- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Laying the foundation of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5: Improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning nonprecessing binary black holes

Lorenzo Pompili1,*, Alessandra Buonanno1,2, Héctor Estellés1, Mohammed Khalil3,1,2, Maarten van de Meent1,4, Deyan P. Mihaylov1, Serguei Ossokine1, Michael Pürrer5,6,1, Antoni Ramos-Buades1 et al.

Ajit Kumar Mehta7,1, Roberto Cotesta8, Sylvain Marsat9, Michael Boyle10, Lawrence E. Kidder10, Harald P. Pfeiffer1, Mark A. Scheel11, Hannes R. Rüter12, Nils Vu11, Reetika Dudi1, Sizheng Ma11, Keefe Mitman11, Denyz Melchor13, Sierra Thomas13,14, and Jennifer Sanchez15

  • 1Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Am Mühlenberg 1, Potsdam 14476, Germany
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA
  • 3Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada
  • 4Niels Bohr International Academy, Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
  • 5Department of Physics, East Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA
  • 6Center for Computational Research, Tyler Hall, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island 02881, USA
  • 7Department of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106, USA
  • 8William H. Miller III Department of Physics and Astronomy, Johns Hopkins University, 3400 North Charles Street, Baltimore, Maryland, 21218, USA
  • 9Laboratoire des 2 Infinis—Toulouse (L2IT-IN2P3), Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, F-31062 Toulouse Cedex 9, France
  • 10Cornell Center for Astrophysics and Planetary Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853, USA
  • 11Theoretical Astrophysics 350-17, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA
  • 12CFisUC, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal
  • 13Nicholas and Lee Begovich Center for Gravitational Wave Physics and Astronomy, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton California 92831 USA
  • 14Department of Physics, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA
  • 15Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration and Research in Astrophysics (CIERA), Northwestern University, 1800 Sherman Ave, Evanston, Illinois 60201, USA

  • *lorenzo.pompili@aei.mpg.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 108, 124035 – Published 15 December, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124035

Abstract

We present SEOBNRv5HM, a more accurate and faster inspiral-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model for quasicircular, spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes within the effective-one-body (EOB) formalism. Compared to its predecessor, SEOBNRv4HM, the waveform model (i) incorporates recent high-order post-Newtonian results in the inspiral, with improved resummations, (ii) includes the gravitational modes (ℓ,|m|)=(3,2),(4,3), in addition to the (2,2), (3,3), (2,1), (4,4), (5,5) modes already implemented in SEOBNRv4HM, (iii) is calibrated to larger mass ratios and spins using a catalog of 442 numerical-relativity (NR) simulations and 13 additional waveforms from black-hole perturbation theory, and (iv) incorporates information from second-order gravitational self-force in the nonspinning modes and radiation-reaction force. Computing the unfaithfulness against NR simulations, we find that for the dominant (2,2) mode the maximum unfaithfulness in the total mass range 10–300M⊙ is below 10−3 for 90% of the cases (38% for SEOBNRv4HM). When including all modes up to ℓ=5 we find 98% (49%) of the cases with unfaithfulness below 10−2 (10−3), while these numbers reduce to 88% (5%) when using SEOBNRv4HM. Furthermore, the model shows improved agreement with NR in other dynamical quantities (e.g., the angular momentum flux and binding energy), providing a powerful check of its physical robustness. We implemented the waveform model in a high-performance python package (pyseobnr), which leads to evaluation times faster than SEOBNRv4HM by a factor of 10 to 50, depending on the configuration, and provides the flexibility to easily include spin-precession and eccentric effects, thus making it the starting point for a new generation of EOBNR waveform models (SEOBNRv5) to be employed for upcoming observing runs of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detectors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

See Also

Theoretical groundwork supporting the precessing-spin two-body dynamics of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5

Mohammed Khalil, Alessandra Buonanno, Héctor Estellés, Deyan P. Mihaylov, Serguei Ossokine, Lorenzo Pompili, and Antoni Ramos-Buades
Phys. Rev. D 108, 124036 (2023)

Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes

Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, Héctor Estellés, Mohammed Khalil, Deyan P. Mihaylov, Serguei Ossokine, Lorenzo Pompili, and Mahlet Shiferaw
Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023)

Enhancing the SEOBNRv5 effective-one-body waveform model with second-order gravitational self-force fluxes

Maarten van de Meent, Alessandra Buonanno, Deyan P. Mihaylov, Serguei Ossokine, Lorenzo Pompili, Niels Warburton, Adam Pound, Barry Wardell, Leanne Durkan, and Jeremy Miller
Phys. Rev. D 108, 124038 (2023)

Article Text

References (223)

