Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Spin effects in binary black hole waveforms from point-particle perturbation theory agree with full numerical relativity to within a fraction of a radian and under one percent in amplitude and frequency over the final ~20 orbits.

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 13:23 UTC pith:L7GTIX26

load-bearing objection A credible, useful consistency check of adiabatic ppBHPT spin effects against NR, but the referenced nonspinning waveforms and the PA-subtraction caveat need a sensitivity analysis before the π/16 bound is taken as a rigorous number. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.00531 v2 pith:L7GTIX26 submitted 2025-10-01 gr-qc

Consistency of spin effects between numerical relativity and perturbation theory for inspiraling comparable-mass black hole binaries

Tousif Islam , Gaurav Khanna , Scott E. Field This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C3583C5783C25 PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx
keywords gravitational wavesblack hole perturbation theorynumerical relativityspinning binary black holesadiabatic approximationTeukolsky equationwaveform modelingspin effects
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.

Point-particle black hole perturbation theory (ppBHPT) – the small-mass-ratio expansion long assumed to fail for comparable-mass binaries – turns out to capture the spin dependence of the inspiral waveform all the way down to mass ratio q≈5–6 and spin χ≲0.5. The paper establishes this by comparing spin-enhancement factors, ratios of a spinning binary's multipole amplitudes and frequencies to those of its non-spinning counterpart, computed from numerical relativity (NR) and from adiabatic ppBHPT. For 43 cases the two ratios agree to within 1%, and the dephasing caused by spin effects beyond the adiabatic order stays below π/16 rad for spins χ≤0.5 and q≳8 over the last ~20 orbital cycles. This matters because it suggests that existing non-spinning calibration strategies can be carried over to spinning binaries with only modest spin-dependent corrections, and that expensive NR waveforms may be partially replaceable by perturbation theory for intermediate mass ratios.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that adiabatic ppBHPT – linear perturbation theory about a Kerr black hole, with the secondary as a point particle and radiative energy and angular-momentum losses driving a quasi-adiabatic inspiral – already produces the dominant spin effects seen in full NR waveforms, without any post-adiabatic spin input. Quantitatively, for quasi-circular binaries with a spinning primary and non-spinning secondary, the amplitude and frequency spin-enhancement factors Rℓm match NR to better than 1% for 43 systems in the range q≥3, −0.8≤χ≤0.8, and the residual phase correction from missing spin-dependent post-adiabatic terms is below π/16 for all spins |χ|≤0.5 wit

What carries the argument

The central diagnostic is the spin-enhancement factor: for each multipole mode (ℓ,m), the ratio of a waveform amplitude (or instantaneous frequency) for a spinning binary to the same quantity for the non-spinning binary at the same mass ratio, computed both from NR and from ppBHPT. The coincident behavior of these two sets of ratios, supported by the estimated post-adiabatic spin dephasing δφ_orb^{PA,spin} defined by subtracting the adiabatic ppBHPT spin phase plus the fully non-spinning post-adiabatic correction from the NR phase, carries the argument. The ppBHPT waveforms are generated at adiabatic order in a time-domain Teukolsky solver, with the inspiral smoothly attached to a geodesic p

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the non-spinning reference waveforms used to define the spin-enhancement ratios differ from the spinning runs only by spin itself—no residual eccentricity, initial-data artifacts, or hybridization/systematic errors of the order of the measured effects—since the paper's own plots show oscillations in the NR ratios that are not present in ppBHPT and whose origin is not understood.

What would settle it

A controlled NR campaign would settle it: simulate the same (q, χ) pairs with initial eccentricity below about 10^-5 (or with eccentricity measured and matched across each spinning–non-spinning pair), and check whether the oscillatory features in the NR spin-enhancement ratios disappear and whether the integrated post-adiabatic spin dephasing remains below π/16. If the dephasing exceeds π/16 for q≳8, χ≤0.5 over a 20-orbit window once eccentricity and initial-data transients are removed, the central claim fails. An independent check would be a full second-order self-force calculation for Kerr:

