Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 5 cited by

Potential science with GW250114 -- the loudest binary black hole merger detected to date

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 The paper argues that GW250114, the loudest gravitational-wave event on record, should deliver decisive evidence for at least one overtone in the remnant black hole's ringdown, with a Bayes factor of order 10^3 once timing and…

desk verdict A careful forecast of GW250114's science yield whose headline overtone claim is plausible but only tested for a non-spinning source; worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08789 v2 pith:AR27RB63 submitted 2025-07-11 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Aleyna Akyüz , Alex Correia , Jada Garofalo , Keisi Kacanja , Labani Roy , Kanchan Soni , Hung Tan , Vikas Jadhav Y
show 2 more authors
Alexander H. Nitz Collin D. Capano
This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholemergerGW250114spectroscopyquasinormalmodesringdownovertoneHawkingareatheoremeccentricitymeasurement
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 forecasts what can be learned from GW250114, a binary black-hole merger detected on January 14, 2025, estimated to have a signal-to-noise ratio near 77 and therefore several times louder than any previously detected gravitational-wave event. Working with simulated signals matched to public estimates of the event, the authors argue that the post-merger ringdown should contain at least one detectable overtone of the dominant (2,2,0) quasi-normal mode, with a Bayes factor of order $10^{3}$ even after marginalizing over sky location and coalescence-time uncertainty. They further predict that orbital eccentricity at 20 Hz should be measurable if it is at least 0.05, that Hawking's area theorem can be confirmed with essentially the entire posterior at the expected sign, and that deviations of the (3,3) mode from general relativity can be constrained. These forecasts, if borne out on the real data release, would make GW250114 the strongest single gravitational-wave event for black-hole spectroscopy and related tests of general relativity to date. The central predictions assume the source is reasonably described by a non-spinning binary with mass ratio about 1.5.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reference numerical-relativity waveform SXS:BBH:3984, a simulated non-spinning, non-eccentric binary black-hole merger with mass ratio 1.5, rescaled to match the estimated SNR of GW250114; every forecast derives from analyzing this injection with the same Bayesian tools that will be used on real data. The load-bearing mechanism is the sky- and time-marginalized black-hole spectroscopy procedure: instead of fixing coalescence time and sky location, the analysis samples over them while measuring pre- and post-merger parameters, removing the dominant systematic that has made past overtone claims controversial. Bayes factors between ringdown models with and without overtones then quantify whether the overtone is detectable, and the same marginalization machinery is reused for the area-theorem test, where pre-merger parameters measure initial horizon areas and post-merger parameters independently measure the final area.

What would settle it

When the public data for GW250114 are released, run the same sky/time-marginalized Bayesian ringdown analysis used here: the central claim is falsified if the Bayes factor for adding the (2,2,1) overtone is not decisively high (order $10^{3}$, well above 100) assuming the source is consistent with the non-spinning q=1.5 injection at SNR about 77.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that GW250114, the loudest binary black-hole merger observed so far, offers a unique opportunity to test general relativity in the strong-field regime, and they make specific quantitative predictions based on a numerical-relativity reference signal. Using the non-spinning, non-eccentric waveform SXS:BBH:3984 with mass ratio q=1.5, rescaled to total mass 69.923 M_sun, distance 440 Mpc, inclination 36.6 degrees, and network SNR ~77, they find that a one-overtone ringdown model is decisively preferred over the fundamental mode alone: the Bayes factor for (2,2,0)+(2,2,1) versus (2,2,0) is B_221 = 2492, and for the two-overtone model it is B_221+222 = 724, after marginalizing over sky location and coalescence time. The same analysis yields measurable eccentricity for e_20 >= 0.05, an area-theorem ratio R = 0.96+0.23-0.30 (IMRPhenomXPHM) and R = 0.94+0.20-0.25 (NRSur7dq4) with all posterior support at R > 0, and (3,3)-mode deviations in chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio that are consistent with zero within 90% credible intervals. If correct, the event would provide the first decisive, timing-marginalized ringdown-overtone detection.

