Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

SpEC binary black hole waveforms are as accurate at merger as in the inspiral once re-aligned, and amplitude/phase errors across the catalog are symmetric about zero, indicating random rather than systematic error.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 11:10 UTC pith:QXQO336V

load-bearing objection Careful and useful accuracy metrics for SpEC waveforms, but the 'no systematic error' gloss in the abstract goes beyond what a same-code resolution comparison can show. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.06393 v2 pith:QXQO336V submitted 2025-10-07 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

A comprehensive look into the accuracy of SpEC binary black hole waveforms

Taylor Knapp , Katerina Chatziioannou , Keefe Mitman , Mark A. Scheel , Michael Boyle , Lawrence E. Kidder , Harald Pfeiffer This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HE PACS 04.30.-w04.25.D-
keywords numerical relativitygravitational wavesbinary black holeswaveform accuracyfrequency-weighted mismatchspin precessionSpEC
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper re-examines the accuracy of numerical-relativity waveforms from the SpEC code by introducing three metrics: a frequency-weighted mismatch that can isolate the merger and ringdown, and per-mode amplitude and phase differences. It aims to establish two things: first, that the late inspiral, merger, and ringdown are not intrinsically harder to simulate accurately—the degradation seen in the standard mismatch is largely an artifact of aligning on the inspiral; second, that across the parameter space of binary black holes, errors between the two highest resolutions show no systematic sign bias. It also finds that errors grow with precessing (in-plane) spin but show little correlation with aligned spin or eccentricity. The payoff is that waveform models calibrated to these simulations are not inheriting a common spurious phase or amplitude shift, at least at the level this two-resolution comparison can see.

Core claim

The central claim is that SpEC waveform accuracy is stage-independent once alignment is re-optimized. When the mismatch is computed with a frequency weight f^n and the time/phase shifts are re-fitted on the weighted waveform (denoted M_{n,n}), the mismatch stays roughly flat near 1e-4 for n=0 to 3, while using the inspiral-fitted alignment (M_{n,0}) degrades to 1e-3–1e-2. The paper interprets this as errors accumulating over the inspiral, not the merger itself being less accurate. Across the catalog, amplitude and phase differences between the highest and second-highest resolutions are centered on zero for the (2,2), (2,1), and (3,3) modes under all alignments, which the paper reads as no ev

What carries the argument

The generalized frequency-weighted mismatch M_{n,m}: the usual noise-weighted inner product is modified by an extra factor f^n, so n>0 upweights the high-frequency merger/ringdown and n<0 upweights the early inspiral. Two alignment prescriptions separate two questions: fixing the alignment from the unweighted waveform (M_{n,0}) measures how consistent the merger is with the preceding inspiral, while re-fitting the time and phase shifts on the weighted waveform (M_{n,n}) measures the accuracy of the merger and ringdown in isolation. This is complemented by per-mode relative amplitude and phase differences, which are asymmetric under exchanging the two resolutions and therefore can expose sign

Load-bearing premise

The 'no systematic error' conclusion rests on the assumption that differences between the two highest resolutions of the same simulation code faithfully proxy the true error; any error common to both resolutions—a shared extrapolation, gauge, or extraction bias—is invisible to every metric used here, a limitation the paper explicitly acknowledges.

