Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 104 references

The Era of Precision in Computational Models of Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Numerical methods solved the two-body problem of general relativity in the mid-2000s, producing the waveforms that made the 2015 gravitational-wave discovery possible.

desk verdict Solid historical review of NR’s solution of the two-body problem and its LIGO role; no new science, but accurate and useful as pedagogy. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.06728 v1 pith:TA5S6MFE submitted 2026-07-07 gr-qc

Ulrich Sperhake This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords numericalrelativitygravitationalwavesblack-holebinariestwo-bodyproblemwaveformmodelingEinsteinequationsinspiral-merger-ringdown
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 review traces how Einstein's equations, too complex for closed-form solution except in highly symmetric cases, were finally made tractable for the dynamical two-body problem through numerical relativity. After decades of work on well-posed formulations, stable algorithms, singularity handling and initial data, complete multi-orbit black-hole binary evolutions with full gravitational-wave signals became available around 2005. Those results, and the hybrid waveform catalogs built from them, supplied the templates that turned tiny detector strains into confident astrophysical detections. A reader cares because the same computational models now underpin precision tests of strong-field gravity, estimates of black-hole kicks and radiation efficiency, and searches for dark-sector or exotic sources. The paper argues we have entered an era in which numerical relativity is no longer a bottleneck but a precision tool for upcoming observations.

What carries the argument

Well-posed 3+1 formulations of Einstein's equations (conformal decompositions and generalized harmonic gauges) combined with singularity-handling techniques such as excision or moving punctures that keep long binary evolutions numerically stable.

What would settle it

Re-analyse the first detected event while deliberately injecting residual numerical errors of the size still present in the original 2005-era methods; if recovered signal-to-noise or parameter posteriors move outside the published uncertainties, the claim that those models were already adequate fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The two-body problem of general relativity was solved by numerical methods in the mid-2000s: independent formulations produced stable multi-orbit inspirals, mergers and ringdowns of black-hole binaries whose gravitational-wave signals agree, enabling the hybrid catalogs used in the first detections.

Load-bearing premise

That the independent mid-2000s breakthrough simulations agree closely enough that any leftover numerical errors were too small to have biased the early template banks used for detection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Hybrid numerical-plus-analytic waveform catalogs become the standard tool for extracting masses, spins and distances from detector data.
  • Black-hole merger recoils can reach thousands of kilometres per second, large enough to eject remnants from host galaxies.
  • Ultrarelativistic collisions can convert tens of percent of the total mass into gravitational waves, giving a clean probe of the most extreme regime of the theory.
  • The same codes open quantitative searches for dark-matter signatures, modifications of gravity and new compact-object sources.
  • Cosmological simulations performed with full numerical relativity become feasible across all epochs of the universe.

Reading between the lines

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

  • As detector sensitivity improves, residual truncation and hybridisation errors that were acceptable in 2015 will become the dominant systematic floor and will force higher-order matching schemes.
  • The same well-posed machinery that stabilised vacuum black-hole binaries extends directly to matter-filled spacetimes, making neutron-star and exotic-compact-object catalogues a near-term deliverable rather than a separate research programme.
  • Cross-validation between at least two independent formulations will remain a permanent requirement for any waveform model used in high-precision parameter estimation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a historical and pedagogical review of numerical relativity, centered on the claim that the two-body problem of general relativity was solved in the mid-2000s through independent numerical breakthroughs (Pretorius’ generalized-harmonic excision approach and the Brownsville/Goddard moving-puncture BSSNOK codes). It traces the mathematical foundations (well-posedness, ADM/3+1, constraints), early attempts (Hahn–Lindquist, Smarr–York, Grand Challenge), the 2005 successes, subsequent gold-rush applications (kicks, high-energy collisions, critical phenomena), and the construction of hybrid waveform catalogs that contributed to the 2015 LIGO detection of GW150914, while outlining open questions for future detectors.

