- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review X

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

Systematic Biases in Estimating the Properties of Black Holes Due to Inaccurate Gravitational-Wave Models

Arnab Dhani1,*, Sebastian H. Völkel1, Alessandra Buonanno1,2, Hector Estelles1, Jonathan Gair1, Harald P. Pfeiffer1, Lorenzo Pompili1, and Alexandre Toubiana1

  • *Contact author: arnab.dhani@aei.mpg.de
PDF

Phys. Rev. X 15, 031036 – Published 8 August, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/5pks-qz6b

Abstract

Gravitational-wave (GW) observations of binary black-hole (BBH) coalescences are expected to address outstanding questions in astrophysics, cosmology, and fundamental physics. Inference of BBH parameters relies on waveform models, and realizing the full discovery potential of upcoming LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing runs and new ground-based facilities (such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer) hinges on the accuracy of these waveform models. Using linear-signal approximation methods and Bayesian analysis, we start to assess our readiness for what lies ahead using two state-of-the-art quasicircular, spin-precessing models: seobnrv5phm and imrphenomxphm. We find that systematic biases increase with the spin of the BH, with parameter biases being approximately 6 to 8 times likelier, if the primary-spin magnitude exceeds 0.5 compared to when it is less than 0.5. Additionally, we ascertain that current waveforms can accurately recover the distribution of masses in the LVK astrophysical population but not spins. Upon exploring the broader parameter space of BHs, we find that systematic biases increase with detector-frame total mass, binary asymmetry, and spin precession, with a majority of such binaries incurring parameter biases, extending up to redshifts around 3 in future detectors. Furthermore, we examine three “golden” events characterized by mass ratios of approximately 6 to 10, significant spin magnitudes (0.6−0.9), and high precession, evaluating how systematic biases may affect their scientific outcomes. Our findings reveal that current waveforms fail to enable the unbiased measurement of the Hubble-Lemaître parameter and sky localization from loud signals, even for current detectors. Moreover, highly asymmetric systems within the lower BH mass gap exhibit biased measurements of the secondary-companion mass, which impacts the physics of both neutron stars and formation channels. Similarly, we deduce that the primary mass of massive binaries (>60M⊙) will also be biased, affecting supernova physics. Future progress in analytical calculations and numerical-relativity simulations, crucial for calibrating the models, must target regions of the parameter space with significant biases to develop more accurate models. Only then can precision GW astronomy fulfill the promise it holds.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Popular Summary

Gravitational waves—ripples in spacetime caused by events such as black-hole mergers—give us a powerful new way to explore the universe. But to extract meaningful information from these signals, we rely on waveform models to match what we detect. In our study, we find that even the most advanced waveform models can lead to systematic errors when estimating key properties of black holes.

To reach this conclusion, we analyze simulated gravitational wave signals using state-of-the-art waveform models. We focus on how well these models can recover properties such as the black holes’ masses, spins, and the location of the event in the sky. We discover that the models often misestimate these values, particularly when one or both black holes are spinning quickly or when there is a large difference in mass between them. These biases can affect measurements used to estimate the expansion rate of the universe and may mislead our understanding of how black hole systems form and evolve.

Reducing systematic biases is essential if we want to use gravitational waves to precisely measure cosmic distances, study extreme objects such as neutron stars, or test the limits of Einstein’s theory. By identifying the most problematic regions in the black hole parameter space, we provide a road map for improving waveform accuracy in the future.

Article Text

References (246)