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

If this is right

  • If the claimed agreement holds, waveform models for comparable- and intermediate-mass-ratio binaries can be built by calibrating the non-spinning sector to NR or second-order self-force results and adding spin effects from adiabatic ppBHPT, rather than requiring dense NR coverage of the spin parameter space.
  • The empirically weak spin dependence of the calibration parameters in existing ppBHPT-plus-NR surrogate models is explained: it follows directly from the near-unity ratio of NR to ppBHPT spin-enhancement factors.
  • For mass ratios q≳8 and spins |χ|≤0.5, the missing post-adiabatic spin corrections are below the π/16 threshold over the final ~20 orbits, so those corrections will not dominate the waveform-model error budget in that window.
  • The comparisons bound the size of nonlinear mass-ratio–spin couplings: full NR contains them, adiabatic ppBHPT does not, and the small differences in the enhancement ratios measure how much they matter through the inspiral.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the comparison window is limited to roughly the final 4000 M available from NR, the claim does not yet constrain longer inspirals; a testable extension is whether post-adiabatic spin dephasing would accumulate above π/16 if an inspiral began 10^4 M before merger, as relevant to future space-based gravitational-wave detectors.
  • The unexplained oscillations in the NR spin-enhancement ratios (possibly residual eccentricity) mean the 1% agreement could partly be a time-averaged cancellation; a targeted eccentricity-controlled NR run would either tighten the conclusion or reveal that part of the discrepancy is currently hidden in those oscillations.
  • If the same ratio-based decomposition is applied to precessing or eccentric binaries, it could separate which sector of the two-body dynamics is genuinely nonlinear in the mass ratio from what is faithfully captured by the Kerr background alone.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares spin effects in numerical-relativity (NR) waveforms and adiabatic point-particle black-hole perturbation theory (ppBHPT) waveforms for quasi-circular binaries with a spinning primary and a nonspinning secondary. The authors define spin-enhancement ratios for waveform amplitudes and frequencies (Eq. 2) and a post-adiabatic spin dephasing diagnostic (Eq. 3), and compare these quantities for five detailed SXS cases and for 43 SXS cases using ppBHPT waveforms generated from the BHPTNRSur2dq1e3 surrogate with NR calibration turned off. They report sub-percent level agreement in the enhancement ratios and that the estimated post-adiabatic spin dephasing stays below π/16 for spins χ≤0.5 and mass ratios q≳8. They also demonstrate a proof-of-concept hybrid waveform that combines non-spinning NR data with spin effects from ppBHPT and matches NR well. The central conclusion is that adiabatic ppBHPT captures spin effects in the comparable-to-intermediate mass-ratio regime more accurately than expected, so that only modest spin-dependent corrections may be needed in hybrid models.

Significance. If the result holds, it has direct implications for waveform modeling of intermediate-mass-ratio and comparable-mass binaries: non-spinning NR data plus adiabatic ppBHPT spin effects could produce NR-faithful inspirals with reduced dependence on expensive NR simulations. The paper is a systematic, no-free-parameter diagnostic study: no new fits are introduced, the comparisons use public SXS data, and the quantitative claims are framed against explicit thresholds (π/16, π/4) and NR resolution benchmarks. The connection drawn between the empirical BHPTNRSurrogate calibration parameters and the measured spin-enhancement ratios (Eq. 6 and Fig. 6) is a useful interpretive contribution. However, the quantitative claims rest on ratios and differences against non-spinning reference waveforms, so the robustness of those references is load-bearing.

major comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (2), Fig. 1 caption, and Fig. 5 methodology] The spin-enhancement ratios are defined relative to non-spinning reference waveforms. The manuscript itself notes in Fig. 1 that the NR ratios show 'additional oscillations not present in ppBHPT, the origin of which is not yet understood (possibly related to residual eccentricity).' If the non-spinning reference carries residual eccentricity or surrogate systematics, then R_NR and the associated dephasing are not pure spin effects. In the 43-system comparison, the non-spinning reference is the NRHybSur2dq15 surrogate restricted to the final 5000M, which introduces its own systematic uncertainty. Since the headline <1% and π/16 statements are averages over these ratios, the paper should either quantify the residual eccentricity of the selected SXS runs, or demonstrate robustness by recomputing the key diagnostics with eccentricity-reduced references or at a common orbital-frequency conven
  2. [Eq. (3) and Fig. 4] The post-adiabatic spin dephasing δφ_PA,spin is obtained by subtracting the non-spinning PA correction δφ_PA,no_spin at the same coordinate time t, with time aligned to the peak of the (2,2) amplitude. For different spin values, the same coordinate time corresponds to different orbital frequencies and different stages of the inspiral. The subtraction therefore does not cleanly isolate spin-dependent PA terms; it can mix in non-spin phasing differences caused by frequency misalignment. The π/16 bound rests on this quantity. The authors should either evaluate δφ at a common orbital frequency (e.g., φ(ω) or a time-warped comparison) or justify why the coordinate-time subtraction is adequate for the stated parameter range.
  3. [Fig. 5 and 'Comparison between NR and ppBHPT waveforms'] The 43-system statistics rely on ppBHPT waveforms generated by the BHPTNRSur2dq1e3 surrogate with NR calibration turned off, rather than by the direct Teukolsky solver used for the five detailed cases. The manuscript states that the surrogate 'reproduces the Teukolsky solver waveforms' but does not provide a quantitative validation for the specific parameter space and time window used here. If surrogate errors are comparable to the claimed sub-percent differences or to the π/16 dephasing threshold, the aggregate statistics could be biased. A convergence check of the surrogate against direct Teukolsky evolution for a few representative (q,χ) points, with errors shown against the NR-resolution benchmarks, would make the quantitative claims solid.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption and text] The SXS simulation IDs for the q=5 cases are inconsistent between the text (SXS:BBH:2329 and SXS:BBH:2325) and the Fig. 2 caption (SXS:BBH:2385 and SXS:BBH:2487). Please verify and unify the IDs.
  2. [End Matter, Fig. 8] The claim that ppBHPT outperforms some post-Newtonian models is based on a single case ([q,χ]=[8,0.4]). For a claim stated in the abstract, either broaden the PN comparison to more parameter points or soften the wording to reflect the limited evidence shown.
  3. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgment of G.K. support is duplicated verbatim: 'G.K. acknowledges support from NSF Grants No. PHY-2307236 and DMS-2309609' appears twice.
  4. [Fig. 5] The upper panel combines amplitude and frequency percentage errors with a color map that is difficult to read, especially for the frequency panel. Separate panels or explicit numeric labels would improve reproducibility and clarity.
  5. [Eq. (6)] The statement that the left-hand sides of Eq. (6) are 'weakly time-dependent' is supported only by shaded regions in Fig. 6. A quantitative statement of the averaging window and the maximal time variation would make the comparison more precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: ppBHPT spin effects come from the Teukolsky equation and are compared against external SXS NR data; the key residual quantities are measured diagnostics, not fitted predictions.

full rationale

The central claim — that adiabatic ppBHPT captures spin effects seen in NR — is supported by direct simulation rather than by a reduction to the paper's inputs. ppBHPT waveforms are generated by solving the Teukolsky equation for a Kerr primary with a specified spin, with no fit to the NR spin data being compared. The diagnostic spin-enhancement ratios in Eq. (2) and the post-adiabatic residual in Eq. (3) are defined quantities: Eq. (3) is an identity expressing δφ_PA,spin as the NR/ppBHPT phase difference after subtracting the nonspinning NR/ppBHPT difference. That this residual is below π/16 is an empirical observation drawn from external SXS NR waveforms, not a consequence of the definition. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations appear (e.g., the BHPTNRSur2dq1e3 surrogate of Ref. [30] used for the 43-case scan, with NR calibration turned off), but they are used as a fast ppBHPT generator, not as evidence that the agreement holds, and the paper's detailed five-case analysis uses direct Teukolsky-solver ppBHPT waveforms with paired SXS runs. The paper's own caveat that the NR ratios display oscillations of unknown origin (possibly residual eccentricity) is a systematic-error limitation, not a circular step: it affects the interpretation of measured ratios but does not make the ppBHPT prediction equivalent to the NR input. The overall derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external NR benchmarks, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fitted constants or entities. Its central comparison rests on standard GR/Teukolsky background, the adiabatic point-particle approximation, assumed fidelity of SXS NR data and the NRHybSur2dq15/BHPTNRSurrogate surrogates, and the generalized Ori-Thorne plunge-attachment procedure; the last is the most fragile since it is an ad hoc modeling choice with known artifacts.

