Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 8 cited by

Ringdown Analysis of Rotating Black Holes in Effective Field Theory Extensions of General Relativity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the ringdown gravitational-wave signals from all detectable binary black hole mergers in the GWTC-3 catalogue are fully consistent with general relativity, with no trace of the higher-derivative…

desk verdict Solid null result on EFT ringdown corrections with a strong bound; main weakness is unpropagated theoretical uncertainty in the high-spin QNM fits. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17893 v1 pith:YMBV2Z5X submitted 2024-11-26 gr-qc

Simon Maenaut , Gregorio Carullo , Pablo A. Cano , Anna Liu , Vitor Cardoso , Thomas Hertog , Tjonnie G. F. Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C3583D05 PACS 04.30.-w04.70.-s04.80.Cc
keywords gravitationalwavesringdownquasinormalmodeseffectivefieldtheoryhigher-derivativegravityblackholesGWTC-3isospectrality
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 asks whether the ringdown signals observed from binary black hole mergers carry any imprint of higher-derivative corrections to Einstein's theory, as predicted by a generic effective field theory of gravity. Using recently computed quasinormal-mode spectra for rapidly rotating black holes in such theories, the authors build the first ringdown template that accounts for the breaking of isospectrality between the two gravitational polarizations. They find no evidence of these corrections in any event with a detectable ringdown, and they combine all events to place upper bounds between 34 and 39 km on the length scale of new physics. If correct, this means current observations already probe the strong-field regime precisely enough to exclude kilometre-scale higher-derivative effects in the ringdown.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is the quasinormal-mode spectrum of rotating black holes in higher-derivative gravity, computed with the Modified Teukolsky equation at first order in the coupling. The frequency shifts are fit to spin polynomials of order 12, giving corrections valid up to black-hole spin 0.93, and the template feeds these polarisation-dependent complex frequencies into a time-domain ringdown likelihood, breaking the isospectrality of the Kerr spectrum. The argument also rests on the assumption that the coupling is small, |alpha| ≪ 1, and on the exclusion of parameter regions where the linear-order modes grow exponentially because such growth signals a breakdown of the linear approximation.

