Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A GPU-accelerated numerical relativity code reproduces the GW150914 black-hole merger waveform to within 0.35 radians of phase and 0.4% in amplitude, and recovers consistent source parameters from the observed signal.

desk verdict First AthenaK GW150914 run with CCE and memory is a real capability demonstration, but the headline agreement numbers come from a run whose own convergence test differs at the same size as the quoted dephasing. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06838 v2 pith:EZANW6O6 submitted 2025-06-07 gr-qc

David Radice , Rossella Gamba , Hengrui Zhu , Alireza Rashti This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C3583-08 PACS 04.25.D04.30.-w04.70.Bw
keywords numericalrelativitybinaryblackholeGW150914CauchycharacteristicextractionAthenaKgravitationalwavesparameterestimationGPU-acceleratedsimulation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a new numerical-relativity simulation of the binary black hole merger that produced the gravitational-wave event GW150914, run with the GPU-accelerated open-source code AthenaK. The authors claim that AthenaK reproduces the results of established reference codes: the remnant mass and spin agree with the highest-resolution reference run to relative differences of $9\times10^{-5}$ and $2\times10^{-4}$, the recoil velocity is within 3%, and the dominant $(2,2)$ waveform mode shows at most about 0.35 radians of phase difference and 0.4% amplitude difference. They also re-analyze the gravitational-wave data with their new waveform and recover chirp mass, luminosity distance, and inclination consistent with semi-analytic models. If correct, these results validate AthenaK as an open, GPU-native capability for many-orbit binary black hole simulations and for producing waveforms at future null infinity via Cauchy characteristic extraction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Cauchy-characteristic extraction (CCE) pipeline that converts AthenaK's near-zone metric data on a world tube at $49M \le r \le 51M$ into gravitational-wave strain at future null infinity $\mathscr{I}^+$, using a null evolution code [104]; this yields waveforms that include memory effects, which are visible in the $m=0$ multipoles. Remnant mass and spin come from the isolated horizon formalism applied to horizon data recorded in Cartesian boxes around the punctures. The comparison against reference waveforms minimizes a $\chi^2$ time-and-phase alignment over an inspiral interval, and the underlying evolution uses the Z4c formulation of Einstein's equations with sixth-order finite differencing, adaptive mesh refinement down to $\Delta = 0.0078125\,M$, and a fourth-order Runge-Kutta integrator.

What would settle it

Run the same GW150914 setup at $N=192$ with otherwise identical parameters, align the $(2,2)$ modes against the reference waveforms as in Sec. 3.2, and compare the merger-phase difference to the $N=128$ value. If the higher-resolution run changes the AthenaK-minus-reference dephasing by more than about $0.2$ rad, or if the amplitude difference moves outside the $0.2\%$--$0.4\%$ band, the headline agreement is resolution-limited rather than a measure of AthenaK's accuracy.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single AthenaK run, at a base resolution of 128 points per direction with 12 adaptive mesh refinement levels, reproduces the GW150914 remnant and waveform of the reference simulations closely enough that the code can be trusted for this class of problems. Concretely, the remnant mass is $M=0.951948$ and the dimensionless spin is $\chi=0.691914$ in units where the initial binary mass is 1, matching the highest-resolution reference calculation to $9\times10^{-5}$ and $2\times10^{-4}$; the recoil velocity is $138.68$ km/s, within 3% of the reference; and the $(2,2)$ mode shows dephasing of $\Delta\phi\simeq0.35$ with relative amplitude difference $\Delta A/A\simeq0.4\%$ at merger. The paper further claims that Bayesian re-analysis of GW150914 data with this waveform yields chirp mass $30.7^{+0.6}_{-0.5}\,M_\odot$, luminosity distance $460^{+140}_{-140}$ Mpc, and inclination $2.7^{+0.3}_{-0.4}$ rad, consistent within 90% credibility with the semi-analytic model analysis used for comparison.

