REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 32 references
Horizon-redshift transfer in black-hole direct-wave damping
T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read The observed envelope of direct waves from a black-hole merger is set by the convolution of a redshifted plunge source with the screened Kerr response, not by surface gravity alone.
desk verdict A plausible two-rate convolution mechanism for direct-wave damping, with a clean analytic core, but the headline γ_eff/κ≈0.62 rests on an asserted source decay law and an event fit that may be using different source parameters. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is a two-rate convolution: the screened complex-frequency Teukolsky response kernel I(t) and a redshift-suppressed plunge source S(t). The kernel is built from the spin-2, ℓ=m=2 Teukolsky equation solved at complex frequency along a contour with Imω = −κ, with a screening zero placed at the complex horizon frequency mΩ_H − iκ and a Gaussian window centered on the real carrier ω_c. The source is a finite-duration exponential S(t) = e^{-λ_s t} e^{-iω_c t} whose rate λ_s ≈ κ is motivated by near-horizon redshift. Convolving the two turns the product into a difference of exponentials, and a finite-window log-envelope projection converts that difference into the dimensionl
What would settle it
Run a full inhomogeneous Teukolsky or numerical-relativity simulation that supplies the actual plunge source amplitude, apply the same 2–8 ms log-envelope fit to the resulting direct-wave strain, and check the fitted slope; if the slope is close to κ (≈0.63 ms^-1) rather than ≈0.40 ms^-1 for a GW250114-scale remnant, the λ_s ≈ κ source prescription is wrong. Alternatively, use a third merger with the same final spin χ ≈ 0.67 but a different remnant mass: the model predicts γ_eff ∝ 1/M, so the measured rate in ms^-1 should move accordingly, while a constant rate would refute it.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that a black-hole merger's direct-wave strain, viewed as a carrier times a slow envelope, obeys h_DW(t) ∝ (e^{-γ_imp t} − e^{-λ_s t})/(λ_s − γ_imp) e^{-iω_c t} rather than a single e^{-κt}. Here I(t) = e^{-γ_imp t} e^{-iω_c t} is the screened Teukolsky response kernel (with γ_imp ≈ 0.94κ from the complex-frequency contour and Gaussian window), and S(t) = e^{-λ_s t} e^{-iω_c t} is the finite-duration near-horizon source, with λ_s ≈ κ following from the near-horizon redshift scaling dx/dt ≈ −2κx and √x ∝ e^{-κt}. The difference of two exponentials produces a broader envelope; projecting its log slope over the 2–8 ms post-peak window gives γ_eff/κ ≈ 0.62. For the re
Load-bearing premise
The quantitative prediction rests on the source model S(t) ≈ e^{-κt} for the near-horizon plunge amplitude; if the actual source decays at a different rate or shuts off before the measurement window, the two-rate convolution no longer gives γ_eff/κ ≈ 0.62, and the impulsive limit instead approaches 0.94κ.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Envelope damping measured in direct-wave residuals should be compared with the source-convolved effective rate γ_eff, not with the bare Kerr rate κ; single damped-sinusoid fits that identify the envelope slope with κ will misread the signal.
- For remnant spins 0.50–0.95 and carrier detuning −2 ≤ (ω_c − mΩ_H)/κ ≤ 1, the model predicts γ_eff/κ between 0.589 and 0.663, with the ratio near 0.63 for spins around 0.67.
- GW250114's residual profile places the best-fit source-convolved model at f_c ≈ 171 Hz and γ_eff ≈ 0.410 ms^-1, while the bare-κ reference at f_H lies outside the nominal 95% region; GW231226's damping profile peaks at η ≈ 0.56, with the predicted η ≈ 0.63 inside its broad maximum.
- In the impulsive-source limit, the fitting projection recovers γ_imp ≈ 0.94κ, so the reduced damping is specifically a finite-duration source effect rather than an artifact of the fitting window.
