetries is measured on the same 80 BAM simulations that calibrated the model. Section III C states that the antisymmetric-phase parameter p and phase offsets are 'obtained by calibrating to single-spin NR simulations' (Ref. [36]), so Fig. 5 reports in-sample fit quality, not an independent prediction. Adding fitted asymmetry terms will generally reduce training-set mismatch even if the terms do not generalize, so the figure cannot by itself support the claim that the asymmetry model improves accuracy.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV D 1 (Simulated gravitational wave signals), CF54 injection]
    "We inject CF 54 provided by the BAM catalogue [39] with component masses m1 = 48 M⊙ and m2 = 12 M⊙, primary spin magnitude a1 = 0.6 tilted at angle θ1 = 2π/3 rad and a secondary spin of 0. ... This simulation was selected since we observed an order of magnitude better performance (in terms of mismatches) for PhenomXPNR compared to PhenomXPHM-SpinTaylor and PhenomXO4a."

    CF54 belongs to the BAM catalogue [39] that supplied the 80 single-spin precessing simulations used to calibrate the merger-ringdown ansatz and co-precessing multipoles. The injection is therefore an in-sample waveform, and it was explicitly selected for PhenomXPNR's low mismatch. The resulting parameter-recovery comparison cannot independently demonstrate reduced bias; it is a favorable calibration-set example, although it does not affect the externally benchmarked NRSur7dq4 and SXS comparisons.

full rationale

The central claim that PhenomXPNR is the most accurate FD IMR model for non-eccentric precessing BBHs is supported chiefly by external benchmarks: the ~4100-binary mismatch study against NRSur7dq4 (Sec. IV C), comparisons to SXS NR waveforms (Sec. IV A), external two-spin BAM cases in Fig. 1, and analyses of the real events GW190412 and GW200129. These are not circular because NRSur7dq4 and SXS were not used to calibrate the model. The single-spin mapping of Eqs. (3)-(6) is an ansatz rather than a derivation, and it is tested against two-spin NR waveforms outside the 80-simulation calibration set, so no equation reduces to its own input by construction. The genuinely in-sample elements are Fig. 5, which evaluates the asymmetry model on the calibration set, and the CF54 parameter-estimation study, which injects a waveform from the same BAM catalogue used for calibration and was selected for its favorable mismatch. These two demonstrations are partly circular and should be read as calibration fidelity checks rather than independent predictions. The paper itself flags in Sec. IV C that higher-multipole modelling assumptions may need reassessment for frequency-domain precessing systems, and the conclusions contain a dangling 'Sec. ??' cross-reference; these are limitations and formatting defects, not additional circularity. Overall the main derivation and headline accuracy comparison remain independent, so a low-moderate circularity score is appropriate.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

PhenomXPNR is an empirically calibrated model, not a derivation. Its reported accuracy rests on fitted coefficients, on the single-spin mapping, on the post-Newtonian evolution, and on the assumption that the chosen ansatz forms extrapolate smoothly across parameter space. The listed free parameters are calibration coefficients and hand-chosen transition boundaries; they do not by themselves make the headline validation circular, because the main mismatch benchmark is external NRSur7dq4 data, but the calibration-set checks reported in Figs. 5 and 11 carry a circularity burden.