Load-bearing premise

The numbers quoted as AthenaK's accuracy come from a single simulation at the baseline $N=128$ resolution, and that run is assumed to be converged enough that resolution error is smaller than the reported differences; the paper itself notes in Sec. 4 that only one grid resolution was used, while its Appendix shows the $(2,2)$ phase at merger changes by $0.38$ rad when resolution is raised to $N=192$, a shift comparable to the reported $0.35$ rad dephasing against the reference codes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • AthenaK can evolve a roughly ten-orbit binary black hole merger on GPU hardware in about 130 hours on 192 GPUs, lowering the computational barrier for long-inspiral simulations.
  • The CCE pipeline produces waveforms at infinity that carry memory effects, so memory can be included from the start in waveform modeling and parameter estimation.
  • The $(2,2)$-mode agreement at the level of $0.35$ rad and $0.4\%$ across the full evolution makes AthenaK waveforms usable as cross-checks for semi-analytic inspiral-merger-ringdown models in the GW150914-like region.
  • The open tutorial, input files, and analysis scripts allow other groups to reproduce the simulation and results, turning the pipeline into a community resource.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's appendix gives a partial resolution check: at $N=192$ the $(2,2)$ phase difference against the reference simulation drops from $0.35$ to $0.12$ rad, suggesting the headline $N=128$ numbers are conservative and that a formal convergence study would show AthenaK's intrinsic accuracy is better than the abstract states.
  • The memory and spin-memory features seen in the $m=0$ modes are not used in the parameter estimation; a natural next step is to include those modes in the likelihood and test whether current or next-generation detectors are sensitive to them.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to other observed events with different mass ratios, spins, or precession, where CCE waveforms are rarer; the single-resolution caveat would need to be re-examined for each event.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper presents targeted numerical-relativity simulations of the GW150914 binary black hole merger performed with the GPU-accelerated code AthenaK, using puncture initial data inherited from the LazEV setup of Lovelace et al. (2016) and waveforms extracted at future null infinity through Cauchy-characteristic extraction with SpECTRE. The isolated-horizon measurements give remnant mass M = 0.951948 and spin chi = 0.691914, quoted as agreeing with the highest-resolution SpEC results to relative differences of 9e-5 and 2e-4, and a recoil velocity within 3% of SpEC. The dominant (2,2) mode is compared with SXS:BBH:0305 and RIT:BBH:0062 after time/phase alignment, with claimed maximum dephasing of about 0.35 rad and amplitude difference of about 0.4%. The waveform is then used in a bilby reanalysis of the GW150914 data, yielding chirp mass, luminosity distance, and inclination posteriors broadly consistent with IMRPhenomXPHM. The central claim is that these results validate AthenaK and its CCE pipeline as a state-of-the-art, open-source, GPU-native capability for many-orbit binary black hole simulations.