Significance. If accepted as an accurate synthesis, the paper supplies a clear, self-contained narrative that correctly situates the 2005 breakthroughs as the enabling step for precision gravitational-wave source modeling. Its strengths are the explicit cross-validation of independent methods, the accessible treatment of well-posedness and gauge issues, and the forward-looking discussion of dark-sector and exotic-compact-object science. These features make it a useful reference for both specialists and a broader gr-qc audience; no new scientific result is claimed, so the contribution is archival and pedagogical rather than predictive.

minor comments (5)
  1. Throughout the Introduction and early sections, several compound words appear without spaces (e.g., “theory ofgeneral relativity”, “ofgeneral”, “spacetime” is inconsistently spaced). These are almost certainly extraction artifacts but should be cleaned for the published version.
  2. Figure 2 caption and surrounding text: the strain amplitude is quoted as order 10^{-20} for an M87-distance source; a brief parenthetical note on the precise luminosity distance used would help readers reproduce the scale.
  3. Section III.F: the phrase “the catharsis of numerical relativity” is vivid but slightly informal for a journal review; a more neutral wording would improve tone consistency.
  4. References: a few arXiv identifiers are given without final journal citations (e.g., some 2025–2026 entries). Updating these where DOIs now exist would strengthen the bibliography.
  5. Section V (future directions): the cosmic-string snapshot (Fig. 3) is mentioned only briefly; a one-sentence pointer to the underlying numerical method would aid readers unfamiliar with the technique.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: historical/pedagogical review whose central claims rest on independent external literature, not self-referential derivation.

full rationale

The manuscript is a narrative review of the history of numerical relativity, not a first-principles derivation or data-fitting exercise. Its load-bearing claims (mid-2000s solution of the GR two-body problem via Pretorius GHG+excision and independent Brownsville/Goddard moving-puncture BSSNOK codes; subsequent role of the resulting waveforms in LIGO) are standard, externally documented facts supported by non-overlapping citations (e.g., Pretorius 2005, Campanelli et al. 2006, Baker et al. 2006, Abbott et al. 2016). Author self-citations appear only for secondary technical contributions (kicks, high-energy collisions, boson-star waveforms, etc.) and do not close any logical loop or force the central historical narrative. There are no fitted parameters re-labeled as predictions, no self-definitional identities, no uniqueness theorems imported from the author’s prior work, and no ansatz smuggled via self-citation. The paper advances no new quantitative result whose validity reduces to its own inputs; it is therefore free of the circularity patterns under examination.

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

As a review the paper inherits the standard axioms of classical general relativity and the well-posedness theorems of the literature; it introduces no free parameters or new entities of its own.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Einstein’s vacuum equations are well-posed in the harmonic (and generalized-harmonic) formulation (Choquet-Bruhat 1952 and subsequent extensions).
    Invoked throughout Sections III.A–III.F as the mathematical foundation that makes numerical evolution possible.
  • domain assumption The ADM/3+1 split plus suitable gauge conditions yields a constrained evolution system whose constraints remain satisfied if initially satisfied.
    Used as the starting point for all numerical schemes discussed after the 1960s.
  • domain assumption Gravitational waves carry energy and produce a measurable strain of order 10^{-20} for astrophysical sources at cosmological distances.
    Taken from Bondi–Sachs and LIGO results; underpins the claim that numerical waveforms were essential for detection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Era of Precision in Computational Models of Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TA5S6MFE

@misc{pith2026260706728,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Era of Precision in Computational Models of Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TA5S6MFE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.06728}
}
read the original abstract

Einstein's equations of general relativity are one of the most complicated set of equations in all of physics and, for all but idealized physical settings, can only be solved by numerical methods on high-performance computing systems. Generating such solutions is a veritable Odyssey in its own right with adventures across the fields of mathematical theory, physical interpretation and computing challenges. These endeavors came to fruition in the mid 2000s when the two-body problem of general relativity was finally solved. And not too soon, as these results and their follow-up investigations came to play a key role in the Nobel-Prize winning discovery of gravitational waves by LIGO in 2015.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.06728 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the Earth-Moon system in Newtonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Snapshot of a cosmic-string network. [Image credit: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    finger print data base

    and extended by York in the 1970s [42], Bowen and York [43] managed to find analytic solutions to three of the constraint equations. Even better, their solution con- tains 9 parameters for each black hole, 3 each for the hole’s position, velocity and angular momentum. The fourth constraint does not admit analytic solutions in this general case, but it is ...