  1. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
  2. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-1: A gravitational-wave transient catalog of compact binary mergers observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first and second observing runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019).
  3. T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the second observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083030 (2020).
  4. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021).
  5. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, arXiv:2108.01045 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)].
  6. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023).
  7. A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, M. Schäfer, R. Dhurkunde, and M. Cabero, 3-OGC: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact-binary mergers, Astrophys. J. 922, 76 (2021).
  8. S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3a data, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043009 (2022).
  9. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  10. F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: A second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015).
  11. A. Buikema et al. (aLIGO Collaboration), Sensitivity and performance of the Advanced LIGO detectors in the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 102, 062003 (2020).
  12. M. Tse et al., Quantum-enhanced Advanced LIGO detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231107 (2019).
  13. F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Increasing the astrophysical reach of the Advanced Virgo detector via the application of squeezed vacuum states of light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231108 (2019).
  14. M. Punturo et al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010).
  15. D. Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. contribution to gravitational-wave astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019).
  16. M. Evans et al., A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv:2109.09882.
  17. P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi et al., Laser interferometer space antenna, arXiv:1702.00786.
  18. F. Pretorius, Evolution of binary black hole spacetimes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005).
  19. M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlochower, Accurate evolutions of orbiting black-hole binaries without excision, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006).
  20. 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).
  21. J. Blackman, S. E. Field, C. R. Galley, B. Szilágyi, M. A. Scheel, M. Tiglio, and D. A. Hemberger, Fast and accurate prediction of numerical relativity waveforms from binary black hole coalescences using surrogate models, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 121102 (2015).
  22. J. Blackman, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, C. R. Galley, D. A. Hemberger, P. Schmidt, and R. Smith, A surrogate model of gravitational waveforms from numerical relativity simulations of precessing binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104023 (2017).
  23. J. Blackman, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, C. R. Galley, C. D. Ott, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and B. Szilágyi, Numerical relativity waveform surrogate model for generically precessing binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024058 (2017).
  24. V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate model of hybridized numerical relativity binary black hole waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064045 (2019).
  25. V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033015 (2019).
  26. D. Williams, I. S. Heng, J. Gair, J. A. Clark, and B. Khamesra, Precessing numerical relativity waveform surrogate model for binary black holes: A Gaussian process regression approach, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063011 (2020).
  27. N. E. M. Rifat, S. E. Field, G. Khanna, and V. Varma, Surrogate model for gravitational wave signals from comparable and large-mass-ratio black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 101, 081502 (2020).
  28. T. Islam, V. Varma, J. Lodman, S. E. Field, G. Khanna, M. A. Scheel, H. P. Pfeiffer, D. Gerosa, and L. E. Kidder, Eccentric binary black hole surrogate models for the gravitational waveform and remnant properties: Comparable mass, nonspinning case, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064022 (2021).
  29. T. Islam, S. E. Field, S. A. Hughes, G. Khanna, V. Varma, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate model for gravitational wave signals from nonspinning, comparable-to large-mass-ratio black hole binaries built on black hole perturbation theory waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104025 (2022).
  30. J. Yoo, V. Varma, M. Giesler, M. A. Scheel, C.-J. Haster, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. E. Kidder, and M. Boyle, Targeted large mass ratio numerical relativity surrogate waveform model for GW190814, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044001 (2022).
  31. Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, B. J. Kelly, S. T. McWilliams, F. Pretorius, and J. R. van Meter, A data-analysis driven comparison of analytic and numerical coalescing binary waveforms: Nonspinning case, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024014 (2008).
  32. P. Ajith et al., Phenomenological template family for black-hole coalescence waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S689 (2007).
  33. P. Ajith et al., Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with nonprecessing spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011).
  34. L. Santamaria et al., Matching post-Newtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: Systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for nonprecessing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064016 (2010).
  35. M. Hannam, P. Schmidt, A. Bohé, L. Haegel, S. Husa, F. Ohme, G. Pratten, and M. Pürrer, Simple model of complete precessing black-hole-binary gravitational waveforms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151101 (2014).
