Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Polarization Analysis of Ringdown Signals

T0 review · 2 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-19 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Ringdown signals from binary black hole mergers carry measurable circular polarization that directly infers the source inclination angle.

desk verdict This shows ringdown polarization can give inclination for non-precessing mergers with two detectors under the symmetry assumption, with clear biases shown for precessing cases. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.15271 v1 pith:ICESHCAA submitted 2026-05-14 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Nicole Khusid , Will Farr , Max Isi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesringdownquasi-normalmodespolarizationblackholemergersLIGOinclinationangle
checked against alexander_duality_circle_linking
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

The paper demonstrates that when binary black holes merge with spins aligned or anti-aligned to their orbital plane, the ringdown quasi-normal modes obey equatorial reflection symmetry. This symmetry reduces each mode's four degrees of freedom by two, locking the relative amplitudes and phases of the two polarization states to the viewing inclination. Consequently, the degree of circular polarization and its handedness become measurable from the ringdown alone, even when only the two LIGO detectors record the signal, and this measurement translates into an inclination estimate. For precessing systems the symmetry is absent, so the same restricted model produces biased frequency and amplitude recoveries. The work therefore isolates a concrete condition under which ringdown data by itself can constrain geometry without needing the full inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform.

What carries the argument

Equatorial reflection symmetry that constrains two of the four degrees of freedom per quasi-normal mode and fixes the polarization-amplitude and phase relations through the inclination angle.

What would settle it

A statistically significant mismatch between the inclination angle inferred from ringdown polarization and the inclination obtained from a full inspiral-merger-ringdown analysis of a confirmed non-precessing event would falsify the constrained model's applicability.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When quasi-normal modes are excited with equatorial reflection symmetry, the relationship between polarization amplitudes and phases in each mode is fixed by the inclination angle to the equatorial plane. Fitting this constrained model to ringdown data from events like GW150914 extracts the degree of circular polarization and handedness using only the two LIGO detectors; the measured polarization then yields an independent inclination inference. The same model fails for precessing systems such as GW190521, producing systematic biases in recovered mode parameters.

Load-bearing premise

Merging black holes whose spins are aligned or anti-aligned with the orbital angular momentum excite quasi-normal modes that possess equatorial reflection symmetry.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For aligned-spin mergers the ringdown alone suffices to measure circular polarization without reference to the earlier inspiral or merger phases.
  • Polarization-derived inclinations provide an independent cross-check on geometry parameters extracted from the complete waveform.
  • Detector networks with only two sites can still extract geometric information from sufficiently loud ringdown signals under the symmetry assumption.
  • Precessing mergers require the unrestricted four-degree-of-freedom polarization model to avoid biased quasi-normal-mode frequency and amplitude estimates.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Future higher-sensitivity detectors could apply the same polarization test to a statistical sample of events to verify the prevalence of aligned-spin mergers.
  • The method offers a post-merger-only route to study spin-orbit alignment, complementary to full-waveform analyses.
  • Deviations from the predicted polarization-inclination relation in high-signal-to-noise ringdowns could flag either precession or departures from Kerr quasi-normal modes.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a constrained polarization model for black hole ringdown signals that exploits equatorial reflection symmetry expected in non-precessing mergers. This symmetry reduces each quasi-normal mode from four to two degrees of freedom, fixing the relationship between polarization amplitudes/phases and the source inclination angle. The authors fit both this constrained model and an unconstrained arbitrary-polarization model to GW150914-like signals and to GW190521-like precessing injections, showing that circular polarization degree and handedness can be recovered with two LIGO detectors alone and translated into an inclination estimate under the symmetry assumption. For precessing systems the constrained model produces biases in recovered frequencies and amplitudes relative to the unconstrained fit.