free parameters (5)
  • NR-calibrated deviations u_k to co-precessing PhenomXAS coefficients
    Eq. (7) modifies each aligned-spin model coefficient lambda_k by chi sin(theta_LS) u_k; the u_k are calibrated to single-spin NR simulations and encode the precession correction to the dominant multipole.
  • Merger-ringdown angle ansatz coefficients A_i and B_i
    Eqs. (15) and (16) are fitted to 80 single-spin BAM simulations as functions of q, chi and theta_LS; these fits define the NR-calibrated Euler angles through merger and ringdown.
  • Antisymmetric amplitude correction kappa(f)
    The dominant-multipole asymmetry amplitude is a post-Newtonian estimate plus an NR-calibrated correction (Sec. III C), fitted to single-spin NR simulations.
  • Asymmetry phase transition parameter p and phase offsets
    The parameter p in Eq. (13) and the phase offsets ensuring smooth phase transition are described as obtained by calibrating to single-spin NR simulations, as discussed in Sec. III C.
  • Transition-region boundaries and clamping values
    The mass-ratio and spin boundaries over which the calibrated model transitions to analytic extensions, and the clamping rule in Eq. (22) with eta_b and chi_b, are chosen by hand to avoid pathologies outside the calibration region (Secs. III B and III E).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Twisting-up approximation: a precessing waveform can be represented by an aligned-spin co-precessing waveform plus a time- and frequency-dependent Euler rotation.
    Invoked in the model outline in Sec. III and inherited from Ref. [11]; the entire precessing model construction depends on this approximate decomposition.
  • domain assumption Any two-spin binary can be mapped to an equivalent single-spin configuration at the merger-ringdown transition frequency for the purpose of applying the NR-calibrated angle model.
    Sec. III A, Eqs. (3)-(6): the mapped chi and cos(theta_LS) are used to evaluate fits calibrated only to single-spin NR simulations, so this reduction must hold for the central accuracy claim.
  • domain assumption The SpinTaylorT4 post-Newtonian evolution of the precession angles is accurate enough through inspiral, including the spin values it produces at the transition frequency.
    Sec. III E relies on the 3.5PN SpinTaylorT4 phasing with 3PN spin effects to generate alpha and beta and to set the merger-ringdown ansatz inputs.
  • domain assumption Higher-order multipole precession angles can be obtained by a frequency rescaling of the ell=2 angle model.
    Sec. III F, Eqs. (23)-(24): the paper itself attributes the degraded edge-on performance to this approximation, so it is load-bearing for the full-multipole accuracy claim.
  • domain assumption NRSur7dq4 is an accurate enough proxy for numerical relativity in the mismatch validation.
    Sec. IV C states that NRSur7dq4 is typically an order of magnitude more accurate than other models and uses it as the reference for the 4100-configuration mismatch study.
  • ad hoc to paper The chosen functional ansatz forms for the merger-ringdown angles are flexible enough to capture the true NR behavior.
    Eqs. (15) and (16) have no derivation; the Lorentzian-like and rational forms are selected to fit the 80 BAM simulations, so the accuracy claim inherits the adequacy of these ansatz choices.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PhenomXPNR: An improved gravitational wave model linking precessing inspirals and NR-calibrated merger-ringdown." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7LV3VVRJ

@misc{pith2026250702604,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PhenomXPNR: An improved gravitational wave model linking precessing inspirals and NR-calibrated merger-ringdown},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7LV3VVRJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02604}
}
read the original abstract

We present the frequency-domain quasi-circular precessing binary-black-hole model PhenomXPNR. This model combines the most precise available post-Newtonian description of the evolution of the precession dynamics through inspiral with merger-ringdown model informed by numerical relativity. This, along with a phenomenological model of the dominant multipole asymmetries, results in the most accurate and complete representation of the physics of precessing binaries natively in the frequency-domain to date. All state-of-the-art precessing models show bias when inferring binary parameters in certain regions of the parameter space. We demonstrate that the developments presented ensure that for some precessing systems PhenomXPNR shows the least degree of bias. Further, as a phenomenological, frequency-domain model, PhenomXPNR remains one of the most computationally efficient models available and is therefore well-suited to the era of gravitational-wave astronomy with its ever growing rate of detected signals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02604 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the Euler angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Signed error on the remnant spin magnitudes predicted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of the new [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. TD comparisons between the NR simulation SXS:1640 and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mismatch comparisons of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Histogram showing the value of the mismatch value for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Comparison of the performance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. We consider the variation in performance of three models, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Variation of the mismatch value averaged across all incli [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Comparison between the two-dimensional marginalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Comparison between the two-dimensional marginalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Comparison between posterior distributions obtained when analysing real gravitational wave events. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Waveform evaluation timing for four different FD models: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_14.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Comparison between likelihood evaluation times for vary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Compactness Inference in Gravitational-Wave Mergers with PhenomDECO: Catalog Benchmarks and Robustness Diagnostics

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PhenomDECO analysis of GWTC-3 events finds all considered signals consistent with binary black holes once low-frequency noise effects are addressed via higher starting frequencies.

  2. Advancing the Effective-One-Body Framework in the Test-Mass Limit

    gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SEOB-TML cuts dephasing by up to an order of magnitude in the test-mass limit by Q-factorizing the flux (including horizon absorption) and by modeling mode mixing with extracted QNM coefficients.

  3. Reconsidering the consistent use of precessing, higher order multipole models for gravitational wave analyses

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A matched-filter SNR threshold on precession and higher-multipole content can select cheaper waveform models per event while keeping inferred black-hole mass and spin populations consistent, cutting analysis cost by t...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Simulated gravitational wave signals First, we assess the performance ofPhenomXPNR for gravi- tational wave simulations of known parameters. We pay partic- ular attention to the improvement ofPhenomXPNR compared to its predecessor PhenomXPHM-SpinTaylor to highlight the enhancements that we have implemented as part of this work. We consider two binary blac...

  2. [2]

    Observed gravitational wave signals Next we consider the performance ofPhenomXPNR for real gravitational wave signals. We analyse two signals that show waveform systematics between published posterior distribu- tions, and have claimed evidence for precession of the orbital plane [66, 67]: GW190412 [65, 68] and GW200129 [32, 69]2. 1 Aside from NRSur7dq4, w...