Significance. If the accuracy claims hold, this is a valuable code-validation and application paper: it benchmarks a new open-source, GPU-native numerical-relativity code against two independent codes (SpEC and LazEV) and against real LIGO data, and it demonstrates a complete pipeline from puncture initial data through CCE to parameter estimation, with a public step-by-step tutorial and reproduction scripts that are a genuine community asset. The inclusion of memory effects in the CCE modes and the very tight remnant mass and spin agreement are additional strengths. The significance of the waveform-accuracy claims, however, is currently limited by the resolution issue described in the major comments: the headline dephasing and amplitude figures are comparable in size to the resolution error, so they do not yet support the 'excellent agreement' statement at the quoted precision. Restating the analysis around the higher-resolution run, or with explicit error bars, would make the paper's conclusions well supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4 and Appendix A] Section 4 states that 'the main limitation of this work is that we have only considered a single grid resolution with AthenaK,' but Appendix A presents a complete second simulation with 192 points in the coarsest refinement level and uses it to validate the N=128 baseline (Fig. A1). This is a direct internal contradiction on a load-bearing point: the reader cannot tell whether the quoted results are meant to come from a single-resolution study or from the two-resolution set described in the appendix. Please correct Section 4 (for example, by describing the N=192 run as a convergence check performed after the main analysis) and state explicitly which run underlies each quoted number.
  2. [Abstract; Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4] The headline agreement figures — maximum dephasing Delta phi ~ 0.35 rad and amplitude difference Delta A/A ~ 0.4% — are quoted from the N=128 baseline run in the abstract and Sec. 3.2 (bottom panel of Fig. 4) without a resolution error bar. Appendix A reports that the (2,2) phase at merger changes by 0.38 rad and the relative amplitude by 0.2% between N=128 and N=192, so the resolution effect is equal to or larger than the quoted AthenaK-SXS dephasing, and the headline numbers do not cleanly characterize AthenaK's physical accuracy. The same appendix shows that the N=192 run agrees with SXS to 0.12 rad and 0.01% amplitude, so the paper's own higher-resolution data actually support a stronger statement than the abstract makes. The abstract, Sec. 3.2, and Fig. 4 should be revised to quote the converged (N=192-based) values or to attach explicit resolution error bars; the Sec. 3.3 parameter-estimation results, which use the N=128 waveform, inherit the same caveat and should be qualified accordingly.
  3. [Sec. 3.1] The remnant mass and spin, M = 0.951948 and chi = 0.691914, together with the claimed relative differences of 9e-5 and 2e-4 from the highest-resolution SpEC results, are taken from the N=128 run, and no N=192 remnant values are reported anywhere in the paper. There is therefore no resolution estimate for these quantities, and the quoted precision is unsupported even though the qualitative agreement is probably robust. Please report the N=192 remnant mass and spin (or a Richardson-extrapolated estimate) and quote the resolution uncertainty alongside the SpEC comparison.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] There is a typo: 'broadely consistent' should read 'broadly consistent.'
  2. [Sec. 2] The sentence 'The parameters from the initial data are taken from Ref. [80] to match that used for the LazEV code' should read '...to match those used for the LazEV code.' In addition, the mass ratio and dimensionless spin magnitudes of the initial black holes are never stated; given the paper's reproducibility emphasis and the role these parameters play in the Sec. 3.3 analysis, they should be listed explicitly.
  3. [Eq. (1), Sec. 3.2] The alignment window [t_i, t_f] used in Eq. (1) and indicated by the dotted lines in Fig. 4 is not specified numerically; stating the window would make the comparison reproducible.
  4. [Table 1] The table caption contains a typo: 'extrisinc' should read 'extrinsic.'
  5. [Sec. 3.3] The phrase 'around the time GPS of event t0' should read 'around the GPS time of the event t0.'
  6. [Fig. A1] The caption 'Real (or imaginary) parts of the waveform multipoles' is ambiguous; please specify which part is plotted for each mode.
  7. [Sec. 2 and Sec. 3.2] Because the initial data are inherited from Ref. [80], the comparisons with SpEC and LazEV largely validate the evolution and extraction pipeline rather than the choice of initial parameters; drawing this implication explicitly in Sec. 3 would help readers interpret the agreement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity; comparisons are against independent external NR and data-analysis targets; the single-resolution limitation is a robustness issue, not a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claims are benchmark comparisons, and none of the quoted agreement numbers is an input to the calculation that produces them. Initial parameters are taken from Lovelace et al. (Ref. [80]), but the evolution, remnant, and CCE waveform are generated by AthenaK and compared a posteriori with SpEC/LazEV results; this is a standard code-to-code benchmark, not a fit. The waveform dephasing is a residual after minimizing Eq. (1) over time and phase offsets, and the amplitude difference and remnant quantities are not fitted. The GW150914 re-analysis (Sec. 3.3) uses a fixed simulation waveform, not a waveform tuned to the data, so consistency with IMRPhenomXPHM is an independent check. Self-citations (e.g., [34], [90]) point to methodology and code documentation but are not invoked to justify the agreement claim. The Appendix A resolution study and Sec. 4 admission that only one grid resolution was used for the headline numbers raise a robustness/convergence concern, but that is a correctness caveat, not circular reasoning; no equation or fitted parameter is reused as its own prediction. Accordingly, no circular step meeting the evidentiary bar is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Every load-bearing input is standard NR infrastructure or inherited data: the binary parameters come from Ref. [80]; evolution relies on Z4c, TwoPunctures, and 12-level AMR; extraction relies on SpECTRE CCE, scri, and fixed-frequency integration; horizon analysis relies on AHFinderDirect and QuasiLocalMeasures; PE relies on bilby with standard priors. The paper's contribution is the validated AthenaK pipeline itself. The main ledger exposures are the unquantified convergence of the baseline run and the fact that the initial data are shared with the comparison simulations, which makes the agreement a code cross-check on a shared problem rather than an independent test of the physics. No new entities are introduced; memory and spin memory are established phenomena.

free parameters (3)
  • Time and phase alignment offsets (Delta_t, Delta_phi) in Eq. (1) = minimized via chi-squared; resulting values not reported
    The quoted dephasing of 0.35 rad is a residual after optimally aligning each comparison waveform; the absorbed offsets are fit parameters that are not reported in the text.
  • Initial data parameters (separation 11.8 M, orbital frequency M omega = 0.20; mass ratio q and spins unstated) = taken from Ref. [80] (Lovelace et al. 2016)
    The physical setup is inherited from the SXS/RIT targeted runs rather than derived in this paper, and the mass ratio and spins are never given in the text, so the reader cannot assess the parameter choice without the external reference.
  • Alignment window [t_i, t_f] in Eq. (1) = not specified numerically
    The interval over which phase alignment is minimized is only shown as vertical dotted lines in Fig. 4; the dephasing number depends on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Z4c formulation with moving-puncture gauge is a valid and constraint-preserving discretization of the Einstein equations for BBH spacetimes
    Invoked in Sec. 2 (citing [92,93]); the stability and accuracy of the 10-orbit evolution depend on it.
  • domain assumption TwoPunctures initial data provide a constraint-satisfying snapshot matching the Lovelace et al. configuration
    Sec. 2 (citing [96]); initial constraint violation is not reported in this paper.
  • domain assumption SpECTRE's CCE and scri's superrest-frame transformation correctly map world-tube data to future null infinity and to the binary frame
    Sec. 2; Appendix A shows the superrest-frame determination changes between resolutions, so this step is not resolution-robust in the baseline run.
  • domain assumption The residual eccentricity e = 8.3e-4 is small enough that phase differences against the SXS/RIT runs reflect code truncation error rather than eccentricity mismatch
    Sec. 3.1 and 3.2; the eccentricity is measured, not reduced, and the comparison runs' eccentricities are not stated.
  • standard math The isolated horizon formalism gives an unambiguous remnant mass and spin from the AthenaK metric data
    Sec. 3.1 (citing [119]); routine in the field.
  • domain assumption Standard Bayesian priors and a fixed-q, fixed-spin template are sufficient for a consistency check of GW150914
    Sec. 3.3 and Table 1; the template cannot fit the true continuous intrinsic parameters, so the recovered uncertainty is narrower than a full analysis.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EZANW6O6

