Where post-Newtonian and numerical-relativity waveforms meet
Mark Hannam, Sascha Husa, Jose A. Gonzalez, Ulrich Sperhake, Bernd, Bruegmann

TL;DR
This paper compares high-accuracy numerical relativity waveforms with post-Newtonian approximants for binary black hole mergers, demonstrating phase agreement within numerical uncertainties over several orbits and analyzing amplitude discrepancies.
Contribution
It provides a detailed comparison between NR and PN waveforms, showing phase agreement and quantifying amplitude differences, informing waveform modeling for gravitational-wave detection.
Findings
Phase disagreement can be within numerical uncertainty over several orbits.
Amplitude disagreement is around 6%, roughly constant across cycles.
Fewer orbits are needed to match PN and NR waveforms with similar accuracy.
Abstract
We analyze numerical-relativity (NR) waveforms that cover nine orbits (18 gravitational-wave cycles) before merger of an equal-mass system with low eccentricity, with numerical uncertainties of 0.25 radians in the phase and less than 2% in the amplitude; such accuracy allows a direct comparison with post-Newtonian (PN) waveforms. We focus on one of the PN approximants that has been proposed for use in gravitational-wave data analysis, the restricted 3.5PN ``TaylorT1'' waveforms, and compare these with a section of the numerical waveform from the second to the eighth orbit, which is about one and a half orbits before merger. This corresponds to a gravitational-wave frequency range of to 0.1. Depending on the method of matching PN and NR waveforms, the accumulated phase disagreement over this frequency range can be within numerical uncertainty. Similar results are found…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