What would settle it

Recompute the effective-field-theory quasinormal-mode shifts to second order in the coupling and compare with the order-12 linear spin-polynomial fits; if the second-order terms shift the predicted complex frequencies by more than the width of the reported posterior for spins up to 0.93, the bound is not robust, and observationally a single high-signal-to-noise ringdown from a light remnant whose complex frequency matches the effective-field-theory prediction with a length scale above 35 km would overturn the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that every post-merger gravitational-wave event in the GWTC-3 catalogue with a detectable quasinormal-mode-driven ringdown is consistent with the unmodified Kerr spectrum of general relativity. For each of the three parity-preserving higher-derivative operators in the effective action—the cubic curvature invariant and the two quartic invariants—the authors construct a time-domain template in which the complex quasinormal-mode frequencies are the Kerr values plus linear shifts proportional to a coupling constant, with separate shifts for the two polarizations. Marginalizing over remnant mass, spin, amplitudes, and the new-physics length scale, they obtain combined 95% intervals of [−32.2, +34.3] km for the cubic term, [−24.9, +35.0] km for quartic 1, and [−27.0, +38.7] km for quartic 2. The Bayes factors comparing each effective-field-theory model with general relativity do not favor the extended models; the logarithms of the Bayes factors are negative for most events and never exceed 1.5.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that the linear-in-coupling shifts to the Kerr quasinormal frequencies, computed with the Modified Teukolsky equation and approximated by order-12 spin polynomials, accurately describe the true ringdown spectrum up to spin 0.93, so that any inaccuracy in those predictions would bias the inferred length-scale bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Current ringdown data already constrain the effective-field-theory length scale to below roughly 35 km, improving on earlier analyses that only modeled slowly rotating remnants.
  • The non-detection holds for all three higher-derivative operators, so any future detection of such corrections would require either lighter black holes with higher curvature or more sensitive detectors.
  • The template, including isospectrality breaking, is directly applicable to future detectors, which will observe ringdowns from smaller black holes and can push the bound to shorter length scales.
  • If a non-zero length scale were ever measured, the mass dependence of the coupling would allow redshift measurements to be made from gravitational-wave ringdowns alone.
  • Remnant mass and spin posteriors inferred from the effective-field-theory templates agree with those from general relativity, indicating the bound is not driven by prior artifacts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The bound of about 35 km is a substantial fraction of the horizon scale of a ten-solar-mass black hole, suggesting that ringdown observations are already sensitive to length scales of order one-fifth the horizon; the paper does not emphasize this translation.
  • The excluded exponentially-growing regions of parameter space rely on the expectation that higher-order corrections remove them; a second-order-in-coupling calculation would directly test whether the reported bound is an artifact of the linear approximation.
  • The same pipeline could be applied to parity-violating operators or to other beyond-general-relativity theories, such as Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet gravity, once high-spin quasinormal-mode shifts are available, potentially yielding comparable or tighter constraints.
  • Because the analysis uses only the dominant 220 mode and its first overtone, adding higher angular modes in future high-signal-to-noise events could either sharpen the bound or reveal deviations that are currently hidden.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a ringdown waveform template for a parity-preserving higher-derivative EFT extension of general relativity, using linear-in-coupling shifts to Kerr quasinormal-mode frequencies that were computed with the Modified Teukolsky formalism and provided as K=12 spin polynomials (Eqs. (4) and (5)). The template is implemented in pyRing and applied to GWTC-3 events with detectable ringdown, including the (2,2,0) and (2,2,1) modes and accounting for isospectrality breaking. The main result is a null detection of EFT corrections: the combined 95% bounds are sign(λ)·ℓ in [-32.2,+34.3] km for the cubic operator, [-24.9,+35.0] km for quartic 1, and [-27.0,+38.7] km for quartic 2, with Bayes factors consistent with GR. One event, GW190708_232457, is excluded after a posterior-based EFT-validity check.