What would settle it

Compute the same amplitude and phase differences between SpEC waveforms and waveforms for the same physical parameters produced by an independent, differently implemented numerical-relativity code. A median offset in phase or amplitude that grows with precessing spin—rather than a symmetric scatter about zero—would falsify the claim that the dominant error is random. A cheaper check is to repeat the M_{n,n} analysis with a third resolution: if the re-aligned mismatch rises with n rather than staying flat, the merger stages are less accurate than claimed.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the merger and ringdown are as accurate as the inspiral, then waveform models calibrated on plunge-merger data are not limited by an intrinsic accuracy drop at those stages; their error budget is dominated by accumulated inspiral error.
  • Precessing binaries with large in-plane spin require the most careful numerical treatment, since both mismatch and phase-difference scatter grow with χp; error budgets for current and future detectors must account for this parameter dependence.
  • The symmetry of amplitude and phase differences about zero means that averaging over many SpEC waveforms will not introduce a spurious net amplitude or phase bias into a model, to the extent that the two-resolution comparison captures systematic error.
  • The proposed metrics do not depend on a specific detector noise curve and can be applied to other numerical-relativity catalogs or waveform models to target particular frequency bands.
  • The generalized mismatch gives a practical way to set per-stage accuracy thresholds for applications such as ringdown-only analyses or inspiral-merger consistency tests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The no-systematic-error conclusion only tests errors that differ between resolutions; a bias shared by both resolutions—for example, a common extrapolation or gauge choice—would be invisible to all three metrics, as the paper itself notes. The abstract's word 'random' is stronger than that premise supports.
  • Because both alignment prescriptions fit a time shift and a phase shift for each waveform pair, the metrics measure waveform error modulo these two degrees of freedom; applications sensitive to absolute merger time or phase may see larger effective errors.
  • A natural testable extension is to compare SpEC waveforms against an independent numerical-relativity code or against perturbative ringdown predictions; a nonzero median difference that grows with χp would reveal the systematic component that two-resolution comparisons cannot see.
  • The flat M_{n,n} behavior suggests a convergence target: if third-resolution comparisons also keep the re-aligned mismatch below roughly 1e-4, one could trust merger and ringdown waveform accuracy to that level.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes and applies three accuracy metrics for numerical-relativity waveforms from the SXS catalog of SpEC binary-black-hole simulations: a frequency-weighted generalized mismatch Mn,m under two alignment prescriptions, and mode-by-mode amplitude and phase differences ΔA and ΔΦ. Using 3,605 simulations, the authors find that the fixed-alignment mismatch Mn,0 increases with frequency weight n, while the re-aligned mismatch Mn,n stays roughly flat at ~1e-4; that the mismatch and phase-difference magnitudes grow with precessing spin χp but show little dependence on aligned spin or eccentricity; and that ΔA/ΔΦ histograms are centered near zero. They interpret these results as evidence that merger/ringdown stages are not intrinsically less accurate than the inspiral and that numerical error is dominated by random rather than systematic effects.