Significance. If the symmetry assumption holds for the targeted systems, the work offers a ringdown-only route to inclination inference that could complement full IMR analyses and become more valuable with improving detector sensitivity. The explicit comparison of constrained versus arbitrary-polarization models on both real-event data and controlled injections quantifies the systematic risk of using an incorrect polarization ansatz, which is a useful cautionary result for the field.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section describing the constrained model and GW150914 fits] The central claim that polarization measurements from two detectors can be translated into an inclination estimate rests on the equatorial reflection symmetry assumption for non-precessing mergers. The manuscript should include a quantitative test (e.g., injections with small spin misalignments that mildly violate the symmetry) showing the size of the resulting bias in the recovered inclination when the constrained model is still applied.
  2. [Results section on precessing-system injections] For the GW190521-like injections, the reported biases in mode frequencies and amplitudes under the constrained model need to be compared directly to the statistical uncertainties of the fit; without this comparison it is difficult to judge whether the biases are large enough to affect science results at current or design detector sensitivities.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results] Clarify the precise metric used for 'weaker predictive accuracy' when comparing the two models on injections.
  2. [Methods] Ensure all symbols for polarization amplitudes, phases, and inclination are defined consistently before first use and appear in a notation table if possible.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript and for the constructive suggestions. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Section describing the constrained model and GW150914 fits] The central claim that polarization measurements from two detectors can be translated into an inclination estimate rests on the equatorial reflection symmetry assumption for non-precessing mergers. The manuscript should include a quantitative test (e.g., injections with small spin misalignments that mildly violate the symmetry) showing the size of the resulting bias in the recovered inclination when the constrained model is still applied.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative assessment of the inclination bias under mild violations of equatorial reflection symmetry would be a useful addition. Our existing analysis contrasts the exact symmetry case (aligned spins) with strong violations (highly precessing systems), but we will add a new set of injections with small spin misalignments (10–20 degrees) and report the resulting bias in the recovered inclination. These results will be included in a revised version of the manuscript. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section on precessing-system injections] For the GW190521-like injections, the reported biases in mode frequencies and amplitudes under the constrained model need to be compared directly to the statistical uncertainties of the fit; without this comparison it is difficult to judge whether the biases are large enough to affect science results at current or design detector sensitivities.

    Authors: We thank the referee for highlighting this point. In the revised manuscript we will augment the GW190521-like injection results with a direct comparison of the observed biases in mode frequencies and amplitudes against the statistical uncertainties extracted from the posterior distributions. This will allow readers to evaluate the practical significance of the systematics relative to statistical errors at both current and design sensitivities. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper applies an external modeling assumption of equatorial reflection symmetry (valid for non-precessing aligned-spin mergers) to constrain two of the four degrees of freedom per quasi-normal mode. This constraint is used to fit ringdown signals directly to detector strain data, enabling extraction of circular polarization degree and handedness even with two LIGO detectors, followed by translation to inclination under the same assumption. No step reduces by construction to its inputs: the symmetry is stated as a prior physical expectation rather than derived from the fit, the polarization parameters are obtained from data fitting rather than being redefined in terms of inclination, and no self-citations or ansatzes are invoked as load-bearing. Analysis of precessing cases (e.g., GW190521) explicitly shows model mismatch and biases, confirming the framework is not tautological. The derivation remains self-contained against the strain data under the stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the equatorial reflection symmetry assumption for aligned-spin systems and on the ability of the two LIGO detectors to resolve polarization degrees of freedom in ringdown.

free parameters (2)
  • mode amplitudes and phases
    Fitted to data under the symmetry constraint; the constraint reduces the number of free parameters per mode from four to two.
  • inclination angle
    Inferred from the measured polarization after fitting; treated as a derived quantity rather than an independent fit parameter.
assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Merging binary black holes with spins (anti)aligned to orbital angular momentum excite quasi-normal modes with equatorial reflection symmetry.
    Invoked in the abstract to constrain two degrees of freedom per mode and fix polarization relationships via viewing angle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Polarization Analysis of Ringdown Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ICESHCAA

@misc{pith2026260515271,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Polarization Analysis of Ringdown Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ICESHCAA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.15271}
}
read the original abstract