Significance. If the result is correct, this is the first ringdown analysis that tests higher-derivative EFT corrections using the recently computed high-spin QNM spectrum, and it places competitive km-scale bounds on the new-physics length scale using public LVK data. The paper is carefully built on established pyRing methodology, explicitly states priors and sampling settings, includes a consistency check between GR and EFT remnant posteriors, and makes the analysis reproducible through a specified pyRing commit. These strengths are real and should be credited. The main caveats concern the use of spin polynomials beyond their validated range and the post hoc exclusion of one event; neither currently invalidates the central null result, but both need to be addressed before the reported bounds can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [QUASINORMAL MODE SPECTRUM / TEMPLATE CONSTRUCTION, Eqs. (4)-(5)] The K=12 spin polynomials in Eq. (5) are stated to be a good approximation up to χ≈0.8, yet the analysis samples remnant spins up to χ≤0.93. The paper does not show the marginal spin posteriors, so the reader cannot tell how much posterior mass lies in the extrapolated region. This matters because the QNM frequencies enter the likelihood through Eq. (4), and an unvalidated high-spin prediction would directly bias the inferred ℓ and the headline 35 km bound. Please report the spin posteriors for all included events, rerun the analysis with a prior cut at χ≤0.8, and quantify the polynomial-fit uncertainty (for example, by marginalizing over the highest-order coefficient, whose variation the authors already acknowledge).
  2. [RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (GW190708_232457 exclusion)] The exclusion of GW190708_232457 is based on an informal comparison of the 'range' of ℓ supported by its posterior with the 'range' of the mass posterior. No statistical threshold is defined, and the cut is applied after inspecting the posterior. Because this event is dropped from the combined analysis, the abstract's claim of analyzing 'all events with detectable quasinormal-driven ringdown signatures' is not literally correct. Please define a pre-specified EFT-validity criterion with a quantitative threshold, report the single-event posterior for the excluded event, and show the combined constraints both with and without this event to demonstrate that the headline bound is not sensitive to the cut.
  3. [HIGHER-DERIVATIVE GRAVITY / Eqs. (1)-(2), (7)] The text states that |α_x|≪1 is assumed throughout, but the actual analysis imposes only |α|<1 and excludes regions where the linear-order modes grow exponentially. For |α| between roughly 0.1 and 1, the linear-in-α QNM shifts in Eq. (4) are uncontrolled, so the likelihood model is not guaranteed to describe the EFT of Eq. (1). This prior truncation can also affect the Bayes factors reported in Table I, since the prior volume changes with the allowed α range. Please either impose a prior consistent with |α|≪1 or demonstrate that the posterior mass of every event lies well inside the linear regime.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / RESULTS] The abstract says the analysis covers 'all events with detectable quasinormal-driven ringdown signatures', but one event is excluded; please rephrase to state the actual event set and the exclusion reason.
  2. [Table I / caption] The table reports intervals for sign(λ)·ℓ, while the abstract quotes 'ℓ ≲ 35 km'. Please clarify that the bound is on the signed combination and, if the intended headline is a bound on |ℓ|, state the corresponding two-sided 95% credible interval.
  3. [RESULTS AND DISCUSSION] The 'range' used in the EFT-validity check is never defined; please specify, for example, the 90% or 95% highest-posterior-density interval, and state the chosen overlap threshold.
  4. [RESULTS AND DISCUSSION (combined posterior)] The combination of single-event posteriors through kernel density estimation followed by multiplication of likelihoods should state the bandwidth selection rule and validate the procedure against an explicit joint re-analysis, since KDE smoothing can bias the combined posterior with a small number of events.
  5. [QUASINORMAL MODE SPECTRUM] The statement that increasing the spin-expansion order 'only changes the highest coefficient significantly' would benefit from a quantitative estimate, such as the relative change in that coefficient or its impact on δω at χ=0.9; without numbers, the reader cannot assess the extrapolation error.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null result is a parameter constraint fit to public GWTC-3 data, not an output of the theoretical input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational null result: fitting the EFT length scale ℓ to public LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA ringdown data yields posteriors centered at zero and 95% bounds of roughly 34-39 km. This is a parameter-estimation constraint against external GW data, not a quantity equal to the theoretical input by construction. The only imported theoretical content is the linear-in-α QNM frequency shift δω from companion papers [67,68], used through Eqs. (4)-(5). Those shifts are parameter-free predictions of the EFT action (1) under stated assumptions (first order in α, K=12 spin-polynomial fit), and they do not encode the target result of the analysis. Although [67,68] share authors with the present paper, the cited results are externally checkable calculations rather than fitted values from this work; no uniqueness theorem or undeclared ansatz is imported through self-citation. The spin-range concern—polynomials stated to be good to χ∼0.8 but used up to χ=0.93—is a correctness/robustness limitation, not a circularity. The exclusion of GW190708_232457 because the EFT assumption would be violated is a selection criterion, not a derivation step that reduces to the conclusion. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited, and the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraint rests on QNM frequency shifts imported from companion papers by the same group, on a set of modeling choices (linear-in-α, spin-polynomial fits, constant-amplitude overtones, aligned-spin symmetry), and on Bayesian priors. No new physical entities are introduced; ℓ is a parametrization of existing EFT couplings.

