Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Fitting the center-of-mass charge to a boosted post-Newtonian template makes numerical-relativity waveform frame fixing much less sensitive to the analyst's choice of fitting window, with median variance improvements up to about a factor of

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 05:40 UTC pith:C7ZNX6VO

load-bearing objection Solid, well-scoped improvement to BMS CoM frame-fixing: the PN-boosted fit does reduce window sensitivity, though the variance-ratio metric measures internal consistency, not unbiasedness. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.24661 v2 pith:C7ZNX6VO submitted 2026-03-25 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Fixing the center-of-mass frame of numerical relativity waveforms using the post-Newtonian center-of-mass charge

Aniket Khairnar , Leo C. Stein , Michael Boyle , Nils Deppe , Lawrence E. Kidder , Keefe Mitman , Jordan Moxon , Kyle C. Nelli
show 2 more authors
William Throwe Nils L. Vu
This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords numerical relativityBMS frame fixingcenter-of-mass chargepost-Newtonian approximationgravitational waveformsbinary black holesCauchy-characteristic evolutionwaveform gauge
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 tries to make BMS (Bondi–Metzner–Sachs) frame fixing of numerical-relativity gravitational waveforms less dependent on the analyst's choice of fitting window. In previous work, the center-of-mass (CoM) charge was fit with a straight line, even though it physically spirals outward during the inspiral. The authors derive a leading-order post-Newtonian expression for the boosted CoM charge and use it as the fitting template, with nuisance parameters to absorb amplitude and direction mismatches. They report that the resulting boost and translation parameters are substantially less sensitive to window duration and placement, with median variance reductions of up to about a factor of 25 for the boost and 20 for the translation. If correct, this makes BMS-frame-fixed waveforms more reproducible and easier to compare with analytic models.

Core claim

The authors claim that the numerical CoM charge of a quasicircular, nonprecessing binary, once boosted and translated by the unknown frame parameters, is well fit over the inspiral by the leading-PN analytical form of Eq. (26). That template combines the PN out-spiral of the CoM charge, evaluated with orbital phase taken from the (2,1) strain mode, with a small-boost transformation and nuisance parameters alpha1, alpha2, plus a constant translation Delta. Fitting this template instead of a line yields boost and translation parameters that vary far less as the fitting window is moved or resized, and the method is incorporated into the public frame-fixing code so Cauchy-characteristic-evolutio

What carries the argument

The central object is the boosted CoM charge fitting function, Eq. (26): G' = (1/P^0)[(alpha1 lambda-hat + alpha2 n-hat)|G| - beta x J - u P^0 beta] + Delta. It packages the leading-PN CoM charge |G| (proportional to x^{5/2} sqrt(1-4 nu) nu^2), the spin-weighted orbital direction vectors, a small-boost transformation involving the angular momentum, and nuisance parameters that absorb higher-PN and metadata errors. Its role is to let the fit separate the physical out-spiral from the spurious boost and translation, making the extracted beta and Delta robust to the fitting-window choice.

Load-bearing premise

The template assumes the numerical CoM charge, after rescaling by nuisance amplitudes, is accurately captured by the leading-PN out-spiral with phase taken from the (2,1) mode; junk radiation or higher-PN corrections can violate this and bias the fit.

