Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Probing Direct Waves in Black Hole Ringdowns

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Merger gravitational waves are dominated by a prompt 'direct wave' from the plunging companion; for rapidly spinning remnants it oscillates near the superradiant frequency and is detectable in current events.

desk verdict A credible analytic extension of horizon-mode theory with a clean EMRI self-check, but the SXS residual and SNR estimate are not yet clean enough to support the O4 detectability claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09165 v1 pith:P5GOB2Q5 submitted 2025-09-11 gr-qc

Naritaka Oshita , Sizheng Ma , Yanbei Chen , Huan Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords directwaveblackholeringdownquasinormalmodesKerrholesmergergravitationalwavessuperradiantfrequencyframedraggingspectroscopy
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

Black hole ringdowns are usually described as a sum of quasinormal-mode (QNM) oscillations. This paper argues that the gravitational wave signal around the merger peak is instead dominated by a different component, the 'direct wave': radiation emitted promptly as the companion crosses the light ring and spirals into the ergosphere. Using black-hole perturbation theory and numerical-relativity waveforms, the authors show that after removing all QNMs with rational filters, a residual remains whose instantaneous frequency and decay rate match a saddle-point formula derived from the perturbation wave equation. For high-spin remnants (dimensionless spin ≥ 0.7), this direct wave locks onto a quasi-stable frequency near the superradiant frequency, reflecting frame dragging. The authors estimate that in a GW150914-like event the direct wave alone would have a signal-to-noise ratio above 10 with the current ground-based detector network, so it is a realistic observable that must be included in black hole spectroscopy.

What carries the argument

The central object is the direct wave and its saddle-point construction. From the frequency-domain wave equation for perturbations of a spinning black hole, the waveform at infinity is written as an integral over the particle trajectory. A two-variable steepest-descent evaluation in time and frequency yields the instantaneous complex frequency ω_G(t) of the direct wave and a contribution proportional to the greybody factor D̂ℓmω evaluated at ω_G(t). This factor vanishes at the horizon-mode frequencies mΩ_H - i nκ, explaining why the naive horizon mode is screened while the transient plunge radiation survives. The second piece of machinery is the QNM rational filter, which removes a chosen se

What would settle it

Construct a synthetic gravitational-wave signal composed only of known quasinormal modes with fixed amplitudes, apply the same rational QNM filters, and check whether the filtered residual is exactly zero. If a spurious residual survives, the filter does not actually isolate direct waves. Alternatively, for a high-spin comparable-mass waveform, decompose the filtered residual and check whether its instantaneous complex frequency follows the predicted ω_G(t) rather than a sum of two QNM frequencies; the latter would indicate nonlinear mode-mixing rather than a direct wave.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that merger-stage gravitational waves from binary black holes are dominated by a prompt, non-QNM component they call the direct wave. In black-hole perturbation theory, a plunging compact object emits radiation whose saddle-point contribution is localized along the retarded-time–emission-time map u = t - x(t); the complex instantaneous frequency ω_G(t) = m Ω̂ - i ĝ is set by the local orbital frequency and plunging velocity. The traditional 'horizon mode' proposed in earlier work would oscillate at ω = mΩ_H - iκ, but the paper shows the transmission factor (the greybody factor) vanishes at all these horizon-mode frequencies, ω = mΩ_H - i nκ, so that mode is scree