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    collaboration involving institutes from the US and Germany. As of writing, the SXS collaboration provides the most accurate and also the most numerous numer- ical waveforms in source modeling for the LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA network of ground-based detectors [93]. This by no means invalidates the importance of other codes which retain important roles for cross v...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. The foundation of the general theory of relativity.Annalen Phys., 49(7):769–822, 1916

    work page 1916

  4. [4]

    J. P. Petit.Le G´ eom’etricon. Ed. Belin, 1980. ISBN- 13 9782701103723

    work page 1980

  5. [5]

    Schwarzschild

    K. Schwarzschild. On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory.Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.), 1916:189– 196, 1916

    work page 1916

  6. [6]

    R. P. Kerr. Gravitational Field of a Spinning Mass as an Example of Algebraically Special Metrics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 11:237–238, 1963

    work page 1963

  7. [7]

    Blanchet

    L. Blanchet. Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves.Living Rev. Rel., 17:2, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    T. Damour. Gravitational scattering, post-Minkowskian approximation and Effective One-Body theory.Phys. Rev. D, 94(10):104015, 2016

    work page 2016

Show all 104 references
  1. [9]

    Alcubierre.Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Relativ- ity

    M. Alcubierre.Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Relativ- ity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008

    2008

  2. [10]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro.Numerical Rela- tivity. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    C. Bona, C. Palenzuela-Luque, and C. Bona-Casas.El- ements of Numerical Relativity and Relativistic Hydro- dynamics. Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York, 2009

    2009

  4. [12]

    Sperhake

    U. Sperhake. The numerical relativity breakthrough for binary black holes.Class. Quant. Grav., 32(12):124011, 2015

    2015

  5. [13]

    R. Penrose. Gravitational collapse and space-time sin- gularities.Phys. Rev. Lett., 14:57–59, 1965

    1965

  6. [14]

    S. Hawking. The occurrence of singularities in cosmol- ogy. III. Causality and singularities.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., A300:187–201, 1967

    1967

  7. [15]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose. The Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmology.Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, 314:529–548, 1970

    1970

  8. [16]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    Einstein

    A. Einstein. ¨Uber Gravitationswellen.Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ), 1918:154– 167, 1918

    1918

  10. [18]

    P. R. Saulson. Josh Goldberg and the physical reality of gravitational waves.Gen. Rel. Grav., 43:3289–3299, 2011

    2011

  11. [19]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner. Gravitational waves in general relativity VII. Waves from axi-symmetric isolated systems.Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 269:21–52, 1962

    1962

  12. [20]

    R. K. Sachs. Gravitational Waves in General Relativity

  13. [21]

    Waves in asymptotically flat Space-times.Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 270:103–126, 1962

    1962

  14. [22]

    APS News, This Month in Physics History – Feb 2020: https://www.aps.org/apsnews/2020/02/joseph-weber- first-gravitational-wave

    2020

  15. [23]

    LIGO website: http://www.ligo.org

  16. [24]

    GEO600 website: http://www.geo600.org/

  17. [25]

    Virgo websote: https://www.virgo-gw.eu/

  18. [26]

    KAGRA website: http://gwcenter.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/en/

  19. [27]

    LISA website: https://www.esa.int/Science Exploration/Space Science/LISA

  20. [28]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews. Gravitational radiation from point masses in a keplerian orbit.Phys. Rev., 131:435–439, 1963

    1963

  21. [29]

