Extraction of gravitational waves in numerical relativity
 5.4k Downloads
 17 Citations
Abstract
A numericalrelativity calculation yields in general a solution of the Einstein equations including also a radiative part, which is in practice computed in a region of finite extent. Since gravitational radiation is properly defined only at null infinity and in an appropriate coordinate system, the accurate estimation of the emitted gravitational waves represents an old and nontrivial problem in numerical relativity. A number of methods have been developed over the years to “extract” the radiative part of the solution from a numerical simulation and these include: quadrupole formulas, gaugeinvariant metric perturbations, Weyl scalars, and characteristic extraction. We review and discuss each method, in terms of both its theoretical background as well as its implementation. Finally, we provide a brief comparison of the various methods in terms of their inherent advantages and disadvantages.
Keywords
Gravitational wave extraction Numerical relativity Binary mergers Black holes Neutron stars1 Introduction
With the commissioning of the second generation of laser interferometric gravitationalwave detectors, and the recent detection of gravitational waves (Abbott 2016), there is considerable interest in gravitationalwave astronomy. This is a huge field, covering the diverse topics of: detector hardware construction and design; data analysis; astrophysical source modeling; approximate methods for gravitationalwave calculation; and, when the weak field approach is not valid, numerical relativity.
Numerical relativity is concerned with the construction of a numerical solution to the Einstein equations, so obtaining an approximate description of a spacetime, and is reviewed, for example, in the textbooks by Alcubierre (2008), Bona et al. (2009), Baumgarte and Shapiro (2010), Gourgoulhon (2012) and Rezzolla and Zanotti (2013). The physics in the simulation may be only gravity, as is the case of a binary black hole scenario, but it may also include matter fields and/or electromagnetic fields. Thus numerical relativity may be included in the modeling of a wide range of astrophysical processes. Often (but not always), an important desired outcome of the modeling process will be a prediction of the emitted gravitational waves. However, obtaining an accurate estimate of gravitational waves from the variables evolved in the simulation is normally a rather complicated process. The key difficulty is that gravitational waves are unambiguously defined only at future null infinity (\(\mathcal {J}^+\)), whereas in practice the domain of numerical simulations is a region of finite extent using a “3+1” foliation of the spacetime. This is true for most of the numerical codes, but there are also notable exceptions. Indeed, there have been attempts towards the construction of codes that include both null infinity and the central dynamic region in the domain, but they have not been successful in the general case. These attempts include the hyperboloidal method (Frauendiener 2004), Cauchy characteristic matching (Winicour 2005), and a characteristic code (Bishop et al. 1997b). The only successful application to an astrophysical problem has been to axisymmetric core collapse using a characteristic code (Siebel et al. 2003).
In the linearized approximation, where gravitational fields are weak and velocities are small, it is straightforward to derive a relationship between the matter dynamics and the emission of gravitational waves, the wellknown quadrupole formula. This can be traced back to work by Einstein (1916, 1918) shortly after the publication of general relativity. The method is widely used to estimate gravitationalwave production in many astrophysical processes. However, the strongest gravitationalwave signals come from highly compact systems with large velocities, that is from processes where the linearized assumptions do not apply. And of course, it is an event producing a powerful signal that is most likely to be found in gravitationalwave detector data. Thus it is important to be able to calculate gravitationalwave emission accurately for processes such as black hole or neutron star inspiral and merger, stellar core collapse, etc. Such problems cannot be solved analytically and instead are modeled by numerical relativity, as described in the previous paragraph, to compute the gravitational field near the source. The procedure of using this data to measure the gravitational radiation far from the source is called “extraction” of gravitational waves from the numerical solution.
In addition to the quadrupole formula and full numerical relativity, there are a number of other approaches to calculating gravitationalwave emission from astrophysical sources. These techniques are not discussed here and are reviewed elsewhere. They include postNewtonian methods (Blanchet 2014), effective onebody methods (Damour and Nagar 2016), and selfforce methods (Poisson et al. 2011). Another approach, now nolonger pursued, is the socalled “Lazarus approach”, that combined analytical and numerical techniques (Baker et al. 2000b, 2002a, b).
In this article we will review a number of different extraction methods: (a) Quadrupole formula and its variations (Sect. 2.3); (b) methods using the Newman–Penrose scalar \(\psi _4\) evaluated on a worldtube (\(\varGamma \)) (Sect. 3.3); (c) Cauchy Perturbative methods, using data on \(\varGamma \) to construct an approximation to a perturbative solution on a known curved background (Sects. 4, 5; Abrahams and Evans 1988, 1990); and (d) Characteristic extraction, using data on \(\varGamma \) as inner boundary data for a characteristic code to find the waveform at \(\mathcal {J}^+\) (Sects. 6, 7). The description of the methods is fairly complete, with derivations given from first principles and in some detail. In cases (c) and (d), the theory involved is quite lengthy, so we also provide implementation summaries for the reader who is more interested in applying, rather than fully understanding, a particular method, see Sects. 5.6 and 7.8.
In addition, this review provides background material on gravitational waves (Sect. 2), on the “3+1” formalism for evolving the Einstein equations (Sect. 3), and on the characteristic formalism with particular reference to its use in estimating gravitational radiation (Sect. 6). The review concludes with a comparison of the various methods for extracting gravitational waves (Sect. 8). This review uses many different symbols, and their use and meaning is summarized in “Appendix 1”. Spinweighted, and other, spherical harmonics are discussed in “Appendix 2”, and various computer algebra scripts and numerical codes are given in “Appendix 3”.
Throughout, we will use a spacelike signature \((,+,+,+)\) and a system of geometrised units in which \(G = c = 1\), although when needed we will also indicate the speed of light, c, explicitly. We will indicate with a boldface any tensor, e.g., \(\varvec{V}\) and with the standard arrow any threedimensional vector or operator, e.g., \(\mathbf {\varvec{v}}\) and \(\mathbf {\nabla }\). Fourdimensional covariant and partial derivatives will be indicated in general with \(\nabla _{\mu }\) and \(\partial _{\mu }\), but other symbols may be introduced for less common definitions, or when we want to aid the comparison with classical Newtonian expressions. Within the standard convention of a summation of repeated indices, Greek letters will be taken to run from 0 to 3, while Latin indices run from 1 to 3.
