- 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

Parametrized spin-precessing inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model for tests of general relativity

Lorenzo Pompili1,*, Elisa Maggio1, Hector O. Silva1,2, and Alessandra Buonanno1,3

  • *Contact author: lorenzo.pompili@aei.mpg.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 111, 124040 – Published 23 June, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ng8w-98sz

Abstract

The coalescence of binary black holes (BBHs) provides a unique arena to test general relativity (GR) in the dynamical, strong-field regime. To this end, we present pSEOBNRv5PHM, a parametrized, multipolar, spin-precessing waveform model for BBHs in quasicircular orbits, built within the effective-one-body formalism. Compared to its predecessor, pSEOBNRv4HM, our model introduces parametrized deviations from GR not only in the plunge-merger-ringdown stages, but also in the inspiral phase through modifications to the conservative dynamics. Additionally, it incorporates, for the first time, spin-precession effects. The free deviation parameters can be used to perform null tests of GR using current and future gravitational-wave observations. We validate pSEOBNRv5PHM through Bayesian parameter estimation, focusing on the quasinormal-mode frequency and damping time of the (ℓ,m,n)=(2,2,0) mode. Our analysis of synthetic signals from numerical-relativity (NR) simulations of highly precessing BH mergers shows that, while pSEOBNRv5PHM correctly recovers consistency with GR, neglecting spin precession can lead to false detections of deviations from GR even at current detector sensitivity. Conversely, when analyzing a synthetic signal from a NR simulation of a binary boson-star merger, the model successfully identifies a deviation from a GR BBH signal. Finally, we reanalyze 12 events from the third Gravitational Wave Transient Catalog. Using a hierarchical combination of these events, we constrain fractional deviations in the frequency and damping time of the (2,2,0) quasinormal-mode to δf220=0.00−0.06+0.06 and δτ220=0.15−0.24+0.26 at 90% credibility. These results are consistent with those from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration, which did not account for spin-precession effects.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (163)

  1. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  2. F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: A second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015).
  3. T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A101 (2021).
  4. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific 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).
  5. 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).
  6. B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, and Virgo Collaborations), Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Rev. Relativity 19, 1 (2016).
  7. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016); 121, 129902(E) (2018).
  8. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the LIGO-Virgo catalog GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019).
  9. 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).
  10. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GWTC-3, arXiv:2112.06861.
  11. N. Yunes, K. Yagi, and F. Pretorius, Theoretical physics implications of the binary black-hole mergers GW150914 and GW151226, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084002 (2016).
  12. H. O. Silva, A. Ghosh, and A. Buonanno, Black-hole ringdown as a probe of higher-curvature gravity theories, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044030 (2023).
  13. A. Maselli, S. Yi, L. Pierini, V. Vellucci, L. Reali, L. Gualtieri, and E. Berti, Black hole spectroscopy beyond Kerr: Agnostic and theory-based tests with next-generation interferometers, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064060 (2024).
  14. F.-L. Julié, L. Pompili, and A. Buonanno, Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms in Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet gravity within the effective-one-body formalism, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024016 (2025).
  15. S. Maenaut, G. Carullo, P. A. Cano, A. Liu, V. Cardoso, T. Hertog, and T. G. F. Li, Ringdown analysis of rotating black holes in effective field theory extensions of general relativity, arXiv:2411.17893.
  16. L. Blanchet and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Detecting the tail effect in gravitational wave experiments, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1067 (1995).
  17. K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Probing the non-linear structure of general relativity with black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024006 (2006).
  18. N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Fundamental theoretical bias in gravitational wave astrophysics and the parameterized post-Einsteinian framework, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009).
  19. T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Sturani, and A. Vecchio, Towards a generic test of the strong field dynamics of general relativity using compact binary coalescence, Phys. Rev. D 85, 082003 (2012).
  20. M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 89, 082001 (2014).
  21. J. Meidam et al., Parametrized tests of the strong-field dynamics of general relativity using gravitational wave signals from coalescing binary black holes: Fast likelihood calculations and sensitivity of the method, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044033 (2018).
  22. R. Brito, A. Buonanno, and V. Raymond, Black-hole spectroscopy by making full use of gravitational-wave modeling, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084038 (2018).