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts stand or fall on the assumption that GW250114 is well described by a non-spinning, non-eccentric binary with mass ratio about 1.5 at signal-to-noise ratio near 77; if the real event has significant spin, precession, or a different mass ratio, the predicted overtone evidence, eccentricity threshold, and area-theorem constraints could shift substantially.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the prediction holds, the real GW250114 ringdown data will show a Bayes factor in the thousands for the (2,2,1) overtone, a decisive and timing-marginalized detection of a ringdown overtone.
  • An eccentricity at 20 Hz of 0.05 or higher should be recovered with a posterior excluding zero, providing direct evidence for dynamical formation channels if present.
  • The area-theorem test should place essentially the entire posterior at R > 0, constraining the horizon area increase far more tightly than GW150914 did.
  • Deviations of the (3,3) mode from the (2,2) mode in chirp mass, symmetric mass ratio, and phase should remain consistent with general relativity, limiting non-GR degrees of freedom.
  • Subdominant fundamental quasinormal modes are not expected to be detectable, so the strongest GR tests from this event will come from overtones and inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency rather than multi-mode no-hair spectroscopy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's overtone forecast implies that any sufficiently loud non-spinning binary with SNR near 70 or above should yield similar spectroscopic evidence; GW250114 may therefore serve as a calibration point for what future O4/O5 events can deliver for black-hole spectroscopy.
  • If the real event has appreciable spin or precession, the overtone Bayes factor could depart from the order-10^3 value reported here; running the same analysis on the real data will measure how strongly the no-hair-spectroscopy outcome depends on source spin.
  • The area-theorem test as designed has no gap between the pre-merger and post-merger measurements, which the authors note and plan to address; a version with a time gap would be a stricter test and could change the claimed confidence.
  • A null eccentricity measurement in the real event would not rule out small eccentricities below 0.05, but it would exclude larger values and thereby constrain dynamically formed binary populations, an inference the paper does not state explicitly.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper is a forecasting study for GW250114, the loudest BBH merger reportedly detected by LIGO in O4. Using publicly available alert information, the authors estimate a network SNR of about 77 and construct a set of simulated signals anchored to that SNR: a non-spinning, non-eccentric NR waveform with mass ratio 1.5 (SXS:BBH:3984) rescaled to the estimated parameters, plus spin and eccentricity variants. They run Bayesian inference and GR tests: spin and spin-orientation measurement, eccentricity measurability, QNM overtone detectability with sky/time marginalization, an IMR area-theorem test, and a (3,3)-mode BBH spectroscopy test. The headline predictions are that eccentricity e20 ≳ 0.05 will be measurable and that at least one overtone of the dominant QNM should be detectable with a Bayes factor of order 10^3, with the latter explicitly conditioned on the source being non-spinning in the body of the paper.