We note that some of the material in this review has already appeared in books or other review articles. In particular, we have abundantly used parts of the text from the book “Relativistic Hydrodynamics”, by Rezzolla and Zanotti (2013), from the review article “Gaugeinvariant nonspherical metric perturbations of Schwarzschild blackhole spacetimes”, by Nagar and Rezzolla (2006), as well as adaptations of the text from the article “Cauchycharacteristic matching”, by Bishop et al. (1999a).
2 A quick review of gravitational waves
2.1 Linearized Einstein equations
Note that these considerations are not unique to general relativity and similar arguments can also be made in classical electrodynamics, where the Maxwell equations are invariant under transformations of the vector potentials of the type \(A_{\mu } \rightarrow A_{\mu '} = A_{\mu } + \partial _{\mu }\varPsi \), where \(\varPsi \) is an arbitrary scalar function, so that the corresponding electromagnetic tensor is \(F^\mathrm{new}_{\mu ' \nu '} = \partial _{\nu '} A_{\mu '}  \partial _{\mu '} A_{\nu '} = F^\mathrm{old}_{\mu ' \nu '}\). Similarly, in a linearised theory of general relativity, the gauge transformation (18) will preserve the components of the Riemann tensor, i.e., \(R^\mathrm{new}_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu } = R^\mathrm{old}_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu } + \mathcal {O}(R^2)\).
 (a)
orthogonality condition: four components of the amplitude tensor can be specified since the Lorenz gauge implies that \(\varvec{A}\) and \(\varvec{\kappa }\) are orthogonal, i.e., \(A_{\mu \nu } \kappa ^{\nu } = 0\).
 (b)
choice of observer: three components of the amplitude tensor can be eliminated after selecting the infinitesimal displacement vector \(\xi ^{\mu } = iC^{\mu } \exp (i\kappa _{\alpha }x^{\alpha })\) so that \(A^{\mu \nu }u_{\mu } =0\) for some chosen fourvelocity vector \(\varvec{u}\). This means that the coordinates are chosen so that for an observer with fourvelocity \(u^{\mu }\) the gravitational wave has an effect only in spatial directions.^{2}
 (c)
traceless condition: one final component of the amplitude tensor can be eliminated after selecting the infinitesimal displacement vector \(\xi ^{\mu } = iC^{\mu } \exp (i\kappa _{\alpha }x^{\alpha })\) so that \(A^{\mu }_{\ \,\mu } = 0\).
 (a)i.e., the spatial components of \(h_{\mu \nu }\) are divergencefree.$$\begin{aligned} A_{\mu \nu } \kappa ^{\nu } = 0 \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \partial ^j h_{ij} = 0, \end{aligned}$$(22)
 (b)i.e., only the spatial components of \(h_{\mu \nu }\) are nonzero, hence the transverse character of the TT gauge.$$\begin{aligned} A_{\mu \nu } u^{\nu } = 0 \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad h_{\mu t} = 0 , \end{aligned}$$(23)
 (c)i.e., the spatial components of \(h_{\mu \nu }\) are trace free hence the tracefree character of the TT gauge. Because of this, and only in this gauge, \({\bar{h}}_{\mu \nu } = h_{\mu \nu }\).$$\begin{aligned} A^{\mu }_{\ \, \mu } = 0 \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad h=h^{j}_{\ j} = 0 , \end{aligned}$$(24)
2.2 Making sense of the TT gauge
Note that because these are transverse waves, they will produce a local deformation of the spacetime only in the plane orthogonal to their direction of propagation. As a result, if the two particles lay along the direction of propagation (i.e., if \({\varvec{n}} \parallel {\varvec{\kappa }}\)), then \(h^{^\mathrm{TT}}_{{\hat{j}} {\hat{k}}} x^{\hat{j}}_{_\mathrm{B}}(0) \propto h^{^\mathrm{TT}}_{{\hat{j}} {\hat{k}}} \kappa ^{\hat{j}}_{_\mathrm{B}}(0) = 0\) and no oscillation will be recorded by A [cf. Eq. (22)].
2.3 The quadrupole formula
The quadrupole formula and its domain of applicability were mentioned in Sect. 1, and some examples of its use in a numerical simulation are presented in Sect. 8. In practice, the quadrupole formula represents a lowvelocity, weakfield approximation to measure the gravitationalwave emission within a purely Newtonian description of gravity.^{3} In practice, the formula is employed in those numerical simulations that either treat gravity in an approximate manner (e.g., via a postNewtonian approximation or a conformally flat metric) or that, although in full general relativity, have computational domains that are too small for an accurate calculation of the radiative emission.
In what follows we briefly discuss the amounts of energy carried by gravitational waves and provide simple expressions to estimate the gravitational radiation luminosity of potential sources. Although the estimates made here come from analogies with electromagnetism, they provide a reasonable approximation to more accurate expressions from which they differ for factors of a few. Note also that while obtaining such a level of accuracy requires only a small effort, reaching the accuracy required of a template to be used in the realistic detection of gravitational waves is far more difficult and often imposes the use of numerical relativity calculations on modern supercomputers.