Load-bearing premise

The existence and detectability of the direct wave rests on the assumption that the rational QNM filters (seven prograde and two retrograde overtones plus a mixing mode) remove all quasinormal content without altering the direct wave, and that the strain peak in the comparable-mass waveform corresponds to the prograde light-ring crossing; if either is wrong, the residual could be an artifact or mislocated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QNM-based ringdown fits that start at or shortly after the strain peak will inadvertently absorb the direct wave into overtones, biasing the inferred remnant mass and spin; analyses must either start later or include a direct-wave template.
  • For high-spin remnants, the measured quasi-stable frequency near the superradiant frequency gives a direct, near-universal probe of frame dragging in the ergosphere.
  • The paper's screening result implies the previously proposed horizon mode is not observable in ordinary Kerr perturbations; any detected mode exactly at a horizon-mode frequency would indicate physics beyond the standard picture.
  • Direct waves contribute to the post-peak signal at SNR above 10 with current ground-based detectors and much more with next-generation instruments, making them a new target for gravitational-wave searches and tests of black hole dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the direct wave is a generic feature, early-ringdown tests of general relativity that assume a pure QNM signal may be systematically biased; re-analyzing existing event residuals after QNM filtering could reveal prompt-emission excess power near the superradiant frequency.
  • The screening mechanism means the direct wave's amplitude and phase carry information about the near-horizon transmission (greybody) factor; deviations from the predicted D̂ℓmω would point to modified near-horizon structure.
  • The close match between an extreme-mass-ratio plunge calculation and a comparable-mass numerical waveform suggests a simple geodesic-plunge template could serve as a merger model for high-spin, unequal-mass binaries, potentially reducing systematics in parameter estimation.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that post-merger gravitational waves from binary black hole coalescence contain a distinct 'direct wave' component—prompt radiation emitted as the companion plunges inside the light ring and ergosphere—that is not a quasinormal mode. Using Teukolsky perturbation theory and a saddle-point approximation, the authors derive a time-dependent complex frequency ω_G(t) for this component and argue that the screening factor D̂ vanishes at ω = mΩ_H − i nκ, so that for high spins the direct wave is modulated but not suppressed, oscillating near the superradiant frequency. They identify this component in EMRI waveforms from Sasaki–Nakamura integrations and in the comparable-mass SXS:BBH:0305 waveform after applying rational QNM filters, and they estimate its detectability in a GW150914-like event, finding SNR values that can exceed 10 with current detectors. The paper concludes that direct waves should be included in ringdown spectroscopy and provide a probe of the near-horizon/ergosphere region.

Significance. If the identification is correct, this is a substantive contribution: it extends the notion of horizon/redshift modes, provides a concrete non-QNM component of merger-ringdown signals, and makes a falsifiable detectability claim for LVK O4/O5-era observations. The saddle-point derivation (Eqs. 4–7) is transparent and the EMRI simulation provides a useful self-consistency test of the analytic frequency evolution. The paper also makes its simulation data available, which is a strength. However, the central claim for comparable-mass binaries rests on one NR waveform and on a specific QNM-filter choice, and the SNR estimates inherit these systematics; the current draft does not yet supply the quantitative validation needed to establish the direct wave as a robust observable.