  36. S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. Pürrer, F. Ohme, X. Jiménez Forteza, and A. Bohé, Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. I. New numerical waveforms and anatomy of the signal, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016).
  37. S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. Pürrer, X. Jiménez Forteza, and A. Bohé, Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. II. A phenomenological model for the advanced detector era, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044007 (2016).
  38. T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, and W. Tichy, Closed-form tidal approximants for binary neutron star gravitational waveforms constructed from high-resolution numerical relativity simulations, Phys. Rev. D 96, 121501 (2017).
  39. L. London, S. Khan, E. Fauchon-Jones, C. García, M. Hannam, S. Husa, X. Jiménez-Forteza, C. Kalaghatgi, F. Ohme, and F. Pannarale, First higher-multipole model of gravitational waves from spinning and coalescing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 161102 (2018).
  40. S. Khan, K. Chatziioannou, M. Hannam, and F. Ohme, Phenomenological model for the gravitational-wave signal from precessing binary black holes with two-spin effects, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024059 (2019).
  41. S. Khan, F. Ohme, K. Chatziioannou, and M. Hannam, Including higher order multipoles in gravitational-wave models for precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024056 (2020).
  42. T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Improving the NRTidal model for binary neutron star systems, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044003 (2019).
  43. J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, S. Khan, E. Nitoglia, F. Pannarale, T. Dietrich, and M. Hannam, Modeling the gravitational wave signature of neutron star black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124059 (2020).
  44. G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Setting the cornerstone for a family of models for gravitational waves from compact binaries: The dominant harmonic for nonprecessing quasicircular black holes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020).
  45. G. Pratten et al., Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021).
  46. C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estellés, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Multimode frequency-domain model for the gravitational wave signal from nonprecessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064002 (2020).
  47. H. Estellés, A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, L. Haegel, and R. Jaume, Phenomenological time domain model for dominant quadrupole gravitational wave signal of coalescing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124060 (2021).
  48. H. Estellés, S. Husa, M. Colleoni, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, C. García-Quirós, A. Ramos-Buades, and A. Borchers, Time-domain phenomenological model of gravitational-wave subdominant harmonics for quasicircular nonprecessing binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084039 (2022).
  49. H. Estellés, M. Colleoni, C. García-Quirós, S. Husa, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. d. L. Planas, and A. Ramos-Buades, New twists in compact binary waveform modeling: A fast time-domain model for precession, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084040 (2022).
  50. E. Hamilton, L. London, J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, M. Hannam, C. Kalaghatgi, S. Khan, F. Pannarale, and A. Vano-Vinuales, Model of gravitational waves from precessing black-hole binaries through merger and ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124027 (2021).
  51. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999).
  52. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000).
  53. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schaefer, On the determination of the last stable orbit for circular general relativistic binaries at the third post-Newtonian approximation, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084011 (2000).
  54. T. Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: An effective one-body approach, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001).
  55. A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in precessing binaries of spinning black holes, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104005 (2006).
  56. A. Buonanno, G. B. Cook, and F. Pretorius, Inspiral, merger and ring-down of equal-mass black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 75, 124018 (2007).
  57. A. Buonanno, Y. Pan, J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, B. J. Kelly, S. T. McWilliams, and J. R. van Meter, Toward faithful templates for nonspinning binary black holes using the effective-one-body approach, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104049 (2007).
  58. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Comparing effective-one-body gravitational waveforms to accurate numerical data, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024043 (2008).
  59. T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and A. Nagar, Improved resummation of post-Newtonian multipolar waveforms from circularized compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064004 (2009).
  60. A. Buonanno, Y. Pan, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, L. T. Buchman, and L. E. Kidder, Effective-one-body waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity simulations: Coalescence of nonspinning, equal-mass black holes, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124028 (2009).
  61. Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, M. Boyle, L. T. Buchman, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Inspiral-merger-ringdown multipolar waveforms of nonspinning black-hole binaries using the effective-one-body formalism, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124052 (2011).
  62. T. Damour, A. Nagar, and S. Bernuzzi, Improved effective-one-body description of coalescing nonspinning black-hole binaries and its numerical-relativity completion, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084035 (2013).
  63. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schäfer, Fourth post-Newtonian effective one-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084024 (2015).