What would settle it

Take a long, low-junk simulation and compute the boost and translation from the PN fit using windows anchored at early, middle, and late times; also compute the CoM frame independently from apparent-horizon trajectories. If the PN-fit parameters disagree with the horizon-based frame by more than the linear fit's disagreement, or if the variance ratios are near unity once junk-free early data are excluded, the central robustness claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • Frame-fixed Cauchy-characteristic-evolution waveforms from numerical relativity will depend less on which window an analyst chooses, improving reproducibility.
  • Users can safely use shorter windows (at least about 1500M) and center them in the inspiral, reducing contamination from junk radiation and merger.
  • Waveform models calibrated or compared against numerical-relativity waveforms will see smaller gauge-induced mode mixing, tightening comparisons.
  • The z-component of the CoM charge still requires a linear fit, so out-of-plane frame fixing remains as before.
  • The method is now incorporated into the public Python package used for asymptotic waveform analysis, making it directly usable by the community.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the PN template's phase mapping from the (2,1) mode is slightly off, the apparent gain could partly reflect overfitting rather than a true frame; a direct test would compare with an independent CoM determination.
  • The same template idea should extend to eccentric and precessing binaries once the corresponding PN CoM-charge expressions are derived; the nuisance-parameter structure may need to grow to absorb in-plane higher-PN effects.
  • The improvement largely vanishes when the window is anchored at the start of the inspiral, suggesting junk radiation, not the linear-drift baseline, is the main contaminant; treating junk radiation explicitly could yield further gains.
  • Higher-PN corrections to the CoM charge might shrink the scatter of the nuisance parameters around (1,0), turning the fit into a diagnostic for PN-numerical-relativity agreement.

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 an improved method for fixing the center-of-mass (CoM) part of the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms. The authors compute a leading-post-Newtonian expression for the boosted CoM charge, Eq. (26), which includes the physical out-spiraling oscillation of the CoM, and fit this template to the numerically computed CoM charge from CCE waveforms. They compare the new fit to the previous linear fit by varying the fitting-window duration and placement for 20 nonprecessing quasicircular SXS simulations. They report median variance ratios up to ~25 for βx and ~20 for Δx for center-fixed windows, and implement the method in the scri package. The central claim is that the PN-based fit yields boost and translation parameters that are substantially less sensitive to the choice of fitting window.

Significance. If the improvement is real and the fitted parameters are unbiased, the method reduces the user-dependence of BMS frame-fixing for CCE waveforms, which is important for waveform modeling and NR/analytic comparisons. The paper draws on external PN results, uses a reasonable set of simulations, and makes its code available through scri. However, the evidence presented is exclusively about internal consistency across windows; the paper does not demonstrate that the new fit produces the correct CoM frame. The nuisance parameters α1 and α2 can absorb template misspecification, so the robustness gain may be partially an artifact. A validation test against an independent known boost/translation is needed before the method is adopted as a definitive frame-fixing tool.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, Table II and Fig. 6] The headline improvement is measured as a ratio of variances of fitted parameters over different windows. This is a self-consistency metric; it does not establish that the fitted β and Δ equal the true CoM-frame parameters. Equation (26) contains two nuisance parameters α1 and α2 that can absorb amplitude and directional errors in the leading-PN template. A misspecified template can produce parameters that are stable across windows but biased. The paper's own Fig. 6 shows several simulations with (α1, α2) far from (1,0), and the text says the behavior of these outliers is not addressed. To support the frame-fixing claim, please add a recovery test (e.g., apply a known boost/translation to a waveform and check the fitted parameters) or compare with an independent CoM estimate. Without such validation, the central claim is about precision, not accuracy.
  2. [Section V, Eqs. (25)–(26)] The error-order statements are inconsistent: Eq. (25) says O(x, β^2) while Eq. (26) says O(x^3, β^2). Since G ~ x^{5/2} and J ~ x^{1/2}, an O(x) remainder in Eq. (25) is not the natural PN order of the neglected terms; the boost terms omitted from Eq. (23) are of order β x^{1/2}. Please clarify the PN counting: what exactly is being neglected in each equation, and why does the remainder improve from O(x) to O(x^3) between the two equations?
  3. [Section V, Eq. (19)] The coefficient 1142/105 in the total CoM flux is a key input to the template, but its derivation is only summarized in one sentence. If this coefficient is not already present in the cited Compère et al. expression, the authors should show the intermediate steps or give a direct reference. Currently a reader cannot verify the central analytical result on which the fitting function rests.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table II] Report the spread (e.g., quartiles or confidence intervals) of the variance ratios across the 20 simulations, not just the median.
  2. [Fig. 5] The caption states the simulation, but the vertical axis labels are in different units for β and Δ; consider adding a legend or an explicit note about the different scales.
  3. [Section VI] Typo: 'Conversly' should be 'Conversely'.
  4. [Section V, Eq. (28)] State the branch of arg and the convention used to unwrap ψ to avoid phase jumps, since the fitting is sensitive to phase continuity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PN CoM template is externally derived, the nuisance parameters are explicit fits rather than disguised predictions, and the variance-ratio improvement is an empirical comparison, not a constructed equivalence.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The leading-order CoM charge in Eq. (20) is derived from the Compère et al. flux-balance law and Blanchet's equations of motion, both external references, and the paper explicitly notes that the result matches Compère et al. Eq. (4.18b). The fitting function Eq. (26) introduces α1 and α2 as explicit nuisance parameters to absorb amplitude and direction mismatches; these are fitted per simulation and are not presented as predictions. The old linear fit is a special case of Eq. (26) with α1=α2=0, so the new model is a deliberate generalization, not a hidden redefinition of the target. The robustness claim is a measured comparison of the variances of fitted β and Δ across different fitting windows; it does not define the improved parameters in terms of the quantity being predicted. The paper's self-citations ([28,29,34,37]) provide context, prior baseline methods, and software implementation, but the load-bearing PN input comes from external literature. The acknowledged limitations—avoiding equal-mass systems because of the derivative singularity in the ν2√(1−4ν) prefactor, and the reduced improvement in the start-fixed case attributed to junk radiation—are correctness risks, not evidence of circularity. No step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own input, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The model has two per-simulation nuisance amplitudes (alpha1, alpha2) that absorb PN-order and parameter-estimation errors, plus the fitted boost/translation vectors that are the intended outputs. The analytical core rests on external PN balance laws and BMS charge definitions rather than on new postulates.