axioms (6)
  • standard math Teukolsky equation governs linear perturbations of Kerr spacetime; Einstein equations are the background theory.
    Core of ppBHPT; assumed background for computing waveform modes.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation: secondary follows a quasi-circular sequence driven only by time-averaged radiative energy/angular-momentum losses (0PA).
    Defines the ppBHPT waveforms; higher-order post-adiabatic effects are neglected by design and estimated as residuals.
  • domain assumption Secondary is a structureless point particle; only the primary spins; binaries are quasi-circular, non-precessing/aligned.
    Restricts the validity of the claim; the paper notes future work should include spin-precession and eccentricity.
  • domain assumption SXS NR simulations and the NRHybSur2dq15 surrogate accurately represent true GR waveforms, including the non-spinning references.
    The comparison treats NR as ground truth; the surrogate is used as a substitute for unavailable non-spinning NR data.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized Ori-Thorne procedure smoothly connects adiabatic inspiral to geodesic plunge in ppBHPT; its artifacts are small outside the gray shaded regions.
    This transition procedure is needed to produce full ppBHPT waveforms; the paper acknowledges imperfections can introduce nonphysical oscillations in some modes.
  • domain assumption BHPTNRSur2dq1e3 with NR calibration disabled reproduces the underlying Teukolsky ppBHPT waveforms.
    Used to generate ppBHPT waveforms for the 43-system study; relies on the surrogate's internal validity.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12916 in / 14845 out tokens · 412372 ms · 2026-08-04T13:23:42.058513+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Numerical relativity (NR) provides the most accurate waveforms for comparable-mass binary black holes but becomes prohibitively expensive for increasingly asymmetric mass ratios. Point-particle black hole perturbation theory (ppBHPT), which expands the Einstein equations in the small-mass-ratio limit, offers a computationally efficient alternative but is expected to break down in the comparable-mass regime because it neglects nonlinear effects. Nonetheless, several recent studies have shown that ppBHPT can model non-spinning binaries with high accuracy when supplemented by simple calibrations or a first post-adiabatic (PA) correction. Here we assess the applicability of ppBHPT to quasi-circular binaries with a spinning primary by comparing waveform amplitudes, orbital frequencies, and orbital phases. We find that spin effects in ppBHPT waveforms (without additional spin information beyond adiabatic order) are in surprisingly close agreement with the corresponding NR calculation (outperforming some post-Newtonian models) over the last $\approx 20$ orbital cycles. This suggests that, after incorporating higher-order corrections into ppBHPT waveforms in the non-spinning limit -- via second-order self-force results or semi-analytical fits -- only modest spin-dependent adjustments may be required to achieve NR-faithful ppBHPT waveforms. We also show that combining non-spinning NR information with adiabatic ppBHPT can provide a reasonably accurate inspiral waveform for spins $\chi \lesssim 0.5$ mass ratios $q \gtrsim 5$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.00531 by Gaurav Khanna, Scott E. Field, Tousif Islam.

Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Ratios of (2, 2) waveform mode amplitudes defined in Eq. (2) for three representative binaries with mass ratios q = [5, 10, 15] and fixed spin χ = 0.5. Solid curves denote NR results from SXS simulations, while dashed lines indicate the corresponding ppBHPT results. During the inspiral, the ppBHPT ratios remain in close agreement with NR, with deviations becoming more pronounced once the ppBHPT systems ent… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Dephasing between NR and ppBHPT-based orbital phases [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We show the ratio of the model parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Left: We show the final 2500M of the (2, 2), (3, 3), and (4, 4) modes for the NR simulation SXS:BBH:2464 (blue solid lines; until merger), characterized by [q, χ] = [15, 0.5], alongside the corresponding ppBHPT predictions (black dashed lines) after a time and phase-shift. We demonstrate that while ppBHPT alone is insufficient to fully match the NR data, combining the non-spinning NR prediction (SXS:BBH:24… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We show the ratios of (2, 2) mode spin enhancement ra￾tios for the amplitudes and frequencies for [q, χ] = [8, 0.4]. Solid blue lines represent NR values obtained from the SXS data, while dashed blue lines indicate the corresponding ppBHPT results, rescaled to the same mass scale. In addition, we include post-Newtonian (PN) results computed using the SpinTaylorT1, SpinTaylorT4 and SpinTaylorT5 approximants… 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 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Accurate models for recoil velocity distribution in black hole mergers with comparable to extreme mass-ratios and their astrophysical implications

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0

    New analytic, GPR, and normalizing-flow kick models for black-hole mergers trained from q=1 to q≈200, with cluster-retention consequences.