  64. A. Nagar, G. Pratten, G. Riemenschneider, and R. Gamba, Multipolar effective one body model for nonspinning black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024041 (2020).
  65. T. Damour, A. Nagar, E. N. Dorband, D. Pollney, and L. Rezzolla, Faithful effective-one-body waveforms of equal-mass coalescing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 77, 084017 (2008).
  66. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schaefer, Effective one body approach to the dynamics of two spinning black holes with next-to-leading order spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. D 78, 024009 (2008).
  67. Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, L. T. Buchman, T. Chu, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Effective-one-body waveforms calibrated to numerical relativity simulations: Coalescence of nonprecessing, spinning, equal-mass black holes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084041 (2010).
  68. T. Damour, A. Nagar, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. Bruegmann, Accurate effective-one-body waveforms of inspiralling and coalescing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044039 (2008).
  69. E. Barausse and A. Buonanno, An improved effective-one-body Hamiltonian for spinning black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084024 (2010).
  70. E. Barausse and A. Buonanno, Extending the effective-one-body Hamiltonian of black-hole binaries to include next-to-next-to-leading spin-orbit couplings, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104027 (2011).
  71. A. Nagar, Effective one-body Hamiltonian of two spinning black-holes with next-to-next-to-leading order spin-orbit coupling, Phys. Rev. D 84, 084028 (2011); 88, 089901(E) (2013).
  72. T. Damour and A. Nagar, New effective-one-body description of coalescing nonprecessing spinning black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 90, 044018 (2014).
  73. S. Balmelli and T. Damour, New effective-one-body Hamiltonian with next-to-leading order spin-spin coupling, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124022 (2015).
  74. M. Khalil, J. Steinhoff, J. Vines, and A. Buonanno, Fourth post-Newtonian effective-one-body Hamiltonians with generic spins, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104034 (2020).
  75. A. Taracchini, Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, E. Barausse, M. Boyle, T. Chu, G. Lovelace, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Prototype effective-one-body model for nonprecessing spinning inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 86, 024011 (2012).
  76. A. Taracchini et al., Effective-one-body model for black-hole binaries with generic mass ratios and spins, Phys. Rev. D 89, 061502 (2014).
  77. A. Bohé et al., Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors, Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017).
  78. R. Cotesta, A. Buonanno, A. Bohé, A. Taracchini, I. Hinder, and S. Ossokine, Enriching the symphony of gravitational waves from binary black holes by tuning higher harmonics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084028 (2018).
  79. Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, A. Taracchini, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mroué, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilágyi, Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms of spinning, precessing black-hole binaries in the effective-one-body formalism, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084006 (2014).
  80. S. Babak, A. Taracchini, and A. Buonanno, Validating the effective-one-body model of spinning, precessing binary black holes against numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024010 (2017).
  81. S. Ossokine et al., Multipolar effective-one-body waveforms for precessing binary black holes: Construction and validation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044055 (2020).
  82. A. Nagar, F. Messina, P. Rettegno, D. Bini, T. Damour, A. Geralico, S. Akcay, and S. Bernuzzi, Nonlinear-in-spin effects in effective-one-body waveform models of spin-aligned, inspiralling, neutron star binaries, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044007 (2019).
  83. A. Nagar et al., Time-domain effective-one-body gravitational waveforms for coalescing compact binaries with nonprecessing spins, tides and self-spin effects, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104052 (2018).
  84. S. Akcay, R. Gamba, and S. Bernuzzi, Hybrid post-Newtonian effective-one-body scheme for spin-precessing compact-binary waveforms up to merger, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024014 (2021).
  85. R. Gamba, S. Akçay, S. Bernuzzi, and J. Williams, Effective-one-body waveforms for precessing coalescing compact binaries with post-Newtonian twist, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024020 (2022).
  86. D. Bini and T. Damour, Gravitational radiation reaction along general orbits in the effective one-body formalism, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124012 (2012).
  87. T. Hinderer and S. Babak, Foundations of an effective-one-body model for coalescing binaries on eccentric orbits, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104048 (2017).
  88. D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Faithful analytical effective-one-body waveform model for spin-aligned, moderately eccentric, coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 101, 101501 (2020).
  89. A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Effective one-body multipolar waveform model for spin-aligned, quasicircular, eccentric, hyperbolic black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104021 (2021).
  90. M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Radiation-reaction force and multipolar waveforms for eccentric, spin-aligned binaries in the effective-one-body formalism, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024046 (2021).
  91. A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Ossokine, Effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for eccentric binary black holes with nonprecessing spins, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044035 (2022).
  92. S. Albanesi, A. Placidi, A. Nagar, M. Orselli, and S. Bernuzzi, New avenue for accurate analytical waveforms and fluxes for eccentric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 105, L121503 (2022).