free parameters (7)
  • EFT length scale ℓ (with sign of coupling λ) = 95% interval [-32.2, +34.3] km (cubic even); [-24.9, +35.0] km (quartic 1); [-27.0, +38.7] km (quartic 2)
    Central parameter of the analysis, sampled under a uniform prior [-740, +740] km; the reported bound is the marginal posterior. Its sign encodes the sign of λ.
  • Remnant redshifted mass Mobs = Posterior, prior [10, 500] M_sun
    Sets the BH scale that converts the dimensionless α into physical length through α = λ (ℓ(1+z)/Mobs)^p.
  • Remnant spin χ = Posterior, prior [0.00, 0.93]
    QNM frequencies depend strongly on spin; high-spin extrapolation of the polynomial fits is a key modeling choice.
  • QNM complex amplitudes and phases for (2,2,0) and (2,2,1), per polarisation = Posterior, priors amplitude [0, 50], phase [0, 2π]
    Nuisance parameters in the template; reflection symmetry halves their number for aligned-spin systems.
  • Luminosity distance D_L = Posterior, constrained by GWTC-3 95% bound
    Sampled under a uniform prior and constrained to avoid prior effects on the ℓ estimate.
  • QNM frequency shift polynomial coefficients c^(k) = K = 12 spin-polynomial coefficients from [67,68]
    These coefficients, fit to numerical QNM computations in companion papers, directly set the predicted frequency shifts and therefore the mapping from data to ℓ; their uncertainty is not propagated in this paper.
  • Mode-growth exclusion threshold = -0.1 (dimensionless imaginary frequency)
    Hand-chosen threshold in Figs. 1 and 3 defining regions with exponentially growing modes that are excluded a priori; it sets the allowed support of the prior on α for each spin.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The action (1) with R^3, C^2, and \tilde C^2 terms, with parity preserved, is the relevant EFT extension of GR for vacuum BH dynamics; quadratic curvature terms do not alter the Kerr background.
    Invoked in 'HIGHER-DERIVATIVE GRAVITY' when writing Eq. (1) and excluding quadratic terms; relies on [74].
  • domain assumption The Modified Teukolsky equations and the linear-in-α QNM shifts δω from [64-68] correctly describe gravitational perturbations of rotating BHs in these EFTs.
    The entire template uses Eq. (4) ω = ω_GR + α δω; the companion papers are the source, not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The spin polynomial fits (Eq. 5) with K=12 remain accurate up to χ≈0.8 and are usable up to the analysis cut χ≤0.93.
    Stated in 'QUASINORMAL MODE SPECTRUM' and 'TEMPLATE CONSTRUCTION'; the paper notes uncertainty grows near extremal spin and restricts χ≤0.93.
  • domain assumption A ringdown template starting at the peak of h+²+hײ, with constant-amplitude overtones, adequately models the post-merger signal at current sensitivity.
    Used in 'TEMPLATE CONSTRUCTION'; the paper acknowledges constant-amplitude overtones are phenomenological, citing [86].
  • domain assumption For aligned-spin progenitors, reflection symmetry and negligible m<0 excitation justify halving the amplitude parameters and neglecting counter-rotating modes.
    Stated in 'TEMPLATE CONSTRUCTION' as a very good approximation for the current dataset.
  • domain assumption The exclusion of parameter regions with exponentially growing QNMs is physical or at least conservative for the EFT analysis.
    The paper excludes Im[ω] < -0.1 regions a priori because they are expected to be cured by higher-order corrections and cause numerical issues; this shapes the prior and could remove signal regions if incorrect.
  • domain assumption The GWTC-3 event selection from Ref. [8] is appropriate, and the exclusion of GW190708_232457 because of EFT-validity overlap is justified.
    If this cut is not justified, the combined bound could be biased; the paper states the exclusion criterion explicitly.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ringdown Analysis of Rotating Black Holes in Effective Field Theory Extensions of General Relativity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YMBV2Z5X

@misc{pith2026241117893,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ringdown Analysis of Rotating Black Holes in Effective Field Theory Extensions of General Relativity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YMBV2Z5X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17893}
}
abstract