Significance. If the results hold, the generalized mismatch and the asymmetric amplitude/phase metrics are useful additions to the NR accuracy toolbox, and the catalog-wide statistical survey is a valuable reference. The metrics are clearly defined, the analysis is reproducible from public SXS data and open-source tools, and the paper is careful in describing conditioning and alignment choices. The main caveat is that all metrics compare two resolutions of the same code and pipeline, so common-mode systematics are invisible to them; the strong 'no systematic error' conclusion therefore needs to be tempered or supported by an independent comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Sec. I; Sec. IV.A; Sec. V] The conclusion that 'the dominant source of error is random, rather than something systematic' (Abstract; also Sec. IV.A 'no systematic source of error in the numerical evolution' and Sec. V) is not supported by the analysis. Every metric compares only the two highest resolutions of the same SpEC pipeline (Sec. II.A), so any error common to both resolutions — e.g., extraction radius, extrapolation to null infinity, gauge choice, initial-data relaxation — cancels in ΔA/ΔΦ and is also absent from Mn,n. The paper itself acknowledges this in Sec. I: 'if numerical dissipation causes all SpEC simulations to merge early, this bias would be incorporated into waveform models and would not be discernible by comparing to further simulations.' The observed symmetry only establishes the absence of a resolution-dependent bias. Please soften the abstract/conclusions to 'no resolution-dependent systemat
  2. [Sec. II.C; Sec. III.B] The claim that merger/ringdown are not intrinsically less accurate rests on Mn,n staying flat with n. However, Mn,n uses a fresh time and phase alignment (δt_n, δϕ_n) for each n (Eq. 12). A time shift corresponds to a linear-in-frequency phase, so realigning after frequency weighting can absorb an accumulated phase offset between the inspiral band and the merger band. Thus the flatness of Mn,n is partly by construction, and the sentence in Sec. III.A ('the former suggests that M0,0 increases due to suboptimal inspiral-dominated alignment and not because the merger is inherently less accurate') overstates what the metric can show. Please add a caveat that Mn,n measures error up to an arbitrary time/phase shift at the targeted frequency band.
  3. [Sec. IV.A; Table II] The symmetry evidence for 'no systematic error' is qualitative. Table II reports 50% and 90% intervals that are roughly centered near zero, but no test of symmetry or zero-mean is shown. For example, ΔΦ(2,2) under (δt0,δϕ0) has a 50% interval of (-3.7e-2, 6.2e-2) radians, so the mean is not obviously zero from the quoted intervals. A simple sign test, bootstrap of the mean, or statement of the mean and its uncertainty would make the claim quantitatively supported. As written, the conclusion exceeds the statistical presentation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B; Fig. 6 caption] Typographical issues: 'catagories' should be 'categories' in Sec. III.B, and 'a accurancy' in the Fig. 6 caption should be 'accuracy'.
  2. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (10)] The frequency-weighted inner product integrates over f, but for real time-domain signals the Fourier transform is two-sided. For odd integer n, the factor f^n changes sign on negative frequencies. Please specify that f is |f| or that the integral is over positive frequencies only, to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Sec. II.B, Eq. (6)] The normalized L2 norm uses only hI in the denominator. The text explains this is intentional, but a brief note that the normalization does not bias the alignment because the waveforms are already nearly equal would help readers.
  4. [Sec. III.B] The classification thresholds e>0.005 and χp>1e-4 are arbitrary. They are stated, which is good, but a sentence justifying their choice (e.g., below numerical noise) would improve reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; the paper's metrics are new definitions applied to fixed resolution pairs, and the main limitation (invisible common systematics) is an acknowledged inference gap rather than a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain was walked. The generalized mismatch (Eqs. 10–12) is a definition: for each n, the frequency-weighted inner product is computed between the two highest resolutions, with alignment shifts (δt_n, δϕ_n) obtained by minimizing the L2 norm. The paper explicitly states that Mn,n < M0,0 'is expected due to the additional optimization' (Sec. III A), so it does not present a fitted minimum as a free prediction. The amplitude and phase differences (Eqs. 13–14) are likewise definitions; the catalog-wide symmetry of their histograms is an empirical property of the fixed I/II labels, not imposed by the equations. Self-citations appear (Refs. [2], [18], [34]) but are not load-bearing: [2] is the dataset, [18] is the alignment method, and [34] is a prior finding that this paper independently reproduces through Mn,0 (Fig. 5) rather than merely invoking. The abstract's 'no systematic error' statement is stronger than the evidence, because a common systematic shared by both resolutions (finite extraction radius, extrapolation, gauge) cancels in ΔA and ΔΦ. The paper itself flags exactly this limitation in Sec. I: 'if numerical dissipation causes all SpEC simulations to merge early, this bias would be incorporated into waveform models and would not be discernible by comparing to further simulations.' This is an inductive-evidence gap (a correctness/robustness concern), not circularity: no equation reduces to its own input and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or fitted physical parameters are introduced. The only adjustable quantities are per-pair alignment offsets and classification thresholds, all of which are stated. The analysis is numerical post-processing of public SXS catalog data.