Significance. If the forecasts hold, this paper identifies GW250114 as a landmark event for strong-field GR tests and BBH formation studies, with the overtone detection potentially being the first decisive ringdown overtone in an LVK event. The paper's strengths are its transparency (configuration files, posterior HDF files, and digitized PSDs are released), the use of an NR injection for the reference signal, independent recovery models for the spin study, and explicit sky/time marginalization in both the QNM and area-theorem analyses, addressing a known source of controversy in earlier ringdown claims. However, the headline overtone Bayes factor is computed only for the non-spinning reference injection, and the paper's own spin scenarios are not carried through the QNM pipeline, so the generalizability of the headline number to the real event is not yet demonstrated.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.A and Abstract] The abstract and the sentence 'These results suggest that one overtone may be definitively detected in GW250114' in Sec. III.A state the O(10^3) overtone Bayes factor without the condition 'if non-spinning' that appears only in Sec. IV. The value B221=2492 is obtained solely from the non-spinning, non-eccentric SXS:BBH:3984 injection described in Sec. II and Table I; the four non-zero-spin injections in Table I are not processed with the QNM pipeline of Sec. III.A. Because Sec. II.B demonstrates that those spin scenarios are distinguishable from the non-spinning reference, the paper provides no estimate of how the overtone Bayes factor degrades under plausible spin configurations. The headline claim is therefore stronger than what the simulations demonstrate, and the overstatement is load-bearing for the paper's central forecast. Please either include the spin caveat in the abstract and headline, or extend the QNM analysis to the Table I spin injections and report the resulting Bayes factors, thereby quantifying the robustness of the overtone claim.
  2. [Sec. II.A] The eccentricity threshold e20 ≳ 0.05 is derived by injecting with SEOBNRv5EHM and recovering with the same model (Sec. II.A states that both injections and subsequent Bayesian analyzes are performed using SEOBNRv5EHM). This is an in-model consistency test, and unlike the spin analysis in Sec. II.B, there is no independent-waveform cross-check (e.g., NRSur7dq4 or an NR eccentric waveform). Shared systematic errors between the injection and recovery model can bias the quoted 90% credible intervals and make the threshold optimistic. For a forecast meant to guide expectations for real data, the eccentricity claim should be either tempered or cross-checked with an independent model or an NR injection.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.B] The text refers to 'processing spin (χp)', which should be 'precessing spin (χp)'.
  2. [Sec. III.B] The phrase 'testing the area theroem' should be corrected to 'testing the area theorem'.
  3. [Sec. III.C] The sentence 'the 90% credible interval, correspond to angles separated by ∼1200' should read '∼120°' and should be rewritten for grammatical correctness.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption 'Comparison area ratio plot R between GW150914 and GW250114' is awkward; consider 'The area-ratio statistic R for GW150914 and GW250114'.
  5. [Sec. I] The statement that the PSDs are obtained by digitizing publicly available plots should be accompanied by a brief discussion of the possible systematic error this introduces into the SNR normalization and hence into the quoted credible intervals.
  6. [Sec. II.A] The paper does not quantify how the quoted Bayes factors and credible intervals would vary across noise realizations; a sentence noting that zero-noise results represent the expectation over noise, rather than a single realization, would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a self-contained injection study; the overtone Bayes factor is computed from an injected NR waveform, not reduced to a fitted constant.

full rationale

This paper reports projection studies for GW250114 using simulated signals. The central claims—eccentricity measurability, QNM overtone detectability, area-theorem constraints, and BBH spectroscopy—are obtained by injecting known waveforms (SXS:BBH:3984, SEOBNRv5EHM, NRSur7dq4, IMRPhenomXPHM) and recovering them with stated models. The overtone Bayes factor B221 = 2492 is computed from a zero-noise injection of an NR waveform containing the overtone content; this is a self-consistency forecast, not a derivation in which the prediction is equivalent to the input by construction. The SNR anchor ~77 is taken from a companion paper by the same authors, but that is an externally checkable estimate from public low-latency data, and it is not the quantity being predicted. The sky/time-marginalization method is cited from prior work by overlapping authors, but it is used as a tool, and the Bayes factor is computed in this paper, not imported as a conclusion. The abstract's omission of the body's 'at least if it is non-spinning' caveat is a scoping or presentation issue, not circularity. No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing claim reduces to a self-citation chain. The analyses are transparent about their assumptions and are testable against real public data once released.