  3. [4]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., Living reviews in relativity 23, 1 (2020)

    2020

  4. [5]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084007 (2010)

    2010

  5. [6]

    Hild et al

    S. Hild et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2017

  7. [8]

    Reitze et al

    D. Reitze et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [9]

    T. A. Apostolatos, C. Cutler, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D49, 6274 (1994)

    1994

Show all 87 references
  1. [10]

    L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D52, 821 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9506022

    1995 arXiv

  2. [11]

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

    2016 arXiv

  3. [12]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Schmidt, M

    P. Schmidt, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D84, 024046 (2011), arXiv:1012.2879 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Schmidt, M

    P. Schmidt, M. Hannam, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104063 (2012), arXiv:1207.3088 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  6. [15]

    O’Shaughnessy, B

    R. O’Shaughnessy, B. Vaishnav, J. Healy, Z. Meeks, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124002 (2011), arXiv:1109.5224 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  7. [16]

    Boyle, R

    M. Boyle, R. Owen, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D84, 124011 (2011), arXiv:1110.2965 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos- 17 Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Colleoni, F

    M. Colleoni, F. A. Ramis Vidal, C. Garc ´ıa-Quir´os, S. Akc ¸ay, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. D111, 104019 (2025)

    2025

  10. [19]

    Estell ´es, M

    H. Estell ´es, M. Colleoni, C. Garc´ıa-Quir´os, S. Husa, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. d. L. Planas, and A. Ramos-Buades, Phys. Rev. D105, 084040 (2022), arXiv:2105.05872 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [20]

    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. D 108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello, and S. Neogi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024031 (2024), arXiv:2404.15408 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Garc ´ıa-Quir´os, M

    C. Garc ´ıa-Quir´os, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estell´es, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064002 (2020), arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Pratten et al

    G. Pratten et al. , Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [24]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsi- dou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D109, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2312.10025 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Os- sokine, L. Pompili, and A. Ramos-Buades, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124036 (2023), arXiv:2303.18143 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Pompili et al

    L. Pompili et al. , Phys. Rev. D 108, 124035 (2023), arXiv:2303.18039 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    van de Meent, A

    M. van de Meent, A. Buonanno, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124038 (2023), arXiv:2303.18026 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [28]

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

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064045 (2019), arXiv:1812.07865 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Research. 1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [31]

    J. Yoo, V. Varma, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, C.-J. Haster, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. E. Kidder, and M. Boyle, Phys. Rev. D106, 044001 (2022), arXiv:2203.10109 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Whittle, Journal of the Royal Statistical So- ciety: Series B (Methodological) 15, 125 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article- pdf/15/1/125/49093751/jrsssb 15 1 125.pdf

    P. Whittle, Journal of the Royal Statistical So- ciety: Series B (Methodological) 15, 125 (2018), https://academic.oup.com/jrsssb/article- pdf/15/1/125/49093751/jrsssb 15 1 125.pdf

    2018

  24. [33]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronomical So- ciety of Australia 36 (2019), 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    2019 doi

  25. [34]

    Abbott et al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbott et al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 051101 (2017), arXiv:1606.03117 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104004 (2017), arXiv:1703.03967 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Hamilton, L

    E. Hamilton, L. London, J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, M. Hannam, C. Kalaghatgi, S. Khan, F. Pannarale, and A. Vano- Vinuales, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124027 (2021), arXiv:2107.08876 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Ghosh, P

    S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024061 (2024), arXiv:2310.16980 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Ajith, M

    P. Ajith, M. Hannam, S. Husa, Y. Chen, B. Br¨ ugmann, N. Dor- band, D. M¨ uller, F. Ohme, D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, L. Santa- mar´ıa, and J. Seiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011)

    2011

  31. [40]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D91, 024043 (2015)

    2015

  32. [41]

    Hamilton et al

    E. Hamilton et al. , Phys. Rev. D 109, 044032 (2024), arXiv:2303.05419 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Hamilton, L

    E. Hamilton, L. London, and M. Hannam, (2023), arXiv:2301.06558 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [43]

    Bruegmann, J

    B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D77, 124047 (2008), arXiv:0707.0135 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Boyle, L

    M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, S. Ossokine, and H. P. Pfeiffer, (2014), arXiv:1409.4431 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [45]

    Kalaghatgi and M

    C. Kalaghatgi and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024024 (2021), arXiv:2008.09957 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Adding equatorial-asymmetric effects for spin-precessing binaries into the SEOBNRv5PHM waveform model,

    H. Estell ´es, A. Buonanno, R. Enficiaud, C. Foo, and L. Pom- pili, “Adding equatorial-asymmetric effects for spin-precessing binaries into the SEOBNRv5PHM waveform model,” (2025), in preparation

    2025

  38. [47]

    Mielke, S

    J. Mielke, S. Ghosh, A. Borchers, and F. Ohme, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064009 (2025), arXiv:2412.06913 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Jim ´enez-Forteza, D

    X. Jim ´enez-Forteza, D. Keitel, S. Husa, M. Hannam, S. Khan, and M. P¨ urrer, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064024 (2017), arXiv:1611.00332 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Boyle et al

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

    2019 arXiv

  41. [50]

    S. Khan, K. Chatziioannou, M. Hannam, and F. Ohme, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024059 (2019), arXiv:1809.10113 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Updated Advanced LIGO sensitivity design curve,

    LSC, “Updated Advanced LIGO sensitivity design curve,” https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800044/public, LIGO Document T1800044-v5

  43. [52]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    2020

  44. [53]

    Baird, S

    E. Baird, S. Fairhurst, M. Hannam, and P. Murphy, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024035 (2013), arXiv:1211.0546 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  45. [54]

    Skilling, Bayesian Anal

    J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006)

    2006

  46. [55]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soci- ety 493, 3132?3158 (2020)

    2020

  47. [56]

    Ashton et al

    G. Ashton et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [57]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Abbott et al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys

    R. Abbott et al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [59]

    Aasi et al

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

    2015 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Acernese et al

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

    2015 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Noise curves used for simulations in the update of the observing sce- narios paper,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, “Noise curves used for simulations in the update of the observing sce- narios paper,” DCC (2022)

    2022

  53. [62]

    C. Hoy, S. Akcay, J. Mac Uilliam, and J. E. Thompson, (2024), arXiv:2409.19404 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Abbott et al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbott et al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [64]

    T. D. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 6, 041014 (2016), arXiv:1606.01210 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  56. [65]

    S. M. Gaebel and J. Veitch, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 174003 (2017), arXiv:1703.08988 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  57. [66]

    J. E. Thompson, C. Hoy, E. Fauchon-Jones, and M. Hannam, (2025), arXiv:2506.10530 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 102, 043015 (2020), arXiv:2004.08342 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [68]

    C. Hoy, C. Mills, and S. Fairhurst, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023019 (2022), arXiv:2111.10455 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [69]

    C. Hoy, S. Fairhurst, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023037 (2025), arXiv:2408.03410 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Islam, S

    T. Islam, S. E. Field, C.-J. Haster, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104027 (2021), arXiv:2010.04848 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Hannam et al., Nature 610, 652 (2022), arXiv:2112.11300 [gr-qc]

    M. Hannam et al., Nature 610, 652 (2022), arXiv:2112.11300 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Payne, S

    E. Payne, S. Hourihane, J. Golomb, R. Udall, R. Udall, D. Davis, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104017 (2022), arXiv:2206.11932 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Macas, A

    R. Macas, A. Lundgren, and G. Ashton, Phys. Rev. D 109, 062006 (2024), arXiv:2311.09921 [gr-qc]. 18

    2024 arXiv

  65. [74]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J. 940, 171 (2022), arXiv:2206.14695 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Gupte et al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    N. Gupte et al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  67. [76]

    M. d. L. Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc ´ıa-Quir´os, H. Es- tell´es, S. Husa, and M. Haney, (2025), arXiv:2504.15833 [gr- qc]

    2025

  68. [77]

    Ossokine et al

    S. Ossokine et al. , Phys. Rev. D 102, 044055 (2020), arXiv:2004.09442 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Colleoni, M

    M. Colleoni, M. Mateu-Lucena, H. Estell ´es, C. Garc´ıa-Quir´os, D. Keitel, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024029 (2021), arXiv:2010.05830 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Kolitsidou, J

    P. Kolitsidou, J. E. Thompson, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024050 (2025), arXiv:2402.00813 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Qi and V

    H. Qi and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063031 (2021), arXiv:2009.13812 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Morisaki, R

    S. Morisaki, R. Smith, L. Tsukada, S. Sachdev, S. Stevenson, C. Talbot, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123040 (2023), arXiv:2307.13380 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Morisaki, Phys

    S. Morisaki, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044062 (2021), arXiv:2104.07813 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  74. [83]

    M. d. L. Planas, J. Llobera-Querol, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124028 (2024), arXiv:2401.13342 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Elhashash and D

    A. Elhashash and D. A. Nichols, (2025), arXiv:2504.18635 [gr-qc]

    2025

  76. [85]

    Rossell ´o-Sastre, S

    M. Rossell ´o-Sastre, S. Husa, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084074 (2024), arXiv:2405.17302 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Albanesi, R

    S. Albanesi, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, J. Fontbut ´e, A. Gonzalez, and A. Nagar, (2025), arXiv:2503.14580 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [87]

    M. L. Katz, J.-B. Bayle, A. J. K. Chua, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103001 (2022), arXiv:2204.06633 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Valencia and S

    J. Valencia and S. Husa, (2025), arXiv:2505.09600 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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