free parameters (4)
  • Per-pair alignment offsets (δt, δϕ) = per-pair optima, not reported
    Minimized L2 norm between resolutions for every waveform pair (Sec. II B, Appendix A). These two nuisance parameters absorb a global time and phase offset, so reported mismatches and phase differences measure agreement modulo these offsets. This is standard practice but reduces apparent error.
  • Eccentricity classification threshold = e > 0.005
    Hand-chosen threshold in Sec. III B to define 'eccentric' simulations; affects which systems enter sub-samples. Not fitted to the target result, but influences the eccentricity conclusions.
  • Precessing-spin classification threshold = χp > 1e-4
    Hand-chosen threshold in Sec. III B to define 'precessing' simulations, required because spin magnitudes cannot be exactly zero. Influences the χp correlation analysis.
  • Symmetry cut for subdominant modes = q>1.01, |χ1−χ2|<0.01, |cosθ1−cosθ2|<0.01
    Post-hoc exclusion in Sec. IV A to remove systems that do not excite the (2,1) and (3,3) modes. Stated, but reduces the sample for subdominant-mode claims.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The two highest resolutions bracket the true solution, so hI − hII is a proxy for numerical error.
    Sec. II A: 'Following common practice, we consider the two highest resolutions... denoting the highest and second highest by I and II.' The entire paper treats the resolution difference as the error estimate.
  • domain assumption A flat PSD Sn(f)=1 is an adequate weighting for accuracy assessment.
    Sec. II B: 'We adopt a flat PSD... thus avoiding any additional frequency weighting before we introduce our own.' All mismatch results are conditioned on this choice; a detector-shaped PSD could change magnitudes and parameter trends.
  • domain assumption L2 alignment over time and azimuthal phase is sufficient to compare two resolutions.
    Sec. II B and footnote 3: only δt and δϕ are optimized; inclination/rotation degrees of freedom are not. If residual frame differences affect precessing waveforms, part of the χp correlation could be an alignment artifact.
  • domain assumption Junk-radiation removal via T_ref reliably defines comparable start times.
    Sec. II A: the later of the two T_ref values is adopted and earlier data discarded. Differences in junk radiation between resolutions could contaminate early-inspiral comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 22460 in / 14781 out tokens · 94368 ms · 2026-08-04T11:10:26.052328+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Numerical relativity simulations provide a full description of the dynamics of binary systems, including gravitational radiation. The waveforms produced by these simulations have a number of applications in gravitational-wave detection and inference. In this work, we revisit the accuracy of the waveforms produced by the Spectral Einstein Code. Motivated by the wide range of waveform applications, we propose and explore three accuracy metrics between simulation resolutions: (i) the generalized frequency-weighted mismatch, (ii) the relative amplitude difference, and (iii) the phase difference at different times. We confirm that numerical errors accumulate over the binary evolution, but the error is not intrinsically larger during the latest, more dynamical stages. Studying errors across the parameter space, we identify a positive correlation between both the mismatch and the phase difference with precessing spin, but little correlation with aligned spin or eccentricity. Lastly, amplitude and phases differences are symmetric upon exchanging resolutions across the catalog, suggesting that the dominant source of error is random, rather than something systematic that affects all waveforms similarly.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06393 by Harald Pfeiffer, Katerina Chatziioannou, Keefe Mitman, Lawrence E. Kidder, Mark A. Scheel, Michael Boyle, Taylor Knapp.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Waveform conditioning demonstrated with the am [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Demonstration of various time and phase alignment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Comparison of alignment prescriptions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Normalized weighted waveforms and mismatches for three example simulations: the quasicircular spin-aligned [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Generalized mismatches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Scatter plots showing the log standard mismatch, log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Histograms of the amplitude and phase differences, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Medians (solid lines) and symmetric 90% intervals [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Inspiral tests of general relativity and waveform geometry

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    The power of ppE-style GR tests comes from waveform geometry: GR parameter biases absorb most of any smooth phase deviation, and SVD finds the few orthogonal directions that remain.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    We compute (δt0, δϕ0) from the unweighted waveforms (equiva- lently,n= 0) and then use them to compute all weighted mismatches, denoted Mn,0

    Fixed (δt 0, δϕ0) for all mismatches. We compute (δt0, δϕ0) from the unweighted waveforms (equiva- lently,n= 0) and then use them to compute all weighted mismatches, denoted Mn,0. This pre- scription compares the waveform mergers in rela- tion to their preceding inspirals. 4960 4980 5000 5020 5040 t [M] hn=3(t) hI n=3(t) hII n=3(t; δt0, δφ0) hII n=3(t; δt...

  2. [2]

    We compute (δtn, δϕn) from then-weighted waveforms and then use them to compute the corresponding weighted mismatch, denoted Mn,n

    Minimize over (δt m=n, δϕm=n) for eachn. We compute (δtn, δϕn) from then-weighted waveforms and then use them to compute the corresponding weighted mismatch, denoted Mn,n. This prescrip- tion compares the waveform mergers in isolation, with no impact from the preceding inspiral. Figure 3 illustrates these prescriptions for the second highest resolution of...