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

The central forecasts are simulation benchmarks, so their inputs are free parameters chosen by the authors rather than independent physical constants. The main assumptions are that the waveform models faithfully represent reality, that SXS:BBH:3984 is a valid proxy for the real event, that the digitized PSDs are accurate, and that zero-noise injections give unbiased expected evidence. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Reference injection total mass M_tot = 69.923 M_sun (detector frame)
    Chosen with distance and inclination to match the estimated SNR ~77 of GW250114; all forecasts scale with this choice.
  • Luminosity distance D_L = 440 Mpc
    Taken from maximum of GraceDB posterior to set SNR; uncertainty in true distance is not propagated into forecasts.
  • Inclination angle iota = 36.6 degrees
    Set to the most probable orientation from the public posterior; affects ringdown mode content and area-theorem constraints.
  • Eccentricity injection values e20 = [0, 0.05, 0.1] with radial anomaly l=pi
    Injected into SEOBNRv5EHM to test the measurability threshold; recovery with the same model makes the threshold partly model-dependent.
  • Spin scenario injection values = chi_eff/chi_p: (0,0), (0,0.9), (0.262,0.636), (-0.680,2.9e-9), (0.680,0)
    Chosen to represent different formation channels; aligned and anti-aligned cases use altered total mass to keep SNR approximately 77.
  • Mass ratio reference q = 1.5
    Non-spinning NR reference rescaled to this ratio; the paper notes fundamental QNM detection would be more relevant for q greater than about 4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Waveform models SEOBNRv5EHM, NRSur7dq4, and IMRPhenomXPHM accurately represent true BBH signals.
    All injection and recovery forecasts assume waveform systematics are small; the paper only cross-checks models against each other, not against real data.
  • domain assumption SXS:BBH:3984 is a valid proxy for GW250114.
    The rescaled non-spinning, q=1.5 NR waveform underlies the QNM, area theorem, and BBH spectroscopy forecasts; if the event is spinning or high-q, forecasts change.
  • domain assumption Digitized PSDs from public detector-status plots accurately reproduce the noise at event time.
    Likelihood evaluations use these PSDs, and digitization errors are not quantified.
  • domain assumption The SNR estimate of about 77 from the companion paper is correct.
    All simulation loudness choices are normalized to this estimate; an overestimate would inflate projected Bayes factors and constraints.
  • domain assumption Zero-noise injections provide unbiased expected posteriors.
    No noise realization is included, so the expected Bayes factors and credible intervals are idealized rather than detection claims on real data.
  • standard math Linear QNM superposition is a valid description of the post-merger ringdown.
    This is standard in the field but debated; nonlinearities and ringdown start-time choices can bias overtone evidence.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Potential science with GW250114 -- the loudest binary black hole merger detected to date." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AR27RB63

@misc{pith2026250708789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Potential science with GW250114 -- the loudest binary black hole merger detected to date},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AR27RB63}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08789}
}
abstract

On January 14, 2025 the LIGO interferometers detected a gravitational wave from the merger of two black holes, GW250114. Using publicly available information, we estimate that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of GW250114 was $\sim 80$. This would make it three to four times louder than any other gravitational wave detected to date. GW250114 therefore offers a unique opportunity to make precise measurements of its source parameters and to test general relativity. In anticipation of its public data release, we analyze a set of simulated signals that have parameters similar to what we estimate for GW250114 and explore what new insights may be gained from this significant event. We investigate how well the component spins may be constrained, whether any eccentricity may be measured, what quasi-normal modes (QNMs) may be detected in the post-merger signal, how well the black hole area theorem may be constrained, and what constraints may be expected on sub-dominant inspiral-merger-ringdown modes. We find that it should be possible to measure a non-zero eccentricity at $20\,$Hz ($e_{20}$) if GW250114 has $e_{20} \gtrsim 0.05$. We also find that at least one overtone of the dominant QNM should be detectable in the ringdown of GW250114, with a Bayes factor of $O(10^3)$ after marginalizing over all timing uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08789 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Marginal posterior distributions on chirp mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Posterior distributions of orbital eccentricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. 90% credible regions of the posterior distributions for the spin magnitude and polar angle. Each polar plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The relative overtone amplitude and Hanford [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison area ratio plot [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Marginalized posteriors for the fractional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Constraints on Line-of-Sight Acceleration from O1-O4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    All known compact binary mergers show line-of-sight accelerations consistent with zero under a new time-domain Doppler-shift model, with current detectors only sensitive to high-acceleration scenarios.