- Joint inference of remnant parameters and source duration could ultimately allow κ to be extracted from measured damping without assuming γ_eff = κ.
Reading between the lines
- If the γ_eff/κ ≈ 0.62 ratio persists, it offers a simple explanation for why some numerical-relativity analyses find filtered-strain damping that drifts away from κ: the measured slope is a window-dependent convolution of two comparable rates, not a clean κ.
- A testable extension: at fixed remnant spin, γ_eff should scale with κ ∝ 1/M, so a third event with χ ≈ 0.67 but a different remnant mass would discriminate the model from a fixed damping rate; the two current events already test mass rescaling but not spin dependence.
- The source prescription λ_s ≈ κ is heuristic; a full inhomogeneous Teukolsky computation or a numerical-relativity plunge trajectory could directly measure λ_s and either confirm the ≈0.62 prediction or show that the real ratio is closer to the impulsive limit 0.94.
- Because the paper decouples the real carrier frequency from the horizon-frequency reference, it implies that carrier-phase matching is not required for the envelope test; future searches could target envelope damping alone, sidestepping the debate over accidental carrier-frequency crossings.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper argues that the observed envelope damping of direct gravitational-wave radiation from a black-hole merger is not the bare Kerr surface gravity κ. The authors compute a spin-2, ℓ=m=2 Teukolsky response at complex frequency, define a screened response kernel with a zero at the complex horizon frequency, and convolve it with a finite-duration, near-horizon source whose amplitude decays as e^{-λ_s t} with λ_s≃κ. The resulting two-exponential envelope is then projected onto a finite log-envelope window, yielding the central result γ_eff/κ≈0.62. For GW250114 this gives γ_eff≈0.40 ms^{-1}, and for GW231226 γ_eff≈0.31 ms^{-1}, both presented as consistent with public residual data. The paper concludes that direct-wave damping is a horizon-redshift transfer observable rather than a direct measurement of κ.
Significance. If the central mechanism is correct, the paper offers a new and important way to read measured direct-wave envelopes: a source–response convolution with comparable decay rates naturally produces a finite-window slope below κ, so observing γ_eff<κ does not contradict Kerr. The analytic formula in Eq. (4) is clean, parameter-free once the source rate, kernel damping, and window are fixed, and it makes a specific, falsifiable prediction for the ratio γ_eff/κ across spins and carrier frequencies. The use of a published complex-frequency Teukolsky solver and the attempt at two-event residual consistency checks are strengths. However, the quantitative prediction and the event-level consistency depend critically on the phenomenological source decay rate λ_s=κ, which is asserted from near-horizon scaling rather than derived from a sourced Teukolsky calculation, and the GW250114 comparison grid-selects a source-decay time that appears inconsistent with α_s=1. These issues must be resolved before the central claim can be accepted.
major comments (4)
- [Physical mechanism of the reduced damping, Eqs. (2) and (4)] The load-bearing input is the source prescription S(t)=e^{-λ_s t} with λ_s=κ. The justification (dx/dt≈−2κx, lapse ∝√x) gives the redshift of a test frequency near the horizon, but not the amplitude of outgoing radiation emitted by a plunging source and propagated to infinity in an inhomogeneous Teukolsky calculation. In the latter, S(t) is a source integral involving the orbit and the homogeneous solution, and need not be a pure exponential with rate κ. Since Eq. (4) returns γ_eff/κ≈0.62 only for α_s=1, the headline number is conditional on an unvalidated source model. The paper acknowledges this conditionality in the Discussion, but a specific derivation or a quantitative robustness scan over λ_s is needed. For illustration, inserting α_s=0.79 in Eq. (4) gives γ_eff/κ≈0.49, quite different from 0.62.