    P. C. Peters. Gravitational Radiation and the Motion of Two Point Masses.Phys. Rev., 136:B1224–B1232, 1964

    1964

  22. [30]

    Four´ es-Bruhat

    Y. Four´ es-Bruhat. Th´ eoreme d’existence pour cer- tains syst` eme d’´ equations aux d´ eriv´ ees partielles non lin´ eaires.Acta Math., 88:141–225, 1952

    1952

  23. [31]

    Arnowitt, S

    R. Arnowitt, S. Deser, and C. W. Misner. The dynamics of general relativity. In L. Witten, editor,Gravitation an introduction to current research, pages 227–265. John Wiley, New York, 1962

    1962

  24. [32]

    J. W. York, Jr. Kinematics and dynamics of general relativity. In L. Smarr, editor,Sources of Gravitational Radiation, pages 83–126. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979

    1979

  25. [33]

    Gourgoulhon.3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numeri- cal Relativity

    E. Gourgoulhon.3+1 Formalism and Bases of Numeri- cal Relativity. Springer, New York, 2012. gr-qc/0703035

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    S. G. Hahn and R. W. Lindquist. The two body problem in geometrodynamics.Ann. Phys., 29:304–331, 1964

    1964

  27. [35]

    C. W. Misner. Wormhole initial conditions.Phys. Rev., 118:1110, 1960

    1960

  28. [36]

    Crank and P

    J. Crank and P. Nicolson. A practical method for numerical evaluation of solutions of partial differential equations of heat conduction type.Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 43:50–67, 1947

    1947

  29. [37]

    J. G. Charney, R. Fj¨ ortoft, and J. Von Neumann. Nu- merical integration of the barotropic vorticity equation. Tellus, 2:237–254, 1950

    1950

  30. [38]

    ˇCadeˇ z.Colliding black holes

    A. ˇCadeˇ z.Colliding black holes. PhD thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1971

    1971

  31. [39]

    Smarr.The structure of general relativity with a nu- merical illustration: The collision of two black holes

    L. Smarr.The structure of general relativity with a nu- merical illustration: The collision of two black holes. PhD thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 1975

    1975

  32. [40]

    K. R. Eppley.The numerical evolution of the collision of two black holes. PhD thesis, Princeton University, 1975

    1975

  33. [41]

    Smarr and J

    L. Smarr and J. W. York, Jr. Kinematical conditions in the construction of spacetime.Phys. Rev. D, 17:2529– 2551, 1978

    1978

  34. [42]

    L. Smarr. Gauge conditions, radiation formulae and the two black hole collision. In L. Smarr, editor,Sources of Gravitational Radiation, pages 245–274. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979

    1979

  35. [43]

    D. R. Brill and R. W. Lindquist. Interaction Energy in Geometrostatics.Phys. Rev., 131:471–476, 1963

    1963

  36. [44]

    Lichnerowicz

    A. Lichnerowicz. L’integration des ´ equations de la grav- itation relativiste et le probl` eme desncorps.J. Math. Pures et Appl., 23:37–63, 1944

    1944

  37. [45]

    J. W. York, Jr. Gravitational degrees of freedom and the initial-value problem.Phys. Rev. Lett., 26:1656– 1658, 1971

    1971

  38. [46]

    J. M. Bowen and J. W. York, Jr. Time-asymmetric ini- tial data for black holes and black-hole collisions.Phys. Rev. D, 21:2047–2056, 1980

  39. [47]

    Brandt and B

    S. Brandt and B. Br¨ ugmann. A Simple construction of initial data for multiple black holes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 78:3606–3609, 1997. gr-qc/9703066

    1997 arXiv

  40. [48]

    M. W. Choptuik. The binary black hole grand challenge project. In D. A. Clarke and M. J. West, editors,Com- putational Astrophysics, volume 123 ofASP Conference Series, page 305, San Francisco, 1997. Astronomical So- ciety of the Pacific