  93. S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, T. Dietrich, and T. Damour, Modeling the dynamics of tidally interacting binary neutron stars up to the merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 161103 (2015).
  94. T. Hinderer et al., Effects of neutron-star dynamic tides on gravitational waveforms within the effective-one-body approach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 181101 (2016).
  95. J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, A. Buonanno, and A. Taracchini, Dynamical tides in general relativity: Effective action and effective-one-body Hamiltonian, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104028 (2016).
  96. S. Akcay, S. Bernuzzi, F. Messina, A. Nagar, N. Ortiz, and P. Rettegno, Effective-one-body multipolar waveform for tidally interacting binary neutron stars up to merger, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044051 (2019).
  97. J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, T. Dietrich, and F. Foucart, Spin effects on neutron star fundamental-mode dynamical tides: Phenomenology and comparison to numerical simulations, Phys. Rev. Res. 3, 033129 (2021).
  98. A. Matas et al., Aligned-spin neutron-star–black-hole waveform model based on the effective-one-body approach and numerical-relativity simulations, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043023 (2020).
  99. A. Gonzalez, R. Gamba, M. Breschi, F. Zappa, G. Carullo, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Numerical-relativity-informed effective-one-body model for black-hole-neutron-star mergers with higher modes and spin precession, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084026 (2023).
  100. S. E. Field, C. R. Galley, J. S. Hesthaven, J. Kaye, and M. Tiglio, Fast prediction and evaluation of gravitational waveforms using surrogate models, Phys. Rev. X 4, 031006 (2014).
  101. M. Pürrer, Frequency domain reduced order models for gravitational waves from aligned-spin compact binaries, Classical Quantum Gravity 31, 195010 (2014).
  102. M. Pürrer, Frequency domain reduced order model of aligned-spin effective-one-body waveforms with generic mass-ratios and spins, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064041 (2016).
  103. B. D. Lackey, S. Bernuzzi, C. R. Galley, J. Meidam, and C. Van Den Broeck, Effective-one-body waveforms for binary neutron stars using surrogate models, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104036 (2017).
  104. B. D. Lackey, M. Pürrer, A. Taracchini, and S. Marsat, Surrogate model for an aligned-spin effective one body waveform model of binary neutron star inspirals using Gaussian process regression, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024002 (2019).
  105. R. Cotesta, S. Marsat, and M. Pürrer, Frequency domain reduced order model of aligned-spin effective-one-body waveforms with higher-order modes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124040 (2020).
  106. B. Gadre, M. Pürrer, S. E. Field, S. Ossokine, and V. Varma, A fully precessing higher-mode surrogate model of effective-one-body waveforms, arXiv:2203.00381.
  107. J. Tissino, G. Carullo, M. Breschi, R. Gamba, S. Schmidt, and S. Bernuzzi, Combining effective-one-body accuracy and reduced-order-quadrature speed for binary neutron star merger parameter estimation with machine learning, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084037 (2023).
  108. S. Khan and R. Green, Gravitational-wave surrogate models powered by artificial neural networks, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064015 (2021).
  109. L. M. Thomas, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Accelerating multimodal gravitational waveforms from precessing compact binaries with artificial neural networks, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104029 (2022).
  110. M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Schölkopf, Real-time gravitational wave science with neural posterior estimation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 241103 (2021).
  111. M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. Pürrer, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Schölkopf, Neural importance sampling for rapid and reliable gravitational-wave inference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171403 (2023).
  112. D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, and A. Ghosh, Fast post-adiabatic waveforms in the time domain: Applications to compact binary coalescences in LIGO and Virgo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124087 (2021).
  113. A. Nagar, G. Riemenschneider, G. Pratten, P. Rettegno, and F. Messina, Multipolar effective one body waveform model for spin-aligned black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024077 (2020).
  114. G. Riemenschneider, P. Rettegno, M. Breschi, A. Albertini, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Assessment of consistent next-to-quasicircular corrections and postadiabatic approximation in effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104045 (2021).
  115. https://observing.docs.ligo.org/plan/ (accessed: 2023-02-25).
  116. T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A101 (2021).
  117. G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, R. Buscicchio, and L. M. Thomas, Measuring precession in asymmetric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043096 (2020).
  118. M. Colleoni, M. Mateu-Lucena, H. Estellés, C. García-Quirós, D. Keitel, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, and S. Husa, Towards the routine use of subdominant harmonics in gravitational-wave inference: Reanalysis of GW190412 with generation X waveform models, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024029 (2021).
  119. T. Damour, Gravitational scattering, post-Minkowskian approximation and effective one-body theory, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104015 (2016).
  120. T. Damour, High-energy gravitational scattering and the general relativistic two-body problem, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044038 (2018).
  121. A. Antonelli, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, M. van de Meent, and J. Vines, Energetics of two-body Hamiltonians in post-Minkowskian gravity, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104004 (2019).
  122. P. H. Damgaard and P. Vanhove, Remodeling the effective one-body formalism in post-Minkowskian gravity, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104029 (2021).