  23. V. Cardoso, M. Kimura, A. Maselli, E. Berti, C. F. B. Macedo, and R. McManus, Parametrized black hole quasinormal ringdown: Decoupled equations for nonrotating black holes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104077 (2019).
  24. A. Maselli, P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, and E. Berti, Parametrized ringdown spin expansion coefficients: A data-analysis framework for black-hole spectroscopy with multiple events, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024043 (2020).
  25. 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).
  26. 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).
  27. E. M. Sänger et al., Tests of general relativity with GW230529: A neutron star merging with a lower mass-gap compact object, arXiv:2406.03568.
  28. C. V. Vishveshwara, Scattering of gravitational radiation by a Schwarzschild black-hole, Nature (London) 227, 936 (1970).
  29. S. A. Teukolsky, Perturbations of a rotating black hole. 1. Fundamental equations for gravitational electromagnetic and neutrino field perturbations, Astrophys. J. 185, 635 (1973).
  30. S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, The quasi-normal modes of the Schwarzschild black hole, Proc. R. Soc. A 344, 441 (1975).
  31. K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Quasinormal modes of stars and black holes, Living Rev. Relativity 2, 2 (1999).
  32. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 163001 (2009).
  33. W. Israel, Event horizons in static vacuum space-times, Phys. Rev. 164, 1776 (1967).
  34. S. W. Hawking, Black holes in general relativity, Commun. Math. Phys. 25, 152 (1972).
  35. B. Carter, Axisymmetric black hole has only two degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 331 (1971).
  36. D. C. Robinson, Uniqueness of the Kerr black hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 905 (1975).
  37. P. O. Mazur, Proof of uniqueness of the Kerr-Newman black hole solution, J. Phys. A 15, 3173 (1982).
  38. S. L. Detweiler, Black holes and gravitational waves. III. The resonant frequencies of rotating holes, Astrophys. J. 239, 292 (1980).
  39. O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Garrison, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Black hole spectroscopy: Testing general relativity through gravitational wave observations, Classical Quantum Gravity 21, 787 (2004).
  40. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, On gravitational-wave spectroscopy of massive black holes with the space interferometer LISA, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006).
  41. S. Gossan, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Bayesian model selection for testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124056 (2012).
  42. J. Meidam, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns using TIGER, Phys. Rev. D 90, 064009 (2014).
  43. G. Carullo et al., Empirical tests of the black hole no-hair conjecture using gravitational-wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104020 (2018).
  44. M. Isi, M. Giesler, W. M. Farr, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukolsky, Testing the no-hair theorem with GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111102 (2019).
  45. S. Bhagwat, M. Cabero, C. D. Capano, B. Krishnan, and D. A. Brown, Detectability of the subdominant mode in a binary black hole ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024023 (2020).
  46. G. Carullo, W. Del Pozzo, and J. Veitch, Observational black hole spectroscopy: A time-domain multimode analysis of GW150914, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123029 (2019); 100, 089903(E) (2019).
  47. J. Calderón Bustillo, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Black-hole spectroscopy, the no-hair theorem, and GW150914: Kerr versus Occam, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024041 (2021).
  48. M. Isi and W. M. Farr, Analyzing black-hole ringdowns, arXiv:2107.05609.
  49. C. D. Capano, M. Cabero, J. Westerweck, J. Abedi, S. Kastha, A. H. Nitz, Y.-F. Wang, A. B. Nielsen, and B. Krishnan, Multimode quasinormal spectrum from a perturbed black hole, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 221402 (2023).
  50. R. Cotesta, G. Carullo, E. Berti, and V. Cardoso, Analysis of ringdown overtones in GW150914, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 111102 (2022).
  51. S. Ma, K. Mitman, L. Sun, N. Deppe, F. Hébert, L. E. Kidder, J. Moxon, W. Throwe, N. L. Vu, and Y. Chen, Quasinormal-mode filters: A new approach to analyze the gravitational-wave ringdown of binary black-hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084036 (2022).
  52. V. Baibhav, M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, G. Carullo, R. Cotesta, W. Del Pozzo, and F. Duque, Agnostic black hole spectroscopy: Quasinormal mode content of numerical relativity waveforms and limits of validity of linear perturbation theory, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104020 (2023).
  53. H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, Analyzing black-hole ringdowns. II. Data conditioning, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044070 (2025).