  2. Quasinormal Ringdown and Echoes in Accreting Exotic Compact Objects

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Echoes from an accreting exotic compact object are progressively compressed and suppressed, then vanish when the event horizon overtakes the reflecting surface, after which the signal becomes ordinary black-hole ringdown.

  3. 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.

  4. Impact of numerical-relativity waveform calibration on parametrized post-Einsteinian tests

    gr-qc 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    NR late-inspiral calibration systematics in IMRPhenomD produce false ppE GR violations at O5 SNRs ≳60; an uncertainty-aware baseline restores consistency with GR up to SNR 330.

  5. Dynamical hair growth in black hole binaries in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, binary black holes can spontaneously grow scalar charges during inspiral, and the resulting gravitational-wave dephasing may be detectable by third-generation detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Advanced LIGO,

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

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    BBH Spectroscopy

    = 99.36 for GW150914 using IMRPhenomXPHM for the post-merger model [44]. C. BBH spectroscopy GW signals can be decomposed using spin-weighted spherical harmonics as follows, h = h+ − ih× = 1 DL X (l,m) −2Ylm(θ)ei(ψlm(θ)+Φc) . (4) Each of these modes should be dependent only on the intrinsic parameters of the binary - the two masses and spins. Thus, measur...

    work page

  3. [3]

    KAGRA: 2.5 Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detector,

    T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA), “KAGRA: 2.5 Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detector,” Nature Astron. 3, 35–40 (2019), arXiv:1811.08079 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), “Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Mining the Alerts: A Preliminary Catalog of Compact Binaries from the Fourth Observing Run

    Aleyna Aky¨ uz, Alex Correia, Jada Garofalo, Keisi Kacanja, Vikas Jadhav Y, Labani Roy, Kanchan Soni, Hung Tan, Collin D. Capano, and Alexander H. Nitz, “Mining the Alerts: A Preliminary Catalog of Compact Binaries from the Fourth Observing Run,” (2025), arXiv:2507.08778 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Gravitational-wave observatory status,

    GWOSC developers, “Gravitational-wave observatory status,” https://gwosc.org/ detector_status/

    work page

  7. [7]

    GraceDB,

    GraceDB Developers, “GraceDB,” https://git. ligo.org/computing/gracedb

    work page

  8. [8]

    GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Lvk em follow-up user guide,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “Lvk em follow-up user guide,” https://emfollow.docs.ligo.org/ userguide/ (2023), accessed: 2025-06-23

    2023

  3. [11]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,

    Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Blackman, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,” Phys. Rev. Research. 1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM,

    Aldo Gamboa et al. , “Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM,” (2024), arXiv:2412.12823 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    PyCBC Inference: A Python-based parameter estimation toolkit for compact binary coalescence signals,

    C. M. Biwer, Collin D. Capano, Soumi De, Miriam Cabero, Duncan A. Brown, Alexander H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, “PyCBC Inference: A Python-based parameter estimation toolkit for compact binary coalescence signals,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019), arXiv:1807.10312 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes,

    Geraint Pratten, Cecilio Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, Marta Colleoni, Antoni Ramos-Buades, H´ ector Estell´ es, Maite Mateu-Lucena, Rafel Jaume, Maria Haney, David Keitel, Jonathan E. Thompson, and Sascha Husa, “Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic...

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    The sxs collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,

    Mark A. Scheel, Michael Boyle, Keefe Mitman, Nils Deppe, Leo C. Stein, Crist´ obal Armaza, Marceline S. Bonilla, Luisa T. Buchman, Andrea Ceja, Himanshu Chaudhary, Yitian Chen, Maxence Corman, K´ aroly Zolt´ an Csuk´ as, C. Melize Ferrus, Scott E. Field, Matthew Giesler, Sarah...

    2025

  8. [16]

    gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of pycbc,

    Alex Nitz, Ian Harry, Duncan Brown, Christopher M. Biwer, Josh Willis, Tito Dal Canton, Collin Capano, Thomas Dent, Larne Pekowsky, Gareth S Cabourn Davies, Soumi De, Miriam Cabero, Shichao Wu, Andrew R. Williamson, Bernd Machenschalk, Duncan Macleod, Francesco Pannarale, Pray...