  2. Post-adiabatic self-force waveforms: slowly spinning primary and precessing secondary

    gr-qc 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Extended 1PA self-force waveforms for slowly spinning primary and precessing secondary, with re-summed 1PAT1R variant showing improved accuracy against NR for q ≳ 5 and |χ1| ≲ 0.1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 49 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Catalog of 174 Binary Black Hole Simulations for Gravitational Wave Astronomy,

    Abdul H. Mroueet al., “Catalog of 174 Binary Black Hole Simulations for Gravitational Wave Astronomy,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 241104 (2013), arXiv:1304.6077 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  2. [2]

    The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations,

    Michael Boyleet al., “The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations,” Class. Quant. Grav.36, 195006 (2019), arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    The RIT binary black hole simulations catalog,

    James Healy, Carlos O. Lousto, Yosef Zlochower, and Manuela Campanelli, “The RIT binary black hole simulations catalog,” Class. Quant. Grav.34, 224001 (2017), arXiv:1703.03423 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Second RIT binary black hole simulations catalog and its appli- cation to gravitational waves parameter estimation,

    James Healy, Carlos O. Lousto, Jacob Lange, Richard O’Shaughnessy, Yosef Zlochower, and Manuela Campanelli, “Second RIT binary black hole simulations catalog and its appli- cation to gravitational waves parameter estimation,” Phys. Rev. D100, 024021 (2019), arXiv:1901.02553 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Third RIT binary black hole simulations catalog,

    James Healy and Carlos O. Lousto, “Third RIT binary black hole simulations catalog,” Phys. Rev. D102, 104018 (2020), arXiv:2007.07910 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Fourth RIT binary black hole simulations catalog: Extension to eccentric orbits,

    James Healy and Carlos O. Lousto, “Fourth RIT binary black hole simulations catalog: Extension to eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D105, 124010 (2022), arXiv:2202.00018 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Georgia Tech Catalog of Gravitational Waveforms,

    Karan Jani, James Healy, James A. Clark, Lionel London, Pablo Laguna, and Deirdre Shoemaker, “Georgia Tech Catalog of Gravitational Waveforms,” Class. Quant. Grav.33, 204001 (2016), arXiv:1605.03204 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

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

    Eleanor Hamiltonet al., “A catalogue of precessing black-hole-binary numerical-relativity simulations,” (2023), arXiv:2303.05419 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    The SXS Collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,

    Mark A. Scheelet al., “The SXS Collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations,” (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Per- turbative evolution of particle orbits around Kerr black holes: time domain calculation,

    Ramon Lopez-Aleman, Gaurav Khanna, and Jorge Pullin, “Per- turbative evolution of particle orbits around Kerr black holes: time domain calculation,” Class. Quant. Grav.20, 3259 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0303054

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Teukolsky evolution of particle orbits around Kerr black holes in the time domain: elliptic and inclined orbits,

    Gaurav Khanna, “Teukolsky evolution of particle orbits around Kerr black holes in the time domain: elliptic and inclined orbits,” Phys. Rev. D69, 024016 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  12. [12]

    Accurate time-domain gravi- tational waveforms for extreme-mass-ratio binaries,

    Lior Burko and Gaurav Khanna, “Accurate time-domain gravi- tational waveforms for extreme-mass-ratio binaries,” Europhys. Lett.78, 60005 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0609002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  13. [13]

    Towards adiabatic waveforms for inspiral into Kerr black holes: II. Dynamical sources and generic orbits,

    Pranesh A. Sundararajan, Gaurav Khanna, Scott A. Hughes, and Steve Drasco, “Towards adiabatic waveforms for inspiral into Kerr black holes: II. Dynamical sources and generic orbits,” Phys. Rev. D78, 024022 (2008), arXiv:0803.0317 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  14. [14]

    Binary black hole merger gravitational waves and recoil in the large mass ratio limit,

    Pranesh A. Sundararajan, Gaurav Khanna, and Scott A. Hughes, “Binary black hole merger gravitational waves and recoil in the large mass ratio limit,” Phys. Rev. D81, 104009 (2010), arXiv:1003.0485 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  15. [15]

    Null infinity waveforms from extreme-mass-ratio inspirals in Kerr spacetime,

    Anil Zenginoglu and Gaurav Khanna, “Null infinity waveforms from extreme-mass-ratio inspirals in Kerr spacetime,” Phys. Rev. X1, 021017 (2011), arXiv:1108.1816 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    New numerical methods to evaluate homogeneous solutions of the Teukolsky equation,

    Ryuichi Fujita and Hideyuki Tagoshi, “New numerical methods to evaluate homogeneous solutions of the Teukolsky equation,” Prog. Theor. Phys.112, 415–450 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0410018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    New Numerical Methods to Evaluate Homogeneous Solutions of the Teukolsky Equation II. Solutions of the Continued Fraction Equation,