  123. M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Energetics and scattering of gravitational two-body systems at fourth post-Minkowskian order, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024042 (2022).
  124. T. Damour and P. Rettegno, Strong-field scattering of two black holes: Numerical relativity meets post-Minkowskian gravity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064051 (2023).
  125. M. van de Meent, A. Buonanno, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, this issue, Enhancing the SEOBNRv5 effective-one-body waveform model with second-order gravitational self-force fluxes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124038 (2023).
  126. M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and A. Ramos-Buades, following paper, Theoretical groundwork supporting the precessing-spin two-body dynamics of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124036 (2023).
  127. Q. Henry, S. Marsat, and M. Khalil, Spin contributions to the gravitational-waveform modes for spin-aligned binaries at the 3.5PN order, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124018 (2022).
  128. N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, J. Miller, and L. Durkan, Gravitational-wave energy flux for compact binaries through second order in the mass ratio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151102 (2021).
  129. B. Wardell, A. Pound, N. Warburton, J. Miller, L. Durkan, and A. Le Tiec, Gravitational waveforms for compact binaries from second-order self-force theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 241402 (2023).
  130. http://www.black-holes.org/waveforms.
  131. M. Boyle et al., The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 36, 195006 (2019).
  132. T. Chu, H. Fong, P. Kumar, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Boyle, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, On the accuracy and precision of numerical waveforms: Effect of waveform extraction methodology, Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 165001 (2016).
  133. D. A. Hemberger, G. Lovelace, T. J. Loredo, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, B. Szilagyi, N. W. Taylor, and S. A. Teukolsky, Final spin and radiated energy in numerical simulations of binary black holes with equal masses and equal, aligned or anti-aligned spins, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064014 (2013).
  134. M. A. Scheel, M. Giesler, D. A. Hemberger, G. Lovelace, K. Kuper, M. Boyle, B. Szilagyi, and L. E. Kidder, Improved methods for simulating nearly extremal binary black holes, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 105009 (2015).
  135. G. Lovelace et al., Nearly extremal apparent horizons in simulations of merging black holes, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 065007 (2015).
  136. B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Directly comparing GW150914 with numerical solutions of Einstein’s equations for binary black hole coalescence, Phys. Rev. D 94, 064035 (2016).
  137. G. Lovelace et al., Modeling the source of GW150914 with targeted numerical-relativity simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 244002 (2016).
  138. B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), GW151226: Observation of gravitational waves from a 22-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016).
  139. P. Kumar, K. Barkett, S. Bhagwat, N. Afshari, D. A. Brown, G. Lovelace, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Accuracy and precision of gravitational-wave models of inspiraling neutron star-black hole binaries with spin: Comparison with matter-free numerical relativity in the low-frequency regime, Phys. Rev. D 92, 102001 (2015).
  140. A. H. Mroue et al., Catalog of 174 binary black hole simulations for gravitational wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 241104 (2013).
  141. R. Haas et al., The einstein toolkit (2022), to find out more, visit http://einsteintoolkit.org.
  142. E. Barausse, A. Buonanno, S. A. Hughes, G. Khanna, S. O’Sullivan, and Y. Pan, Modeling multipolar gravitational-wave emission from small mass-ratio mergers, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024046 (2012).
  143. A. Taracchini, A. Buonanno, G. Khanna, and S. A. Hughes, Small mass plunging into a Kerr black hole: Anatomy of the inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084025 (2014).
  144. D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, L. Pompili, M. Pürrer, and A. Ramos-Buades, pyseobnr: A software package for the next generation of effective-one-body multipolar waveform models, arXiv:2303.18203.
  145. A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, this issue, Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023).
  146. E. Barausse, E. Racine, and A. Buonanno, Hamiltonian of a spinning test-particle in curved spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 80, 104025 (2009); 85, 069904(E) (2012).
  147. J. Vines, D. Kunst, J. Steinhoff, and T. Hinderer, Canonical Hamiltonian for an extended test body in curved spacetime: To quadratic order in spin, Phys. Rev. D 93, 103008 (2016); 104, 029902(E) (2021).
  148. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Faithful effective-one-body waveforms of small-mass-ratio coalescing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064028 (2007).
  149. D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Novel approach to binary dynamics: Application to the fifth post-Newtonian level, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 231104 (2019).
  150. D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Binary dynamics at the fifth and fifth-and-a-half post-Newtonian orders, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024062 (2020).
  151. L. Barack and N. Sago, Gravitational self-force on a particle in eccentric orbit around a Schwarzschild black hole, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084021 (2010).
  152. S. Akcay, L. Barack, T. Damour, and N. Sago, Gravitational self-force and the effective-one-body formalism between the innermost stable circular orbit and the light ring, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104041 (2012).