major comments (5)
  1. [SM §3, Eqs. (26)–(28) and Fig. 5] The identification of the direct wave in SXS:BBH:0305 is obtained by applying QNM rational filters with N_p=7, N_r=2 plus one spherical-spheroidal mixing mode. This filter has zeros only at the selected QNM frequencies; any unmodeled QNM—higher or retrograde overtones, additional ℓ−m mixing modes, or quadratic QNMs—passes through and appears in the residual. Each zero can also introduce time-domain ringing. No sensitivity of the residual to N_p, N_r, or to the inclusion of additional modes is reported. Since the subsequent SNR estimates (Table I) are computed from this filtered residual, the direct-wave identification is not yet cleanly separated from filter systematics.
  2. [Fig. 5 and Table I] The comparable-mass validation relies on a single SXS waveform and on the assumption that the SXS strain peak corresponds to the particle crossing the prograde light ring. The agreement with the EMRI prediction is described only qualitatively ('overall good'), with no mismatch statistic, no alignment uncertainty, and no test of the sensitivity to the peak-to-light-ring mapping. This assumption is load-bearing because it sets the time origin and normalization used in the SNR estimate. A quantitative comparison (e.g., residual-norm mismatch, alignment variation, multiple SXS cases) is needed before the claimed detectability can be accepted.
  3. [Eq. (9)] The statement that D̂_ℓmω = 0 at ω = mΩ_H − i nκ for all integer n is asserted without derivation ('Here we further extend this result... as illustrated in Fig. 2'). This screening property is central to the argument that horizon modes are eliminated while the direct wave survives through the time-dependent ω_G. A derivation or a precise reference should be provided; otherwise the theoretical foundation for the greybody modulation is incomplete.
  4. [Eqs. (2)–(5) and Fig. 3] The EMRI 'prediction' and the EMRI simulation both come from the same linearized Teukolsky/Sasaki–Nakamura formalism, so their agreement validates the saddle-point evaluation but is not an independent confirmation that the direct wave exists in comparable-mass mergers. The paper should state this limitation explicitly and place the weight of the physical claim on the SXS comparison, which currently has the uncertainties noted above.
  5. [Table I and §Detectability] The quoted network SNRs for O4 do not follow from Table I. The text states that the O4 three-detector network reaches SNR 11.0 at −5M_t and 29.4 at −10M_t, but the Table entries give O4 L+V network SNRs of sqrt(7.1²+4.5²)=8.4 at −5M_t and sqrt(19.0²+11.9²)=22.4 at −10M_t. Please reconcile the quoted numbers. In addition, the SNR estimates have no error bars; they should include noise-only variance and systematic uncertainties from the filter choice, time alignment, and the use of a single NR waveform.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction / Fig. 5 caption] The phrase 'filter out all possible QNMs' is stronger than what is demonstrated by the finite N_p, N_r filter. Please soften it to reflect the finite set of modes actually removed.
  2. [Eq. (12)–(13)] The time-domain SNR formula is introduced as Eq. (12) with the inner product in Eq. (13), but the text refers to 'Eq. (12)' when meaning the pair. Please clarify the numbering and state explicitly how multiple detectors are combined to form the network SNR.
  3. [Fig. 2] The color-scale and marker legend are hard to read in the contour plot; please enlarge and ensure that the red dots and triangles are distinguishable in print.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement cites reference [74] with no DOI or persistent identifier; please provide a stable link or DOI so the simulation data can be retrieved.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the EMRI analytic/numerical agreement is a consistency check, and the SXS comparison is an external benchmark; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central derivation (Eqs. 2–7) is a saddle-point approximation of the Teukolsky/Sasaki-Nakamura integral, while the EMRI simulation (SM Sec. 2) solves the full SN equation in the frequency domain. The two are computed independently from the same perturbation-theory input, so their agreement validates the approximation rather than constructing the result. The QNM filter (SM Sec. 3) is taken from prior work by the same authors, but it is a data-analysis tool whose inputs are externally tabulated QNM frequencies [76]; it does not assume the existence or form of the direct wave. The SXS:BBH:0305 analysis is an independent numerical-relativity benchmark; the filtered residual is compared with an EMRI prediction made with the remnant parameters of the SXS system, and the peak-to-light-ring alignment is a stated convention rather than an input that forces the conclusion. No target parameter is fitted and then reported as a prediction (the only fit is the amplitude of the analytic curve in Fig. 3, which is not used in the SNR estimate). Table I's SNR is computed directly from the filtered SXS waveform, so the detectability claim is not a self-fulfilling re-labelling. Hence there is no circular step requiring a score above 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim draws on linearized perturbation theory for the EMRI identification, plus an assumed extrapolation to comparable-mass mergers. The main hand-chosen elements are the filter overtone counts and the time alignment between the SXS peak and the EMRI light-ring crossing. No new fundamental constants are introduced; the direct wave is a named signal component with testable predictions.