    1997

  41. [49]

    Anninos, D

    P. Anninos, D. Hobill, E. Seidel, L. Smarr, and W.-M. Suen. Head-on collision of two equal mass black holes. Phys. Rev. D, 52:2044–2058, 1995

  42. [50]

    Anninos and S

    P. Anninos and S. Brandt. Head-on collision of two unequal mass black holes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 81:508–511, 14

  43. [51]

    Anninos, K

    P. Anninos, K. Camarda, J. Mass´ o, E. Seidel, W.-M. Suen, and J. Towns. Three-dimensional numerical rel- ativity: The evolution of black holes.Phys. Rev. D, 52:2059–2082, 1995

  44. [52]

    Goodale, G

    T. Goodale, G. Allen, G. Lanfermann, J. Mass´ o, T. Radke, E. Seidel, and J. Shalf. The Cactus Frame- work and Toolkit: Design and Applications. InVector and Parallel Processing - VECPAR’2002, 5th Interna- tional Conference, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Berlin, 2003. Spr...

    2002

  45. [53]

    Einstein Toolkit webpage: http://einsteintoolkit.org/

  46. [54]

    Friedrich

    H. Friedrich. On the Hyperbolicity of Einstein’s and Other Gauge Field Equations.Comm. Math. Phys., 100(4):525–543, 1985

    1985

  47. [55]

    Garfinkle

    D. Garfinkle. Harmonic coordinate method for simulat- ing generic singularities.Phys. Rev. D, 65:044029, 2002. gr-qc/0110013

    2002 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Pretorius

    F. Pretorius. Numerical relativity using a general- ized harmonic decomposition.Class. Quantum Grav., 22:425–452, 2005. gr-qc/0407110

    2005 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Gundlach, G

    C. Gundlach, G. Calabrese, I. Hinder, and J. M. Mart´ ın- Garc´ ıa. Constraint damping in the Z4 formulation and harmonic gauge.Class. Quantum Grav., 22:3767–3773, 2005

    2005

  50. [58]

    Nakamura, K

    T. Nakamura, K. Oohara, and Y. Kojima. General Relativistic Collapse To Black Holes And Gravitational Waves From Black Holes.Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl., 90:1–218, 1987

    1987

  51. [59]

    Shibata and T

    M. Shibata and T. Nakamura. Evolution of three- dimensional gravitational waves: Harmonic slicing case. Phys. Rev. D, 52:5428–5444, 1995

    1995

  52. [60]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro. On the Numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations.Phys. Rev. D, 59:024007, 1998. gr-qc/9810065

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Alcubierre and B

    M. Alcubierre and B. Br¨ ugmann. Simple excision of a black hole in 3 + 1 numerical relativity.Phys. Rev. D, 63:104006, 2001. gr-qc/0008067

    2001 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Alcubierre, B

    M. Alcubierre, B. Br¨ ugmann, P. Diener, M. Koppitz, D. Pollney, E. Seidel, and R. Takahashi. Gauge con- ditions for long-term numerical black hole evolutions without excision.Phys. Rev. D, 67:084023, 2003. gr- qc/0206072

    2003

  55. [63]

    Sperhake, B

    U. Sperhake, B. Kelly, P. Laguna, K. L. Smith, and E. Schnetter. Black-hole head-on collisions and gravi- tational waves with fixed mesh-refinement and dynamic singularity excision.Phys. Rev. D, 71:124042, 2005. gr- qc/0503071

    2005

  56. [64]

    D. R. Fiske, J. G. Baker, J. R. van Meter, D.-I. Choi, and J. M. Centrella. Wave zone extraction of gravita- tional radiation in three-dimensional numerical relativ- ity.Phys. Rev. D, 71:104036, 2005. gr-qc/0503100

    2005 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Br¨ ugmann, W

    B. Br¨ ugmann, W. Tichy, and N. Jansen. Numerical simulation of orbiting black holes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:211101, 2004. gr-qc/0312112