- [Methods, 'GW250114 residual scan'] The grid search over source-decay times includes τ_s=0.8, 1.2, 1.5, 2.0 ms and selects 2.0 ms as the minimum. If 'source-decay time' is the e-folding time, then with κ=0.6306 ms^{-1} the implied α_s=(κτ_s)^{-1}=(0.6306×2.0)^{-1}=0.79, not α_s=1. The theoretical curve used in Fig. 2 and the value quoted from Eq. (4) use α_s=1. The paper does not explain this discrepancy. If τ_s has a different meaning (e.g., a rise-plus-decay timescale), it must be defined explicitly. As written, the event-level agreement is partly a fit to a different source rate than the one used in the central prediction.
- [Table 1 and Methods] The 'near-horizon test-particle source' is listed as an independent finite-duration realization giving γ_eff≈0.40 ms^{-1}, but no equations, trajectory, or numerical ingredients are given anywhere in Methods. This source cannot be checked, and if it shares the same λ_s=κ assumption it is not independent of the phenomenological plunge source. Please specify the model and show that it does not reduce to the same ansatz.
- [Finite-window damping projection and Fig. 5b] The fitting window [u1,u2]=[1.26,5.04] is inherited from the GW250114 residual analysis (2–8 ms with κ=0.6306 ms^{-1}). For other remnants it is rescaled as u=κt, which changes the physical window. Because γ_eff/κ is a window average, the paper should quantify sensitivity to the window choice: e.g., a small plot or table of γ_eff/κ versus (u1,u2) or versus physical window would show how much of the claimed 0.62 is an artifact of the chosen interval. Similarly, the GW231226 profile peaks at η≈0.56 while the prediction is η≈0.63; the paper says the prediction lies within the 'broad maximum' but does not quantify the profile likelihood at the predicted point. A numerical likelihood ratio would turn this visual consistency into a test.
minor comments (4)
- [Abstract and Introduction] Typos: in the Abstract, 'spin-$-2$' should be 'spin−2'; in the Introduction, 'GW250114 and GW231226' residuals are described as QNM-subtracted, but the precise waveform model used for subtraction is only given later. Also, '0.18 below the maximum' in the text near Fig. 2 lacks units or a definition of the profile quantity.
- [Eq. (5)] The quoted interval z=0.230^{+0.041}_{-0.063} has the upper and lower errors in nonstandard order relative to the other quoted intervals; please check consistency.
- [References] Ref. [24] contains 'doi: 10.1103/kkmt-fbjb', which is not a valid DOI and appears to be a placeholder. Ref. [13] also has a volume-less DOI format. Please update these.
- [Data availability] The statement 'will be deposited in a versioned public repository upon publication' is not verifiable during review. For a paper whose validation relies on public residual data and numerical code, please provide the code/data repository or a detailed description of the analysis scripts.
Circularity Check
Event-level 'confirmation' of γ_eff/κ≈0.62 is partly self-constructed: the fitting window is inherited from the same GW250114 residual analysis, and the source-decay time is grid-fitted to those residuals rather than predicted.
-
fitted input called prediction
[Methods, GW250114 residual scan]
"We scanned start frequencies of 226, 236 and 246 Hz, frequency-relaxation times of 6, 8 and 10 ms, and source-decay times of 0.8, 1.2, 1.5 and 2.0 ms. The source-rise time was fixed at 0.2 ms and the detuning exponent at 1.5. ... The minimum occurred at a start frequency of 246 Hz, a frequency-relaxation time of 10 ms and a source-decay time of 2 ms."
The source-convolved model locus used for the GW250114 consistency claim (Fig. 2) is generated with plunge-source parameters selected by minimizing the whitened residual on the same GW250114 residuals being tested. The source-decay time is therefore a fitted parameter, not a predicted one, so the residual agreement is partly forced. Moreover, the headline number γ_eff/κ≈0.62 is computed with α_s=1 (decay time 1/κ≈1.59 ms), whereas the event fit prefers 2.0 ms (α_s≈0.79); the event-level comparison is not testing the same source prescription as Eq. (4).