Although extremely simplified, expressions (48) and (50) contain the two most important pieces of information about the generation of gravitational waves. The first one is that the conversion of any type of energy into gravitational waves is, in general, not efficient. To see this it is necessary to bear in mind that expression (46) is in geometrized units and that the conversion to conventional units, say cgs units, requires dividing (46) by the very large factor \(c^5/G \simeq 3.63 \times 10^{59}\ \mathrm{erg\ s}^{1}\). The second one is contained in the last expression in Eq. (50) and that highlights how the gravitationalwave luminosity can also be extremely large. There are in fact astrophysical situations, such as those right before the merger of a binary system of compact objects, in which \(\sqrt{\langle v^2\rangle } \sim 0.1\,c\) and \(R \sim 10\,R_{_\mathrm{S}}\), so that \(L_\mathrm{massquad} \sim 10^{51}\ \mathrm{erg\ s}^{1} \sim 10^{18}\, L_{\odot }\), that is, \(10^{18}\) times the luminosity of the Sun; this is surely an impressive release of energy.
2.3.1 Extensions of the quadrupole formula
Expressions (52)–(58) are strictly Newtonian. Yet, these expression are often implemented in numerical codes that are either fully general relativistic or exploit some level of generalrelativistic approximation. More seriously, these expressions completely ignore considerations that emerge in a relativistic context, such as the significance of the coordinate chosen for their calculation. As a way to resolve these inconsistencies, improvements to these expressions have been made to increase the accuracy of the computed gravitationalwave emission. For instance, for calculations on known spacetime metrics, the gravitational potential in expression (52) is often approximated with expressions derived from the metric, e.g., as \(\Phi = (1  g_{rr})/2\) (Zanotti et al. 2003), which is correct to the first PostNewtonian (PN) order. Improvements to the mass quadrupole (53) inspired by a similar spirit have been computed in Blanchet et al. (1990), and further refined and tested in Shibata and Sekiguchi (2004), Nagar et al. (2005), CerdáDurán et al. (2005), Pazos et al. (2007), Baiotti et al. (2007), Dimmelmeier et al. (2007), Corvino et al. (2010).
Making use of a fully generalrelativistic measurement of the gravitationalwave emission from a neutron star oscillating nonradially as a result of an initial pressure perturbation, Baiotti et al. (2009) concluded that the various quadrupole formulas are comparable and give a very good approximation to the phasing of the gravitationalwave signals. At the same time, they also suffer from systematic overestimate [expression (61)] or underestimates of the gravitationalwave amplitude [expressions (60), and (62)–(63)]. In all cases, however, the relative difference in amplitude was of 50 % at most, which is probably acceptable given that these formulas are usually employed in complex astrophysical calculations in which the systematic errors coming from the microphysical modelling are often much larger.
3 Basic numerical approaches
3.1 The 3+1 decomposition of spacetime
At the heart of Einstein’s theory of general relativity is the equivalence among all coordinates, so that the distinction of spatial and time coordinates is more an organisational matter than a requirement of the theory. Despite this “covariant view”, however, our experience, and the laws of physics on sufficiently large scales, do suggest that a distinction of the time coordinate from the spatial ones is the most natural one in describing physical processes. Furthermore, while not strictly necessary, such a distinction of time and space is the simplest way to exploit a large literature on the numerical solution of hyperbolic partial differential equations as those of relativistic hydrodynamics. In a generic spacetime, analytic solutions to the Einstein equations are not known, and a numerical approach is often the only way to obtain an estimate of the solution.
Following this principle, a decomposition of spacetime into “space” and “time” was already proposed in the 1960s within a Hamiltonian formulation of general relativity and later as an aid to the numerical solution of the Einstein equations in vacuum. The basic idea is rather simple and consists in “foliating” spacetime in terms of a set of nonintersecting spacelike hypersurfaces \(\varSigma :=\varSigma (t)\), each of which is parameterised by a constant value of the coordinate t. In this way, the three spatial coordinates are split from the one temporal coordinate and the resulting construction is called the 3+1 decomposition of spacetime (Misner et al. 1973).
Because \(\varvec{t}\) is a coordinate basis vector, the integral curves of \(t^{\mu }\) are naturally parameterised by the time coordinate. As a result, all infinitesimal vectors \(t^{\mu }\) originating at a given point \(x_0^i\) on one hypersurface \(\varSigma _t\) would end up on the hypersurface \(\varSigma _{t+dt}\) at a point whose coordinates are also \(x_0^i\). This condition is not guaranteed for translations along \(\varOmega _{\mu }\) unless \(\beta ^\mu =0\) since \(t^{\mu }t_{\mu } = g_{tt}= \alpha ^2 + \beta ^{\mu }\beta _{\mu }\), and as illustrated in Fig. 4.
When defining the unit timelike normal \(\varvec{n}\) in Eq. (65), we have mentioned that it can be associated to the fourvelocity of a special class of observers, which are referred to as normal or Eulerian observers. Although this denomination is somewhat confusing, since such observers are not at rest with respect to infinity but have a coordinate velocity \(dx^i/dt = n^i =\beta ^i/\alpha \), we will adopt this traditional nomenclature also in the following and thus take an “Eulerian observer” as one with fourvelocity given by (71).
3.2 The ADM formalism: 3+1 decomposition of the Einstein equations
The 3+1 decomposition introduced in Sect. 3.1 can be used not only to decompose tensors, but also equations and, in particular, the Einstein equations, which are then cast into an initialvalue form suitable to be solved numerically. A 3+1 decomposition of the Einstein equations was presented by Arnowitt et al. (2008), but it is really the reformulation suggested by York (1979) that represents what is now widely known as the ADM formulation (see, e.g., Alcubierre 2008; Gourgoulhon 2012 for a detailed and historical discussion). As we will see in detail later on, in this formulation the Einstein equations are written in terms of purely spatial tensors that can be integrated forward in time once some constraints are satisfied initially.
Here, we only outline the ADM formalism, and refer to the literature for the derivation and justification. Further, it is important to note that the ADM formulation is, nowadays, not used in practice because it is only weakly hyperbolic. However, the variables used in the ADM method, in particular the threemetric and the extrinsic curvature, are what will be needed later for gravitationalwave extraction, and are easily obtained from the output of other evolution methods (see discussion in Sects. 5, 7).