Merging binary black holes exhibit a ringdown phase in which they primarily emit gravitational waves in the shape of damped sinusoids corresponding to quasi-normal modes of the Kerr remnant. In general, each mode carries four degrees of freedom encoding amplitude and phase information. When the modes are excited with equatorial reflection symmetry, as is the case for black hole mergers with spins (anti)aligned to the orbital angular momentum, the symmetry constrains two degrees of freedom. As a result, the relationship between polarization amplitudes and phases in each mode is fixed by the viewing (inclination) angle to the equatorial plane. We use such a constrained model to fit the ringdown signals of both non-precessing and precessing systems such as GW150914 and GW190521, respectively. We show that we can measure the degree of circular polarization and handedness of ringdown signals like those of GW150914, even if only the two LIGO detectors are available; such a polarization measurement can be translated into an inferred source inclination assuming the reflection symmetry above, again using the ringdown signal alone. On the other hand, the constrained polarization model is insufficient to capture the polarization structure of signals from precessing systems, leading to biases in the inferred mode frequencies and amplitudes. We explore the magnitude of this effect by fitting GW190521-like injections with the restricted model, finding weaker predictive accuracy relative to the arbitrary-polarization model and potentially significant systematic biases. As our detectors continue to improve, using the correct polarization model is increasingly important to avoid biased ringdown measurements.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15271 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of Mf and χf posteriors for GW150914 between ringdown and IMR analyses. The results of two ring￾down analyses, both fitting the signal with {(2,2,0),(2,2,1)}, are shown, with 90% credible contours; the dashed plum contour corresponds to the unconstrained, generic ringdown model, whereas the solid blue contour arises from fitting the signal with the constrained aligned-spin model. The NR￾Sur7dq4 posterior … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The aligned-spin ringdown model (blue) measures [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparing cos ι posteriors between polarization models that fit the ringdown of GW150914 with the Kerr (2,2,0) and (2,2,1) modes. Top: The prior on cos ι in the aligned (blue) and generic (dark plum) models. There is no explicit cos ι parameter in the generic model, so the priors shown are derived using the inverse of Eq. (5) applied to this one single mode. As discussed at the beginning of this sec￾tion, the priors… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Furthermore, the overtone posterior is nearly iden [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Various parameter posteriors from ringdown fits with both polarization models to GW190521 data. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posteriors (priors) in solid pink (dotted black) on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: Generic ringdown model fit to the real GW190521 data, using Kerr modes {(2,2,0), (2,1,0)}. Both 90% credible contours and the histogram are equivalent to those in the leftmost panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Various parameter posteriors from ringdown fits with both polarization models to GW190521-like reflection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: For the set of GW190521-like reflection-asymmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: See Fig. 7 caption for figure conventions. Various parameter posteriors from ringdown fits with both polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: For the set of reflection-symmetric GW190521-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Posteriors on parameters that quantify devia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Inferred joint polarization angle and 220 intrinsic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Mode ellipticities inferred by the generic and aligned-spin ringdown models from fits to reflection-symmetric [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: We compare the degree of “aligned-ness” of each of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    When the modes are excited with equatorial reflection symmetry, as is the case for black hole mergers with spins (anti)aligned to the orbital angular momentum, the symmetry constrains two degrees of freedom. As a result, the relationship between polarization amplitudes and phases in each mode is fixed by the viewing (inclination) angle

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

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. GWTC-5.0: Tests of General Relativity

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Tests of general relativity on 168 LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA gravitational-wave events (including 72 new from O4b) find GR consistent with all data, improving post-Newtonian and ringdown deviation bounds by 1.2–2.6×.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves

    L. Blanchet, Living Reviews in Relativity17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Annalen der Physik529, 1600209 (2017), arXiv:1608.01940 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 237 (1963)

    work page 1963

  4. [4]

    C. V. Vishveshwara, Phys. Rev. D1, 2870 (1970)

    work page 1970

  5. [5]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    work page 1973

  6. [6]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 649 (1973)

    work page 1973

  7. [7]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    work page 1974

  8. [8]

    Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, J. Abedi, N. Af- shordi, S. Albanesi, V. Baibhav, S. Bhagwat, J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, B. Bonga, B. Bucciotti, G. Caneva Santoro, P. A. Cano, C. Capano, M. Ho-Yeuk Cheung, C. Chirenti, G. B. Cook, A. Ka-Wai Chung, M. De Ami- cis, K. Destounis, O. J. C. Dias, W. Del Pozzo, F. Duque, W. M. Farr, E. Finch, N. Franchini, K. Fr...

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    W. H. Press, Astrophysical Journal Letters170, L105 (1971)

    1971

  2. [10]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. Detweiler, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A344, 441 (1975)

    1975

  3. [11]

    E. W. Leaver, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  4. [12]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Classical and QuantumGravity26,163001(2009),arXiv:0905.2975[gr- qc]

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    London, D

    L. London, D. Shoemaker, and J. Healy, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124032 (2014), arXiv:1404.3197 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 111102 (2019), arXiv:1905.00869 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Giesler, M

    M. Giesler, M. Isi, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Physical Review X9, 041060 (2019), arXiv:1903.08284 [gr-qc]

    2019

  8. [16]