    Ryuichi Fujita and Hideyuki Tagoshi, “New Numerical Methods to Evaluate Homogeneous Solutions of the Teukolsky Equation II. Solutions of the Continued Fraction Equation,” Prog. Theor. Phys.113, 1165–1182 (2005), arXiv:0904.3818 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  18. [18]

    Analytic solutions of the Teukolsky equation and their low frequency expansions,

    Shuhei Mano, Hisao Suzuki, and Eiichi Takasugi, “Analytic solutions of the Teukolsky equation and their low frequency expansions,” Prog. Theor. Phys.95, 1079–1096 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9603020

    arXiv 1996

  19. [19]

    thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010)

    William William Thomas Throwe,High precision calculation of generic extreme mass ratio inspirals, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010)

    2010

  20. [20]

    Strong-field tidal distortions of rotating black holes: Formalism and results for circular, equatorial orbits,

    Stephen O’Sullivan and Scott A. Hughes, “Strong-field tidal distortions of rotating black holes: Formalism and results for circular, equatorial orbits,” Phys. Rev. D90, 124039 (2014), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 91, 109901 (2015)], arXiv:1407.6983 7 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Gravitational wave snap- shots of generic extreme mass ratio inspirals,

    Steve Drasco and Scott A. Hughes, “Gravitational wave snap- shots of generic extreme mass ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 024027 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 88, 109905 (2013), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 109905 (2014)], arXiv:gr-qc/0509101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  22. [22]

    Black hole perturbation theory and gravitational self-force,

    Adam Pound and Barry Wardell, “Black hole perturbation theory and gravitational self-force,” (2021), arXiv:2101.04592 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Two-timescale evolution of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals: waveform generation scheme for quasicircular orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime,

    Jeremy Miller and Adam Pound, “Two-timescale evolution of extreme-mass-ratio inspirals: waveform generation scheme for quasicircular orbits in Schwarzschild spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 064048 (2021), arXiv:2006.11263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Gravitational wave- forms for compact binaries from second-order self-force theory,

    Barry Wardell, Adam Pound, Niels Warburton, Jeremy Miller, Leanne Durkan, and Alexandre Le Tiec, “Gravitational wave- forms for compact binaries from second-order self-force theory,” (2021), arXiv:2112.12265 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Field, Scott A

    Tousif Islam, Scott E. Field, Scott A. Hughes, Gaurav Khanna, Vijay Varma, Matthew Giesler, Mark A. Scheel, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate model for gravita- tional wave signals from nonspinning, comparable-to large-mass- ratio black hole binaries built on black hole perturbation theory waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Surrogate model for gravitational wave signals from comparable and large-mass-ratio black hole binaries,

    Nur E. M. Rifat, Scott E. Field, Gaurav Khanna, and Vijay Varma, “Surrogate model for gravitational wave signals from comparable and large-mass-ratio black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D101, 081502 (2020), arXiv:1910.10473 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Intermediate mass-ratio black hole binaries: Applicability of small mass- ratio perturbation theory,

    Maarten van de Meent and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Intermediate mass-ratio black hole binaries: Applicability of small mass- ratio perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 181101 (2020), arXiv:2006.12036 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Self-force cal- culations with a spinning secondary,

    Josh Mathews, Adam Pound, and Barry Wardell, “Self-force cal- culations with a spinning secondary,” Phys. Rev. D105, 084031 (2022), arXiv:2112.13069 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Post-adiabatic waveform- generation framework for asymmetric precessing binaries,

    Josh Mathews and Adam Pound, “Post-adiabatic waveform- generation framework for asymmetric precessing binaries,” (2025), arXiv:2501.01413 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Gravitational wave surrogate model for spinning, intermediate mass ratio binaries based on perturba- tion theory and numerical relativity,

    Katie Rink, Ritesh Bachhar, Tousif Islam, Nur E. M. Rifat, Kevin Gonzalez-Quesada, Scott E. Field, Gaurav Khanna, Scott A. Hughes, and Vijay Varma, “Gravitational wave surrogate model for spinning, intermediate mass ratio binaries based on perturba- tion theory and numerical relativity,” Phys. Rev. D110, 124069 (2024), arXiv:2407.18319 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Enhancing the SEOBNRv5 effective-one-body wave- form model with second-order gravitational self-force fluxes,

    Maarten van de Meent, Alessandra Buonanno, Deyan P. Mi- haylov, Serguei Ossokine, Lorenzo Pompili, Niels Warburton, Adam Pound, Barry Wardell, Leanne Durkan, and Jeremy Miller, “Enhancing the SEOBNRv5 effective-one-body wave- form model with second-order gravitational self-force fluxes,” (2023), arXiv:2303.18026 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics,

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, “Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  33. [33]

    Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences,

    Alessandra Buonanno and Thibault Damour, “Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences,” Phys. Rev. D62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  34. [34]

    Black hole evolution by spectral methods,

    Lawrence E. Kidder, Mark A. Scheel, Saul A. Teukolsky, Eric D. Carlson, and Gregory B. Cook, “Black hole evolution by spectral methods,” Phys. Rev. D62, 084032 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/0005056

    arXiv 2000

  35. [35]

    The Transition from inspiral to plunge for a compact body in a circular equatorial orbit around a massive, spinning black hole,

    Amos Ori and Kip S. Thorne, “The Transition from inspiral to plunge for a compact body in a circular equatorial orbit around a massive, spinning black hole,” Phys. Rev. D62, 124022 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0003032

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  36. [36]

    Learning about black hole binaries from their ringdown spectra,

    Scott A. Hughes, Anuj Apte, Gaurav Khanna, and Halston Lim, “Learning about black hole binaries from their ringdown spectra,” Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161101 (2019), arXiv:1901.05900 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Exciting black hole modes via misaligned coalescences: I. Inspiral, transition, and plunge trajectories using a generalized Ori-Thorne procedure,

    Anuj Apte and Scott A. Hughes, “Exciting black hole modes via misaligned coalescences: I. Inspiral, transition, and plunge trajectories using a generalized Ori-Thorne procedure,” Phys. Rev. D100, 084031 (2019), arXiv:1901.05901 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit,

    “Black Hole Perturbation Toolkit,” (bhptoolkit.org) (2024)

    2024

  39. [39]

    Michele Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  40. [40]

    Michele Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  41. [41]

    Multipole expansions of gravitational radiation,

    Kip S. Thorne, “Multipole expansions of gravitational radiation,” Rev. Mod. Phys.52, 299–339 (1980)

    1980

  42. [42]

    Targeted large mass ratio numerical relativity surrogate waveform model for gw190814,

    Jooheon Yoo, Vijay Varma, Matthew Giesler, Mark A Scheel, Carl-Johan Haster, Harald P Pfeiffer, Lawrence E Kidder, and Michael Boyle, “Targeted large mass ratio numerical relativity surrogate waveform model for gw190814,” Physical Review D 106, 044001 (2022)

    2022

  43. [43]

    On the approximate relation between black-hole perturbation theory and numerical relativity,

    Tousif Islam and Gaurav Khanna, “On the approximate relation between black-hole perturbation theory and numerical relativity,” (2023), arXiv:2307.03155 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries,

    Luc Blanchet, “Gravitational Radiation from Post-Newtonian Sources and Inspiralling Compact Binaries,” Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    Parameter estimation of inspiralling compact bi- naries using 3.5 post-Newtonian gravitational wave phasing: The Non-spinning case,

    K. G. Arun, Bala R. Iyer, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and Pranesh A. Sundararajan, “Parameter estimation of inspiralling compact bi- naries using 3.5 post-Newtonian gravitational wave phasing: The Non-spinning case,” Phys. Rev. D71, 084008 (2005), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 72, 069903 (2005)], arXiv:gr-qc/0411146

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  46. [46]

    Hadamard regularization of the third post-Newtonian gravitational wave generation of two point masses,

    Luc Blanchet and Bala R. Iyer, “Hadamard regularization of the third post-Newtonian gravitational wave generation of two point masses,” Phys. Rev. D71, 024004 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0409094

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  47. [47]

    Spin effects in the inspiral of coalescing compact binaries,

    Lawrence E. Kidder, Clifford M. Will, and Alan G. Wiseman, “Spin effects in the inspiral of coalescing compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D47, R4183–R4187 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9211025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  48. [48]

    Spin effects in spher- ical harmonic modes of gravitational waves from eccentric compact binary inspirals,

    Kaushik Paul and Chandra Kant Mishra, “Spin effects in spher- ical harmonic modes of gravitational waves from eccentric compact binary inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D108, 024023 (2023), arXiv:2211.04155 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  49. [49]

    Higher-order spin effects in the dynamics of compact binaries. II. Radiation field,

    Luc Blanchet, Alessandra Buonanno, and Guillaume Faye, “Higher-order spin effects in the dynamics of compact binaries. II. Radiation field,” Phys. Rev. D74, 104034 (2006), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 049903 (2007), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 089901 (2010)], arXiv:gr-qc/0605140

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  50. [50]

    Spin induced multipole moments for the gravitational wave flux from binary inspirals to third Post-Newtonian order,

    Rafael A. Porto, Andreas Ross, and Ira Z. Rothstein, “Spin induced multipole moments for the gravitational wave flux from binary inspirals to third Post-Newtonian order,” JCAP03, 009 (2011), arXiv:1007.1312 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    Next-to- next-to-leading order spin–orbit effects in the gravitational wave flux and orbital phasing of compact binaries,

    Alejandro Bohé, Sylvain Marsat, and Luc Blanchet, “Next-to- next-to-leading order spin–orbit effects in the gravitational wave flux and orbital phasing of compact binaries,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 135009 (2013), arXiv:1303.7412 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [52]

    Next-to-leading tail-induced spin–orbit effects in the gravitational radiation flux of compact binaries,

    Sylvain Marsat, Alejandro Bohé, Luc Blanchet, and Alessandra Buonanno, “Next-to-leading tail-induced spin–orbit effects in the gravitational radiation flux of compact binaries,” Class. Quant. Grav.31, 025023 (2014), arXiv:1307.6793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  53. [53]

    Gravitational radiation from inspiralling compact objects: Spin effects to the fourth post-Newtonian order,

    Gihyuk Cho, Rafael A. Porto, and Zixin Yang, “Gravitational radiation from inspiralling compact objects: Spin effects to the fourth post-Newtonian order,” Phys. Rev. D106, L101501 (2022), arXiv:2201.05138 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  54. [54]

    High-accuracy comparison of nu- merical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions,

    Michael Boyle, Duncan A. Brown, Lawrence E. Kidder, Ab- dul H. Mroue, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Mark A. Scheel, Gregory B. Cook, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “High-accuracy comparison of nu- merical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions,” Phys. Rev. D76, 124038 (2007), arXiv:0710.0158 [gr-qc]. 8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Comparison between numerical- relativity and post-Newtonian waveforms from spinning bina- ries: The Orbital hang-up case,

    Mark Hannam, Sascha Husa, Bernd Bruegmann, and Achamveedu Gopakumar, “Comparison between numerical- relativity and post-Newtonian waveforms from spinning bina- ries: The Orbital hang-up case,” Phys. Rev. D78, 104007 (2008), arXiv:0712.3787 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    A Data-analysis driven comparison of ana- lytic and numerical coalescing binary waveforms: Nonspinning case,

    Yi Pan, Alessandra Buonanno, John G. Baker, Joan Centrella, Bernard J. Kelly, Sean T. McWilliams, Frans Pretorius, and James R. van Meter, “A Data-analysis driven comparison of ana- lytic and numerical coalescing binary waveforms: Nonspinning case,” Phys. Rev. D77, 024014 (2008), arXiv:0704.1964 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  57. [57]

    Where post-Newtonian and numerical-relativity waveforms meet,

    Mark Hannam, Sascha Husa, Ulrich Sperhake, Bernd Brueg- mann, and Jose A. Gonzalez, “Where post-Newtonian and numerical-relativity waveforms meet,” Phys. Rev. D77, 044020 (2008), arXiv:0706.1305 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  58. [58]

    Comparison of post-newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detec- tors,

    Alessandra Buonanno, Bala R. Iyer, Evan Ochsner, Yi Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Comparison of post-newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detec- tors,” Phys. Rev. D80, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0907.0700 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  59. [59]

    Dimensional regularization of the gravitational interaction of point masses,

    Thibault Damour, Piotr Jaranowski, and Gerhard Schäfer, “Dimensional regularization of the gravitational interaction of point masses,” Phys. Lett. B513, 147–155 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0105038 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2001

  60. [60]

    LIGO Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “LIGO Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite,”https://doi.org/10.7935/GT1W-FZ16(2018)

    doi:10.7935/gt1w-fz16(2018 2018

  61. [61]

    Phenomenological time domain model for dominant quadrupole gravitational wave signal of coalescing binary black holes,

    Héctor Estellés, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Sascha Husa, Cecilio García-Quirós, Marta Colleoni, Leïla Haegel, and Rafel Jaume, “Phenomenological time domain model for dominant quadrupole gravitational wave signal of coalescing binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D103, 124060 (2021), arXiv:2004.08302 [gr-qc]. End Matter Comparison against PN approximations:Another f...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021