  54. I. Kamaretsos, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Black-hole hair loss: Learning about binary progenitors from ringdown signals, Phys. Rev. D 85, 024018 (2012).
  55. I. Kamaretsos, M. Hannam, and B. Sathyaprakash, Is black-hole ringdown a memory of its progenitor?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 141102 (2012).
  56. L. London, D. Shoemaker, and J. Healy, Modeling ringdown: Beyond the fundamental quasinormal modes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124032 (2014); 94, 069902(E) (2016).
  57. L. T. London, Modeling ringdown. II. Aligned-spin binary black holes, implications for data analysis and fundamental theory, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084052 (2020).
  58. X. Jiménez Forteza, S. Bhagwat, P. Pani, and V. Ferrari, Spectroscopy of binary black hole ringdown using overtones and angular modes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044053 (2020).
  59. M. H.-Y. Cheung, E. Berti, V. Baibhav, and R. Cotesta, Extracting linear and nonlinear quasinormal modes from black hole merger simulations, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044069 (2024); 110, 049902(E) (2024).
  60. H. Zhu et al., Black hole spectroscopy for precessing binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064052 (2025).
  61. C. Pacilio, S. Bhagwat, F. Nobili, and D. Gerosa, Flexible mapping of ringdown amplitudes for nonprecessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103037 (2024).
  62. L. Magaña Zertuche et al., High-precision ringdown surrogate model for non-precessing binary black holes, arXiv:2408.05300.
  63. G. Carullo, Ringdown amplitudes of nonspinning eccentric binaries, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 10 (2024) 061.
  64. V. Gennari, G. Carullo, and W. Del Pozzo, Searching for ringdown higher modes with a numerical relativity-informed post-merger model, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 233 (2024).
  65. 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).
  66. 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).
  67. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999).
  68. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000).
  69. 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).
  70. M. Punturo et al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010).
  71. M. Evans et al., A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv:2109.09882.
  72. P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA Collaboration), Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv:1702.00786.
  73. M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020).
  74. R. Gamba, M. Breschi, S. Bernuzzi, M. Agathos, and A. Nagar, Waveform systematics in the gravitational-wave inference of tidal parameters and equation of state from binary neutron star signals, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124015 (2021).
  75. A. Dhani, S. Völkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, Systematic biases in estimating the properties of black holes due to inaccurate gravitational-wave models, arXiv:2404.05811.
  76. V. Kapil, L. Reali, R. Cotesta, and E. Berti, Systematic bias from waveform modeling for binary black hole populations in next-generation gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104043 (2024).
  77. P. T. H. Pang, J. Calderón Bustillo, Y. Wang, and T. G. F. Li, Potential observations of false deviations from general relativity in gravitational wave signals from binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 024019 (2018).
  78. Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Accumulating errors in tests of general relativity with gravitational waves: Overlapping signals and inaccurate waveforms, Astrophys. J. 945, 103 (2023).
  79. A. Toubiana, L. Pompili, A. Buonanno, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Measuring source properties and quasinormal mode frequencies of heavy massive black-hole binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104019 (2024).
  80. A. Gupta et al., Possible causes of false general relativity violations in gravitational wave observations, SciPost Phys. Commun. Rep., 5 (2025).
  81. M. Hannam, C. Hoy, J. E. Thompson, S. Fairhurst, V. Raymond et al., General-relativistic precession in a black-hole binary, Nature (London) 610, 652 (2022).
  82. E. Payne, S. Hourihane, J. Golomb, R. Udall, R. Udall, D. Davis, and K. Chatziioannou, Curious case of GW200129: Interplay between spin-precession inference and data-quality issues, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104017 (2022).
  83. C. Foo and E. Hamilton, Systematic bias due to mismodeling precessing binary black hole ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 110, 104024 (2024).
  84. R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Systematic biases due to waveform mismodeling in parametrized post-Einsteinian tests of general relativity: The impact of neglecting spin precession and higher modes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044026 (2025).
  85. L. Pompili et al., Laying the foundation of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5: Improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning nonprecessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124035 (2023).
  86. M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and A. Ramos-Buades, Theoretical groundwork supporting the precessing-spin two-body dynamics of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124036 (2023).
  87. M. van de Meent, A. Buonanno, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, N. Warburton, A. Pound, B. Wardell, L. Durkan, and J. Miller, Enhancing the SEOBNRv5 effective-one-body waveform model with second-order gravitational self-force fluxes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124038 (2023).
  88. A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023).
  89. L. Pompili, A. Buonanno, and M. Pürrer, Accounting for numerical-relativity calibration uncertainty in gravitational-wave modeling and inference, arXiv:2410.16859.
  90. R. Bachhar, M. Pürrer, and S. R. Green, Incorporating waveform calibration error in gravitational-wave modeling and inference for SEOBNRv4, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084050 (2025).
  91. M. Breschi, S. Bernuzzi, K. Chakravarti, A. Camilletti, A. Prakash, and A. Perego, Kilohertz gravitational waves from binary neutron star mergers: Numerical-relativity informed postmerger model, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064009 (2024).
  92. 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.
  93. S. A. Hughes, A. Apte, G. Khanna, and H. Lim, Learning about black hole binaries from their ringdown spectra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161101 (2019).
  94. H. Lim, S. A. Hughes, and G. Khanna, Measuring quasinormal mode amplitudes with misaligned binary black hole ringdowns, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124030 (2022).
  95. H. Siegel, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, Ringdown of GW190521: Hints of multiple quasinormal modes with a precessional interpretation, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064008 (2023).
  96. M. Boyle et al., The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 36, 195006 (2019).
  97. T. Evstafyeva, U. Sperhake, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and M. Agathos, Gravitational-wave data analysis with high-precision numerical relativity simulations of boson star mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 131401 (2024).
  98. E. Racine, Analysis of spin precession in binary black hole systems including quadrupole-monopole interaction, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044021 (2008).
  99. L. Santamaria et al., Matching post-Newtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: Systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for non-precessing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064016 (2010).
  100. P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015).
  101. 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).
  102. T. Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: An effective one-body approach, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001).
  103. 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).
  104. A. Buonanno, Y.-b. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Detecting gravitational waves from precessing binaries of spinning compact objects: Adiabatic limit, Phys. Rev. D 67, 104025 (2003); 74, 029904(E) (2006).
  105. P. Schmidt, M. Hannam, S. Husa, and P. Ajith, Tracking the precession of compact binaries from their gravitational-wave signal, Phys. Rev. D 84, 024046 (2011).
  106. M. Boyle, R. Owen, and H. P. Pfeiffer, A geometric approach to the precession of compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124011 (2011).
  107. R. O’Shaughnessy, B. Vaishnav, J. Healy, Z. Meeks, and D. Shoemaker, Efficient asymptotic frame selection for binary black hole spacetimes using asymptotic radiation, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124002 (2011).
  108. P. Schmidt, M. Hannam, and S. Husa, Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries: A simple approximate mapping between precessing and non-precessing inspiral signals, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104063 (2012).
  109. 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).
  110. 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).
  111. 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).
  112. 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).
  113. 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).
  114. S. Ossokine et al., Multipolar effective-one-body waveforms for precessing binary black holes: Construction and validation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044055 (2020).
  115. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Faithful effective-one-body waveforms of small-mass-ratio coalescing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 76, 064028 (2007).
  116. T. Damour and A. Nagar, Comparing effective-one-body gravitational waveforms to accurate numerical data, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024043 (2008).
  117. 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).
  118. 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).
  119. 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).
  120. 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).
  121. F. Hofmann, E. Barausse, and L. Rezzolla, The final spin from binary black holes in quasi-circular orbits, Astrophys. J. Lett. 825, L19 (2016).
  122. 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).
  123. M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, S. Ossokine, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Gravitational-wave modes from precessing black-hole binaries, arXiv:1409.4431.
  124. H. Estelles et al., Adding equatorial-asymmetric effects for spin-precessing binaries into the SEOBNRv5PHM waveform model (2025) (to be published).
  125. M. Boyle, Angular velocity of gravitational radiation from precessing binaries and the corotating frame, Phys. Rev. D 87, 104006 (2013).
  126. T. Damour and A. Nagar, A new analytic representation of the ringdown waveform of coalescing spinning black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 90, 024054 (2014).
  127. 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).
  128. B. J. Kelly and J. G. Baker, Decoding mode mixing in black-hole merger ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084004 (2013).
  129. 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).
  130. E. Berti and A. Klein, Mixing of spherical and spheroidal modes in perturbed Kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 064012 (2014).