    Boyle, N

    M.Giesler, S.Ma, K.Mitman, N.Oshita, S.A.Teukolsky, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, K. C. Nelli, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, Phys. Rev. D111, 084041 (2025), arXiv:2411.11269 [gr- qc]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Carter, Phys

    B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

    1971

  10. [18]

    Penrose, Riv

    R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cim.1, 252 (1969)

    1969

  11. [19]

    S. L. Detweiler, Astrophys. J.239, 292 (1980)

    1980

  12. [20]

    Dreyer, B

    O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Gar- rison, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quantum Grav.21, 787 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

    2004 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gürlebeck, Phys

    N. Gürlebeck, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 151102 (2015), arXiv:1503.03240 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Isi and W

    M. Isi and W. M. Farr, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2107.05609 (2021), arXiv:2107.05609 [gr-qc]

    2021

  15. [23]

    Isi, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 203001 (2023), arXiv:2208.03372 [gr-qc]

    M. Isi, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 203001 (2023), arXiv:2208.03372 [gr-qc]

    2023

  16. [24]

    Kamaretsos, M

    I. Kamaretsos, M. Hannam, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 141102 (2012), arXiv:1207.0399 [gr- qc]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. Zhu, H. Siegel, K. Mitman, M. Isi, W. M. Farr, M. Boyle, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, S. Ma, J. Moxon, K. C. Nelli, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, S. A. Teukolsky, W. Throwe, V. Varma, and N. L. Vu, Phys. Rev. D111, 064052 (2025), arXiv:2312.08588 [gr-qc]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    J. Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    F. Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Akutsuet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experi- mental Physics2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al., Progress of Theoretical and Experi- mental Physics2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  21. [29]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, and the KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18082 (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Boyle, M

    L. Boyle, M. Kesden, and S. Nissanke, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 151101 (2008), arXiv:0709.0299 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Boyle, L

    M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, S. Ossokine, and H. P. Pfeiffer, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1409.4431 (2014), arXiv:1409.4431 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Carullo, W

    G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123029 (2019), arXiv:1902.07527 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    pyRing: a time-domain ringdown analysis python package,

    G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, “pyRing: a time-domain ringdown analysis python package,” git.ligo.org/lscsoft/pyring (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Gennari, G

    V. Gennari, G. Carullo, and W. Del Pozzo, European Physical Journal C84, 233 (2024), arXiv:2312.12515 [gr- qc]

    2024

  27. [35]

    C. D. Capano, M. Cabero, J. Westerweck, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, A. H. Nitz, Y.-F. Wang, A. B. Nielsen, and B. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 221402 (2023)

    2023

  28. [36]

    C. D. Capano, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, A. H. Nitz, J. West- erweck, Y.-F. Wang, M. Cabero, A. B. Nielsen, and B. Krishnan, Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 245009 (2024), arXiv:2209.00640 [gr-qc]

    2024

  29. [37]

    Ghosh, A

    R. Ghosh, A. K. Mishra, and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064092 (2025), arXiv:2412.08942 [gr-qc]

    2025

  30. [38]

    Mateu-Lucena, S

    M. Mateu-Lucena, S. Husa, M. Colleoni, H. Estellés, C. García-Quirós, D. Keitel, M. d. L. Planas, and A. Ramos-Buades, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society517, 2403 (2022), arXiv:2105.05960 [gr- qc]

    2022

  31. [39]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and A. Ramos-Buades, Phys. Rev. D108, 124036 (2023), arXiv:2303.18143 [gr-qc]

    2023

  32. [40]

    maxisi/ringdown: v1.0.0,

    M. Isi, HarrisonS-Phys, W. M. Farr, N. Khusid, A. Hus- sain, and R. Udall, “maxisi/ringdown: v1.0.0,” (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, The Virgo Collab- oration, The Kagra Collaboration, and Others, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.07348 (2025), arXiv:2509.07348 [gr- qc]

    2025

  34. [42]

    A. G. Abacet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    A. G. Abacet al., Astrophysical Journal Letters993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Siegel, N

    H. Siegel, N. M. Khusid, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2511.02691 (2025), arXiv:2511.02691 [gr- qc]

    2025

  37. [45]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and M. Casals, Phys. Rev. D73, 024013 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511111 [gr-qc]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    G. B. Cook and M. Zalutskiy, Phys. Rev. D90, 124021 (2014), arXiv:1410.7698 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B. J. Kelly and J. G. Baker, Phys. Rev. D87, 084004 (2013), arXiv:1212.5553 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Berti and A