    2024

  9. [17]

    BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy,

    Gregory Ashton et al., “BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Length dependence of waveform mismatch: a caveat on waveform accuracy,

    Keefe Mitman, Leo C Stein, Michael Boyle, Nils Deppe, Lawrence E Kidder, Harald P Pfeiffer, and Mark A Scheel, “Length dependence of waveform mismatch: a caveat on waveform accuracy,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 42, 117001 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Implications of eccentric observations on binary black hole formation channels,

    Michael Zevin, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Kyle Kremer, Eric Thrane, and Paul D. Lasky, “Implications of eccentric observations on binary black hole formation channels,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 921, L43 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses,

    P. C. Peters, “Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses,” Phys. Rev. 136, B1224–B1232 (1964)

    1964

  13. [21]

    Eccentric black hole mergers via three-body interactions in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters,

    Marco Dall’Amico, Michela Mapelli, Stefano Torniamenti, and Manuel Arca Sedda, “Eccentric black hole mergers via three-body interactions in young, globular, and nuclear star clusters,” Astron. Astrophys. 683, A186 (2024), arXiv:2303.07421 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    GW190521: orbital eccentricity and signatures of dynamical formation in a binary black hole merger signal,

    Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, Eric 10 Thrane, and Juan Calderon Bustillo, “GW190521: orbital eccentricity and signatures of dynamical formation in a binary black hole merger signal,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 903, L5 (2020), arXiv:2009.04771 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Most Black Holes are Born Very Slowly Rotating,

    Jim Fuller and Linhao Ma, “Most Black Holes are Born Very Slowly Rotating,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 881, L1 (2019), arXiv:1907.03714 [astro-ph.SR]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA,

    Nihar Gupte et al., “Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA,” (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Evolution of precessing binary black holes on eccentric orbits using orbit-averaged evolution equations,

    Khun Sang Phukon, Nathan K. Johnson-McDaniel, Amitesh Singh, and Anuradha Gupta, “Evolution of precessing binary black holes on eccentric orbits using orbit-averaged evolution equations,” (2025), arXiv:2504.20543 [gr-qc]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?

    Davide Gerosa and Emanuele Berti, “Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?” Phys. Rev. D 95, 124046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06223 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    The quasi-normal modes of the Schwarzschild black hole,

    S. Chandrasekhar and Steven L. Detweiler, “The quasi-normal modes of the Schwarzschild black hole,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A344, 441–452 (1975)

    1975

  20. [28]

    Scattering of Gravitational Radiation by a Schwarzschild black-hole,

    C. V. Vishveshwara, “Scattering of Gravitational Radiation by a Schwarzschild black-hole,” Nature (London) 227, 936–938 (1970)

    1970

  21. [29]

    Black hole spectroscopy for precessing binary black hole coalescences,

    Hengrui Zhu et al., “Black hole spectroscopy for precessing binary black hole coalescences,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 064052 (2025), arXiv:2312.08588 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Black hole spectroscopy: Testing general relativity through gravitational wave observations,

    Olaf Dreyer, Bernard J. Kelly, Badri Krishnan, Lee Samuel Finn, David Garrison, and Ramon Lopez-Aleman, “Black hole spectroscopy: Testing general relativity through gravitational wave observations,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 787–804 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Searching for a ringdown overtone in GW150914,

    Eliot Finch and Christopher J. Moore, “Searching for a ringdown overtone in GW150914,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 043005 (2022), arXiv:2205.07809 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Testing the no-hair theorem with GW150914,

    Maximiliano Isi, Matthew Giesler, Will M. Farr, Mark A. Scheel, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “Testing the no-hair theorem with GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111102 (2019), arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Multimode Quasinormal Spectrum from a Perturbed Black Hole,