free parameters (4)
  • alpha1 = per-simulation; Fig. 6 shows scatter roughly in [-2, 2]
    Scales the leading-order PN CoM charge magnitude in Eq. (26); absorbs PN coefficient and mass-ratio estimation errors.
  • alpha2 = per-simulation; Fig. 6 shows scatter roughly in [-2, 2]
    Models the 2.5PN nhat component of the CoM charge in Eq. (26).
  • boost vector beta (beta_x, beta_y; beta_z from linear fit) = per-simulation, e.g. SXS:BBH:2115 beta_x ~ 3.15e-6, beta_y ~ -1.38e-5 (Fig. 5)
    Target output of the frame-fixing fit; its variance across window sizes is the robustness metric. The z component is still fit linearly.
  • translation vector Delta (Delta_x, Delta_y; Delta_z from linear fit) = per-simulation, e.g. SXS:BBH:2115 Delta_x ~ 3.5e-4, Delta_y ~ -2e-3 (Fig. 5)
    Target output of the frame-fixing fit; its variance across window sizes is the robustness metric. The z component is still fit linearly.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Compere et al. center-of-mass balance law (Eq. 4.14b) is correct and applicable; it seeds Eq. (17).
    Invoked at the start of Section V; the paper does not rederive this flux-balance law.
  • domain assumption The leading-order linear momentum flux of a quasicircular nonprecessing binary is Eq. (18) (Wiseman; Mishra et al.), and Blanchet's equations of motion supply the remaining flux terms leading to Eq. (19).
    Used in Section V to obtain dG/dt = 1142/105 ... ; no intermediate algebra is shown.
  • domain assumption BMS charge definitions (mass, angular momentum, boost, CoM) and their transformation under small boosts, Eqs. (12) and (22)-(23), are taken from prior BMS charge literature.
    Sections IV-V rely on these definitions without rederivation.
  • domain assumption For quasicircular nonprecessing orbits, the PN CoM charge is aligned with lambda-hat through 2PN, with a 2.5PN nhat contribution absorbed by alpha2 in Eq. (26).
    Section V, after Eq. (20); this underpins the functional form of the fit.
  • domain assumption The orbital phase psi, and hence the direction of lambda-hat/nhat, is obtained from the h_2,1 mode phase via Eq. (28), assuming the SpEC/PN sign and phase conventions.
    Section VI, Eq. (28); a wrong convention would distort the oscillatory template.
  • domain assumption The numerical CCE CoM charge is accurate enough that residual differences from the PN model are dominated by junk radiation and higher-PN terms, not by systematic CCE error.
    Implicit in the sensitivity analysis and in attributing start-fixed residuals to junk radiation (Section VI).
  • domain assumption O(beta^2) terms in the boost transformation are negligible for the small frame boosts in SXS CCE data.
    Eqs. (22)-(23) and Eq. (26) discard O(beta^2).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 31 in / 18049 out tokens · 179925 ms · 2026-08-04T05:40:03.869550+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Bondi--van der Burg--Metzner--Sachs (BMS) frame of gravitational waves produced by numerical relativity (NR) simulations is crucial for building accurate waveform models. A proper comparison of NR waveforms with other models requires fixing the arbitrary BMS frame. In this work we improve the center-of-mass (CoM) frame fixing for quasicircular, nonprecessing binary systems. Past work approximated the CoM motion with just a linear fit. We compute a post-Newtonian result of the boosted CoM charge to also capture its physical out-spiraling oscillations. We show that using the analytical results improves the robustness of the fit parameters -- translation and boost vectors -- to the choice of duration and time of the fitting window. Our analysis demonstrates a maximum improvement in robustness when the window is placed at the center of the inspiral. We quantified this improvement by computing the ratio of variances of fit parameters when the fit window size is varied. The largest improvement in robustness of parameters is by a factor of $\sim 25$ for the boost vector and $\sim 20$ for the translation vector. Finally, we incorporate this method into the BMS frame-fixing routine of the python package $\texttt{scri}$ for waveforms produced with Cauchy-characteristic evolution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2603.24661 by Aniket Khairnar, Jordan Moxon, Keefe Mitman, Kyle C. Nelli, Lawrence E. Kidder, Leo C. Stein, Michael Boyle, Nils Deppe, Nils L. Vu, William Throwe.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The center-of-mass charge vector [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Prefactor in the analytical CoM charge expression [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Different choices for varying the window sizes over the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivity of the boost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The distribution of nuisance parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. The Bondi--Sachs gauge, BMS frames, and memory in black hole perturbation theory