-
fitted input called prediction
[Methods, Finite-window damping projection; Eq. (4)]
"The fitting interval is inherited from the 2–8 ms post-peak window used for GW250114. With κ= 0.6306 ms−1, its dimensionless endpoints are u1 =κt1 = 1.261 and u2 =κt2 = 5.045. ... Together with α_s = 1 from the source prescription in Eq. (2), this kernel value and [u1, u2] = [1.26, 5.04] give γ_eff/κ≃0.62 through Eq. (4)."
γ_eff is defined as a least-squares log-envelope slope over a finite window (Eqs. 7–8). The window endpoints used to produce the predicted ratio are inherited from the very GW250114 residual analysis whose result the paper claims to explain. Because γ_eff/κ is window-dependent, choosing the target event's 2–8 ms post-peak window builds the target into the prediction; a different window would give a different slope. Thus the quantitative agreement is partly by construction, not an independent test.
full rationale
The core convolution mechanism is not in itself circular: Eq. (2)–(4) define a two-rate convolution, α_imp≈0.94 is obtained from a Teukolsky kernel (via the authors' earlier solver [24], which is a method citation rather than an imported uniqueness theorem), and the conclusion that a finite-window log-slope can lie below κ is a genuine property of that convolution. However, the specific quantitative prediction and the claimed event confirmations contain real fitted elements. First, the fitting window [u1,u2] is not predicted but is inherited from the 2–8 ms post-peak window of the very GW250114 residual analysis being matched; since γ_eff is a window-dependent slope, this ties the prediction to the target data. Second, the GW250114 residual scan grid-fits the plunge-source decay time (best 2.0 ms) to the same residuals, so the agreement of the source-convolved model locus with the residual profile is partly forced, and it does not correspond to the α_s=1 used to compute the headline 0.62 ratio. The paper's own Discussion concedes the ratio is 'conditional on the source prescription and window,' which is an admission that the headline number is not a parameter-free derivation. The GW231226 check is less obviously fitted—it uses the same rescaled window and a fixed source prescription—but it probes nearly the same spin and a broad profile maximum. These are partial circularities in the event-level consistency checks, not a total reduction of the Teukolsky convolution itself; hence a score of 6.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (5)
- λ_s (source decay rate) =
λ_s ≈ κ (0.63 ms⁻¹ for GW250114); residual grid best source-decay time 2 ms → λ_s≈0.5 ms⁻¹
- Fitting window [u1,u2] =
[1.26, 5.04] (2–8 ms for GW250114)
- α_imp (screened-kernel damping ratio) =
≈0.94
- GW250114 model waveform parameters =
start frequency 246 Hz, frequency-relaxation 10 ms, source-decay 2 ms, source-rise 0.2 ms, detuning exponent 1.5
- Carrier frequency f_c =
171 Hz (GW250114 best), 165.4 Hz (GW231226 best); theory scans δ_c∈[-2,1]
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Kerr spacetime and the spin-2 Teukolsky equation describe the direct-wave response.
- domain assumption The direct-wave screening factor vanishes at ω_pole^H=mΩ_H-iκ, and G_scr can be represented with a linear zero there.
- ad hoc to paper Near-horizon plunge emission amplitude decays as e^{-κ t} (λ_s=κ) because x∝e^{-2κt} and lapse ∝√x.
- domain assumption The observed QNM-subtracted residuals in GW250114 and GW231226 contain a direct-wave component.
- domain assumption A finite-window log-envelope projection (Eq. 7) is the right operational definition of observed damping.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Horizon-redshift transfer in black-hole direct-wave damping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CURIKKC7
@misc{pith2026260708570,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Horizon-redshift transfer in black-hole direct-wave damping},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CURIKKC7}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08570}
}
abstract
Direct waves from black-hole mergers may probe horizon dynamics, but their observed envelopes need not decay at the Kerr surface-gravity rate. We compute the complex-frequency spin-$-2$, $\ell=m=2$ Teukolsky response and combine it with a finite-duration near-horizon source whose outgoing amplitude is suppressed by gravitational redshift. The screened Kerr response to this finite-duration source produces an observable envelope damping $\geff<\kap$. For GW250114, this corresponds to $\geff\simeq0.4~{\rm ms}^{-1}$, consistent with a joint H1--L1 analysis of QNM-subtracted residuals. As a consistency check, the GW231226 remnant parameters give $\geff\simeq0.31~{\rm ms}^{-1}$, compatible with the event's residual profile. These results identify direct-wave envelope damping as an observable of horizon-redshift transfer rather than a direct measurement of surface gravity.