@misc{pith2026250606838,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EZANW6O6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06838}
}
abstract

We present new binary black hole simulations targeted to GW150914 using the GPU-accelerated code AthenaK. We compute the properties of the final remnant with the isolated horizon formalism and obtain gravitational-waveforms at future null infinity via Cauchy characteristic extraction. We compare our results with those obtained by the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) and Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) groups, targeted to the same event. We find excellent agreement with the SXS and RIT results in the remnant mass, spin, and recoil velocity. For the dominant $(\ell,m)=(2,2)$ mode of the gravitational-wave signal we find maximum dephasing of $\Delta \phi \simeq 0.35$ and amplitude difference of $\Delta A/A \simeq 0.4\%$. We use our newly computed waveform to re-analyze the GW150914 data and find posteriors for chirp mass, luminosity distance, and inclination that are broadely consistent with those obtained using semi-analytic waveform models. This work demonstrates the viability of AthenaK for many-orbits binary black hole merger simulations. A step-by-step tutorial, including all necessary input files and analysis scripts to reproduce our results, is available on GitHub.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06838 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Puncture trajectories obtained by integrating ˙x [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Conformal factor χ = γ −3 , γ being the determinant spatial metric, at the approximate time of merger t = 2050 M. approach described in [117, 118], is e = 8.3 × 10−4 . This estimate is obtained by fitting a post-Newtonian expression for the orbital separation to the puncture’s coordinate distance starting at t = 100 M and extending until the separation drops below 8 M. As such, e should be taken as a measurement of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Real and imaginary parts of the waveform multipoles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of the dominant ℓ = m = 2 waveform multipole obtained from our targeted simulation (red dashed) against the same quantity from the SXS:BBH:0305 (black) and RIT:BBH:0062 (blue dashed) simulations. The phase and amplitude differences are reported in the bottom…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstructed raw (blue) and whitened (red) waveforms, obtained performing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Posterior distribution of chirp mass M, luminosity distance dL and inclination ι recovered by analyzing the data of GW150914 using the waveform produced by our AthenaK simulation (red) compared to the full analysis of GWTC-2.1 performed with the IMRPhenomXPHM model [62…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. GRACE: An Open-Source Framework for GPU-Accelerated Numerical Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRACE is a validated, open-source, Kokkos+p4est GPU-portable framework that evolves ideal GRMHD with constrained transport self-consistently coupled to Z4c Einstein equations on fixed or adaptive meshes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

127 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [80]

    2016 Class

    Lovelace G et al. 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 244002 (Preprint 1607.05377)

    arXiv 2016

  2. [1]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 061102 ( Preprint 1602.03837)

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 241102 ( Preprint 1602.03840) AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914 11

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Astrophys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Astrophys. J. Lett. 818 L22 ( Preprint 1602.03846)

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 221101 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)] ( Preprint 1602.03841)

    arXiv 2018

  6. [5]

    Cardoso V, Franzin E and Pani P 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 171101 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 117, 089902 (2016)] ( Preprint 1602.07309)

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    Yunes N, Yagi K and Pretorius F 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 084002 (Preprint 1603.08955)

    arXiv 2016

  8. [7]

    Cardoso V and Pani P 2019 Living Rev. Rel. 22 4 (Preprint 1904.05363)

    arXiv 2019

Show all 127 references
  1. [8]

    Cardoso V and Gualtieri L 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 174001 (Preprint 1607.03133)

    2016 arXiv

  2. [9]

    2018 Phys

    Carullo G et al. 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 104020 (Preprint 1805.04760)

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Isi M, Giesler M, Farr W M, Scheel M A and Teukolsky S A 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 111102 (Preprint 1905.00869)

    2019 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Cotesta R, Carullo G, Berti E and Cardoso V 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 111102 ( Preprint 2201.00822)

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Cabero M, Capano C D, Fischer-Birnholtz O, Krishnan B, Nielsen A B, Nitz A H and Biwer C M 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 124069 (Preprint 1711.09073)