  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. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  3. F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: A second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015).
  4. T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A101 (2021).
  5. 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).
  6. 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, Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024).
  7. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 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).
  8. T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, New search pipeline for compact binary mergers: Results for binary black holes in the first observing run of Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023011 (2019).
  9. 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).
  10. B. Zackay, L. Dai, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, Detecting gravitational waves with disparate detector responses: Two new binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063030 (2021).
  11. 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).
  12. A. K. Mehta, S. Olsen, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3b data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024049 (2025).
  13. D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics, arXiv:2312.06631.
  14. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023).
  15. M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and W. M. Farr, Does the black hole merger rate evolve with redshift?, Astrophys. J. Lett. 863, L41 (2018).
  16. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GW170817: Measurements of neutron star radii and equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018).
  17. D. Radice, A. Perego, F. Zappa, and S. Bernuzzi, GW170817: Joint constraint on the neutron star equation of state from multimessenger observations, Astrophys. J. Lett. 852, L29 (2018).
  18. S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Tidal deformabilities and radii of neutron stars from the observation of GW170817, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 091102 (2018); 121, 259902(E) (2018).
  19. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER Collaborations), A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature (London) 551, 85 (2017).
  20. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Constraints on the cosmic expansion history from GWTC–3, Astrophys. J. 949, 76 (2023).
  21. 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).
  22. 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).
  23. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GWTC-3, arXiv:2112.06861.
  24. M. Punturo et al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010).
  25. M. Maggiore et al., Science case for the Einstein telescope, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2020) 050.
  26. D. Reitze et al., Cosmic explorer: The U.S. Contribution to gravitational-wave astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), https://baas.aas.org/pub/2020n7i035/release/1.
  27. S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Listening to the Universe with next generation ground-based gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083040 (2024).
  28. M. Evans et al., A horizon study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv:2109.09882.
  29. I. Gupta et al., Characterizing gravitational wave detector networks: From a♯ to cosmic explorer, Classical Quantum Gravity 41, 245001 (2024).
  30. M. Branchesi et al., Science with the Einstein telescope: A comparison of different designs, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2023) 068.
  31. S. Bogdanov et al., Snowmass 2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: The dense matter equation of state and QCD phase transitions, in Snowmass 2021 (2022), arXiv:2209.07412.
  32. F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Forecasting the detection capabilities of third-generation gravitational-wave detectors using gwfast, Astrophys. J. 941, 208 (2022).
  33. S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, The pair-instability mass gap for black holes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 912, L31 (2021).
  34. K. Belczynski et al., The effect of pair-instability mass loss on black hole mergers, Astron. Astrophys. 594, A97 (2016).
  35. R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. de Mink, M. Fishbach, and S. Justham, Constraints from gravitational wave detections of binary black hole mergers on the C12(α,γ)16O rate, Astrophys. J. Lett. 902, L36 (2020).
  36. S. Borhanian, A. Dhani, A. Gupta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Dark sirens to resolve the Hubble–Lemaître tension, Astrophys. J. Lett. 905, L28 (2020).
  37. P. T. H. Pang, J. C. 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).
  38. 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).
  39. 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).
  40. 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).
  41. S. A. Bhat, P. Saini, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Systematic bias on the inspiral-merger-ringdown consistency test due to neglect of orbital eccentricity, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024009 (2023).
  42. P. Saini, S. A. Bhat, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Eccentricity-induced systematic error on parametrized tests of general relativity: Hierarchical Bayesian inference applied to a binary black hole population, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084056 (2024).
  43. P. Narayan, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, and A. Gupta, Effect of ignoring eccentricity in testing general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064003 (2023).
  44. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999).
  45. A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000).
  46. T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schafer, 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).
  47. T. Damour, Coalescence of two spinning black holes: An effective one-body approach, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001).
  48. 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).
  49. 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).
  50. 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).
  51. 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).
  52. 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).
  53. 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).
  54. 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).
  55. 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).
  56. 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).
  57. 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).
  58. A. Nagar, P. Rettegno, R. Gamba, S. Albanesi, A. Albertini, and S. Bernuzzi, Analytic systematics in next generation of effective-one-body gravitational waveform models for future observations, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124018 (2023).
  59. F. Pretorius, Evolution of binary black hole spacetimes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005).
  60. 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).
  61. 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).
  62. 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).
  63. P. Ajith et al., Phenomenological template family for black-hole coalescence waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S689 (2007).
  64. 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).
  65. 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).
  66. 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).
  67. J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, PhenomXO4a: A phenomenological gravitational-wave model for precessing black-hole binaries with higher multipoles and asymmetries, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024).
  68. M. Hannam et al., The samurai project: Verifying the consistency of black-hole-binary waveforms for gravitational-wave detection, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084025 (2009).
  69. I. Hinder et al., Error-analysis and comparison to analytical models of numerical waveforms produced by the NRAR Collaboration, Classical Quantum Gravity 31, 025012 (2014).
  70. M. Boyle et al., The SXS Collaboration catalog of binary black hole simulations, Classical Quantum Gravity 36, 195006 (2019).
  71. O. Rinne, L. T. Buchman, M. A. Scheel, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Implementation of higher-order absorbing boundary conditions for the Einstein equations, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 075009 (2009).
  72. L. T. Buchman, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Simulations of non-equal mass black hole binaries with spectral methods, Phys. Rev. D 86, 084033 (2012).
  73. L. T. Buchman, M. D. Duez, M. Morales, M. A. Scheel, T. M. Kostersitz, A. M. Evans, and K. Mitman, Numerical relativity multimodal waveforms using absorbing boundary conditions, Classical Quantum Gravity 41, 175011 (2024).
  74. 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).
  75. K. Mitman et al., Adding gravitational memory to waveform catalogs using BMS balance laws, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024031 (2021).
  76. 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).
  77. 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).
  78. 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).
  79. J. Yoo et al., Numerical relativity surrogate model with memory effects and post-Newtonian hybridization, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064027 (2023).
  80. 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).
  81. M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020).
  82. Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Assessing the model waveform accuracy of gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044042 (2022).
  83. T. Islam, A. Vajpeyi, F. H. Shaik, C.-J. Haster, V. Varma, S. E. Field, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and R. Smith, Analysis of GWTC-3 with fully precessing numerical relativity surrogate models, arXiv:2309.14473.