Figures
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
C. V. Vishveshwara. Scattering of gravitational radiation by a Schwarzschild black-hole. Nature, 227:936–938, 1970. doi: 10.1038/227936a0
doi:10.1038/227936a0 1970
-
[2]
William H. Press. Long wave trains of gravitational waves from a vibrating black hole.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 170:L105–L108, 1971. doi: 10.1086/180849
doi:10.1086/180849 1971
-
[3]
S. Chandrasekhar and Steven L. Detweiler. The quasi-normal modes of the Schwarzschild black hole.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 344:441–452, 1975. doi: 10.1098/ rspa.1975.0112
arXiv 1975
-
[4]
Saul A. Teukolsky. Perturbations of a rotating black hole. I. Fundamental equations for gravitational, electromagnetic, and neutrino-field perturbations.The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 185:635–647, 1973. doi: 10.1086/152444
doi:10.1086/152444 1973
-
[5]
Edward W. Leaver. An analytic representation for the quasi-normal modes of Kerr black holes.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A, 402:285–298, 1985. doi: 10.1098/rspa. 1985.0119
arXiv 1985
-
[6]
Kostas D. Kokkotas and Bernd G. Schmidt. Quasi-normal modes of stars and black holes. Living Reviews in Relativity, 2:2, 1999. doi: 10.12942/lrr-1999-2
-
[7]
Hans-Peter Nollert. Quasinormal modes: the characteristic sound of black holes and neu- tron stars.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 16:R159–R216, 1999. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/ 16/12/201
-
[8]
Starinets
Emanuele Berti, Vitor Cardoso, and Andrei O. Starinets. Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26:163001, 2009. doi: 10.1088/ 0264-9381/26/16/163001
2009
Show all 32 references
-
[9]
Kelly, Badri Krishnan, Lee Samuel Finn, David Garrison, and Ramon Lopez-Aleman
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.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 21:787–803, 2004. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/21/4/003
2004 doi
-
[10]
Emanuele Berti, Vitor Cardoso, and Clifford M. Will. Gravitational-wave spectroscopy of massive black holes with the space interferometer LISA.Physical Review D, 73:064030,
-
[11]
Nichols, Fan Zhang, Aaron Zimmerman, Zhongyang Zhang, and Yanbei Chen
Huan Yang, David A. Nichols, Fan Zhang, Aaron Zimmerman, Zhongyang Zhang, and Yanbei Chen. Quasinormal-mode spectrum of Kerr black holes and its geometric interpre- tation.Physical Review D, 86:104006, 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.104006. 11
2012 doi
-
[12]
Is the gravitational-wave ringdown a probe of the event horizon?Physical Review Letters, 116:171101, 2016
Vitor Cardoso, Edgardo Franzin, and Paolo Pani. Is the gravitational-wave ringdown a probe of the event horizon?Physical Review Letters, 116:171101, 2016. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.171101
2016
-
[13]
Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 2026
Emanuele Berti et al. Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 2026. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ae59e2
2026 doi
-
[14]
Bardeen, William H
James M. Bardeen, William H. Press, and Saul A. Teukolsky. Rotating black holes: locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation.The Astrophysical Journal, 178:347–370, 1972. doi: 10.1086/151796
1972 doi
-
[15]
Thorne, Richard H
Kip S. Thorne, Richard H. Price, and Douglas A. Macdonald, editors.Black Holes: The Membrane Paradigm. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1986
1986
-
[16]
Gravitational radiation from plunging orbits: pertur- bative study.Physical Review D, 78:124015, 2008