    Collin D. Capano, Miriam Cabero, Julian Westerweck, Jahed Abedi, Shilpa Kastha, Alexander H. Nitz, Yi-Fan Wang, Alex B. Nielsen, and Badri Krishnan, “Multimode Quasinormal Spectrum from a Perturbed Black Hole,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 221402 (2023), arXiv:2105.05238 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A frequency-domain perspective on GW150914 ringdown overtone,

    Yi-Fan Wang, Collin D. Capano, Jahed Abedi, Shilpa Kastha, Badri Krishnan, Alex B. Nielsen, Alexander H. Nitz, and Julian Westerweck, “A frequency-domain perspective on GW150914 ringdown overtone,” arXiv:2310.19645

  27. [35]

    Analysis of Ringdown Overtones in GW150914,

    Roberto Cotesta, Gregorio Carullo, Emanuele Berti, and Vitor Cardoso, “Analysis of Ringdown Overtones in GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111102 (2022), arXiv:2201.00822 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Ringdown of GW190521: Hints of multiple quasinormal modes with a precessional interpretation,

    Harrison Siegel, Maximiliano Isi, and Will M. Farr, “Ringdown of GW190521: Hints of multiple quasinormal modes with a precessional interpretation,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 064008 (2023), arXiv:2307.11975 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pseudospectrum and black hole quasinormal mode instability,

    Jos´ e Luis Jaramillo, Rodrigo Panosso Macedo, and Lamis Al Sheikh, “Pseudospectrum and black hole quasinormal mode instability,” Phys. Rev. X 11, 031003 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Ringdown overtones, black hole spectroscopy, and no-hair theorem tests,

    Swetha Bhagwat, Xisco Jimenez Forteza, Paolo Pani, and Valeria Ferrari, “Ringdown overtones, black hole spectroscopy, and no-hair theorem tests,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 044033 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    Nonlinear effects in black hole ringdown,

    Mark Ho-Yeuk Cheung et al., “Nonlinear effects in black hole ringdown,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 081401 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Quasinormal-mode filters: A new approach to analyze the gravitational-wave ringdown of binary black-hole mergers,

    Sizheng Ma, Keefe Mitman, Ling Sun, Nils Deppe, Fran¸ cois H´ ebert, Lawrence E. Kidder, Jordan Moxon, William Throwe, Nils L. Vu, and Yanbei Chen, “Quasinormal-mode filters: A new approach to analyze the gravitational-wave ringdown of binary black-hole mergers,” Phys. Rev. D ...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Role of black hole quasinormal mode overtones for ringdown analysis,

    Peter James Nee, Sebastian H. V¨ olkel, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Role of black hole quasinormal mode overtones for ringdown analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 044032 (2023)

    2023

  34. [42]

    Nonlinearities in black hole ringdowns,

    Keefe Mitman et al., “Nonlinearities in black hole ringdowns,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 081402 (2023)

    2023

  35. [43]

    Modeling ringdown: Beyond the fundamental quasinormal modes,

    Lionel London, Deirdre Shoemaker, and James Healy, “Modeling ringdown: Beyond the fundamental quasinormal modes,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 124032 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 069902 (2016)]

    2014

  36. [44]

    Agnostic black hole spectroscopy: Quasinormal mode content of numerical relativity waveforms and limits of validity of linear perturbation theory,

    Vishal Baibhav, Mark Ho-Yeuk Cheung, Emanuele Berti, Vitor Cardoso, Gregorio Carullo, Roberto Cotesta, Walter Del Pozzo, and Francisco Duque, “Agnostic black hole spectroscopy: Quasinormal mode content of numerical relativity waveforms and limits of validity of linear perturba...