Quasinormal modes of rapidly rotating black holes were recently computed in a generic effective-field-theory extension of general relativity with higher-derivative corrections. We exploit this breakthrough to perform the most complete search for signatures of new physics in black hole spectra to date. We construct a template that describes the post-merger gravitational-wave emission in comparable-mass binary black hole mergers at current detector sensitivity, notably including isospectrality breaking. The analysis of all events with detectable quasinormal-driven ringdown signatures yields no evidence of higher-derivative corrections in the spectra, and we set an upper bound $\ell \lesssim$ 35 km on the length scale of new physics. Looking ahead, our scheme enables new studies on the capabilities of future detectors to robustly search for signatures of new gravitational physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17893 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Parameter space of effective-field-theory corrections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior probability distributions of the length [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Regions where (2, 2, 0) and (2, 2, 1) modes appear to grow exponentially Im[ω] < 0 (dotted lines) for quartic 1 and 2 corrections, and grow faster than Im[ω] < −0.1 (solid lines). −80 −60 −40 −20 0 20 40 60 80 ` · sign(λ) [km] 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 Posterior density Posterior distribution of ` for quartic 1 corrections Single events Joint posterior 95% bound on ` [-24.9, +35.0] km GR null-reference −80 −60 −… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of ℓ for quartic 1 and 2 corrections obtained from the analysis of the GWTC-3 catalogue [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Running Love Numbers and the Effective Field Theory of Gravity

    hep-th 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Higher-derivative gravity corrections induce non-zero, classically running tidal Love numbers for black holes, computed here with a new tidal Green function method.

  2. Functional inference on deviations from General Relativity

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GRANITA reconstructs functional, parameter-dependent deviations from General Relativity in gravitational-wave data using Gaussian process regression with free node values.

  3. Extreme mass-ratio inspiral within an ultralight scalar cloud I. Scalar radiation

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Scalar radiation from an EMRI in an ultralight scalar cloud is computed semi-analytically, showing dipole clouds decelerate and quadrupole clouds accelerate the inspiral, with up to about 100 rad dephasing after 18 months.

  4. Black hole ringdown spectroscopy of curvature-coupled scalar and pseudoscalar fields

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No quadratic-gravity ringdown signature is found in GW150914, GW190521, and GW200129, yielding 90% upper limits on coupling length scales of about 34 km for axi-dilaton, 49 km for dynamical Chern-Simons, and 47 km for...

  5. Discrete symmetries of modified Teukolsky equations

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Complex modifications of the Teukolsky potential break m=0 QNM degeneracy and can inject non-physical mode branches when frequency-domain multipole-dependent potentials are evolved in time.

  6. Extended parameterized spin expansion formalism for ringdown analysis with GW250114

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Simultaneously sampling the EFT scaling index p̃ and length scale ℓ̃ in ParSpec shows p̃ is prior-dominated and the ℓ̃ ~ 83 km bound is mostly prior geometry.

  7. Gravitational radiations from periodic orbits around a black hole in the effective field theory extension of general relativity

    gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Periodic orbits around EFTGR black holes produce gravitational waveforms whose substructures increase in complexity with higher zoom numbers.

  8. Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a waveform model that includes both eccentricity and spin precession, the authors confirm GW150914 was a quasi-circular, slowly spinning black hole merger, with eccentricity below 0.08 at 15 Hz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 93 linked inside Pith · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [63]

    H. O. Silva, A. Ghosh, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044030 (2023), arXiv:2205.05132 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [2]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel.19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Ad- desso, R. Adhikari,et al., Physical review letters116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  6. [5]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Ac- ernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., Physical Review X9, 031040 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 108 references
  1. [8]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Agathos, W

    M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 89, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1311.0420 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Meidam, M

    J. Meidam, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 90, 064009 (2014), arXiv:1406.3201 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [11]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Dideron, S

    G. Dideron, S. Mukherjee, and L. Lehner, (2024), arXiv:2411.04198 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Tahura and K

    S. Tahura and K. Yagi, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084042 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 101, 109902 (2020)], arXiv:1809.00259 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Maselli, P

    A. Maselli, P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024043 (2020), arXiv:1910.12893 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Carullo, Phys