  153. S. Isoyama, L. Barack, S. R. Dolan, A. Le Tiec, H. Nakano, A. G. Shah, T. Tanaka, and N. Warburton, Gravitational self-force correction to the innermost stable circular equatorial orbit of a Kerr black hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 161101 (2014).
  154. A. Antonelli, C. Kavanagh, M. Khalil, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Gravitational spin-orbit coupling through third-subleading post-Newtonian order: From first-order self-force to arbitrary mass ratios, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 011103 (2020).
  155. A. Antonelli, C. Kavanagh, M. Khalil, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Gravitational spin-orbit and aligned spin1−spin2 couplings through third-subleading post-Newtonian orders, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124024 (2020).
  156. M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, R. Patil, and J. Steinhoff, Gravitational spin-orbit Hamiltonian at NNNLO in the post-Newtonian framework, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2023) 130.
  157. J.-W. Kim, M. Levi, and Z. Yin, N3LO spin-orbit interaction via the EFT of spinning gravitating objects, J. High Energy Phys. 05 (2023) 184.
  158. J. Vines and J. Steinhoff, Spin-multipole effects in binary black holes and the test-body limit, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064010 (2018).
  159. Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, R. Fujita, E. Racine, and H. Tagoshi, Post-Newtonian factorized multipolar waveforms for spinning, non-precessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 83, 064003 (2011); 87, 109901(E) (2013).
  160. A. Nagar and P. Rettegno, Efficient effective one body time-domain gravitational waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 99, 021501 (2019).
  161. P. Rettegno, F. Martinetti, A. Nagar, D. Bini, G. Riemenschneider, and T. Damour, Comparing effective one body Hamiltonians for spin-aligned coalescing binaries, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104027 (2020).
  162. L. Blanchet, Gravitational wave tails of tails, Classical Quantum Gravity 15, 113 (1998); 22, 3381(E) (2005).
  163. L. Blanchet, G. Faye, B. R. Iyer, and S. Sinha, The third post-Newtonian gravitational wave polarisations and associated spherical harmonic modes for inspiralling compact binaries in quasicircular orbits, Classical Quantum Gravity 25, 165003 (2008); 29, 239501(E) (2012).
  164. Q. Henry, Complete gravitational-waveform amplitude modes for quasicircular compact binaries to the 3.5PN order, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044057 (2023).
  165. J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Rotating black holes: Locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation, Astrophys. J. 178, 347 (1972).
  166. X. Jiménez-Forteza, D. Keitel, S. Husa, M. Hannam, S. Khan, and M. Pürrer, Hierarchical data-driven approach to fitting numerical relativity data for nonprecessing binary black holes with an application to final spin and radiated energy, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064024 (2017).
  167. F. Hofmann, E. Barausse, and L. Rezzolla, The final spin from binary black holes in quasicircular orbits, Astrophys. J. Lett. 825, L19 (2016).
  168. R. H. Price and G. Khanna, Arrival times of gravitational radiation peaks for binary inspiral, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104026 (2016).
  169. L. C. Stein, qnm: A python package for calculating Kerr quasinormal modes, separation constants, and spherical-spheroidal mixing coefficients, J. Open Source Software 4, 1683 (2019).
  170. I. Guyon, J. Weston, S. Barnhill, and V. Vapnik, Gene selection for cancer classification using support vector machines, Mach. Learn. 46, 389 (2002).
  171. B. J. Kelly and J. G. Baker, Decoding mode mixing in black-hole merger ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084004 (2013).
  172. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and M. Casals, Eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics in four and higher dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024013 (2006); 73, 109902(E) (2006).
  173. E. Berti and A. Klein, Mixing of spherical and spheroidal modes in perturbed Kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 064012 (2014).
  174. L. London and E. Fauchon-Jones, On modeling for Kerr black holes: Basis learning, QNM frequencies, and spherical-spheroidal mixing coefficients, Classical Quantum Gravity 36, 235015 (2019).
  175. A. Kumar Mehta, P. Tiwari, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, C. K. Mishra, V. Varma, and P. Ajith, Including mode mixing in a higher-multipole model for gravitational waveforms from nonspinning black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024032 (2019).
  176. A. Nagar and P. Rettegno, Next generation: Impact of high-order analytical information on effective one body waveform models for noncircularized, spin-aligned black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104004 (2021).
  177. L. S. Finn and D. F. Chernoff, Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2198 (1993).
  178. B. S. Sathyaprakash and S. V. Dhurandhar, Choice of filters for the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing binaries, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3819 (1991).
  179. L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. Evans, and S. Gras (LIGO Collaboration), Updated Advanced LIGO sensitivity design curve (2018), LIGO Document T1800044-v5.
  180. D. J. A. McKechan, C. Robinson, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, A tapering window for time-domain templates and simulated signals in the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing compact binaries, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 084020 (2010).
  181. M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020).
  182. J. Skilling, Nested sampling for general Bayesian computation, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006).
  183. M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Nested sampling with normalizing flows for gravitational-wave inference, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103006 (2021).
  184. G. Ashton et al., bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 27 (2019).
  185. D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, emcee: The MCMC Hammer, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).