free parameters (4)
  • QNM filter overtone counts N_p, N_r = N_p=7, N_r=2
    Chosen by hand for SXS:BBH:0305 and EMRI cases; authors argue direct waves decay slower than 2nd and higher overtones, but the residual and SNR depend on this choice.
  • Analytic waveform normalization N = not quoted, matched by eye in Fig. 3
    The 'fit' of Eq. (7) to the filtered EMRI strain in Fig. 3 requires an overall amplitude prefactor; the frequency and decay claims do not depend on it.
  • Time alignment between SXS strain peak and EMRI light-ring crossing = 0 (assumed)
    Fig. 5 caption assumes the SXS strain peak corresponds to the particle crossing the prograde light ring; shifts in this alignment would change the comparison and the predicted direct wave timing.
  • Masking parameters x_max and sigma = x_max = 0, -5, -10; sigma = 0.1
    Used in the Fig. 6 source-masking study; chosen by hand but only affects the localization claim, not the main direct-wave identification.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Teukolsky equation with a point-particle source describes GW emission from a particle plunging into Kerr.
    Central to Eqs. (1) and (2); used for all EMRI waveforms and for the analytic direct-wave formula.
  • standard math The steepest-descent/saddle-point approximation is valid for the phase integral (14).
    Used to obtain Eqs. (5) to (7); no validity or error estimate is given beyond the Hessian (1+beta)^2.
  • ad hoc to paper The homogeneous in-mode Bin has zeros at QNM frequencies and D-hat has zeros at omega = m Omega_H - i n kappa.
    Eq. (9) is asserted without derivation; the paper says only 'as illustrated in Fig. 2'.
  • ad hoc to paper QNM rational filters with N_p=7, N_r=2 remove all QNM content without altering the direct wave.
    SM Section 3; central to the residual extraction, and no leakage or suppression test is shown.
  • ad hoc to paper The comparable-mass merger is approximated by an equatorial ISCO plunge into a Kerr BH with the remnant spin, with the SXS peak time mapped to light-ring crossing.
    Fig. 5; the discrepancy with this model is acknowledged in the Discussion as possibly nonlinear.
  • domain assumption The remnant is described by Kerr spacetime with known mass and spin.
    Used throughout; remnant parameters are taken from NR or chosen for the EMRI comparison.
invented entities (1)
  • direct wave (named waveform component) independent evidence
    purpose: To describe the residual GW emission from plunging companions after QNM removal and to motivate a new observable.
    It is not a new fundamental entity; it is a signal component sourced by known plunging motion. It carries falsifiable predictions (time-dependent frequency, high-spin frequency near m Omega_H, decay rate near kappa, SNR in current detectors) that can be tested in GW data.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Direct Waves in Black Hole Ringdowns." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P5GOB2Q5

@misc{pith2026250909165,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Direct Waves in Black Hole Ringdowns},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P5GOB2Q5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09165}
}
abstract

Merger gravitational waves from binary black hole coalescence carry rich information about the underlying spacetime dynamics. We analyze merger waves from comparable-mass and extreme-mass-ratio binaries, obtained from numerical relativity and black-hole perturbation theory, respectively, and argue that they are dominated by the prompt wave emissions as the black holes collide. This signal, which we refer to as the direct wave, is modulated by the plunging motion and selectively screened by the gravitational potential of the remnant black hole. The direct wave typically exhibits a time-dependent frequency and decay rate, but for high-spin remnants $(\gtrsim0.7)$ the ergosphere renders it mode-like, with a quasi-stable instantaneous oscillation frequency close to the superradiant frequency. We further estimate its detectability in a GW150914-like system and find that the signal-to-noise ratio can exceed $\sim 10$ with the current ground-based detector network. Our results therefore identify the direct wave as a robust observable for analyzing black hole ringdowns in current and future gravitational wave events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09165 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of a particle plunging into a BH, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contour plot of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Spin dependence of the extracted instantaneous frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. GW strain of an EMRI where the small particle plunges from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. QNM-filtered strains from masked sources plunging into [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. GW strain of a comparable-mass system SXS:BBH:0305. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Trajectory of a particle plunging equatorially into a Kerr BH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Comparison between the surface gravity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Foundations of Direct Waves in Schwarzschild Ringdown

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Direct waves in filtered Schwarzschild ringdown are the anti-causal filter-pole contribution sourced by near-horizon trajectory dynamics and do not vanish.

  2. Optimal frequency scales for probing black-hole geometries

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A Gaussian pulse extracts the most black-hole metric information when its width is about the inverse square root of the effective-potential maximum, not when it is as narrow as possible.

  3. GW250114 reveals black hole horizon signatures

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The merger signal of GW250114 contains a residual 'direct wave' component whose frequency and damping match the remnant horizon's rotation frequency and surface gravity.