  84. Note that some differences are likely to be attributed to sampler issues rather than waveform systematics.

  85. A. Puecher, A. Samajdar, G. Ashton, C. Van Den Broeck, and T. Dietrich, Comparing gravitational waveform models for binary black hole mergers through a hypermodels approach, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023019 (2024).
  86. A. Z. Jan, A. B. Yelikar, J. Lange, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Assessing and marginalizing over compact binary coalescence waveform systematics with RIFT, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124069 (2020).
  87. J. S. Read, Waveform uncertainty quantification and interpretation for gravitational-wave astronomy, Classical Quantum Gravity 40, 135002 (2023).
  88. C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Waveform accuracy and systematic uncertainties in current gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 108, 044018 (2023).
  89. 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).
  90. V. Varma, P. Ajith, S. Husa, J. C. Bustillo, M. Hannam, and M. Pürrer, Gravitational-wave observations of binary black holes: Effect of nonquadrupole modes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124004 (2014).
  91. V. Varma and P. Ajith, Effects of nonquadrupole modes in the detection and parameter estimation of black hole binaries with nonprecessing spins, Phys. Rev. D 96, 124024 (2017).
  92. M. K. Singh, S. J. Kapadia, A. Vijaykumar, and P. Ajith, Impact of higher harmonics of gravitational radiation on the population inference of binary black holes, Astrophys. J. 971, 23 (2024).
  93. M. Favata, C. Kim, K. G. Arun, J. C. Kim, and H. W. Lee, Constraining the orbital eccentricity of inspiralling compact binary systems with Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023003 (2022).
  94. H.-S. Cho, Systematic bias due to eccentricity in parameter estimation for merging binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124022 (2022).
  95. A. Samajdar and T. Dietrich, Waveform systematics for binary neutron star gravitational wave signals: Effects of the point-particle baseline and tidal descriptions, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124030 (2018).
  96. A. Samajdar and T. Dietrich, Waveform systematics for binary neutron star gravitational wave signals: Effects of spin, precession, and the observation of electromagnetic counterparts, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024046 (2019).
  97. 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).
  98. G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, and N. Williams, Impact of dynamical tides on the reconstruction of the neutron star equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 081102 (2022).
  99. 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).
  100. 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).
  101. A. Jan, D. Ferguson, J. Lange, D. Shoemaker, and A. Zimmerman, Accuracy limitations of existing numerical relativity waveforms on the data analysis of current and future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024023 (2024).
  102. 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).
  103. 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).
  104. E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Measuring gravitational waves from binary black hole coalescences: 2. The waves’ information and its extraction, with and without templates, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4566 (1998).
  105. K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Constructing gravitational waves from generic spin-precessing compact binary inspirals, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104004 (2017).
  106. A. Toubiana and J. R. Gair, Indistinguishability criterion and estimating the presence of biases, arXiv:2401.06845.

  107. We refer the reader to Secs. 2a, 2b, and 3b3 for discussions on GW parameters, waveform models, and maximization of overlaps between waveforms.

  108. L. S. Finn and D. F. Chernoff, Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2198 (1993).
  109. C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, LISA detections of massive black hole inspirals: Parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007).
  110. M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter-estimation prospects, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008).
  111. H.-S. Cho, E. Ochsner, R. O’Shaughnessy, C. Kim, and C.-H. Lee, Gravitational waves from black hole-neutron star binaries: Effective Fisher matrices and parameter estimation using higher harmonics, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024004 (2013).
  112. I. Harry and A. Lundgren, Failure of the Fisher matrix when including tidal terms: Considering construction of template banks of tidally deformed binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 104, 043008 (2021).
  113. P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Cosmic star formation history, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 415 (2014).

  114. We adopt the convention m1≥m2.

  115. P. Schmidt, I. W. Harry, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Numerical relativity injection infrastructure, arXiv:1703.01076.
  116. 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).
  117. N. Aghanim et al. (Planck Collaboration), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020); 652, C4(E) (2021).
  118. P. Ajith et al., Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011).
  119. 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).
  120. 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).
  121. L. M. Thomas, P. Schmidt, and G. Pratten, New effective precession spin for modeling multimodal gravitational waveforms in the strong-field regime, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083022 (2021).
  122. D. Gerosa, M. Mould, D. Gangardt, P. Schmidt, G. Pratten, and L. M. Thomas, A generalized precession parameter χp to interpret gravitational-wave data, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064067 (2021).
  123. G. Ashton et al., bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 27 (2019).
  124. 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).
  125. D. A. Brown, P. Kumar, and A. H. Nitz, Template banks to search for low-mass binary black holes in advanced gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 87, 082004 (2013).
  126. 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).
  127. I. Harry, J. C. Bustillo, and A. Nitz, Searching for the full symphony of black hole binary mergers, Phys. Rev. D 97, 023004 (2018).
  128. 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).
  129. C. Kalaghatgi, M. Hannam, and V. Raymond, Parameter estimation with a spinning multimode waveform model, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103004 (2020).

  130. We note that, since beginning our work, there have been a few important updates on phenomenological models [67, 131], which included NR calibration to the precessing sector, a more faithful ringdown model, and improvements to the spin-precessing equations. However, we do not expect that our results would change substantially if we used those new waveform models.

  131. M. Colleoni, F. A. R. Vidal, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, T. Dietrich, M. Haney, and G. Pratten, IMRPhenomXP_NRTidalv2: An improved frequency-domain precessing binary neutron star waveform model, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064025 (2025).
  132. A. Buonanno, Y. 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).
  133. 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).
  134. M. Boyle, R. Owen, and H. P. Pfeiffer, A geometric approach to the precession of compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124011 (2011).
  135. 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).
  136. 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).
  137. C. García-Quirós, S. Husa, M. Mateu-Lucena, and A. Borchers, Accelerating the evaluation of inspiral–merger–ringdown waveforms with adapted grids, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 015006 (2021).
  138. 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 23, 3 (2018).
  139. V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Science-driven tunable design of cosmic explorer detectors, Astrophys. J. 931, 22 (2022).

  140. The A+, V+, ET, and CE sensitivity curves in this work are those used in Ref. [27] while the A# sensitivity curve is taken from https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2300041/public.

  141. J. S. Speagle, dynesty: A dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  142. L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Rapid Bayesian position reconstruction for gravitational-wave transients, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024013 (2016).
  143. L. P. Singer et al., Going the distance: Mapping host galaxies of LIGO and Virgo sources in three dimensions using local cosmography and targeted follow-up, Astrophys. J. Lett. 829, L15 (2016).
  144. 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).