    G. Carullo, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124043 (2021), arXiv:2102.05939 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Maselli, S

    A. Maselli, S. Yi, L. Pierini, V. Vellucci, L. Reali, L. Gualtieri, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D109, 064060 (2024), arXiv:2311.14803 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Payne, M

    E. Payne, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, L. Lehner, Y. Chen, and W. M. Farr, (2024), arXiv:2407.07043 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Sennett, R

    N. Sennett, R. Brito, A. Buonanno, V. Gorbenko, and L. Senatore, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044056 (2020), arXiv:1912.09917 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Accettulli Huber, A

    M. Accettulli Huber, A. Brandhuber, S. De Angelis, and G. Travaglini, Phys. Rev. D103, 045015 (2021), arXiv:2012.06548 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Bernard, L

    L. Bernard, L. Blanchet, and D. Trestini, JCAP 08, 008 (2022), arXiv:2201.10924 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Brandhuber, G

    A. Brandhuber, G. R. Brown, P. Pichini, G. Travaglini, and P. Vives Matasan, JHEP 08, 188 (2024), arXiv:2405.13826 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Brandhuber, G

    A. Brandhuber, G. R. Brown, G. Chen, G. Travaglini, and P. Vives Matasan, (2024), arXiv:2408.00587 [hep- th]. 7

    2024 arXiv

  18. [25]

    T. Jain, P. Rettegno, M. Agathos, A. Nagar, and L. Turco, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084017 (2023), arXiv:2211.15580 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Julié, V

    F.-L. Julié, V. Baibhav, E. Berti, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D107, 104044 (2023), arXiv:2212.13802 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Witek, L

    H. Witek, L. Gualtieri, P. Pani, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. D99, 064035 (2019), arXiv:1810.05177 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Okounkova, L

    M. Okounkova, L. C. Stein, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104026 (2019), arXiv:1906.08789 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Okounkova, Phys

    M. Okounkova, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084046 (2020), arXiv:2001.03571 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [30]

    W. E. East and J. L. Ripley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 101102 (2021), arXiv:2105.08571 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [31]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D106, 104055 (2022), arXiv:2208.09488 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Corman, J

    M. Corman, J. L. Ripley, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024014 (2023), arXiv:2210.09235 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [33]

    J. L. Ripley, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31, 2230017 (2022), arXiv:2207.13074 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Evstafyeva, M

    T. Evstafyeva, M. Agathos, and J. L. Ripley, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124010 (2023), arXiv:2212.11359 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Aresté Saló, K

    L. Aresté Saló, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 261104 (2022), arXiv:2208.14470 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Aresté Saló, K

    L. Aresté Saló, K. Clough, and P. Figueras, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084018 (2023), arXiv:2306.14966 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Rev.Lett

    R.Cayuso, P.Figueras, T.França, andL.Lehner,Phys. Rev.Lett. 131,111403(2023),arXiv:2303.07246[gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Julié, L

    F.-L. Julié, L. Pompili, and A. Buonanno, (2024), arXiv:2406.13654 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [39]

    E.Berti, V.Cardoso, andA.O.Starinets,Class.Quant. Grav. 26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Testing general rel- ativity with black hole quasi-normal modes,

    N. Franchini and S. H. Völkel, “Testing general rel- ativity with black hole quasi-normal modes,” in Re- cent Progress on Gravity Tests: Challenges and Fu- ture Perspectives, edited by C. Bambi and A. Cárdenas- Avendaño (Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2024) pp. 361–416,...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Carullo, W

    G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123029 (2019), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 089903 (2019)], arXiv:1902.07527 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [42]

    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

  36. [43]

    Finch and C

    E. Finch and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. D104, 123034 (2021), arXiv:2108.09344 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Correia and C

    A. Correia and C. D. Capano, Phys. Rev. D110, 044018 (2024), arXiv:2312.15146 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Cardoso and L

    V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D80, 064008 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 81, 089903 (2010)], arXiv:0907.5008 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Molina, P

