Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Post-Newtonian template makes numerical waveform frame-fixing up to 25 times more robust

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

2026-08-02 17:27 UTC pith:C7ZNX6VO

load-bearing objection A practical, honest improvement to CoM frame-fixing for a subset of NR waveforms; the robustness claim is supported, but an accuracy check against a known frame is missing. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2603.24661 v1 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 center-of-mass frameBMS frame fixingnumerical relativity waveformspost-Newtonian theorycenter-of-mass chargegravitational wavesCauchy-characteristic evolutionbinary black holes
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 establish that the center-of-mass frame of numerical relativity waveforms from quasicircular, nonprecessing binary black holes can be fixed more reliably by fitting the boosted center-of-mass charge to a post-Newtonian template instead of a straight line. The CoM charge oscillates as the binary inspirals, and ignoring those oscillations makes the inferred boost and translation depend strongly on the fitting window. Using the PN template reduces that window dependence by a median factor of about 25 for the boost and 20 for the translation when the window is centered in the inspiral. If right, waveform models calibrated to numerical relativity will carry less gauge-induced systematic error, and frame-fixing becomes a more automated, less user-dependent step.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the physical out-spiraling oscillation of the center-of-mass charge—predicted by post-Newtonian theory—should be included in the fit, and that doing so stabilizes the extraction of the boost and translation parameters. The authors derive the boosted CoM charge transformation under small boosts, add nuisance amplitudes to absorb higher-PN and direction errors, and fit numerical Cauchy-characteristic-evolution data to their fitting function. They report that across 20 simulations with mass ratios 1.2 < q < 10, the variance of the fitted parameters over window-size variation drops by typical factors of about 25 for the boost and 20 for the tra

What carries the argument

The central object is the boosted center-of-mass charge fitting function of Eq. (26): a post-Newtonian template combining the leading-order PN CoM charge magnitude (proportional to ν²√(1−4ν) x^{5/2}), the orbital unit vectors λ̂ and n̂ built from the numerical h_{2,1} phase, the boost cross product with the angular momentum, the translation shift, and two nuisance parameters. It turns the frame-fixing problem into a least-squares fit whose parameters are far less sensitive to the fitting window than the old linear-fit slope and intercept.

Load-bearing premise

The improvement rests on the assumption that the numerical CoM charge's orbital-plane oscillation really is a vector rotating at the orbital frequency with magnitude growing like x^{5/2}, as the leading post-Newtonian template assumes; if the true functional form differs—especially near equal mass, or for precessing or eccentric systems—the fitted boost and translation can be more stable but biased.

What would settle it

Compute the CoM charge from a high-accuracy numerical relativity simulation with mass ratio very close to 1 (or with small eccentricity) and compare the PN template fit residuals against a linear fit; if the template's residuals grow systematically with time or the fitted nuisance parameters drift far from their leading-order values (1,0), the template form is inadequate. Alternatively, refit the same waveforms with a higher-PN CoM charge; if the window-sensitivity ratios shrink dramatically, the reported improvement was an artifact of the leading-order template's flexibility.

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

If this is right

  • Numerical relativity waveforms used to calibrate phenomenological and surrogate models will carry less frame-induced systematic error, improving model accuracy.
  • Frame-fixing can be performed with shorter windows (about 1500M) centered in the inspiral, reducing contamination from junk radiation and late-inspiral post-Newtonian breakdown.
  • The same framework extends naturally to higher post-Newtonian orders, which could push the method closer to merger and toward equal-mass systems where the leading prefactor vanishes.
  • The out-of-plane component of the CoM charge remains linear, so the old treatment survives for that component; the improvement is specifically in the orbital-plane components.
  • The frame-fixing software now accepts the PN template as its fitting function, making the robust method practical as a default choice.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The method's success suggests that other BMS charges, such as supertranslation or rotation charges, could also benefit from PN-informed templates, reducing window sensitivity across the whole frame-fixing pipeline.
  • A direct testable extension: check whether the fitted nuisance parameters track known higher-PN corrections; if they systematically deviate, the leading-order template may be absorbing unmodeled physics rather than just amplitude errors.
  • For near-equal-mass binaries the prefactor ν²√(1−4ν) vanishes, so the template degenerates; a higher-PN version of the CoM charge would be needed to extend the method to q≈1, where the old linear fit may remain the only option.
  • The reported variance ratios are medians over 20 systems; the distributions are likely wide (for example, end-fixed ratios near 1 in the paper's table), so users should verify improvement for a specific system rather than assume the 25x factor universally.