  4. Quasinormal mode content of binary black hole ringdowns

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Bayesian, evidence-based analysis of 13 simulated black-hole ringdowns tabulates which quasinormal overtones, retrograde modes, and nonlinear (quadratic and cubic) modes are present at each start time, and finds no ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 60 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    dωdt 2π ˆDℓmω ˜ZℓmωeiΦ(t,ω),(14) whereΦ(t,ω) is defined in Eq. (4). Using the steepest-descent method with two variablestandω, we obtain

    Derivation of Eq.(7) The time-domain Weyl scalarrΨ 4,ℓm is given by [rΨ4]ℓm (u)= " dωdt 2π ˆDℓmω ˜ZℓmωeiΦ(t,ω),(14) whereΦ(t,ω) is defined in Eq. (4). Using the steepest-descent method with two variablestandω, we obtain " dωdt ˆDℓmω ˜ZℓmωeiΦ(t,ω)∼ 1√ H ˆDℓmω∗ ˜Zℓmω∗eiΦ(t∗,ω∗).(15) Here (t∗,ω∗) is the saddle point andHis the corresponding determinant of th...

  2. [2]

    The Sasaki-Nakamura (SN) equation [75]: " d2 dx2−F ℓmω d dx−U ℓmω # Xℓmω =S ℓmω,(20) is solved in the frequency domain using the fourth Runge- Kutta method

    Numerical computation and resolution test: Gravitational wave sourced by a plunging particle We follow [51–54] to compute gravitational waves (GWs) sourced by a particle plunging into a spinning black hole. The Sasaki-Nakamura (SN) equation [75]: " d2 dx2−F ℓmω d dx−U ℓmω # Xℓmω =S ℓmω,(20) is solved in the frequency domain using the fourth Runge- Kutta m...

  3. [3]

    (28) HereN p andN r are the number of included prograde and retrograde overtones

    QNM filtering We employ QNM rational filters[14, 40, 41] to remove QNMs from the strain,h(u), through hfilt(u)B 1 2π Z dω ˜h(ω)Ftote−iωu,(26) where ˜h(ω)B R duh(u)eiωu is the Fourier transform ofh(u), andF tot is the total filter consisting of multiple prograde and retrograde QNMs: Ftot B  NpY n=0 F(P) ℓmn ×  NrY n=0 F(R) ℓmn ...

  4. [4]

    and (ii) a radial plunge from infinity (FIG. 6). The corre- sponding particle trajectories are shown in FIG. 7. For case (i), we use the Ori-Thorne method to introduce re- alistic small deviations∆EBE−E ISCO and∆L z BL z−L ISCO from the corresponding ISCO values, to avoid the scenario where the particle circulates indefinitely on the ISCO without plunging...

  5. [5]

    Buonanno, G

    A. Buonanno, G. B. Cook, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D75, 124018 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610122

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    Giesler, M

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

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Giesleret al., Phys

    M. Giesleret al., Phys. Rev. D111, 084041 (2025), arXiv:2411.11269 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Oshita, Phys

    N. Oshita, Phys. Rev. D104, 124032 (2021), arXiv:2109.09757 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    Oshita and V

    N. Oshita and V . Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D111, 104043 (2025), arXiv:2407.02563 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mitmanet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.09678 [gr-qc]

    K. Mitmanet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.09678 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Baibhav, M

    V . Baibhav, M. H.-Y . Cheung, E. Berti, V . Cardoso, G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, W. Del Pozzo, and F. Duque, Phys. Rev. D108, 104020 (2023), arXiv:2302.03050 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Finch and C

    E. Finch and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. D103, 084048 (2021), arXiv:2102.07794 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. Zhu, J. L. Ripley, A. C ´ardenas-Avenda˜no, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D109, 044010 (2024), arXiv:2309.13204 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    X. Li, L. Sun, R. K. L. Lo, E. Payne, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D105, 024016 (2022), arXiv:2110.03116 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    S. Ma, M. Giesler, V . Varma, M. A. Scheel, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D104, 084003 (2021), arXiv:2107.04890 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Mitmanet al., Phys