  3. [3]

    This is the same alignment obtained by minimizing ˆL2 in Eq

    Minimize over (δt 0, δϕ0) (top row). This is the same alignment obtained by minimizing ˆL2 in Eq. (6), and it is the most closely related prescrip- ion to GW data analysis for the full signal

  4. [4]

    Here,t=T ref marks the beginning of the post-junk waveforms

    Align via (T ref , ϕref ) (second row). Here,t=T ref marks the beginning of the post-junk waveforms. To align the phases, we begin to unwrap each GW phase att=T ref so that ∆Φ (ℓ,m)(t=T ref ) = 0. This prescription targets the question of how well we can predict the later parts of the waveform given the inspiral

  5. [5]

    symmetry cut

    Align at (T peak, ϕpeak) (third row). We adopt the same procedure as above but forT peak, the peak of the strain amplitude. This prescription targets the question of how well we can predict the early parts of the waveform given the merger. III. RESUL TS: MISMA TCHES In this section, we calculate the generalized mismatch outlined in Sec. II C across the SX...

    2000

  6. [6]

    M. A. Scheelet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Second maya catalog of binary black hole numerical relativity wave- forms,

    D. Ferguson, E. Allsup, S. Anne, G. Bouyer, M. Gracia- Linares, H. Iglesias, A. Jan, P. Laguna, J. Lange, E. Mar- tinez, F. Meoni, R. Nowicki, D. Shoemaker, B. Steadham, M. L. Trostel, B.-J. Tsao, and F. Valorz, “Second maya catalog of binary black hole numerical relativity wave- forms,” (2023), arXiv:2309.00262 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Physical Review D102 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.104018

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.104018 2020

  9. [9]

    Rashti, R

    A. Rashti, R. Gamba, K. Chandra, D. Radice, B. Daszuta, W. Cook, and S. Bernuzzi, Physical Review 14 D111(2025), 10.1103/n5pz-qv3x

    doi:10.1103/n5pz-qv3x 2025

  10. [10]

    A catalogue of precessing black-hole-binary numerical- relativity simulations,

    E. Hamilton, E. Fauchon-Jones, M. Hannam, C. Hoy, C. Kalaghatgi, L. London, J. E. Thompson, D. Yeeles, S. Ghosh, S. Khan, P. Kolitsidou, and A. Vano-Vinuales, “A catalogue of precessing black-hole-binary numerical- relativity simulations,” (2023), arXiv:2303.05419 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    Huerta, R

    E. Huerta, R. Haas, S. Habib, A. Gupta, A. Rebei, V. Chavva, D. Johnson, S. Rosofsky, E. Wessel, B. Agar- wal, D. Luo, and W. Ren, Physical Review D100(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.064003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.064003 2019

  12. [12]

    Hinderet al., Class

    I. Hinderet al., Class. Quant. Grav.31, 025012 (2014), arXiv:1307.5307 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Aylottet al., Class

    B. Aylottet al., Class. Quant. Grav.26, 114008 (2009), arXiv:0905.4227 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Laser interferometer space antenna,

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bor- toluzzi, J. Camp, C. Caprini, V. Cardoso, M. Colpi, J. Conklin, N. Cornish, C. Cutler, K. Danzmann, R. Dolesi, L. Ferraioli, V. Ferroni, E. Fitzsimons, J. Gair, L. G. Bote, D. Giardini, F. Gibert, C. Grimani, H. Hal- loin, G. Heinzel, T. Herto...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Cosmic explorer: The u.s. con- tribution to gravitational-wave astronomy beyond ligo,

    D. Reitze, R. X. Adhikari, S. Ballmer, B. Barish, L. Bar- sotti, G. Billingsley, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, D. Coyne, R. Eisenstein, M. Evans, P. Fritschel, E. D. Hall, A. Laz- zarini, G. Lovelace, J. Read, B. S. Sathyaprakash, D. Shoemaker, J. Smith, C. Torrie, S. Vitale, R. Weiss, C. Wipf, and M. Zucker, “Cosmic explorer: The u.s. con- tribution to gravitati...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Branchesiet al., JCAP07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., JCAP07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Knapp, K

    T. Knapp, K. Chatziioannou, H. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D111, 024003 (2025), arXiv:2410.02997 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Habib, M