Instead of the ADM formalism, modern simulations mainly formulate the Einstein equations using: the BSSNOK method (Nakamura et al. 1987; Shibata and Nakamura 1995; Baumgarte and Shapiro 1999); the CCZ4 formulation (Alic et al. 2012), which was developed from the Z4 method (Bona et al. 2003, 2004; Bona and PalenzuelaLuque 2009) (see also Bernuzzi and Hilditch 2010 for the socalled Z4c formulation and Alic et al. 2013 for some comparisons); or the generalized harmonic method (Pretorius 2005) (see also Baumgarte and Shapiro 2010; Rezzolla and Zanotti 2013 for more details).
Overall, the six equations (89), together with the six equations (85) represent the timeevolving part of the ADM equations and prescribe how the threemetric and the extrinsic curvature change from one hypersurface to the following one. In contrast, Eqs. (90) and (91) are constraints that need to be satisfied on each hypersurface. This distinction into evolution equations and constraint equations is not unique to the ADM formulation and is indeed present also in classical electromagnetism. Just as in electrodynamics the divergence of the magnetic field remains zero if the field is divergencefree at the initial time, so the constraint equations (90) and (91), by virtue of the Bianchi identities (Alcubierre 2008; Bona et al. 2009; Baumgarte and Shapiro 2010; Gourgoulhon 2012; Rezzolla and Zanotti 2013), will remain satisfied during the evolution if they are satisfied initially (Frittelli 1997). Of course, this concept is strictly true in the continuum limit, while numerically the situation is rather different. However, that issue is not pursued here.
Two remarks should be made before concluding this section. The first one is about the gauge quantities, namely, the lapse function \(\alpha \) and the shift vector \(\beta ^i\). Since they represent the four degrees of freedom of general relativity, they are not specified by the equations discussed above and indeed they can be prescribed arbitrarily, although in practice great care must be taken in deciding which prescription is the most useful. The second comment is about the mathematical properties of the timeevolution ADM equations (89) and (85). The analysis of these properties can be found, for instance, in Reula (1998) or in Frittelli and Gómez (2000), and reveals that such a system is only weakly hyperbolic with zero eigenvalues and, as such, not necessarily wellposed. The weakhyperbolicity of the ADM equations explains why, while an historical cornerstone in the 3+1 formulation of the Einstein equations, they are rarely used in practice and have met only limited successes in multidimensional calculations (Cook et al. 1998; Abrahams et al. 1998). At the same time, the weak hyperbolicity of the ADM equations and the difficulty in obtaining stable evolutions, has motivated, and still motivates, the search for alternative formulations.
3.3 Gravitational waves from \(\psi _4\) on a finite worldtube(s)
3.3.1 Extracting gravitational waves using \(\psi _4\) on a finite worldtube
“3+1” numerical simulations are restricted to a finite domain, so it is not normally possible to calculate exactly a quantity given by an asymptotic formula (but see Sects. 6, 7). A simple estimate of \(r\psi _4\) can be obtained by constructing coordinates \((s,\theta ,\phi )\) and an angular null tetrad vector \(\varvec{m}\) as discussed at the beginning of Sect. 3.3. Then \(r\psi _4\) can be evaluated using Eq. (104) on a worldtube \(s=\) constant, and the estimate is \(r\psi _4=s\psi _4\) or alternatively \(r\psi _4=\psi _4 \sqrt{A/4\pi }\), where A is the area of the worldtube at time t. This approach was first used in Smarr (1977), and subsequently in, for example, Pollney et al. (2007), Pfeiffer (2007) and Scheel et al. (2009). This method does not give a unique answer, and there are many variations in the details of its implementation. However, the various estimates obtained for \(r\psi _4\) should differ by no more than \({{\mathcal {O}}}(r^{1})\).
The quantity \(\psi _4\) has no free indices and so tensorially is a scalar, but its value does depend on the choice of tetrad. However, it may be shown that \(\psi _4\) is firstorder tetradinvariant if the tetrad is a small perturbation about a natural tetrad of the Kerr spacetime. This result was shown by Teukolsky (1972, 1973); see also Chandrasekhar (1978), and Campanelli et al. (2000). Briefly, the reasoning is as follows. The Kinnersley null tetrad is an exact null tetrad field in the Kerr geometry (Kinnersley 1969). It has the required asymptotic limit, and the vectors \(\ell ^\alpha \), \(n_{_{[NP]}}^\alpha \) are generators of outgoing and ingoing radial null geodesics respectively. In the Kerr geometry \(C^\mathrm{[Kerr]}_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }\ne 0\), but using the Kinnersley tetrad all \(\psi _n\) are zero except \(\psi _2\). Thus, to firstorder, \(\psi _4\) is evaluated using the perturbed Weyl tensor and the background tetrad; provided terms of the form \(C^\mathrm{[Kerr]}_{\alpha \beta \mu \nu }n_{_{[NP]}}^\alpha \bar{m}^\beta n_{_{[NP]}}^\mu \bar{m}^\nu \), where three of the tetrad vectors take background values and only one is perturbed, are ignorable. Allowing for those \(\psi _n\) that are zero, and using the symmetry properties of the Weyl tensor, all such terms vanish. This implies that the ambiguity in the choice of tetrad is of limited importance because it is a secondorder effect; see also Campanelli and Lousto (1998); Campanelli et al. (1998). These ideas have been used to develop analytic methods for estimating \(\psi _4\) (Campanelli et al. 2000; Baker et al. 2000a; Baker and Campanelli 2000; Baker et al. 2001). Further, the Kinnersley tetrad is the staring point for a numerical extraction procedure.
In practice the spacetime being evolved is not Kerr, but in many cases at least far from the source it should be Kerr plus a small perturbation, and in the far future it should tend to Kerr. Thus an idea for an appropriate tetrad for use on a finite worldtube is to construct an approximation to the Kinnersley form, now known as the quasiKinnersley null tetrad (Beetle et al. 2005; Nerozzi et al. 2005). The quasiKinnersley tetrad has the property that as the spacetime tends to Kerr, then the quasiKinnersley tetrad tends to the Kinnersley tetrad. The method was used in a number of applications in the mid2000s (Nerozzi et al. 2006; Campanelli et al. 2006; Fiske et al. 2005; Nerozzi 2007).