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 procedure for fixing the center-of-mass (CoM) frame of CCE numerical-relativity waveforms from the SXS catalog. The previous approach fitted the numerically computed CoM charge vector G(u) with a linear function of time; the new approach replaces this with a post-Newtonian-inspired fitting function (Eq. 26) that includes the leading-order oscillatory out-spiral behavior of G, parameterized by the unit vectors λ̂ and n̂, the orbital phase ψ, and nuisance parameters α1, α2, in addition to the fitted boost β and translation Δ. The authors compare the old and new fits on 20 quasicircular, nonprecessing SXS systems with q>1.2, measuring the sensitivity of the fitted parameters to the size and placement of the fitting window. They report median variance ratios σ²_linear/σ²_PN up to about 24.8 for βx and 20.0 for Δx when the window center is fixed, with smaller improvements for other components and window placements. The method is implemented in the scri package.

Significance. If the reported variance reduction corresponds to an actual improvement in determining the physical CoM boost and translation, the method is practically valuable for producing consistent CCE waveform catalogs and for downstream waveform modeling. The paper is also useful in presenting a concrete PN-based fitting template and identifying the equal-mass prefactor degeneracy ν²√(1−4ν). A strength of the manuscript is that it is explicit about several limitations: the q≤1.2 exclusion, the unexplained deviations of (α1, α2) from (1, 0) in Fig. 6, and the small improvement in the start-fixed configuration. However, the central quantitative claim is based on internal variance ratios, which measure window-sensitivity of the fit, not fidelity to the true CoM frame; this distinction is the main load-bearing gap.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI and Table II] The variance-ratio metric σ²_linear/σ²_PN measures the self-consistency of the fitted boost/translation across different fitting windows, not whether the fitted values are accurate. The abstract and title assert that the method 'fixes the center-of-mass frame,' which requires an accuracy check beyond internal robustness. Without a known-frame injection test (e.g., applying a known boost and translation to a waveform and checking the recovery) or an independent estimate of the CoM motion (e.g., from apparent-horizon trajectories or PN predictions), the reported improvement could be a stable bias. The paper should either add such a test or substantially soften the claimed frame-fixing benefit to 'improved window-insensitivity of the fit parameters.'
  2. [Table II and Section VI] Table II reports only median variance ratios across the 20 simulations. The median is a limited summary: the abstract's 'largest improvement by a factor of ~25' is the best-case center-fixed βx entry, while the start-fixed entries are 1.1–1.7 and the y-component entries are also much smaller (1.1–17.6). The reader cannot assess how many systems actually benefit from the PN fit, nor how large the spread is. To support the central claim, the authors should report per-simulation distributions, quartiles, or at least the number of systems with ratio < 1, and should explicitly characterize the improvement as configuration- and component-dependent.
  3. [Eq. (26), Eqs. (27–28), Fig. 6] The 'analytical' template is not an independent prediction. The nuisance parameters α1 and α2 are fitted to the same numerical G data, the orbital phase ψ is taken from the numerical h_{2,1} mode, and the PN parameter x is read off the NR angular velocity. Thus the variance reduction relative to a linear fit may partly reflect the additional functional flexibility and the use of information already present in the waveform. The unexplained scatter of (α1, α2) in Fig. 6, which is explicitly left for future work, further weakens the interpretation of the improvement as a success of the PN model. I recommend computing variance ratios with α1 = 1, α2 = 0 (i.e., the literal PN prediction) and/or with ψ obtained from a PN phasing, to isolate how much of the improvement is due to the analytic template rather than the fitted nuisance parameters.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (25)] The error term O(x, β²) in Eq. (25) appears to be inconsistent with the O(x³, β²) error term quoted in Eq. (26). Since the leading term of G is O(x^{5/2}) and J is O(x^{1/2}), the omitted terms in the reexpansion should be stated relative to the same counting. Please clarify the PN order of the neglected terms.
  2. [Section VI, after Eq. (28)] The text says the PN parameter x is obtained from the angular velocity evaluated from the strain 'as defined in Eq. (14)', but Eq. (14) defines the angular velocity vector Ω, not x. Please give the explicit relation, e.g., x = (G M Ω / c³)^{2/3}, and note which Ω is used.
  3. [Section VI, 'start-fixed' discussion] The sentence 'The treatement of junk radiation is beyond the scope of this work' contains a typo ('treatement'). More importantly, the speculation that junk radiation causes the small start-fixed improvement is plausible but not tested; a simple test would be to start the window after a longer junk-cleaning buffer.
  4. [Abstract and Section VI] The abstract states 'the largest improvement in robustness of parameters is by a factor of ~25 for the boost vector and ~20 for the translation vector.' This is the median for one component (βx, Δx) in one window configuration (center-fixed). Consider rewording to 'for the x-components in the center-fixed configuration' to avoid over-generalizing.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PN template is derived from independent PN flux-balance results, all fitted parameters are transparent, and the claimed improvement is a statistical estimator comparison rather than a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's analytic center-of-mass charge is derived from an external PN flux-balance law (Compère et al., Ref. [39]) and Blanchet's equations of motion, not from the numerical data being fit. Equation (20) is an independent leading-order PN result, and its use as a fitting template does not reduce to defining the outputs in terms of the inputs. The nuisance parameters α1 and α2 are explicitly introduced to absorb amplitude/direction differences between NR and PN, and the boost/translation parameters β and Δ are also fit parameters; the paper does not claim these parameter values are predicted by PN theory. The central claim is a variance ratio of fit parameters across window choices, which is a property of the fitting procedure rather than a claim that the fitted values were derived from the template without fitting. The use of the NR h_{2,1} phase and strain-derived x to evaluate the template is a data-informed construction, not a circular identity: the CoM charge G is computed from asymptotic Weyl scalars, and the phase is an input used to evaluate the PN functional form, not the quantity being predicted. The agreement shown in Fig. 2 is explicitly described as a fit ('A fit to the boosted post-Newtonian prediction ... agrees well'), so there is no disguised prediction of fitted quantities. The paper also flags limitations — unexplained deviations of (α1, α2) from (1,0) in Fig. 6 and exclusion of q ≤ 1.2 — but these are accuracy and scope caveats, not evidence that the derivation is circular. No equation reduces to its own inputs by construction, and no load-bearing argument relies on an unverified self-citation. The strongest remaining concern, that reduced variance does not guarantee unbiased frame fixing, is a correctness or validation question, not a circularity defect.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claimed robustness gain rests mainly on the rotating-vector structure of the template, not on the specific PN coefficient (which α1 absorbs). The oscillation phase is taken from the NR waveform itself, so the analytic content is thinner than the prose suggests; the equal-mass degeneracy and small-boost assumptions bound the method's domain.

free parameters (4)
  • boost vector β = (βx, βy, βz) = per-simulation least-squares values; not tabulated (Fig. 5)
    Primary output of the frame-fixing fit; maps the waveform to the CoM frame. Fitted to the numerical boosted CoM charge via Eq. (26).
  • translation vector Δ = (Δx, Δy, Δz) = per-simulation values; not tabulated (Fig. 5)
    Sets the origin of the CoM at u=0; fitted simultaneously with β.
  • α1 = distribution in Fig. 6, centered near 1 with scatter/outliers
    Nuisance amplitude multiplying |G|; absorbs differences between NR and leading-order PN CoM charge amplitude.
  • α2 = distribution in Fig. 6, centered near 0 with scatter/outliers
    Nuisance coefficient for the nhat component; absorbs direction differences not captured by leading-order PN.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption BMS charges and flux-balance laws of Compère et al. (2019) and Mitman et al. (2022) correctly describe the asymptotic CoM charge for these spacetimes.
    The numerical G is computed from these charges (Eq. 12) and the analytic model starts from their balance law (Eq. 17); the paper does not re-derive them.
  • domain assumption Leading-order/3PN PN expressions for P, J, and the CoM charge (Eqs. 18-20, 24) are sufficient for quasicircular nonprecessing binaries in the inspiral window used.
    The fit truncates at leading order for G (plus α2 for the nhat direction) and at 3PN for J; higher-order corrections are not included.
  • domain assumption The NR orbital phase ψ from the h21 mode can be identified with the PN orbital phase up to a constant (Eqs. 27-28).
    The rotating-vector template's time dependence is built from this phase; if the convention mapping fails, the template's oscillation structure is wrong.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual differences between NR and leading-order PN CoM charge are representable by fitting parameters α1, α2 multiplying |G| in the λhat and nhat directions.
    Eq. (26) introduces α1, α2 for amplitude and direction errors; this is a fit-model assumption, not a derived consequence.
  • domain assumption Boosts involved are small enough that O(β²) terms in the CoM-charge transformation (Eqs. 23-25) are negligible.
    Frame-fixing assumes the NR frame is a small boost from the PN CoM frame; junk-radiation and large-boost systems may violate this.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 15647 in / 19586 out tokens · 196576 ms · 2026-08-02T17:27:48.935815+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 ↗

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 · 2 canonical work pages · 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

    work page 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

    work page 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