    S. Habib, M. Scheel, and S. Teukolsky, (2024), arXiv:2410.05531 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Ossokine, F

    S. Ossokine, F. Foucart, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle, and B. Szil´ agyi, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 245010 (2015)

    2015

  22. [22]

    Boyleet al., Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  23. [24]

    D. A. Kopriva,Implementing Spectral Methods for Par- tial Differential Equations(Springer Dordrecht, 2009)

    2009

  24. [25]

    T. Chu, H. Fong, P. Kumar, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 165001 (2016), arXiv:1512.06800 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  25. [26]

    T. Chu, H. Fong, P. Kumar, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szi- lagyi, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 165001 (2016)

    2016

  26. [27]

    Boyle and A

    M. Boyle and A. H. Mrou´ e, Phys. Rev. D80, 124045 (2009)

    2009

  27. [28]

    Zlochower, M

    Y. Zlochower, M. Ponce, and C. O. Lousto, Physical Review D86(2012), 10.1103/physrevd.86.104056

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.104056 2012

  28. [29]

    Lovelace, M

    G. Lovelace, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szil´ agyi, Physical Review D83(2011), 10.1103/physrevd.83.024010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.024010 2011

  29. [30]

    Buonanno, Y

    A. Buonanno, Y. Pan, J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, B. J. Kelly, S. T. McWilliams, and J. R. van Meter, Physical Review D76(2007), 10.1103/physrevd.76.104049

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.76.104049 2007

  30. [31]

    Accuracy limitations of existing nu- merical relativity waveforms on the data analysis of current and future ground-based detectors,

    A. Jan, D. Ferguson, J. Lange, D. Shoemaker, and A. Zimmerman, “Accuracy limitations of existing nu- merical relativity waveforms on the data analysis of current and future ground-based detectors,” (2024), arXiv:2312.10241 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [32]

    Williamson, J

    A. Williamson, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Clark, P. Kumar, J. Calder´ on Bustillo, and J. Veitch, Physical Review D96(2017), 10.1103/physrevd.96.124041

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.124041 2017

  32. [34]

    Ready for what lies ahead? – gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for fu- ture ground based detectors,

    M. P¨ urrer and C.-J. Haster, “Ready for what lies ahead? – gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for fu- ture ground based detectors,” (2019), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [35]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav.37, 055002 (2020), arXiv:1908.11170 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [37]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity40, 09LT01 (2023)

    2023

  35. [38]

    Mitman, L

    K. Mitman, L. C. Stein, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, (2025), arXiv:2502.14025 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [41]

    Blackman, S

    J. Blackman, S. E. Field, C. R. Galley, B. Szil´ agyi, M. A. Scheel, M. Tiglio, and D. A. Hemberger, Physical Review Letters115(2015), 10.1103/physrevlett.115.121102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.121102 2015

  37. [42]

    J. Yoo, V. Varma, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, C.-J. Haster, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. E. Kidder, and M. Boyle, Physical Review D106(2022), 10.1103/physrevd.106.044001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.044001 2022

  38. [43]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Physical Review D99(2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.064045

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.064045 2019

  39. [44]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Physical Review Research1(2019), 10.1103/physrevre- search.1.033015

    doi:10.1103/physrevre- 2019

  40. [45]

    S. E. Field, C. R. Galley, J. S. Hesthaven, J. Kaye, and M. Tiglio, Physical Review X4(2014), 10.1103/phys- revx.4.031006. 15

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2014

  41. [46]

    Maga˜ na Zertucheet al., Phys

    L. Maga˜ na Zertucheet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 024077 (2025), arXiv:2408.05300 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [47]

    Pacilio, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [48]

    Nobili, S

    F. Nobili, S. Bhagwat, C. Pacilio, and D. Gerosa, (2025), arXiv:2504.17021 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [49]

    L. M. Thomas, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and S. E. Field, Phys. Rev. D111, 104029 (2025), arXiv:2501.16462 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [50]

    Prattenet al., Phys

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [51]

    Colleoni, F

    M. Colleoni, F. A. R. Vidal, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Ak¸ cay, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. D111, 104019 (2025), arXiv:2412.16721 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [52]