3.3.2 Extracting gravitational waves using \(\psi _4\) in practice: the extrapolation method
3.3.3 Energy, momentum and angular momentum in the waves
Starting from the mass loss result of Bondi et al. (1962), the theory of energy and momentum radiated as gravitational waves was further developed in the 1960s (Penrose 1963, 1965a; Tamburino and Winicour 1966; Winicour 1968; Isaacson 1968) and subsequently (Geroch 1977; Thorne 1980a; Geroch and Winicour 1981). Formulas for the radiated angular momentum were presented in Campanelli and Lousto (1999), Lousto and Zlochower (2007) based on earlier work by Winicour (1980); formulas were also obtained in Ruiz et al. (2007), Ruiz et al. (2008) using the Isaacson effective stressenergy tensor of gravitational waves (Isaacson 1968).
4 Gravitational waves in the Cauchyperturbative approach
Blackhole perturbation theory has been fundamental not only for understanding the stability and oscillations properties of black hole spacetimes (Regge and Wheeler 1957), but also as an essential tool for clarifying the dynamics that accompanies the process of black hole formation as a result of gravitational collapse (Price 1972a, b). As one example among the many possible, the use of perturbation theory has led to the discovery that Schwarzschild black holes are characterised by decaying modes of oscillation that depend on the black hole mass only, i.e., the black hole quasinormal modes (Vishveshwara 1970b, a; Press 1971; Chandrasekhar and Detweiler 1975). Similarly, blackhole perturbation theory and the identification of a powerlaw decay in the latetime dynamics of generic blackhole perturbations has led to important theorems, such as the “no hair” theorem, underlining the basic blackhole property of removing all perturbations so that “all that can be radiated away is radiated away” (Price 1972a, b; Misner et al. 1973).
The foundations of nonspherical metric perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes date back to the work of Regge and Wheeler (1957), who first addressed the linear stability of the Schwarzschild solution. A number of investigations, both gaugeinvariant and not, then followed in the 1970s, when many different approaches were proposed and some of the most important results about the physics of perturbed spherical and rotating black holes established (Price 1972a, b; Vishveshwara 1970b, a; Chandrasekhar and Detweiler 1975; Zerilli 1970a, b; Moncrief 1974; Cunningham et al. 1978, 1979; Teukolsky 1972, 1973). Building on these studies, which defined most of the mathematical apparatus behind generic perturbations of black holes, a number of applications have been performed to study, for instance, the evolutions of perturbations on a collapsing background spacetime (Gerlach and Sengupta 1979b, a, 1980; Karlovini 2002; Seidel et al. 1987, 1988; Seidel 1990, 1991). Furthermore, the gaugeinvariant and coordinate independent formalism for perturbations of spherically symmetric spectimes developed in the 1970s by Gerlach and Sengupta (1979b, 1979a, 1980), has been recently extended to higherdimensional spacetimes with a maximally symmetric subspace in Kodama et al. (2000), Kodama and Ishibashi (2003), Ishibashi and Kodama (2003), Kodama and Ishibashi (2004), for the study of perturbations in braneworld models.
Also nowadays, when numerical relativity calculations allow to evolve the Einstein equations in the absence of symmetries and in fully nonlinear regimes, black hole perturbative techniques represent important tools.^{7} Schwarzschild perturbation theory, for instance, has been useful in studying the latetime behaviour of the coalescence of compact binaries in a numerical simulation after the apparent horizon has formed (Price and Pullin 1994; Abrahams and Cook 1994; Abrahams et al. 1995). In addition, methods have been developed that match a fully numerical and threedimensional Cauchy solution of Einstein’s equations on spacelike hypersurfaces with a perturbative solution in a region where the components of threemetric (or of the extrinsic curvature) can be treated as linear perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole [this is usually referred to as the “CauchyPerturbative Matching”] (Abrahams et al. 1998; Rupright et al. 1998; Camarda and Seidel 1999; Allen et al. 1998; Rezzolla et al. 1999a; Lousto et al. 2010; Nakano et al. 2015). This method, in turn, allows to “extract” the gravitational waves generated by the simulation, evolve them out to the wavezone where they assume their asymptotic form, and ultimately provide outer boundary conditions for the numerical evolution.
This section intends to review the mathematical aspects of the metric perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole, especially in its gaugeinvariant formulations. Special care is paid to “filter” those technical details that may obscure the important results and provide the reader with a set of expressions that can be readily used for the calculation of the odd and evenparity perturbations of a Schwarzschild spacetime in the presence of generic mattersources. Also, an effort is made to “steer” the reader through the numerous conventions and notations that have accompanied the development of the formalism over the years. Finally, as mentioned in the Introduction, a lot of the material presented here has already appeared in the Topical Review by Nagar and Rezzolla (2006).
4.1 Gaugeinvariant metric perturbations
It is useful to recall that even if the coordinate system of the background spacetime has been fixed, the coordinate freedom of general relativity introduces a problem when linear perturbations are added. In particular, it is not possible to distinguish an infinitesimal “physical” perturbation from one produced as a result of an infinitesimal coordinate transformation (or gaugetransformation). This difficulty, however, can be removed either by explicitly fixing a gauge (see, e.g., Regge and Wheeler 1957; Price 1972a, b; Vishveshwara 1970b, a; Zerilli 1970a, b), or by introducing linearly gauge–invariant perturbations (as initially suggested by Moncrief 1974 and subsequently adopted in several applications Cunningham et al. 1978, 1979; Seidel et al. 1987, 1988; Seidel 1990, 1991).