    K. Mitmanet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 081402 (2023), arXiv:2208.07380 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M. H.-Y . Cheunget al., Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 081401 (2023), arXiv:2208.07374 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    S. Ma, K. Mitman, L. Sun, N. Deppe, F. H ´ebert, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, W. Throwe, N. L. Vu, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084036 (2022), arXiv:2207.10870 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Khera, A

    N. Khera, A. Ribes Metidieri, B. Bonga, X. Jim ´enez Forteza, B. Krishnan, E. Poisson, D. Pook-Kolb, E. Schnet- ter, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 231401 (2023), arXiv:2306.11142 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Khera, S

    N. Khera, S. Ma, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 211404 (2025), arXiv:2410.14529 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ma and H

    S. Ma and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D109, 104070 (2024), arXiv:2401.15516 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Zhuet al., Phys

    H. Zhuet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 104050 (2024), arXiv:2401.00805 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Redondo-Yuste, G

    J. Redondo-Yuste, G. Carullo, J. L. Ripley, E. Berti, and V . Car- doso, Phys. Rev. D109, L101503 (2024), arXiv:2308.14796 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Bucciotti, L

    B. Bucciotti, L. Juliano, A. Kuntz, and E. Trincherini, Phys. Rev. D110, 104048 (2024), arXiv:2405.06012 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Bourg, R

    P. Bourg, R. Panosso Macedo, A. Spiers, B. Leather, B. Bonga, and A. Pound, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 061401 (2025), arXiv:2405.10270 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Bucciotti, L

    B. Bucciotti, L. Juliano, A. Kuntz, and E. Trincherini, JHEP 09, 119 (2024), arXiv:2406.14611 [hep-th]. 8

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Lagos, T

    M. Lagos, T. Andrade, J. Rafecas-Ventosa, and L. Hui, Phys. Rev. D111, 024018 (2025), arXiv:2411.02264 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. Yi, A. Kuntz, E. Barausse, E. Berti, M. H.-Y . Cheung, K. Kritos, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D109, 124029 (2024), arXiv:2403.09767 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Bourg, R

    P. Bourg, R. Panosso Macedo, A. Spiers, B. Leather, B. B´eatrice, and A. Pound, (2025), arXiv:2503.07432 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    T. May, S. Ma, J. L. Ripley, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D110, 084034 (2024), arXiv:2405.18303 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zhuet al., Phys

    H. Zhuet al., Phys. Rev. D110, 124028 (2024), arXiv:2404.12424 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    S. Ma, L. Lehner, H. Yang, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, (2025), arXiv:2508.13294 [gr-qc]

    2025

  25. [33]

    Sberna, P

    L. Sberna, P. Bosch, W. E. East, S. R. Green, and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D105, 064046 (2022), arXiv:2112.11168 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. Ma, M. A. Scheel, J. Moxon, K. C. Nelli, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, Phys. Rev. D112, 024003 (2025), arXiv:2412.06906 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    De Amiciset al., (2024), arXiv:2412.06887 [gr-qc]

    M. De Amiciset al., (2024), arXiv:2412.06887 [gr-qc]

    2024

  28. [36]

    Islam, G

    T. Islam, G. Faggioli, G. Khanna, S. E. Field, M. van de Meent, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D112, 024061 (2025), arXiv:2407.04682 [gr-qc]

    2025

  29. [37]

    De Amicis, S

    M. De Amicis, S. Albanesi, and G. Carullo, Phys. Rev. D110, 104005 (2024), arXiv:2406.17018 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Ma, K. C. Nelli, J. Moxon, M. A. Scheel, N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, W. Throwe, and N. L. Vu, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 055006 (2025), arXiv:2409.06141 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Cardoso, G

    V . Cardoso, G. Carullo, M. De Amicis, F. Duque, T. Katagiri, D. Pereniguez, J. Redondo-Yuste, T. F. M. Spieksma, and Z. Zhong, Phys. Rev. D109, L121502 (2024), arXiv:2405.12290 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Carullo, W

    G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, Physical Review D 99, 123029 (2019)

    2019

  33. [41]

    J. C. Bustillo, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Physical Review D 103, 024041 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Ghosh, R

    A. Ghosh, R. Brito, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D103, 124041 (2021), arXiv:2104.01906 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Finch and C