    C. Molina, P. Pani, V. Cardoso, and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124021 (2010), arXiv:1004.4007 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  40. [47]

    J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, C. F. B. Macedo, V. Car- doso, V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, F. S. Khoo, J. Kunz, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104024 (2016), arXiv:1609.01286 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [48]

    J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, F. S. Khoo, and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 96, 064008 (2017), arXiv:1706.03262 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Cardoso, M

    V. Cardoso, M. Kimura, A. Maselli, and L. Sena- tore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251105 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 131, 109903 (2023)], arXiv:1808.08962 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    O. J. Tattersall and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. D97, 104047 (2018), arXiv:1804.08950 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [51]

    McManus, E

    R. McManus, E. Berti, C. F. B. Macedo, M. Kimura, A. Maselli, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D100, 044061 (2019), arXiv:1906.05155 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [52]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. F. Zinhailo, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1049 (2020), arXiv:2003.01188 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [53]

    de Rham, J

    C. de Rham, J. Francfort, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024079 (2020), arXiv:2005.13923 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Moura and J

    F. Moura and J. a. Rodrigues, JHEP08, 078 (2021), arXiv:2105.02616 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [55]

    H. O. Silva, G. Tambalo, K. Glampedakis, K. Yagi, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024042 (2024), arXiv:2404.11110 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    P. Pani, V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104017 (2012), arXiv:1209.0773 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Pani, Int

    P. Pani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340018 (2013), arXiv:1305.6759 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [58]

    Pierini and L

    L. Pierini and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D103, 124017 (2021), arXiv:2103.09870 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Wagle, N

    P. Wagle, N. Yunes, and H. O. Silva, Phys. Rev. D105, 124003 (2022), arXiv:2103.09913 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [60]

    Srivastava, Y

    M. Srivastava, Y. Chen, and S. Shankaranarayanan, Phys. Rev. D104, 064034 (2021), arXiv:2106.06209 [gr- qc]

    2021 arXiv

  54. [61]

    P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D105, 024064 (2022), arXiv:2110.11378 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Pierini and L

    L. Pierini and L. Gualtieri, Phys. Rev. D106, 104009 (2022), arXiv:2207.11267 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    D. Li, P. Wagle, Y. Chen, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. X 13, 021029 (2023), arXiv:2206.10652 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Hussain and A

    A. Hussain and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104018 (2022), arXiv:2206.10653 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D108, 024040 (2023), arXiv:2304.02663 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [67]

    P. A. Cano, K. Fransen, T. Hertog, and S. Maenaut, Phys. Rev. D108, 124032 (2023), arXiv:2307.07431 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  60. [68]

    P. A. Cano, L. Capuano, N. Franchini, S. Maenaut, and S. H. Völkel, (2024), arXiv:2409.04517 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    F. S. Miguel, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104016 (2024), arXiv:2308.03832 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, (2024), arXiv:2405.12280 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    A. K.-W. Chung and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064019 (2024), arXiv:2406.11986 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Quasinormal modes of rapidly rotat- ingEinstein-Gauss-Bonnet-dilatonblackholes,

    J. L. Blázquez-Salcedo, F. S. Khoo, B. Kleihaus, and J. Kunz, “Quasinormal modes of rapidly rotat- ingEinstein-Gauss-Bonnet-dilatonblackholes,” (2024), arXiv:2407.20760 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Endlich, V

    S. Endlich, V. Gorbenko, J. Huang, and L. Senatore, JHEP 09, 122 (2017), arXiv:1704.01590 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    P. A. Cano and A. Ruipérez, JHEP05, 189 (2019), [Er- ratum: JHEP 03, 187 (2020)], arXiv:1901.01315 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  67. [75]