Stated differently, the possibility of building gauge–invariant metric perturbations relies on the existence of symmetries of the background metric. In the case of a general spherically symmetric background spacetime (i.e., one allowing for a time dependence) and which has been decomposed in multipoles (see Sect. 4.2), the construction of gaugeinvariant quantities is possible for multipoles of order \(\ell \ge 2\) only (Gerlach and Sengupta 1979b, a; MartínGarcía and Gundlach 1999; Gundlach and MartínGarcía 2000). In practice, the advantage in the use of gaugeinvariant quantities is that they are naturally related to scalar observables and, for what is relevant here, to the energy and momentum of gravitational waves. At the same time, this choice guarantees that possible gaugedependent contributions are excluded by construction.
Of course, this procedure is possible if and only if the background metric has the proper symmetries under infinitesimal coordinates transformation; in turn, a gaugeinvariant formulation of the Einstein equations for the perturbations of a general spacetime is not possible. Nevertheless, since any asymptotically flat spacetime can in general be matched to a Schwarzschild one at sufficiently large distances, a gaugeinvariant formulation can be an effective tool to extract physical information about the gravitational waves generated in a numerically evolved, asymptotically flat spacetime (Abrahams et al. 1998; Rupright et al. 1998; Camarda and Seidel 1999; Allen et al. 1998; Rezzolla et al. 1999a) (see also Sect. 5.6 for additional implementational details). The following section is dedicated to a review of the mathematical techniques to obtain gaugeinvariant perturbations of a the Schwarzschild metric.
4.2 Multipolar expansion of metric perturbations
Note that while a generic perturbation will be a mixture of odd and evenparity contributions, we will exploit the linearity of the approach to handle them separately and simplify the treatment. In the following two sections we will discuss the form the Einstein equations (145) assume in response to purely odd and evenparity perturbations over a Schwarzschild background. In particular, we will show how the three oddparity coefficients of the expansion in harmonics of the metric, i.e., \(h_{a}^{(\mathrm{o})},\,h\), and the seven evenparity ones, i.e., \(H_0,\,H_1,\,H_2,\, h_0^{(\mathrm{e})},\,h_1^{(\mathrm{e})}\, K,\, G\), can be combined to give two gaugeinvariant master equations, named respectively after Regge and Wheeler (1957) and Zerilli (1970), each of which is a wavelike equation in a scattering potential.^{8}
Although our attention is here focussed on the radiative degrees of freedom of the perturbations (i.e., those with \(\ell \ge 2\)) because of their obvious application to the modelling of sources of gravitational waves, a comment should be made also on lowerorder multipoles. In particular, it is worth remarking that the monopole component of the metric for a vacuum perturbation (i.e., with \(\ell = 0\)) is only of evenparity type and represents a variation in the massparameter of the Schwarzschild solution. On the other hand, the dipole component of the evenparity metric for a vacuum perturbation (i.e., with \(\ell =1\)) is of puregauge type and it can be removed by means of a suitable gauge transformation (Zerilli 1970b). This is not the case for a dipolar oddparity metric perturbation, which can instead be associated to the introduction of angular momentum onto the background metric.
4.3 Gaugeinvariant oddparity perturbations
4.4 Gaugeinvariant evenparity perturbations
5 Numerical implementations of the Cauchyperturbative approach
In the previous section we have reviewed the derivation of the equations describing the evolution of perturbations of nonrotating black holes induced, for instance, by a nonzero stressenergy tensor. These perturbations have been assumed to be generic in nature, needing to satisfy only the condition of having a massenergy much smaller than that of the black hole. The solution of these equations with suitable initial conditions completely specifies the reaction of the black hole to the perturbations and this is essentially represented by the emission of gravitational waves.
As mentioned in Sect. 4.1, the importance of the gaugeinvariant variables used so far is that they are directly related to the amplitude and energy of the gravitationalwave signal measured at large distances. The purpose of this Chapter is to review the steps necessary to obtain the relations between the master functions for the odd and evenparity perturbations and the “plus” and “cross” polarisation amplitudes \(h_+, h_\times \) of a gravitational wave in the TT gauge. In practice, and following the guidelines tracked in Cunningham et al. (1978, 1979), we will derive an expression for the perturbation metric \(\varvec{h}\) equivalent to that obtained in the standard TT gauge on a Minkowski spacetime and relate it to the odd and evenparity master functions \(\varPsi ^{(\mathrm{o})}\) and \(\varPsi ^{(\mathrm{e})}\).
In the following sections we will discuss the asymptotic expressions from odd and evenparity perturbations, and how to implement the Cauchyperturbative approach to extract gravitationalwave information within a standard numericalrelativity code.
5.1 Asymptotic expressions from oddparity perturbations
5.1.1 The master function \(Q^{(\mathrm{o})}\)
5.2 Asymptotic expressions from evenparity perturbations
5.3 Asymptotic general expressions
It is also useful to underline that while expression (201) resembles the corresponding expression (10) of Kawamura and Oohara (2004), it is indeed different. Firstly, because in Kawamura and Oohara (2004) the Moncrief function is adopted for the oddparity part of the perturbations and hence, modulo a normalisation factor, the function \(\varPsi ^{(\mathrm{o})}\) appearing there corresponds to our function \(Q^{(\mathrm{o})}\) [cf. expression (154)]. Secondly, because with this choice for the oddparity perturbations a time derivative is needed in the asymptotic expression for the gravitationalwave amplitudes [cf. the discussion in the derivation of Eq. (189)]. As a result, expression (10) of Kawamura and Oohara (2004) (which is also missing the distinction between the real and imaginary parts) should really be replaced by expression (202). A similar use of the Moncrief function for the oddparity part is present also in Shibata et al. (2003), Shibata and Sekiguchi (2003), Shibata and Sekiguchi (2005), where it is employed to calculate the gravitationalwave content of numerically simulated spacetimes.
5.4 Energy and angular momentum losses
5.5 A commonly used convention
A rather popular choice for the gaugeinvariant master functions has found successful application in the extraction of the gravitationalwave content of numerically simulated spacetimes (Abrahams and Price 1996b, a; Abrahams et al. 1998; Rupright et al. 1998; Rezzolla et al. 1999a). For instance, the convention discussed below has been implemented in the Cactus computational toolkit (Camarda and Seidel 1999; Allen et al. 1998), a diffused and freely available infrastructure for the numerical solution of the Einstein equations (Allen et al. 1999; Cactus 2016). Numerous tests and applications of this implementation have been performed over the years and we refer the reader to Camarda and Seidel (1999), Allen et al. (1998), Font et al. (2002), Baiotti et al. (2005) for examples both in vacuum and nonvacuum spacetimes.
5.6 Implementation summary
All of the material presented in the previous sections about the gaugeinvariant description of the perturbations of a Schwarzschild black hole has laid the ground for the actual implementation of the Cauchyperturbative extraction method in numericalrelativity calculations. We recall that the goal of the Cauchyperturbative method is that of replacing, at least in parts of the threedimensional numerical domain, the solution of the full nonlinear Einstein’s equations with the solution of a set of simpler linear equations that can be integrated to high accuracy with minimal computational cost. In turn, this provides an unexpensive evolution of the radiative degrees of freedom, the extraction of the gravitationalwave information, and, if needed, the imposition of boundary conditions via the reconstruction of the relevant quantities at the edge of the threedimensional computational domain.
In a practical implementation of the Cauchyperturbative approach (Rupright et al. 1998; Rezzolla et al. 1999a), a numerical code provides the solution to the full nonlinear Einstein equations everywhere in the threedimensional grid N except at its outer boundary surface \(\varvec{B}\). At the extraction 2sphere \(\varGamma \), a different code (i.e., the perturbative module) “extracts” the gravitational wave information and transforms it into a set of multipole amplitudes which are chosen to depend only on the radial and time coordinates of the background Schwarzschild metric (Rupright et al. 1998; Rezzolla et al. 1999a).
Note that as a result of this construction, (and as shown in Fig. 7), the perturbative region \(\mathcal {P}\) is entirely covered by a onedimensional grid L and only partially by a threedimensional grid in the complement to \(\mathcal {S}\) in N. The overlap between these two grids is essential. In fact, the knowledge of the solution on \(\mathcal {P}\) allows the perturbative approach to provide boundary conditions at the outer boundary surface \(\varvec{B}\) and, if useful, Dirichlet data on every gridpoint of N outside the strong region \(\mathcal {S}\). This is also illustrated in Fig. 8, which represents a onedimensional cut of Fig. 7, and highlights the difference between the asymptotic values of the gravitational waves extracted at the boundary A of the onedimensional grid (filled blue circles) with and the boundary values that can be instead specified (i.e., “injected”) on the outer boundary surface B of the threedimensional grid.
The freedom to specify boundary data on a 2surface of arbitrary shape as well as on a whole threedimensional region of N represents an important advantage of the perturbative approach over similar approaches to the problem of gravitationalwave extraction and imposition of boundary conditions.
In what follows we briefly review the main steps necessary for the numerical implementation of the Cauchyperturbative approach in a numericalrelativity code solving the Einstein equations in a 3+1 split of spacetime. This approach, which follows closely the discussion made in Rupright et al. (1998), Rezzolla et al. (1999a), basically consists of three steps: (1) extraction of the independent multipole amplitudes on \(\varGamma \); (2) evolution of the radial wave equations (247)–(249) on L out to the distant wave zone; (3) reconstruction of \(K_{ij}\) and \(\partial _t K_{ij}\) at specified gridpoints at the outer boundary of N. We next discuss in detail each of these steps.
5.6.1 Perturbative expansion
The first step is to linearize the Einstein equations around a static Schwarzschild background by separating the gravitational quantities of interest into background (denoted by a tilde) and perturbed parts: the threemetric \(\gamma _{i j} = \widetilde{\gamma }_{i j} + h_{i j}\), the extrinsic curvature \(K_{i j} = \widetilde{K}_{i j} + \kappa _{i j}\), the lapse \(N = \widetilde{N} + \alpha \), and the shift vector \(\beta ^i = \widetilde{\beta }^i + v^i\). Note that the large majority of modern numericalrelativity codes implement the BSSNOK (Nakamura et al. 1987; Shibata and Nakamura 1995; Baumgarte and Shapiro 1999) or the CCZ4 (Alic et al. 2012) formulation of the Einstein equations. As mentioned in Sect. 3.2, in these formulations, the extrinsic curvature tensor is not evolved directly, but rather a traceless tensor extrinsic curvature tensor related to a conformal decomposition of the threemetric (Alcubierre 2008; Bona et al. 2009; Baumgarte and Shapiro 2010; Gourgoulhon 2012; Rezzolla and Zanotti 2013). Of course, also in these formulations it is possible to reconstruct the physically related extrinsic curvature tensor \(K_{ij}\) and we will therefore continue to make use of \(K_{ij}\) hereafter.
5.6.2 Extraction
5.6.3 Perturbative evolution
Once the multipole amplitudes, \((a_\times )_{_{\ell m}}\), \((a_+)_{_{\ell m}}\), \((h)_{_{\ell m}}\) and their time derivatives are computed on \(\varGamma \) in the timeslice \(t=t_0\), they are imposed as inner boundary conditions on the onedimensional grid. Using a suitably accurate integration scheme, the radial wave equations (247)–(249) can be evolved for each \((\ell , m)\) mode forward to the next timeslice at \(t=t_1\). The outer boundary of the onedimensional grid is always placed at a distance large enough that background field and nearzone effects are unimportant, and a radial Sommerfeld condition for the wave equations (247)–(249) can be imposed there. The evolution equations for \(h_{i j}\) [Eq. (235)] and \(\alpha \) [Eq. (236)] can also be integrated using the data for \(K_{i j}\) computed in this region. Note also that because \(h_{i j}\) and \(\alpha \) evolve along the coordinate time axis, these equations need only be integrated in the region in which their values are desired, not over the whole region L.