    E. Berti and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D90, 064012 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    J. N. Goldberg, A. J. Macfarlane, E. T. Newman, 18 F. Rohrlich, and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics8, 2155 (1967)

    1967

  42. [50]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [51]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Finch and C

    E. Finch and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. D106, 043005 (2022), arXiv:2205.07809 [gr-qc]

    2022

  45. [53]

    Cotesta, G

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

    2022

  46. [54]

    Isi and W

    M. Isi and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 169001 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Carullo, R

    G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 169002 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    S. Ma, L. Sun, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, 084010 (2023)

    2023

  49. [57]

    Correia, Y.-F

    A. Correia, Y.-F. Wang, J. Westerweck, and C. D. Ca- pano, Phys. Rev. D110, L041501 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Physical Review Research1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    T.Islam, A.Vajpeyi, F.H.Shaik, C.-J.Haster, V.Varma, S. E. Field, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D112, 044001 (2025), arXiv:2309.14473 [gr- qc]

    2025

  52. [60]

    Nrsurcat-1,

    T. Islam, A. Vajpeyi, F. Shaik, C.-J. Haster, V. Varma, S. Field, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and R. Smith, “Nrsurcat-1,” (2023)

    2023

  53. [61]

    Siegel, M

    H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D111, 044070 (2025), arXiv:2410.02704 [gr-qc]

    2025

  54. [62]

    Vehtari, A

    A. Vehtari, A. Gelman, and J. Gabry, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1507.04544 (2015), arXiv:1507.04544 [stat.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronomi- cal Society of Australia36, e010 (2019), arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019

  56. [64]

    Siegel, M

    H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D108, 064008 (2023), arXiv:2307.11975 [gr-qc]

    2023

  57. [65]

    O. A. Martin, O. Abril-Pla, J. Deklerk, S. D. Axen, C. Carroll, A. Hartikainen, and A. Vehtari, Journal of Open Source Software11, 9889 (2026)

    2026

  58. [66]

    Abbottet al., Phys

    R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    2020

  59. [67]

    Abbottet al., Astrophysical Journal Letters900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    R. Abbottet al., Astrophysical Journal Letters900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  60. [68]

    Olsen, J

    S. Olsen, J. Roulet, H. S. Chia, L. Dai, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D104, 083036 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Biscoveanu, M

    S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, V. Varma, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D104, 103018 (2021)

    2021

  62. [70]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D109, 024024 (2024), arXiv:2310.01544 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  63. [71]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, J. A. Gonzalez, U. Sperhake, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. Brügmann, Phys. Rev. D76, 064034 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0703053 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Abbottet al., Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al., Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Vehtari, D

    A. Vehtari, D. P. Simpson, Y. Yao, and A. Gelman, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1810.05374 (2018), arXiv:1810.05374 [stat.ME]

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    M. Isi, M. Pitkin, and A. J. Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D96, 042001 (2017), arXiv:1703.07530 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Riles, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics68, 1 (2013), arXiv:1209.0667 [hep-ex]

    K. Riles, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics68, 1 (2013), arXiv:1209.0667 [hep-ex]. Appendix A: Implementation

    2013 arXiv

  68. [76]

    We can write the plus and cross polarization states for each ringdown mode in the linear basis as h(+/×) j (t) =A (+/×) j cos 2πfjt−ϕ (+/×) j e−t/τj ,(A1) wherej≡(ℓ,|m|, n)

    Design matrix Our ringdown models sample the real and imaginary parts of complex mode amplitudes in quadratures, or Cartesian components. We can write the plus and cross polarization states for each ringdown mode in the linear basis as h(+/×) j (t) =A (+/×) j cos 2πfjt−ϕ (+/×)...

  69. [77]

    aligned-ness

    Polarization angle The global polarization angleψpositions the (+/×) polarization basis on the sky in the plane perpendicular to the line of slight to the GW source (the wave frame) and determinesF (+/×). In other words, for generic elliptically polarized GWs whose ringdown mo...

  70. [78]

    The∥⃗ v∥of the samples used to construct both injec- tions sets are consistent with one another and within1σ of the∥⃗ v∥distribution

    Note there are no posterior samples at∥⃗ v∥= 0due to volume effects (the aligned-spin subspace is measure zero in the full space of quadratures), so any sample draw would encode some polarization content that is inaccessi- ble by the aligned-spin ringdown model. The∥⃗ v∥of the...

Pith tools

Reviewed May 19, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.