    2004 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Br¨ ugmann

    B. Br¨ ugmann. Binary Black Hole Mergers in 3D Nu- merical Relativity.Int. J. Mod. Phys., 8:85–100, 1999. gr-qc/9708035

    1999 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Thornburg

    J. Thornburg. Coordinates and boundary conditions for the general relativistic initial data problem.Class. Quantum Grav., 4:1119–1131, 1987

    1987

  60. [68]

    Anninos, G

    P. Anninos, G. Daues, J. Mass´ o, E. Seidel, and W.- M. Suen. Horizon boundary condition for black hole spacetimes.Phys. Rev. D, 51:5562–5578, 1995

    1995

  61. [69]

    Pretorius

    F. Pretorius. Evolution of Binary Black-Hole Space- times.Phys. Rev. Lett., 95:121101, 2005. gr-qc/0507014

    2005 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlo- chower. Accurate Evolutions of Orbiting Black-Hole Bi- naries without Excision.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:111101,

  63. [71]

    J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter. Gravitational-Wave Extraction from an inspiraling Configuration of Merging Black Holes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 96:111102, 2006. gr-qc/0511103

    2006 arXiv

  64. [72]

    C. Bona, T. Ledvinka, C. Palenzuela, and M. ˇZ´ aˇ cek. General-covariant evolution formalism for numerical rel- ativity.Phys. Rev. D, 67:104005, 2003. gr-qc/0302083

    2003 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bernuzzi and D

    S. Bernuzzi and D. Hilditch. Constraint violation in free evolution schemes: Comparing BSSNOK with a con- formal decomposition of Z4.Phys. Rev. D, 81:084003, 2010

    2010

  66. [74]

    D. Alic, C. Bona-Casas, C. Bona, L. Rezzolla, and C. Palenzuela. Conformal and covariant formulation of the Z4 system with constraint-violation damping.Phys. Rev. D, 85:064040, 2012. arXiv:1106.2254 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [75]

    J. A. Gonz´ alez, U. Sperhake, B. Br¨ ugmann, M. D. Han- nam, and S. Husa. The maximum kick from nonspinning black-hole binary inspiral.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:091101,

  68. [76]

    J. A. Gonz´ alez, M. D. Hannam, U. Sperhake, B. Br¨ ugmann, and S. Husa. Supermassive kicks for spinning black holes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:231101, 2007. gr-qc/0702052

    2007 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt. Large Merger Recoils and Spin Flips From Generic Black-Hole Binaries.Astrophys. J., 659:L5–L8,

  70. [78]

    Campanelli, C

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt. Maximum gravitational recoil.Phys. Rev. Lett., 98:231102, 2007. gr-qc/0702133

    2007 arXiv

  71. [79]

    R. Penrose. Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity.Riv. Nuovo Cim., 1:252–276, 1969. [Gen. Rel. Grav.34,1141(2002)]

    1969

  72. [80]

    Lehner and F

    L. Lehner and F. Pretorius. Black Strings, Low Viscos- ity Fluids, and Violation of Cosmic Censorship.Phys. Rev. Lett., 105:101102, 2010. arXiv:1006.5960 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Andrade, P

    T. Andrade, P. Figueras, and U. Sperhake. Violations of Weak Cosmic Censorship in Black Hole collisions. JHEP, 03:111, 2022

    2022

  74. [82]

    M. W. Choptuik. Universality and Scaling in Gravita- tional Collapse of a Massless Scalar Field.Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:9–12, 1993

    1993

  75. [83]

    Gundlach, D

    C. Gundlach, D. Hilditch, and J. M. Mart´ ın-Garc´ ıa. Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse. 7 2025

    2025

  76. [84]

    Sperhake, E

    U. Sperhake, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and F. Preto- rius. Universality, maximum radiation and absorption in high-energy collisions of black holes with spin.Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:041101, 2013. arXiv:1211.6114 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  77. [85]