  186. C. Capano, Y. Pan, and A. Buonanno, Impact of higher harmonics in searching for gravitational waves from nonspinning binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 89, 102003 (2014).
  187. M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, R. Patil, and J. Steinhoff, Gravitational quadratic-in-spin Hamiltonian at NNNLO in the post-Newtonian framework, J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2023) 128.
  188. J.-W. Kim, M. Levi, and Z. Yin, N3LO quadratic-in-spin interactions for generic compact binaries, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2023) 098.
  189. M. Levi, R. Morales, and Z. Yin, From the EFT of spinning gravitating objects to Poincaré and gauge invariance, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2023) 090.
  190. M. Levi and Z. Yin, Completing the fifth PN precision frontier via the EFT of spinning gravitating objects, J. High Energy Phys. 04 (2023) 079.
  191. M. Levi, S. Mougiakakos, and M. Vieira, Gravitational cubic-in-spin interaction at the next-to-leading post-Newtonian order, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2019) 036.
  192. M. Levi and F. Teng, NLO gravitational quartic-in-spin interaction, J. High Energy Phys. 01 (2020) 066.
  193. M. Boyle, A. Buonanno, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mroue, Y. Pan, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, High-accuracy numerical simulation of black-hole binaries: Computation of the gravitational-wave energy flux and comparisons with post-Newtonian approximants, Phys. Rev. D 78, 104020 (2008).
  194. A. Albertini, A. Nagar, P. Rettegno, S. Albanesi, and R. Gamba, Waveforms and fluxes: Towards a self-consistent effective one body waveform model for nonprecessing, coalescing black-hole binaries for third generation detectors, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084025 (2022).
  195. T. Damour, A. Nagar, D. Pollney, and C. Reisswig, Energy versus angular momentum in black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 131101 (2012).
  196. A. Nagar, T. Damour, C. Reisswig, and D. Pollney, Energetics and phasing of nonprecessing spinning coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044046 (2016).
  197. S. Ossokine, T. Dietrich, E. Foley, R. Katebi, and G. Lovelace, Assessing the energetics of spinning binary black hole systems, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104057 (2018).
  198. T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, M. Ujevic, and W. Tichy, Gravitational waves and mass ejecta from binary neutron star mergers: Effect of the stars’ rotation, Phys. Rev. D 95, 044045 (2017).
  199. LIGO Scientific Collaboration, LIGO Algorithm Library—lalsuite, free software (GPL) (2018).
  200. S. Behnel, R. Bradshaw, C. Citro, L. Dalcin, D. S. Seljebotn, and K. Smith, cython: The best of both worlds, Comput. Sci. Eng. 13, 31 (2011).
  201. S. K. Lam, A. Pitrou, and S. Seibert, numba: A LLVM-based python JIT compiler, in Proceedings of the Second Workshop on the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, LLVM ’15 (Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2015).
  202. https://github.com/pydata/numexpr.
  203. C. R. Harris et al., Array programming with numpy, Nature (London) 585, 357 (2020).
  204. E. Thrane and C. Talbot, An introduction to Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust. 36, e010 (2019); 37, e036(E) (2020).
  205. G. Ashton and C. Talbot, bilby-mcmc: An MCMC sampler for gravitational-wave inference, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 507, 2037 (2021).
  206. M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Importance nested sampling with normalising flows, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 4, 035011 (2023).
  207. J. S. Speagle, dynesty: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  208. T. Callister, A thesaurus for common priors in gravitational-wave astronomy, arXiv:2104.09508.
  209. K. Chatziioannou et al., On the properties of the massive binary black hole merger GW170729, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104015 (2019).
  210. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GW190814: Gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020).
  211. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, SoftwareX 13, 100658 (2021).
  212. Z. Doctor, B. Farr, D. E. Holz, and M. Pürrer, Statistical gravitational waveform models: What to simulate next?, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123011 (2017).
  213. Y. E. Setyawati, M. Pürrer, and F. Ohme, Regression methods in waveform modeling: A comparative study, Classical Quantum Gravity 37, 075012 (2020).
  214. S. Hild et al., Sensitivity studies for third-generation gravitational wave observatories, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 094013 (2011).
  215. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021).
  216. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GWTC-3, arXiv:2112.06861 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)].
  217. A. Ghosh, R. Brito, and A. Buonanno, Constraints on quasinormal-mode frequencies with LIGO-Virgo binary–black-hole observations, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124041 (2021).
  218. A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sennett, and J. Steinhoff, Tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations using a flexible theory-independent method, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044020 (2023).
  219. E. Maggio, H. O. Silva, A. Buonanno, and A. Ghosh, Tests of general relativity in the nonlinear regime: A parametrized plunge-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024043 (2023).
  220. D. Ferguson, K. Jani, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Assessing the readiness of numerical relativity for LISA and 3G detectors, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044037 (2021).
  221. https://git.ligo.org/waveforms/software/pyseobnr.
  222. https://gwosc.org/.
  223. D. Bini, T. Damour, and A. Geralico, Sixth post-Newtonian nonlocal-in-time dynamics of binary systems, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084047 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 108, 124035– Published 15 December, 2023
  • Received 11 April 2023
  • Accepted 18 September 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Open access publication funded by the Max Planck Society.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation