Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

High-accuracy comparison of numerical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions

Open access
Boyle, Michael, Brown, Duncan A., Kidder, Lawrence E., Mroué, Abdul H., Pfeiffer, Harald P., Scheel, Mark A., Cook, Gregory B., Teukolsky, Saul A.·2007·Physical Review D

Abstract

Numerical simulations of 15 orbits of an equal-mass binary black-hole system are presented. Gravitational waveforms from these simulations, covering more than 30 cycles and ending about 1.5 cycles before merger, are compared with those from quasicircular zero-spin post-Newtonian (PN) formulae. The cumulative phase uncertainty of these comparisons is about 0.05 radians, dominated by effects arising from the small residual spins of the black holes and the small residual orbital eccentricity in the simulations. Matching numerical results to PN waveforms early in the run yields excellent agreement (within 0.05 radians) over the first $\ensuremath{\sim}15$ cycles, thus validating the numerical simulation and establishing a regime where PN theory is accurate. In the last 15 cycles to merger, however, generic time-domain Taylor approximants build up phase differences of several radians. But, apparently by coincidence, one specific post-Newtonian approximant, TaylorT4 at 3.5PN order, agrees much better with the numerical simulations, with accumulated phase differences of less than 0.05 radians over the 30-cycle waveform. Gravitational-wave amplitude comparisons are also done between numerical simulations and post-Newtonian, and the agreement depends on the post-Newtonian order of the amplitude expansion: the amplitude difference is about 6%--7% for zeroth order and becomes smaller for increasing order. A newly derived 3.0PN amplitude correction improves agreement significantly ($<1%$ amplitude difference throughout most of the run, increasing to 4% near merger) over the previously known 2.5PN amplitude terms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.76.124038

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 391

Metadata

Authors
Boyle, M., Brown, D. A., Kidder, L. E., Mroué, A. H., Pfeiffer, H. P., Scheel, M. A., Cook, G. B., & Teukolsky, S. A.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2007-12-27
Volume
76
Issue
12
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W1977991023
Cited by
391
References
2
FWCI
26.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: High-accuracy comparison of numerical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.76.124038
The paper
Boyle, M., Brown, D. A., Kidder, L. E., Mroué, A. H., Pfeiffer, H. P., Scheel, M. A., Cook, G. B., & Teukolsky, S. A. (2007). High-accuracy comparison of numerical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.76.124038

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.