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Isi M, Farr W M, Giesler M, Scheel M A and Teukolsky S A 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 011103 (Preprint 2012.04486)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 2010Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer (Cambridge University Press)

  8. [15]

    Smarr L, Cadez A, DeWitt B S and Eppley K 1976 Phys. Rev. D 14 2443–2452

    1976

  9. [16]

    Pretorius F 2005 Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 121101 (Preprint gr-qc/0507014)

    2005 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Campanelli M, Lousto C O, Marronetti P and Zlochower Y 2006 Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 111101 (Preprint gr-qc/0511048)

    2006 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Baker J G, van Meter J R, McWilliams S T, Centrella J and Kelly B J 2007 Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 181101 (Preprint gr-qc/0612024)

    2007 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Baker J G, Centrella J, Choi D I, Koppitz M and van Meter J 2006 Phys. Rev. D 73 104002 (Preprint gr-qc/0602026)

    2006 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Sperhake U 2007 Phys. Rev. D 76 104015 (Preprint gr-qc/0606079)

    2007 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Bruegmann B, Gonzalez J A, Hannam M, Husa S, Sperhake U and Tichy W 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 024027 (Preprint gr-qc/0610128)

    2008 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Scheel M A, Pfeiffer H P, Lindblom L, Kidder L E, Rinne O and Teukolsky S A 2006 Phys. Rev. D 74 104006 (Preprint gr-qc/0607056)

    2006 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Szilagyi B, Lindblom L and Scheel M A 2009 Phys. Rev. D 80 124010 (Preprint 0909.3557)

    2009 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Thierfelder M, Bernuzzi S and Bruegmann B 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 044012 (Preprint 1104.4751)

    2011 arXiv

  18. [25]

    2012 Class

    Loffler F et al. 2012 Class. Quant. Grav. 29 115001 (Preprint 1111.3344)

    2012 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Babiuc M C, Szilagyi B, Winicour J and Zlochower Y 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 044057 ( Preprint 1011.4223)

    2011 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Hilditch D, Weyhausen A and Br¨ ugmann B 2016Phys. Rev. D 93 063006 (Preprint 1504.04732)

    arXiv

  21. [28]

    Bugner M, Dietrich T, Bernuzzi S, Weyhausen A and Br¨ ugmann B 2016Phys. Rev. D 94 084004 (Preprint 1508.07147)

    arXiv

  22. [29]

    Clough K, Figueras P, Finkel H, Kunesch M, Lim E A and Tunyasuvunakool S 2015Class. Quant. Grav. 32 245011 (Preprint 1503.03436)

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    Kidder L E et al. 2017 J. Comput. Phys. 335 84–114 (Preprint 1609.00098)

    2017 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Daszuta B, Zappa F, Cook W, Radice D, Bernuzzi S and Morozova V 2021 Astrophys. J. Supp. 257 25 (Preprint 2101.08289)

    2021 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Rashti A, Bhattacharyya M, Radice D, Daszuta B, Cook W and Bernuzzi S 2024 Class. Quant. Grav. 41 095001 (Preprint 2312.05438)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Daszuta B 2024 J. Comput. Phys. 508 112958 (Preprint 2302.14858)

    2024 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Rashti A, Gamba R, Chandra K, Radice D, Daszuta B, Cook W and Bernuzzi S 2024 ( Preprint 2411.11989) AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914 12

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Buonanno A and Damour T 1999 Phys. Rev. D 59 084006 (Preprint gr-qc/9811091)

    1999 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Buonanno A and Damour T 2000 Phys. Rev. D 62 064015 (Preprint gr-qc/0001013)

    2000 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Ramos-Buades A, Buonanno A, Khalil M and Ossokine S 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 044035 (Preprint 2112.06952)

    2022 arXiv

  31. [38]

    2023 Phys

    Pompili L et al. 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 124035 (Preprint 2303.18039)

    2023 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Ramos-Buades A, Buonanno A, Estell´ es H, Khalil M, Mihaylov D P, Ossokine S, Pompili L and Shiferaw M 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 124037 (Preprint 2303.18046)

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Chiaramello D and Nagar A 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 101501 (Preprint 2001.11736)

    2020 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Akcay S, Gamba R and Bernuzzi S 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 024014 (Preprint 2005.05338)

    2021 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Gamba R, Ak¸ cay S, Bernuzzi S and Williams J 2022 Phys. Rev. D 106 024020 ( Preprint 2111.03675)

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Nagar A, Rettegno P, Gamba R, Albanesi S, Albertini A and Bernuzzi S 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 124018 (Preprint 2304.09662)

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Nagar A, Gamba R, Rettegno P, Fantini V and Bernuzzi S 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 084001 (Preprint 2404.05288)

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Nagar A, Chiaramello D, Gamba R, Albanesi S, Bernuzzi S, Fantini V, Panzeri M and Rettegno P 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 064050 (Preprint 2407.04762)