  145. Cii is the ith element of Cij.

  146. S. Borhanian, gwbench: A novel Fisher information package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 175014 (2021).
  147. U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, B. Banerjee, M. Branchesi, B. Goncharov, A. Maselli, A. C. S. Oliveira, S. Ronchini, and J. Tissino, gwfish: A simulation software to evaluate parameter-estimation capabilities of gravitational-wave detector networks, Astron. Comput. 42, 100671 (2022).
  148. LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations, LVK Algorithm Library—lalsuite, Free software (GPL) (2018), 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16.
  149. 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.

  150. This expression first appeared in Ref. [104], but it is often referred to as the Cutler-Vallisneri formula after a later paper [109], which was the first to explore its implications.

  151. T. Damour, A. Nagar, and M. Trias, Accuracy and effectualness of closed-form, frequency-domain waveforms for non-spinning black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 83, 024006 (2011).
  152. 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).
  153. S. Ossokine et al., Multipolar effective-one-body waveforms for precessing binary black holes: Construction and validation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044055 (2020).
  154. B. Allen, W. G. Anderson, P. R. Brady, D. A. Brown, and J. D. E. Creighton, FINDCHIRP: An algorithm for detection of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012).
  155. A. Buonanno, B. R. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084043 (2009).
  156. I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486, 1086 (2019).
  157. S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Taylor, Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer, Singapore, 2020), pp. 1–60.
  158. A. Toubiana, M. L. Katz, and J. R. Gair, Is there an excess of black holes around 20M⊙? Optimizing the complexity of population models with the use of reversible jump MCMC., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 5844 (2023).
  159. N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Eryn: A multi-purpose sampler for Bayesian inference, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 526, 4814 (2023).

  160. In this way, we are not respecting the properties of the noise since we associate a random error to a given event. Crucially, this is performed for one-dimensional distributions, so, in practice, we project all the errors onto a one-dimensional space, inducing a large scatter in the value of measurement errors for a given value of ϑ. Thus, for parameters that do not exhibit a strong trend between measurement errors and the true parameter—as we observed to be the case for the mass ratio and spin angles and magnitude—our procedure should be close enough to what we would obtain in the full case, and it allows us to also remove the dependency of the error on the other parameters.

  161. C. Talbot and J. Golomb, Growing pains: Understanding the impact of likelihood uncertainty on hierarchical Bayesian inference for gravitational-wave astronomy, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 526, 3495 (2023).
  162. M. Evans et al., Cosmic Explorer: A submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW subcommittee, arXiv:2306.13745.
  163. A. G. Riess et al., A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the Hubble constant with 1 km 1  km s−1 Mpc−1 uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett. 934, L7 (2022).
  164. M. Fishbach et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), A standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant from GW170817 without the electromagnetic counterpart, Astrophys. J. Lett. 871, L13 (2019).
  165. M. Soares-Santos et al. (DES, LIGO Scientific, and Virgo Collaborations), First measurement of the Hubble constant from a dark standard siren using the dark energy survey galaxies and the LIGO/Virgo binary–black-hole merger GW170814, Astrophys. J. Lett. 876, L7 (2019).
  166. A. Palmese et al. (DES Collaboration), A statistical standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant from the LIGO/Virgo gravitational wave compact object merger GW190814 and dark energy survey galaxies, Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L33 (2020).
  167. H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years, Nature (London) 562, 545 (2018).
  168. I. Gupta, Using grey sirens to resolve the Hubble–Lemaître tension, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 3537 (2023).
  169. C. Messenger and J. Read, Measuring a cosmological distance-redshift relationship using only gravitational wave observations of binary neutron star coalescences, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 091101 (2012).
  170. C. Messenger, K. Takami, S. Gossan, L. Rezzolla, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Source redshifts from gravitational-wave observations of binary neutron star mergers, Phys. Rev. X 4, 041004 (2014).
  171. W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, and C. Messenger, Cosmological inference using only gravitational wave observations of binary neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043502 (2017).
  172. D. Chatterjee, A. Hegade K. R., G. Holder, D. E. Holz, S. Perkins, K. Yagi, and N. Yunes, Cosmology with love: Measuring the Hubble constant using neutron star universal relations, Phys. Rev. D 104, 083528 (2021).
  173. T. Ghosh, B. Biswas, and S. Bose, Simultaneous inference of neutron star equation of state and the Hubble constant with a population of merging neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123529 (2022).
  174. A. Dhani, S. Borhanian, A. Gupta, and B. Sathyaprakash, Cosmography with bright and Love sirens, arXiv:2212.13183.
  175. B. Shiralilou, G. Raaiijmakers, B. Duboeuf, S. Nissanke, F. Foucart, T. Hinderer, and A. R. Williamson, Measuring the Hubble constant with dark neutron star–black hole mergers, Astrophys. J. 955, 149 (2023).
  176. D. F. Chernoff and L. S. Finn, Gravitational radiation, inspiraling binaries, and cosmology, Astrophys. J. Lett. 411, L5 (1993).
  177. S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, Cosmology with the lights off: Standard sirens in the Einstein telescope era, Phys. Rev. D 86, 023502 (2012).
  178. W. M. Farr, M. Fishbach, J. Ye, and D. Holz, A future percent-Level measurement of the Hubble expansion at redshift 0.8 with Advanced LIGO, Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L42 (2019).
  179. J. M. Ezquiaga and D. E. Holz, Spectral sirens: Cosmology from the full mass distribution of compact binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 061102 (2022).
  180. B. F. Schutz, Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations, Nature 323, 310 (1986).
  181. W. Del Pozzo, Inference of the cosmological parameters from gravitational waves: Application to second generation interferometers, Phys. Rev. D 86, 043011 (2012).
  182. N. Muttoni, D. Laghi, N. Tamanini, S. Marsat, and D. Izquierdo-Villalba, Dark siren cosmology with binary black holes in the era of third-generation gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043543 (2023).
  183. R. Gray et al., Cosmological inference using gravitational wave standard sirens: A Mock data analysis, Phys. Rev. D 101, 122001 (2020).
  184. R. Gray et al., Joint cosmological and gravitational-wave population inference using dark sirens and galaxy catalogues, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2023) 023.
  185. M. Oguri, Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083511 (2016).
  186. S. Mukherjee, B. D. Wandelt, S. M. Nissanke, and A. Silvestri, Accurate precision cosmology with redshift unknown gravitational wave sources, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043520 (2021).
  187. T. Ghosh, S. More, S. Bera, and S. Bose, Bayesian framework to infer the Hubble constant from cross-correlation of individual gravitational wave events with galaxies, arXiv:2312.16305.
  188. 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).
  189. I. Tews, P. T. H. Pang, T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, S. Antier, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, and L. Issa, On the nature of GW190814 and its impact on the understanding of supranuclear matter, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L1 (2021).
  190. H. Tan, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Neutron star equation of state in light of GW190814, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 261104 (2020).
  191. H. Tan, T. Dore, V. Dexheimer, J. Noronha-Hostler, and N. Yunes, Extreme matter meets extreme gravity: Ultraheavy neutron stars with phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023018 (2022).
  192. E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, L. R. Weih, and L. Rezzolla, A lower bound on the maximum mass if the secondary in GW190814 was once a rapidly spinning neutron star, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, L82 (2020).
  193. N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li, GW190814’s secondary component with mass 2.50–2.67M⊙ as a superfast pulsar, Astrophys. J. 902, 38 (2020).
  194. V. Dexheimer, R. O. Gomes, T. Klähn, S. Han, and M. Salinas, GW190814 as a massive rapidly rotating neutron star with exotic degrees of freedom, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025808 (2021).
  195. C. J. Krüger and S. H. Völkel, Rapidly rotating neutron stars: Universal relations and EOS inference, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124056 (2023).
  196. K. Vattis, I. S. Goldstein, and S. M. Koushiappas, Could the 2.6M⊙ object in GW190814 be a primordial black hole?, Phys. Rev. D 102, 061301(R) (2020).
  197. S. Clesse and J. Garcia-Bellido, GW190425, GW190521 and GW190814: Three candidate mergers of primordial black holes from the QCD epoch, Phys. Dark Universe 38, 101111 (2022).
  198. E. Bianchi, A. Gupta, H. M. Haggard, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Small spins of primordial black holes from random geometries: Bekenstein-Hawking entropy and gravitational wave observations, arXiv:1812.05127.
  199. D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124046 (2017).
  200. A. Gupta, D. Gerosa, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, W. M. Farr, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Black holes in the low mass gap: Implications for gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103036 (2020).
  201. M. Safarzadeh, A. S. Hamers, A. Loeb, and E. Berger, Formation and merging of mass gap black holes in gravitational wave merger events from wide hierarchical quadruple systems, Astrophys. J. Lett. 888, L3 (2020).
  202. D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Hierarchical mergers of stellar-mass black holes and their gravitational-wave signatures, Nat. Astron. 5, 749 (2021).
  203. Z. Doctor, D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. E. Holz, and B. Farr, Black hole coagulation: Modeling hierarchical mergers in black hole populations, Astrophys. J. 893, 35 (2019).
  204. M. Zevin, M. Spera, C. P. L. Berry, and V. Kalogera, Exploring the lower mass gap and unequal mass regime in compact binary evolution, Astrophys. J. Lett. 899, L1 (2020).
  205. M. Safarzadeh and A. Loeb, Formation of mass gap objects in highly asymmetric mergers, Astrophys. J. Lett. 899, L15 (2020).
  206. 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).
  207. M. Mapelli, M. Spera, E. Montanari, M. Limongi, A. Chieffi, N. Giacobbo, A. Bressan, and Y. Bouffanais, Impact of the rotation and compactness of progenitors on the mass of black holes, Astrophys. J. 888, 76 (2020).
  208. M. Kesden, D. Gerosa, R. O’Shaughnessy, E. Berti, and U. Sperhake, Effective potentials and morphological transitions for binary black-hole spin precession, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081103 (2015).
  209. D. Gerosa, M. Kesden, U. Sperhake, E. Berti, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Multi-timescale analysis of phase transitions in precessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064016 (2015).
  210. D. Gerosa, U. Sperhake, and J. Vošmera, On the equal-mass limit of precessing black-hole binaries, Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 064004 (2017).
  211. K. S. Phukon, A. Gupta, S. Bose, and P. Jain, Effect of orbital eccentricity on the dynamics of precessing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124008 (2019).
  212. J. D. Schnittman, Spin-orbit resonance and the evolution of compact binary systems, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124020 (2004).
  213. M. Kesden, U. Sperhake, and E. Berti, Final spins from the merger of precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084054 (2010).
  214. M. Kesden, U. Sperhake, and E. Berti, Relativistic suppression of black hole recoils, Astrophys. J. 715, 1006 (2010).
  215. E. Berti, M. Kesden, and U. Sperhake, Effects of post-Newtonian spin alignment on the distribution of black-hole recoils, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124049 (2012).
  216. D. Gerosa, M. Kesden, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, and U. Sperhake, Resonant-plane locking and spin alignment in stellar-mass black-hole binaries: A diagnostic of compact-binary formation, Phys. Rev. D 87, 104028 (2013).
  217. D. Gerosa, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, K. Belczynski, M. Kesden, D. Wysocki, and W. Gladysz, Spin orientations of merging black holes formed from the evolution of stellar binaries, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084036 (2018).
  218. N. Steinle and M. Kesden, Signatures of spin precession and nutation in isolated black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063028 (2022).