    H. Zhu, F. Pretorius, and J. M. Stone. Trapping, Ir- regular Waveforms, and Efficient Radiation in Ultra- relativistic Black Hole Encounters. 4 2026

    2026

  78. [86]

    Dimopoulos and G

    S. Dimopoulos and G. Landsberg. Black Holes at the LHC.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:161602, 2001. hep- th/0106295

    2001

  79. [87]

    D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings. Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions.Phys. Rev. D, 66:044011, 2002. gr-qc/0201034

    2002 arXiv

  80. [88]

    A. H. Mrou´ e et al. A catalog of 171 high-quality 15 binary black-hole simulations for gravitational-wave astronomy.Phys. Rev. Lett., 111:241104, 2013. arXiv:1304.6077 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ajith et al

    P. Ajith et al. The NINJA-2 catalog of hybrid post- Newtonian/numerical-relativity waveforms for non- precessing black-hole binaries.Class. Quantum Grav., 29:124001, 2012. arXiv:1201.5319 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Hinder et al

    I. Hinder et al. Error-analysis and comparison to ana- lytical models of numerical waveforms produced by the NRAR Collaboration.Class. Quant. Grav., 31:025012,

  83. [91]

    arXiv:1307.5307 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  84. [92]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coales- cences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Sec- ond Part of the Third Observing Run.Phys. Rev. X, 13(4):041039, 2023

    2023

  85. [93]

    Lindblom, M

    L. Lindblom, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, R. Owen, and O. Rinne. A New Generalized Harmonic Evolu- tion System.Class. Quant. Grav., 23:S447–S462, 2006. gr-qc/0512093

    2006 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Boyle, D

    M. Boyle, D. A. Brown, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mrou´ e, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, G. B. Cook, and S. A. Teukolsky. High-accuracy comparison of numerical relativity simu- lations with post-Newtonian expansions.Phys. Rev. D, 76:124038, 2007. arXiv:0710.0158 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  87. [95]

    M. A. Scheel, M. Boyle, T. Chu, L. E. Kidder, K. D. Matthews, and H. P. Pfeiffer. High-accuracy waveforms for binary black hole inspiral, merger, and ringdown. Phys. Rev. D, 79:024003, 2009

    2009

  88. [96]

    Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes homepage: https://www.black-holes.org/

  89. [97]

    M. A. Scheel et al. The SXS collaboration’s third catalog of binary black hole simulations.Class. Quant. Grav., 42(19):195017, 2025

    2025

  90. [98]

    Baryakhtar et al

    M. Baryakhtar et al. Dark Matter In Extreme Astro- physical Environments. InSnowmass 2021, 3 2022

    2021

  91. [99]

    Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations.CQG, 32:243001, 2015

    Emanuele Berti et al. Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations.CQG, 32:243001, 2015

    2015

  92. [100]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and E. A. Lim. Cosmol- ogy using numerical relativity.Living Rev. Rel., 28(1):5, 2025

    2025

  93. [101]

    Evstafyeva, U

    T. Evstafyeva, U. Sperhake, I. Romero-Shaw, and M. Agathos. Gravitational-wave data analysis with high-precision numerical relativity simulations of boson star mergers.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(13):131401, 2024. arXiv:2406.02715 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Calder´ on Bustillo, N

    J. Calder´ on Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres-Forn´ e, J. A. Font, A. Vajpeyi, R. Smith, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and S. H. W. Leong. GW190521 as a Merger of Proca Stars: A Potential New Vector Boson of 8.7×10 −13 eV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(8):081101, 2021

    2021

  95. [103]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. Garcia-Bellido. GW190425, GW190521 and GW190814: Three candidate mergers of primordial black holes from the QCD epoch.Phys. Dark Univ., 38:101111, 2022

    2022

  96. [104]

    J. C. Aurrekoetxea, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam. Revisiting the Cosmic String Origin of GW190521.Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(18):181401, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.