    2025 arXiv

  39. [46]

    2007 Class

    Ajith P et al. 2007 Class. Quant. Grav. 24 S689–S700 (Preprint 0704.3764)

    2007 arXiv

  40. [47]

    2008 Phys

    Ajith P et al. 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 104017 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 79, 129901 (2009)] ( Preprint 0710.2335)

    2009 arXiv

  41. [48]

    2011 Phys

    Ajith P et al. 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 241101 (Preprint 0909.2867)

    2011 arXiv

  42. [49]

    2010 Phys

    Santamaria L et al. 2010 Phys. Rev. D 82 064016 (Preprint 1005.3306)

    2010 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Husa S, Khan S, Hannam M, P¨ urrer M, Ohme F, Jim´ enez Forteza X and Boh´ e A 2016 Phys. Rev. D 93 044006 (Preprint 1508.07250)

    2016 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Khan S, Husa S, Hannam M, Ohme F, P¨ urrer M, Jim´ enez Forteza X and Boh´ e A 2016 Phys. Rev. D 93 044007 (Preprint 1508.07253)

    2016 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Pratten G, Husa S, Garcia-Quiros C, Colleoni M, Ramos-Buades A, Estelles H and Jaume R 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 064001 (Preprint 2001.11412)

    2020 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Estell´ es H, Ramos-Buades A, Husa S, Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os C, Colleoni M, Haegel L and Jaume R 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 124060 (Preprint 2004.08302)

    2021 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Estell´ es H, Colleoni M, Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os C, Husa S, Keitel D, Mateu-Lucena M, Planas M d L and Ramos-Buades A 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 084040 (Preprint 2105.05872)

    2022 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Hamilton E, London L, Thompson J E, Fauchon-Jones E, Hannam M, Kalaghatgi C, Khan S, Pannarale F and Vano-Vinuales A 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 124027 (Preprint 2107.08876)

    2021 arXiv

  49. [56]

    London L, Khan S, Fauchon-Jones E, Garc ´ ıa C, Hannam M, Husa S, Jim´ enez-Forteza X, Kalaghatgi C, Ohme F and Pannarale F 2018 Phys. Rev. Lett. 120 161102 ( Preprint 1708.00404)

    2018 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os C, Colleoni M, Husa S, Estell´ es H, Pratten G, Ramos-Buades A, Mateu-Lucena M and Jaume R 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 064002 (Preprint 2001.10914)

    2020 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Khan S, Ohme F, Chatziioannou K and Hannam M 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 024056 ( Preprint 1911.06050)

    2020 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Hannam M, Schmidt P, Boh´ e A, Haegel L, Husa S, Ohme F, Pratten G and P¨ urrer M 2014Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 151101 (Preprint 1308.3271)

    arXiv

  53. [60]

    Schmidt P, Ohme F and Hannam M 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 024043 (Preprint 1408.1810)

    2015 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Khan S, Chatziioannou K, Hannam M and Ohme F 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 024059 ( Preprint 1809.10113)

    2019 arXiv

  55. [62]

    2021 Phys

    Pratten G et al. 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 104056 (Preprint 2004.06503)

    2021 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Blackman J, Szilagyi B, Galley C R and Tiglio M 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 021101 (Preprint 1401.7038)

    2014 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Blackman J, Field S E, Scheel M A, Galley C R, Hemberger D A, Schmidt P and Smith R 2017 Phys. Rev. D 95 104023 (Preprint 1701.00550) AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914 13

    2017 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Varma V, Field S E, Scheel M A, Blackman J, Kidder L E and Pfeiffer H P 2019 Phys. Rev. D 99 064045 (Preprint 1812.07865)

    2019 arXiv

  59. [66]

    Varma V, Field S E, Scheel M A, Blackman J, Gerosa D, Stein L C, Kidder L E and Pfeiffer H P 2019 Phys. Rev. Research. 1 033015 (Preprint 1905.09300)

    2019 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Williams D, Heng I S, Gair J, Clark J A and Khamesra B 2020Phys. Rev. D 101 063011 (Preprint 1903.09204)

    1903 arXiv

  61. [68]

    2014 Class

    Hinder I et al. 2014 Class. Quant. Grav. 31 025012 (Preprint 1307.5307)

    2014 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Jani K, Healy J, Clark J A, London L, Laguna P and Shoemaker D 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 204001 (Preprint 1605.03204)

    2016 arXiv

  63. [70]

    2023 ( Preprint 2309.00262)

    Ferguson D et al. 2023 ( Preprint 2309.00262)

    2023 arXiv

  64. [71]

    2013 Phys

    Mroue A H et al. 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 241104 (Preprint 1304.6077)

    2013 arXiv

  65. [72]

    2019 Class

    Boyle M et al. 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 195006 (Preprint 1904.04831)

    2019 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Scheel M A, Boyle M, Mitman K, Deppe N, Stein L C, Armaza C, Bonilla M S, Buchman L T, Ceja A, Chaudhary H, Chen Y, Corman M, Zolt´ an Csuk´ as K, Melize Ferrus C, Field S E, Giesler M, Habib S, H´ ebert F, Hemberger D A, Iozzo D A B, Islam T, Jones K Z, Khairnar A, Kidder L E...