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

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    S. Ma, L. Sun, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, 084010 (2023), arXiv:2301.06639 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. Ma, L. Sun, and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 141401 (2023), arXiv:2301.06705 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Y .-F. Wang, C. D. Capano, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, B. Krish- nan, A. B. Nielsen, A. H. Nitz, and J. Westerweck, (2023), arXiv:2310.19645 [gr-qc]

    2023

  39. [47]

    Correia, Y .-F

    A. Correia, Y .-F. Wang, J. Westerweck, and C. D. Capano, Phys. Rev. D110, L041501 (2024), arXiv:2312.14118 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    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), arXiv:2105.05238 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Siegel, M

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

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    E. Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Mino and J

    Y . Mino and J. Brink, Phys. Rev. D78, 124015 (2008), arXiv:0809.2814 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Zimmerman and Y

    A. Zimmerman and Y . Chen, Phys. Rev. D84, 084012 (2011), arXiv:1106.0782 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Chavda, M

    A. Chavda, M. Lagos, and L. Hui, JCAP07, 084 (2025), arXiv:2412.03435 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    De Amicis, E

    M. De Amicis, E. Cannizzaro, G. Carullo, and L. Sberna, (2025), arXiv:2506.21668 [gr-qc]

    2025

  47. [55]

    Kojima and T

    Y . Kojima and T. Nakamura, Prog. Theor. Phys.71, 79 (1984)

    1984

  48. [56]

    Saijo, H.-a

    M. Saijo, H.-a. Shinkai, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D56, 785 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9701001

    1997 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Saijo, K.-i

    M. Saijo, K.-i. Maeda, M. Shibata, and Y . Mino, Phys. Rev. D 58, 064005 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Watarai, Phys

    D. Watarai, Phys. Rev. D110, 124029 (2024), arXiv:2408.16747 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ori and K

    A. Ori and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. D62, 124022 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0003032

    2000 arXiv

  52. [60]

    N. E. M. Rifat, S. E. Field, G. Khanna, and V . Varma, Phys. Rev. D101, 081502 (2020), arXiv:1910.10473 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  53. [61]

    van de Meent and H

    M. van de Meent and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 181101 (2020), arXiv:2006.12036 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Islam, S

    T. Islam, S. E. Field, S. A. Hughes, G. Khanna, V . Varma, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D106, 104025 (2022), arXiv:2204.01972 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [63]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 09LT01 (2023), arXiv:2203.08831 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    M. d. L. Planas, J. Llobera-Querol, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D 109, 124028 (2024), arXiv:2401.13342 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    M. A. Scheelet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

    2025

  58. [66]

    Isi and W

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

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Noise curves,

    “Noise curves,”https://dcc.ligo.org/T2000012/ public

  60. [68]

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

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

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

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Einstein telescope,

    “Einstein telescope,”https://www.et-gw.eu/index.php/ etsensitivities

  63. [71]

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise, (2008), arXiv:0810.0604 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Cosmic explorer,

    “Cosmic explorer,”https://dcc.cosmicexplorer.org/ CE-T2000017/public

  65. [73]

    Srivastava, D

    V . Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, As- trophys. J.931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Y . Pan, A. Buonanno, A. Taracchini, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mrou´e, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szil ´agyi, Phys. Rev. D89, 084006 (2014), arXiv:1307.6232 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Taracchiniet al., Phys

    A. Taracchiniet al., Phys. Rev. D89, 061502 (2014), arXiv:1311.2544 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Babak, A

    S. Babak, A. Taracchini, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D95, 024010 (2017), arXiv:1607.05661 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Probing direct waves in black hole ringdowns – simulation data,

    N. Oshita, S. Ma, Y . Chen, and Y . Huan, “Probing direct waves in black hole ringdowns – simulation data,” (2025)

    2025

  71. [79]

    Sasaki and T

    M. Sasaki and T. Nakamura, Prog. Theor. Phys.67, 1788 (1982)

    1982

  72. [80]

    Ringdown data,

    Z. Zhang, E. Berti, and V . Cardoso, “Ringdown data,” https://centra.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/network/grit/ files/ringdown/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.