  131. R. O’Shaughnessy, L. London, J. Healy, and D. Shoemaker, Precession during merger: Strong polarization changes are observationally accessible features of strong-field gravity during binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044038 (2013).
  132. T. A. Apostolatos, C. Cutler, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Spin induced orbital precession and its modulation of the gravitational wave forms from merging binaries, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6274 (1994).
  133. E. Hamilton, L. London, and M. Hannam, Ringdown frequencies in black holes formed from precessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104035 (2023).
  134. E. Hamilton et al., Catalog of precessing black-hole-binary numerical-relativity simulations, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044032 (2024).
  135. 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).
  136. G. Ashton et al., bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 27 (2019).
  137. I. M. Romero-Shaw et al., Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: Validation and application to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020).
  138. J. S. Speagle, dynesty: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  139. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, and Virgo Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 2.5−4.5M⊙ compact object and a neutron star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L34 (2024).
  140. G. Ashton, C. Talbot, S. Roy, G. Pratten, T.-H. Pang, M. Agathos, T. Baka, E. Sänger, A. Mehta, J. Steinhoff, E. Maggio, A. Ghosh, and A. Vijaykumar, bilby tgr (2024), https://zenodo.org/records/10940210.
  141. Noise curves used for simulations in the update of the observing scenarios paper, LIGO Document No. T2000012-v2, 2022, https://dcc.ligo.org/ligo-t2000012/public.
  142. 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).
  143. S. L. Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Dynamical boson stars, Living Rev. Relativity 26, 1 (2023).
  144. K. Clough, P. Figueras, H. Finkel, M. Kunesch, E. A. Lim, and S. Tunyasuvunakool, grchombo: Numerical relativity with adaptive mesh refinement, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 245011 (2015).
  145. T. Andrade et al., grchombo: An adaptable numerical relativity code for fundamental physics, J. Open Source Software 6, 3703 (2021).
  146. J. M. Dickey, The weighted likelihood ratio, linear hypotheses on normal location parameters, Ann. Math. Stat. 42, 204 (1971).
  147. 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).
  148. A. Zimmerman, C.-J. Haster, and K. Chatziioannou, On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124044 (2019).
  149. M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Hierarchical test of general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 121101 (2019).
  150. B. Carpenter, A. Gelman, M. D. Hoffman, D. Lee, B. Goodrich, M. Betancourt, M. Brubaker, J. Guo, P. Li, and A. Riddell, stan: A probabilistic programming language, J. Stat. Softw. 76, 1 (2017).
  151. H. Zhong, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Multidimensional hierarchical tests of general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044053 (2024).
  152. E. Payne, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Fortifying gravitational-wave tests of general relativity against astrophysical assumptions, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124060 (2023).
  153. J. Veitch et al., Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the lalinference software library, Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015).
  154. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Effects of waveform model systematics on the interpretation of GW150914, Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 104002 (2017).
  155. R. Macas, A. Lundgren, and G. Ashton, Revisiting the evidence for precession in GW200129 with machine learning noise mitigation, Phys. Rev. D 109, 062006 (2024).
  156. N. Gupte et al., Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, arXiv:2404.14286.
  157. P. Kolitsidou, J. E. Thompson, and M. Hannam, Impact of antisymmetric contributions to signal multipoles in the measurement of black-hole spins, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024050 (2025).
  158. A. Gamboa et al., Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM, arXiv:2412.12823.
  159. A. Gamboa, M. Khalil, and A. Buonanno, Third post-Newtonian dynamics for eccentric orbits and aligned spins in the effective-one-body waveform model SEOBNRv5EHM, arXiv:2412.12831.
  160. C. Pacilio, D. Gerosa, and S. Bhagwat, Catalog variance of testing general relativity with gravitational-wave data, Phys. Rev. D 109, L081302 (2024).
  161. A. Ghosh, N. K. Johnson-Mcdaniel, A. Ghosh, C. K. Mishra, P. Ajith, W. Del Pozzo, C. P. L. Berry, A. B. Nielsen, and L. London, Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes, Classical Quantum Gravity 35, 014002 (2018).
  162. https://gwosc.org/.
  163. , Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 267, 29 (2023).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 111, 124040– Published 23 June, 2025
  • Received 18 April 2025
  • Accepted 28 May 2025
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