    2025

  67. [74]

    Healy J, Lousto C O, Zlochower Y and Campanelli M 2017 Class. Quant. Grav. 34 224001 (Preprint 1703.03423)

    2017 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Healy J, Lousto C O, Lange J, O’Shaughnessy R, Zlochower Y and Campanelli M 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 024021 (Preprint 1901.02553)

    2019 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Healy J and Lousto C O 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 104018 (Preprint 2007.07910)

    2020 arXiv

  70. [77]

    Healy J and Lousto C O 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 124010 (Preprint 2202.00018)

    2022 arXiv

  71. [78]

    2019 Phys

    Huerta E A et al. 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 064003 (Preprint 1901.07038)

    2019 arXiv

  72. [79]

    2024 Phys

    Hamilton E et al. 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 044032 (Preprint 2303.05419)

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Zlochower Y, Baker J G, Campanelli M and Lousto C O 2005 Phys. Rev. D 72 024021 (Preprint gr-qc/0505055)

    2005 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Nakamura T, Oohara K and Kojima Y 1987 Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 90 1–218

    1987

  75. [83]

    Shibata M and Nakamura T 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52 5428–5444

    1995

  76. [84]

    Baumgarte T W and Shapiro S L 1998 Phys. Rev. D 59 024007 (Preprint gr-qc/9810065)

    1998 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Brandt S and Bruegmann B 1997 Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 3606–3609 (Preprint gr-qc/9703066)

    1997 arXiv

  78. [86]

    van Meter J R, Baker J G, Koppitz M and Choi D I 2006 Phys. Rev. D 73 124011 ( Preprint gr-qc/0605030)

    2006 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Alcubierre M, Bruegmann B, Diener P, Koppitz M, Pollney D, Seidel E and Takahashi R 2003 Phys. Rev. D 67 084023 (Preprint gr-qc/0206072)

    2003 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Lindblom L, Scheel M A, Kidder L E, Owen R and Rinne O 2006 Class. Quant. Grav. 23 S447– S462 (Preprint gr-qc/0512093)

    2006 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Stone J M, Mullen P D, Fielding D, Grete P, Guo M, Kempski P, Most E R, White C J and Wong G N 2024 arXiv e-prints arXiv:2409.16053 (Preprint 2409.16053)

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Zhu H, Fields J, Zappa F, Radice D, Stone J, Rashti A, Cook W, Bernuzzi S and Daszuta B 2024 (Preprint 2409.10383)

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Fields J, Zhu H, Radice D, Stone J M, Cook W, Bernuzzi S and Daszuta B 2025 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 276 35 (Preprint 2409.10384)

    2025 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Bernuzzi S and Hilditch D 2010 Phys. Rev. D 81 084003 (Preprint 0912.2920)

    2010 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Cao Z and Hilditch D 2012 Phys. Rev. D 85 124032 (Preprint 1111.2177)

    2012 arXiv

  86. [94]

    https://github.com/IAS-Astrophysics/athenak AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914 14

    Stone J M et al. https://github.com/IAS-Astrophysics/athenak AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914 14

  87. [95]

    Radice D, Gamba R and Rashti A Binary black hole simulations with athenak https://github.com/dradice/athenak-tutorial-gw150914

  88. [96]

    Ansorg M, Bruegmann B and Tichy W 2004 Phys. Rev. D 70 064011 (Preprint gr-qc/0404056)

    2004 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Bishop N T and Rezzolla L 2016 Living Rev. Rel. 19 2 (Preprint 1606.02532)

    2016 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Reisswig C and Pollney D 2011 Class. Quant. Grav. 28 195015 (Preprint 1006.1632)

    2011 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Bishop N T, Gomez R, Lehner L, Szilagyi B, Winicour J and Isaacson R A 1998 Cauchy characteristic matching pp 383–408 ( Preprint gr-qc/9801070)

    1998 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Reisswig C, Bishop N T, Pollney D and Szilagyi B 2009 Phys. Rev. Lett. 103 221101 (Preprint 0907.2637)

    2009 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Handmer C J and Szilagyi B 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 025008 (Preprint 1406.7029)

    2015 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Moxon J, Scheel M A and Teukolsky S A 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 044052 (Preprint 2007.01339)

    2020 arXiv

  95. [103]

    Moxon J, Scheel M A, Teukolsky S A, Deppe N, Fischer N, H´ ebert F, Kidder L E and Throwe W 2023 Phys. Rev. D 107 064013 (Preprint 2110.08635)

    2023 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Deppe N, Throwe W, Kidder L E, Vu N L, Nelli K C, Armaza C, Bonilla M S, H´ ebert F, Kim Y, Kumar P, Lovelace G, Macedo A, Moxon J, O’Shea E, Pfeiffer H P, Scheel M A, Teukolsky S A, Wittek N A, Anantpurkar I, Anderson C, Boyle M, Carpenter A, Ceja A, Chaudhary H, Corso N, Fay...