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Introduces a gauge transformation framework for BMS frames in multiscale black hole perturbation theory on Kerr that incorporates memory effects and avoids infrared divergences.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 33 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [5]

    LISAcollaboration,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, 1702.00786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [6]

    Mroue et al.,Catalog of 174 Binary Black Hole Simulations for Gravitational Wave Astronomy,Phys

    A.H. Mroue et al.,Catalog of 174 Binary Black Hole Simulations for Gravitational Wave Astronomy,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 241104 [1304.6077]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  3. [7]

    Boyle et al.,The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations,Class

    M. Boyle et al.,The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations,Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019) 195006 [1904.04831]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [8]

    Scheel et al.,The SXS Collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,2505.13378

    M.A. Scheel et al.,The SXS Collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,2505.13378

    arXiv

  5. [9]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles et al.,Setting the cornerstone for a family of models for gravitational waves from compact binaries: The dominant harmonic for nonprecessing quasicircular black holes,Phys. Rev. D 102(2020) 064001 [2001.11412]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [10]

    Bernuzzi, M

    S. Bernuzzi, M. Thierfelder and B. Bruegmann,Accuracy of numerical relativity waveforms from binary neutron star mergers and their comparison with post-Newtonian waveforms,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 104030 [1109.3611]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  7. [11]

    Hinderer et al.,Periastron advance in spinning black hole binaries: comparing effective-one-body and Numerical Relativity,Phys

    T. Hinderer et al.,Periastron advance in spinning black hole binaries: comparing effective-one-body and Numerical Relativity,Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 084005 [1309.0544]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  8. [12]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D.P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine et al.,Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 124037 [2303.18046]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [13]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello and S. Neogi,Toward efficient effective-one-body models for generic, nonplanar orbits,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 024031 [2404.15408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  10. [14]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, D.P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili et al.,Theoretical groundwork supporting the precessing-spin two-body dynamics of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5,Phys. Rev. D108(2023) 124036 [2303.18143]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  11. [15]

    Varma, S.E

    V. Varma, S.E. Field, M.A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L.E. Kidder and H.P. Pfeiffer,Surrogate model of hybridized numerical relativity binary black hole waveforms,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 064045 [ 1812.07865]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [16]

    Varma, S.E

    V. Varma, S.E. Field, M.A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L.C. Stein et al.,Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,Phys. Rev. Research.1(2019) 033015 [1905.09300]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [17]

    J. Yoo, V. Varma, M. Giesler, M.A. Scheel, C.-J. Haster, H.P. Pfeiffer et al.,Targeted large mass ratio numerical relativity surrogate waveform model for GW190814,Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 044001 [2203.10109]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [18]

    Boyle,Transformations of asymptotic gravitational-wave data,Phys

    M. Boyle,Transformations of asymptotic gravitational-wave data,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 084031 [1509.00862]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  15. [19]

    Bondi, M.G.J

    H. Bondi, M.G.J. van der Burg and A.W.K. Metzner, Gravitational waves in general relativity. 7. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems,Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 269(1962) 21

    1962

  16. [20]

    Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity

    R.K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity. 8. Waves in asymptotically flat space-times,Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A270(1962) 103

    1962

  17. [21]

    Sachs,Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory, Phys

    R. Sachs,Asymptotic symmetries in gravitational theory, Phys. Rev.128(1962) 2851

    1962

  18. [22]

    Bondi,Gravitational Waves in General Relativity, Nature186(1960) 535

    H. Bondi,Gravitational Waves in General Relativity, Nature186(1960) 535

    1960

  19. [23]

    Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity

    R.K. Sachs,Gravitational waves in general relativity. 6. The outgoing radiation condition,Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A264(1961) 309

    1961

  20. [24]

    Woodford, M

    C.J. Woodford, M. Boyle and H.P. Pfeiffer,Compact Binary Waveform Center-of-Mass Corrections,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 124010 [1904.04842]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [25]

    Moxon, M.A

    J. Moxon, M.A. Scheel, S.A. Teukolsky, N. Deppe, N. Fischer, F. Hébert et al.,SpECTRE Cauchy-characteristic evolution system for rapid, precise waveform extraction,Phys. Rev. D107(2023) 064013 [2110.08635]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [26]

    Moxon, M.A

    J. Moxon, M.A. Scheel and S.A. Teukolsky,Improved Cauchy-characteristic evolution system for high-precision numerical relativity waveforms,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 044052 [2007.01339]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [27]

    Iozzo, M

    D.A.B. Iozzo, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, J. Moxon, M.A. Scheel, L.E. Kidder et al.,Extending gravitational wave extraction using Weyl characteristic fields,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 024039 [2010.15200]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [28]

    Mitman et al.,Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms,Phys

    K. Mitman et al.,Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 024051 [2105.02300]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [29]

    Mitman et al.,Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms with BMS charges,Phys

    K. Mitman et al.,Fixing the BMS frame of numerical relativity waveforms with BMS charges,Phys. Rev. D 106(2022) 084029 [2208.04356]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [30]

    Iozzo et al.,Comparing Remnant Properties from Horizon Data and Asymptotic Data in Numerical Relativity,Phys

    D.A.B. Iozzo et al.,Comparing Remnant Properties from Horizon Data and Asymptotic Data in Numerical Relativity,Phys. Rev. D103(2021) 124029 [2104.07052]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [31]

    Flanagan and D.A

    É.É. Flanagan and D.A. Nichols,Conserved charges of the extended Bondi-Metzner-Sachs algebra,Phys. Rev. D 95(2017) 044002 [1510.03386]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  28. [32]

    Moreschi and S

    O.M. Moreschi and S. Dain,Rest frame system for asymptotically flat space-times,J. Math. Phys.39(1998) 6631 [gr-qc/0203075]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  29. [33]

    Ossokine, F

    S. Ossokine, F. Foucart, H.P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle and B. Szilágyi,Improvements to the construction of binary black hole initial data,Class. Quant. Grav.32(2015) 245010 [1506.01689]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  30. [34]

    Khairnar, L.C

    A. Khairnar, L.C. Stein and M. Boyle,Approximate helical symmetry in compact binaries,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 024072 [2410.16373]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [35]

    Boyle,Angular velocity of gravitational radiation from precessing binaries and the corotating frame,Phys

    M. Boyle,Angular velocity of gravitational radiation from precessing binaries and the corotating frame,Phys. Rev. D87(2013) 104006 [1302.2919]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  32. [36]

    O’Shaughnessy, B

    R. O’Shaughnessy, B. Vaishnav, J. Healy, Z. Meeks and D. Shoemaker,Efficient asymptotic frame selection for binary black hole spacetimes using asymptotic radiation, Phys. Rev. D84(2011) 124002 [1109.5224]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  33. [37]

    Boyle, D

    M. Boyle, D. Iozzo, L. Stein, A. Khairnar, H. Rüter, M. Scheel et al.,scri, June, 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.15693419

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.15693419 2025

  34. [38]

    Moreschi,Supercenter of Mass System at Future Null Infinity,Class

    O.M. Moreschi,Supercenter of Mass System at Future Null Infinity,Class. Quant. Grav.5(1988) 423

    1988

  35. [39]

    Compère, R

    G. Compère, R. Oliveri and A. Seraj,The Poincaré and BMS flux-balance laws with application to binary systems, JHEP10(2020) 116 [1912.03164]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [40]

    Blanchet and G

    L. Blanchet and G. Faye,Flux-balance equations for linear momentum and center-of-mass position of self-gravitating post-Newtonian systems,Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019) 085003 [1811.08966]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [41]

    Blanchet, G

    L. Blanchet, G. Faye and D. Trestini,Gravitational radiation reaction for compact binary systems at the fourth-and-a-half post-Newtonian order,Class. Quant. Grav.42(2025) 065015 [2407.18295]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [42]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, G. Faye and T. Marchand, Center-of-Mass Equations of Motion and Conserved Integrals of Compact Binary Systems at the Fourth Post-Newtonian Order,Phys. Rev. D97(2018) 044037 [1711.00283]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  39. [43]

    Wiseman,Coalescing binary systems of compact objects to (post)5/2 Newtonian order

    A.G. Wiseman,Coalescing binary systems of compact objects to (post)5/2 Newtonian order. 2. Higher order wave forms and radiation recoil,Phys. Rev. D46(1992) 1517

    1992

  40. [44]

    Mishra, K.G

    C.K. Mishra, K.G. Arun and B.R. Iyer,The 2.5PN linear momentum flux and associated recoil from inspiralling compact binaries in quasi-circular orbits: Nonspinning case,Phys. Rev. D85(2012) 044021 [1111.2701]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  41. [45]

    Blanchet,Post-Newtonian theory for gravitational waves,Living Rev

    L. Blanchet,Post-Newtonian theory for gravitational waves,Living Rev. Rel.27(2024) 4

    2024

  42. [46]

    Trestini,Schott term in the binding energy for compact binaries on circular orbits at fourth post-Newtonian order,Phys

    D. Trestini,Schott term in the binding energy for compact binaries on circular orbits at fourth post-Newtonian order,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 024076 [2504.13245]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [47]

    SpECTRE v2025.01.30

    N. Deppe, W. Throwe, L.E. Kidder, N.L. Vu, K.C. Nelli, C. Armaza et al., “SpECTRE v2025.01.30.” 10.5281/zenodo.14774916, 1, 2025. 10.5281/zenodo.14774916

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.14774916 2025

  44. [48]

    Boyle, L.E

    M. Boyle, L.E. Kidder, S. Ossokine and H.P. Pfeiffer, Gravitational-wave modes from precessing black-hole binaries,1409.4431

    Pith/arXiv arXiv