Yasushi Mino and Jeandrew Brink. Gravitational radiation from plunging orbits: pertur- bative study.Physical Review D, 78:124015, 2008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.124015
2008 doi
-
[17]
New generic ringdown frequencies at the birth of a Kerr black hole.Physical Review D, 84:084012, 2011
Aaron Zimmerman and Yanbei Chen. New generic ringdown frequencies at the birth of a Kerr black hole.Physical Review D, 84:084012, 2011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.084012
2011 doi
-
[18]
McWilliams
Sean T. McWilliams. Analytical Black-Hole Binary Merger Waveforms.Physical Review Letters, 122:191102, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.191102
2019 doi
-
[19]
Probing Direct Waves in Black Hole Ringdowns, 2025
Naritaka Oshita, Sizheng Ma, Yanbei Chen, and Huan Yang. Probing Direct Waves in Black Hole Ringdowns, 2025
2025
-
[20]
Prompt Response from Plunging Sources in Schwarzschild Spacetime, 2026
Sizheng Ma. Prompt Response from Plunging Sources in Schwarzschild Spacetime, 2026
2026
-
[21]
McWilliams
Anuj Kankani and Sean T. McWilliams. Direct Waves in Black-Hole Binary Mergers: Insights from the Backwards One Body Model, 2026
2026
-
[22]
Piccinni, Yanbei Chen, and Ling Sun
Neil Lu, Sizheng Ma, Ornella J. Piccinni, Yanbei Chen, and Ling Sun. GW250114 reveals signatures of post-merger black-hole horizon.Nature, 2026. doi: 10.1038/ s41586-026-10696-0
2026
-
[23]
McWilliams
Anuj Kankani and Sean T. McWilliams. The Direct Wave is Not a Meaningful Test of Horizon Properties, 2026
2026
-
[24]
New high-performing method for solving the homogeneous Teukolsky equation.Physical Review D, 113:024001, 2026
Ye Jiang and Wen-Biao Han. New high-performing method for solving the homogeneous Teukolsky equation.Physical Review D, 113:024001, 2026. doi: 10.1103/kkmt-fbjb
2026 doi
-
[25]
Abbott, et al
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott, et al. Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo.SoftwareX, 13: 100658, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100658
2021
-
[26]
Piccinni, Yanbei Chen, and Ling Sun
Neil Lu, Sizheng Ma, Ornella J. Piccinni, Yanbei Chen, and Ling Sun. Data and code package for GW250114 horizon signatures, 2026
2026
-
[27]
GWTC- 4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run, 2025
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration. GWTC- 4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run, 2025
2025
-
[28]
Quasinormal-mode filters: a new approach to analyze the gravitational- wave ringdown of binary black-hole mergers.Physical Review D, 106:084036, 2022
Sizheng Ma et al. Quasinormal-mode filters: a new approach to analyze the gravitational- wave ringdown of binary black-hole mergers.Physical Review D, 106:084036, 2022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.084036
2022 doi
-
[29]
Black hole spectroscopy by mode cleaning
Sizheng Ma, Ling Sun, and Yanbei Chen. Black hole spectroscopy by mode cleaning. Physical Review Letters, 130:141401, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.141401. 12
2023 doi
-
[30]
Piccinni, Ling Sun, and Eliot Finch
Neil Lu, Sizheng Ma, Ornella J. Piccinni, Ling Sun, and Eliot Finch. Statistical identifi- cation of ringdown modes with rational filters.Physical Review D, 112:064047, 2025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.112.064047
2025 doi
-
[31]
Field, Mark A
Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Blackman, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer. Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses.Physical Review Research, 1:033015, 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch. 1.033015. 13
2019 doi
-
[2006]
doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064030
Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.