    2025

  97. [105]

    Boyle M, Iozzo D and Stein L C 2020 moble/scri: v1.2 URL https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo. 4041972

    2020 doi

  98. [106]

    Boyle M 2013 Phys. Rev. D 87 104006 (Preprint 1302.2919)

    2013 arXiv

  99. [107]

    Boyle M 2016 Phys. Rev. D 93 084031 (Preprint 1509.00862)

    2016 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Boyle M, Kidder L E, Ossokine S and Pfeiffer H P 2014 ( Preprint 1409.4431)

    2014 arXiv

  101. [109]

    Mitman K, Moxon J, Scheel M A, Teukolsky S A, Boyle M, Deppe N, Kidder L E and Throwe W 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 104007 (Preprint 2007.11562)

    2020 arXiv

  102. [110]

    2022 Phys

    Maga˜ na Zertuche Let al. 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 104015 (Preprint 2110.15922)

    2022 arXiv

  103. [111]

    2022 Phys

    Mitman K et al. 2022 Phys. Rev. D 106 084029 (Preprint 2208.04356)

    2022 arXiv

  104. [112]

    Reisswig C, Bishop N T, Pollney D and Szilagyi B 2010 Class. Quant. Grav. 27 075014 (Preprint 0912.1285)

    2010 arXiv

  105. [113]

    Thornburg J 2004 Class. Quant. Grav. 21 743–766 (Preprint gr-qc/0306056)

    2004 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Dreyer O, Krishnan B, Shoemaker D and Schnetter E 2003 Phys. Rev. D 67 024018 ( Preprint gr-qc/0206008)

    2003 arXiv

  107. [115]

    Haas R, Rizzo M, Boyer D, Brandt S R, Diener P, Garzon D, Sanches L T, Tsao B J, Cupp S, Etienne Z, Jacques T P, Ji L, Schnetter E, Werneck L, Alcubierre M, Alic D, Allen G, Ansorg M, Armengol F G L, Babiuc-Hamilton M, Baiotti L, Benger W, Bentivegna E, Bernuzzi S, Bhatia K, B...

    2024

  108. [116]

    Ruchlin I, Etienne Z B and Baumgarte T W 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 064036 (Preprint 1712.07658)

    2018 arXiv

  109. [117]

    2015 Phys

    Tacik N et al. 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 124012 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 049903 (2016)] ( Preprint 1508.06986)

    2016 arXiv

  110. [118]

    Tichy W, Rashti A, Dietrich T, Dudi R and Br¨ ugmann B 2019Phys. Rev. D 100 124046 (Preprint 1910.09690)

    1910 arXiv

  111. [119]

    Ashtekar A and Krishnan B 2004 Living Rev. Rel. 7 10 (Preprint gr-qc/0407042)

    2004 arXiv

  112. [120]

    2024 Class

    Mitman K et al. 2024 Class. Quant. Grav. 41 223001 (Preprint 2405.08868)

    2024 arXiv

  113. [121]

    Nichols D A 2017 Phys. Rev. D 95 084048 (Preprint 1702.03300)

    2017 arXiv

  114. [122]

    Gamba R, Lange J, Chiaramello D, Tissino J and Tibrewal S 2025 ( Preprint 2505.21612)

    2025 arXiv

  115. [123]

    2019 Astrophys

    Ashton G et al. 2019 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241 27 (Preprint 1811.02042)

    2019 arXiv

  116. [124]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2021 SoftwareX 13 100658 (Preprint 1912.11716)

    Abbott R et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2021 SoftwareX 13 100658 (Preprint 1912.11716)

    2021 arXiv

  117. [125]

    (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Astrophys

    Abbott R et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 267 29 (Preprint 2302.03676)

    2023 arXiv

  118. [126]

    2020 Phys

    Ossokine S et al. 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 044055 (Preprint 2004.09442)

    2020 arXiv

  119. [127]

    (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2024 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 022001 (Preprint 2108.01045) AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914 16 Figure A1: Real (or imaginary) parts of the waveform multipoleshℓm extracted at I + via CCE for the N = 192 simulation, c...

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.