    2023

  37. [45]

    Low evidence for ringdown overtone in GW150914 when marginalizing over time and sky location uncertainty,

    Alex Correia, Yi-Fan Wang, Julian Westerweck, and Collin D. Capano, “Low evidence for ringdown overtone in GW150914 when marginalizing over time and sky location uncertainty,” Phys. Rev. D 110, L041501 (2024), arXiv:2312.14118 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Sky marginalization in black hole spectroscopy and tests of the area theorem,

    Alex Correia and Collin D. Capano, “Sky marginalization in black hole spectroscopy and tests of the area theorem,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 044018 (2024), arXiv:2312.15146 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Ringdown mode amplitudes of precessing binary black holes,

    Francesco Nobili, Swetha Bhagwat, Costantino Pacilio, and Davide Gerosa, “Ringdown mode amplitudes of precessing binary black holes,” (2025), arXiv:2504.17021 [gr-qc]. 11

    2025

  40. [48]

    Bayes Factors,

    Robert E. Kass and Adrian E. Raftery, “Bayes Factors,” J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 90, 773–795 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Gravitational radiation from colliding black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1344–1346 (1971)

    1971

  42. [50]

    The Four laws of black hole mechanics,

    James M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, “The Four laws of black hole mechanics,” Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161–170 (1973)

    1973

  43. [51]

    Testing the Black-Hole Area Law with GW150914,

    Maximiliano Isi, Will M. Farr, Matthew Giesler, Mark A. Scheel, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “Testing the Black-Hole Area Law with GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 011103 (2021), arXiv:2012.04486 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Model systematics in time domain tests of binary black hole evolution,

    Shilpa Kastha, Collin D. Capano, Julian Westerweck, Miriam Cabero, Badri Krishnan, and Alex B. Nielsen, “Model systematics in time domain tests of binary black hole evolution,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 064042 (2022), arXiv:2111.13664 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Binary black hole spectroscopy: a no-hair test of GW190814 and GW190412,

    Collin D. Capano and Alexander H. Nitz, “Binary black hole spectroscopy: a no-hair test of GW190814 and GW190412,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 124070 (2020), arXiv:2008.02248 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Observational tests of the black hole area increase law,

    Miriam Cabero, Collin D. Capano, Ofek Fischer-Birnholtz, Badri Krishnan, Alex B. Nielsen, Alexander H. Nitz, and Christopher M. Biwer, “Observational tests of the black hole area increase law,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 124069 (2018), arXiv:1711.09073 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Black holes: The next generation—repeated mergers in dense star clusters and their gravitational-wave properties,

    Carl L. Rodriguez, Michael Zevin, Pau Amaro-Seoane, Sourav Chatterjee, Kyle Kremer, Frederic A. Rasio, and Claire S. Ye, “Black holes: The next generation—repeated mergers in dense star clusters and their gravitational-wave properties,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 043027 (2019), arXiv:1...

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Implications of Eccentric Observations on Binary Black Hole Formation Channels,

    Michael Zevin, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Kyle Kremer, Eric Thrane, and Paul D. Lasky, “Implications of Eccentric Observations on Binary Black Hole Formation Channels,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L43 (2021), arXiv:2106.09042 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Potential science with gw250114 – the loudest binary black hole merger detected to date,

    Aleyna Aky¨ uz, Alex Correia, Jada Garofalo, Keisi Kacanja, Labani Roy, Kanchan Soni, Hung Tan, Vikas Jadhav Y, Alexander Nitz, and Collin Capano, “Potential science with gw250114 – the loudest binary black hole merger detected to date,” (2025)

    2025

  50. [58]

    Are LIGO’s Black Holes Made From Smaller Black Holes?

    Maya Fishbach, Daniel E. Holz, and Ben Farr, “Are LIGO’s Black Holes Made From Smaller Black Holes?” Astrophys. J. Lett. 840, L24 (2017), arXiv:1703.06869 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  51. [2492]

    decisive

    Similarly, for the two-overtone model, we obtain B221+222 = 724. These values indicate “decisive” [46] support for our injection to contain at least one detectable overtone. Figure 4 shows the amplitude and coalescence time posteriors for our analyses. Our one-overtone model p...

Pith tools

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