  219. D. Gerosa, G. Fumagalli, M. Mould, G. Cavallotto, D. P. Monroy, D. Gangardt, and V. De Renzis, Efficient multi-timescale dynamics of precessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024042 (2023).
  220. G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, R. Buscicchio, and L. M. Thomas, Measuring precession in asymmetric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 043096 (2020).
  221. V. Varma, S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, W. M. Farr, and S. Vitale, Hints of spin-orbit resonances in the binary black hole population, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 031101 (2022).
  222. S. Kulkarni, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, K. S. Phukon, N. V. Krishnendu, and A. Gupta, Inferring spin tilts of binary black holes at formation with plus-era gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043002 (2024).
  223. N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, K. S. Phukon, N. V. Krishnendu, and A. Gupta, Distinguishing binary black hole precessional morphologies with gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103003 (2023).
  224. J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Remnant of binary black-hole mergers: New simulations and peak luminosity studies, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024037 (2017).
  225. D. Keitel et al., The most powerful astrophysical events: Gravitational-wave peak luminosity of binary black holes as predicted by numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 96, 024006 (2017).
  226. N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, A. Gupta, P. Ajith, K. Keitel, O. Birnholtz, F. Ohme, and S. Husa, Determining the final spin of a binary black hole system including in-plane spins: Method and checks of accuracy, Technical Report No. T1600168, LIGO, 2016.
  227. V. Varma, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, F. Hébert, and H. Zhang, High-accuracy mass, spin, and recoil predictions of generic black-hole merger remnants, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011101 (2019).
  228. L. Rezzolla, E. Barausse, E. Nils Dorband, D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, J. Seiler, and S. Husa, On the final spin from the coalescence of two black holes, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044002 (2008).
  229. E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Predicting the direction of the final spin from the coalescence of two black holes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 704, L40 (2009).
  230. F. Hofmann, E. Barausse, and L. Rezzolla, The final spin from binary black holes in quasi-circular orbits, Astrophys. J. Lett. 825, L19 (2016).
  231. 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).
  232. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Properties and astrophysical implications of the 150m⊙ binary black hole merger GW190521, Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L13 (2020).
  233. 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).
  234. S. N. Zhang, W. Cui, and W. Chen, Black hole spin in x-ray binaries: Observational consequences, Astrophys. J. Lett. 482, L155 (1997).
  235. L. W. Brenneman and C. S. Reynolds, Constraining black hole spin via x-ray spectroscopy, Astrophys. J. 652, 1028 (2006).
  236. H. Yang, A. Zimmerman, and L. Lehner, Turbulent black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 081101 (2015).
  237. M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Spinning-black-hole binaries: The orbital hang up, Phys. Rev. D 74, 041501(R) (2006).
  238. D. Gerosa, M. Kesden, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Klein, E. Berti, U. Sperhake, and D. Trifirò, Precessional instability in binary black holes with aligned spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 141102 (2015).
  239. K. Belczynski, R. E. Taam, E. Rantsiou, and M. van der Sluys, Black hole spin evolution: Implications for short-hard gamma ray bursts and gravitational wave detection, Astrophys. J. 682, 474 (2008).
  240. M. Zaldarriaga, D. Kushnir, and J. A. Kollmeier, The expected spins of gravitational wave sources with isolated field binary progenitors, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 473, 4174 (2018).
  241. K. Belczynski et al., Evolutionary roads leading to low effective spins, high black hole masses, and O1/O2 rates for LIGO/Virgo binary black holes, Astron. Astrophys. 636, A104 (2020).
  242. L. A. C. van Son, S. E. de Mink, F. S. Broekgaarden, M. Renzo, S. Justham, E. Laplace, J. Moran-Fraile, D. D. Hendriks, and R. Farmer, Polluting the pair-instability mass gap for binary black holes through super-Eddington accretion in isolated binaries, Astrophys. J. 897, 100 (2020).
  243. R. C. H. Cheng and N. A. K. Amin, Estimating parameters in continuous univariate distributions with a shifted origin, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 45, 394 (1983).
  244. J. M. Ezquiaga and D. E. Holz, Jumping the gap: Searching for LIGO’s biggest black holes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 909, L23 (2021).
  245. 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).
  246. C. Hoy and V. Raymond, pesummary: The code agnostic parameter estimation summary page builder, SoftwareX 15, 100765 (2021).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. X 15, 031036– Published 8 August, 2025
  • Received 6 May 2024
  • Accepted 1 July 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