    Laying the foun- dation of the effective-one-body waveform models seob- nrv5: improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning non- precessing binary black holes,

    L. Pompili, A. Buonanno, H. Estell´ es, M. Khalil, M. van de Meent, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, M. P¨ urrer, A. Ramos-Buades, A. K. Mehta, R. Cotesta, S. Marsat, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, H. R. R¨ uter, N. Vu, R. Dudi, S. Ma, K. Mitman, D. Mel- chor, S. Thomas, and J. Sanchez, “Laying the foun- dation of the effective-one-body...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [53]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [54]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. P¨ urrer, F. Ohme, X. Jim´ enez Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Phys. Rev. D93, 044006 (2016), arXiv:1508.07250 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  50. [55]

    Bachhar, M

    R. Bachhar, M. P¨ urrer, and S. R. Green, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084050 (2025), arXiv:2410.17168 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [56]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  52. [57]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D95, 104004 (2017), arXiv:1703.03967 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  53. [58]

    On the use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave as- tronomy,

    J. E. Thompson, C. Hoy, E. Fauchon-Jones, and M. Han- nam, “On the use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave as- tronomy,” (2025), arXiv:2506.10530 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [59]

    Baird, S

    E. Baird, S. Fairhurst, M. Hannam, and P. Murphy, Phys. Rev. D87, 024035 (2013), arXiv:1211.0546 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  55. [60]

    C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cor- nish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D108, 044018 (2023), arXiv:2301.11941 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [61]

    Mezzasoma, C.-J

    S. Mezzasoma, C.-J. Haster, C. B. Owen, N. J. Cor- nish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D112, 044057 (2025), arXiv:2503.23304 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  57. [62]

    S. A. Bhat, A. Tiwari, M. A. Shaikh, and S. J. Kapadia, (2025), arXiv:2508.14850 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  58. [63]

    Tiwari, S

    A. Tiwari, S. A. Bhat, M. A. Shaikh, and S. J. Kapaida, (2025), arXiv:2509.26152 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  59. [64]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  60. [65]

    Cotesta, G

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [66]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [67]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  63. [68]

    Detweiler, Astrophys

    S. Detweiler, Astrophys. J.239, 292 (1980)

    1980

  64. [69]

    Mitmanet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.09678 [gr-qc]

    K. Mitmanet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.09678 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [70]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [71]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [72]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  68. [73]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  69. [74]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [75]

    Ghoshet al., Phys

    A. Ghoshet al., Phys. Rev. D94, 021101 (2016), arXiv:1602.02453 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  71. [76]

    Ghosh, N

    A. Ghosh, N. K. Johnson-Mcdaniel, A. Ghosh, C. K. Mishra, P. Ajith, W. Del Pozzo, C. P. L. Berry, A. B. Nielsen, and L. London, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 014002 (2018), arXiv:1704.06784 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [77]

    M. Isi, W. M. Farr, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 011103 (2021), arXiv:2012.04486 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [78]

    Biscoveanu, M

    S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, V. Varma, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D104, 103018 (2021), arXiv:2106.06492 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  74. [79]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D109, 024024 (2024), arXiv:2310.01544 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [80]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and S. Hourihane, (2025), arXiv:2505.14573 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  76. [81]

    Payne, S

    E. Payne, S. Hourihane, J. Golomb, R. Udall, R. Udall, D. Davis, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D106, 104017 (2022), arXiv:2206.11932 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  77. [82]

    Udall, S

    R. Udall, S. Hourihane, S. Miller, D. Davis, K. Chatzi- ioannou, M. Isi, and H. Deshong, Phys. Rev. D111, 024046 (2025), arXiv:2409.03912 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  78. [83]

    Mould and D

    M. Mould and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D105, 024076 (2022), arXiv:2110.05507 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  79. [84]

    Varma, M

    V. Varma, M. Isi, S. Biscoveanu, W. M. Farr, and S. Vi- tale, Phys. Rev. D105, 024045 (2022), arXiv:2107.09692 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [85]

    Toubiana, S

    A. Toubiana, S. Babak, S. Marsat, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D106, 104034 (2022), arXiv:2206.12439 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.