    X. O. Camanho, J. D. Edelstein, J. Maldacena, and A. Zhiboedov, JHEP 02, 020 (2016), arXiv:1407.5597 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  68. [76]

    de Rham, A

    C. de Rham, A. J. Tolley, and J. Zhang, Phys. Rev. 8 Lett. 128, 131102 (2022), arXiv:2112.05054 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Serra, J

    F. Serra, J. Serra, E. Trincherini, and L. G. Trombetta, JHEP 08, 157 (2022), arXiv:2205.08551 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Caron-Huot, Y.-Z

    S. Caron-Huot, Y.-Z. Li, J. Parra-Martinez, and D. Simmons-Duffin, JHEP 05, 122 (2023), arXiv:2201.06602 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Kehagias and A

    A. Kehagias and A. Riotto, (2024), arXiv:2411.12428 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    P. A. Cano, A. Deich, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D109, 024048 (2024), arXiv:2305.15341 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    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

  74. [82]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0512160

    2006 arXiv

  75. [83]

    H. Lim, G. Khanna, A. Apte, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084032 (2019), arXiv:1901.05902 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  76. [84]

    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

  77. [85]

    M.Giesler, M.Isi, M.A.Scheel, andS.Teukolsky,Phys. Rev. X 9, 041060 (2019), arXiv:1903.08284 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    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

  79. [87]

    P. J. Nee, S. H. Völkel, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044032 (2023), arXiv:2302.06634 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  80. [88]

    H. Zhu, J. L. Ripley, A. Cárdenas-Avendaño, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044010 (2024), arXiv:2309.13204 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Siegel, M

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

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Gennari, G

    V. Gennari, G. Carullo, and W. Del Pozzo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 233 (2024), arXiv:2312.12515 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    2020

  84. [92]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  85. [93]

    Isi and W

    M. Isi and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 169001 (2023), arXiv:2310.13869 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  86. [94]

    Siegel, M

    H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, (2024), arXiv:2410.02704 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  87. [95]

    Isi and W

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

    2021 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Zimmerman, C.-J

    A. Zimmerman, C.-J. Haster, and K. Chatziioan- nou, Phys. Rev. D99, 124044 (2019), arXiv:1903.11008 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [97]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084007 (2010)

    2010

  90. [98]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  91. [99]

    dfm/corner.py: corner.py v.2.2.1,

    D. Foreman-Mackey et al., “dfm/corner.py: corner.py v.2.2.1,” (2021)

    2021

  92. [100]

    CPNest:anefficientpython parallelizable nested sampling algorithm,

    W.DelPozzoandJ.Veitch,“ CPNest:anefficientpython parallelizable nested sampling algorithm,” https:// github.com/johnveitch/cpnest (2015)

    2015

  93. [101]

    Behnel, R

    S. Behnel, R. Bradshaw, C. Citro, L. Dalcin, D. Selje- botn, and K. Smith, Comput. Sci. Eng.13, 31 (2011)

    2011

  94. [102]

    gwpy/gwpy: 2.0.3,

    D. Macleodet al., “gwpy/gwpy: 2.0.3,” (2021)

    2021

  95. [103]

    LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite,” free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  96. [104]

    J. D. Hunter, Comput. Sci. Eng.9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  97. [105]

    C. R. Harriset al., Nature (London)585, 357 (2020)

    2020

  98. [106]

    Wes McKinney, inProceedings of the 9th Python in Sci- ence Conference, edited by Stéfan van der Walt and Jarrod Millman (2010) pp. 56 – 61

    2010

  99. [107]

    Virtanen et al., Nature Meth

    P. Virtanen et al., Nature Meth. 17, 261 (2020), arXiv:1907.10121 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  100. [108]

    mwaskom/seaborn: v0.11.2 (august 2021),

    M. Waskomet al., “mwaskom/seaborn: v0.11.2 (august 2021),” (2021). 9 Results for quartic theories 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 χ −1.00 −0.75 −0.50 −0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 α Excluded regions for quartic 1 corrections Im(ω220) = 0.0 Im(ω221) = 0.0 Im(ω220) = −0...

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.