Of course, the initial data on L must be consistent with the initial data on N, and this can be determined by applying the aforementioned extraction procedure to the initial data set at each gridpoint of L in the region of overlap with N. In the latter case, initial data outside the overlap region can be set by considering the asymptotic falloff of each variable.
5.6.4 Reconstruction
An important side product of the evolution step discussed above is that outer boundary values for N can now be computed, although, to the best of our knowledge, this procedure has not been implemented yet as a way to obtain outer boundary conditions. In particular, for codes using the BSSNOK (Nakamura et al. 1987; Shibata and Nakamura 1995; Baumgarte and Shapiro 1999) or the CCZ4 (Alic et al. 2012) formulation of the Einstein equations, it is sufficient to provide boundary data only for \(K_{i j}\), since the interior code can calculate \(\gamma _{i j}\) at the outer boundary by integrating in time the boundary values for \(K_{i j}\).
In order to compute \(K_{i j}\) at an outer boundary point of N (or any other point in the overlap between N and \(\mathcal {P}\)), it is necessary to reconstruct \(K_{i j}\) from the multipole amplitudes and tensor spherical harmonics. The Schwarzschild coordinate values \((r,\theta ,\phi )\) of the relevant gridpoint are first determined. Next, \((a_\times )_{_{\ell m}}\), \((a_+)_{_{\ell m}}\), and \((h_{_{\ell m}})\) for each \((\ell ,m)\) mode are interpolated to the radial coordinate value of that point. The dependent multipole amplitudes \((b_\times )_{_{\ell m}}\), \((b_+)_{_{\ell m}}\), \((c_+)_{_{\ell m}}\), and \((d_+)_{_{\ell m}}\) are then computed using the constraint equations (240). Finally, the Regge–Wheeler tensor spherical harmonics \((\hat{e}_1)_{i j}\)–\((\hat{f}_4)_{i j}\) are computed for the angular coordinates \((\theta ,\phi )\) for each \((\ell ,m)\) mode and the sum in Eq. (238) is performed. This leads to the reconstructed component of \(\kappa _{i j}\) (and therefore \(K_{i j}\)). A completely analogous algorithm can be used to reconstruct \(\partial _t K_{i j}\) in formulations in which this information is needed.
It is important to emphasize that this procedure allows one to compute \(K_{i j}\) at any point of N which is covered by the perturbative region. As a result, the numerical module can reconstruct the values of \(K_{ij}\) and \(\partial _t K_{i j}\) on a 2surface of arbitrary shape, or any collection of points outside of \(\varGamma \).
6 Gravitational waves in the characteristic approach
The formalism for expressing Einstein’s equations as an evolution system based on characteristic, or nullcone, coordinates is based on work originally due to Bondi (1960) and Bondi et al. (1962) for axisymmetry, and extended to the general case by Sachs (1962). The formalism is covered in the review by Winicour (2005), to which the reader is referred for an indepth discussion of its development and the associated literature.
Most work on characteristic evolution uses, or is an adpatation of, a finite difference code that was originally developed at the University of Pittsburgh and has become known as the PITT null code. The early work that eventually led to the PITT code was for the case of axisymmetry (Isaacson et al. 1983; Bishop et al. 1990; Gómez et al. 1994), and a general vacuum code was developed in the mid1990s (Bishop et al. 1996b, 1997b; Lehner 1998, 1999, 2001). Subsequently, the code was extended to the nonvacuum case (Bishop et al. 1999b, 2005), and code adaptations in terms of variables, coordinates and order of accuracy have been investigated (Gómez 2001; Gómez and Frittelli 2003; Reisswig et al. 2007, 2013a). Spectral, rather than finite difference, implementations have also been developed, for both the axially symmetric case (de Oliveira and Rodrigues 2009) and in general (Handmer and Szilágyi 2015). One potential difficulty, although in practice it has not been important in characteristic extraction, is the development of caustics during the evolution, and algorithms to handle the problem have been proposed (Stewart and Friedrich 1982; Corkill and Stewart 1983). There are also approaches that use outgoing null cones but for which the coordinates are not Bondi–Sachs (Bartnik 1997; Bartnik and Norton 2000).
Shortly after the publication of the Bondi and Bondi–Sachs metrics and formalism, the idea of conformal compactification was introduced. This led to the wellknown asymptotic description of spacetime, and the definitions of asymptotic flatness, past, future and spacelike infinity (\(I^+,I^,I^0\)), and of past and future null infinity (\({\mathcal {J}}^,\mathcal {J}^+\)) (Penrose 1963); see also Penrose (1964, 1965b) and Tamburino and Winicour (1966); and the reviews by Adamo et al. (2012) and Frauendiener (2004). The key result is that gravitational radiation can be defined unambiguously in an asymptotically flat spacetime only at null infinity. The waves may be expressed in terms of the Bondi news \({{\mathcal {N}}}\) (see Eq. (271) below), the Newman–Penrose quantity \(\psi _4\), or the wave strain \((h_+,h_\times )\).
After a characteristic code has been run using a compactified radial coordinate as in Eq. (259), the metric is known at \(\mathcal {J}^+\), and so it would seem to be straightforward to calculate the emitted gravitational radiation. Unfortunately, this is not in general the case because of gauge, or coordinate freedom, issues. The formulas do take a very simple form when expressed in terms of coordinates that satisfy the Bondi gauge condition in which the asymptotic flatness property is obviously satisfied, and for which conditions set at \(\mathcal {J}^+\) are propagated inwards along radial null geodesics. However, in a numerical simulation that is not the case: coordinate conditions are fixed on an extraction worldtube (in the case of characteristic extraction), or perhaps on a worldline (Siebel et al. 2003) or ingoing null hypersurface, and then propagated outwards to \(\mathcal {J}^+\). The result is that the geometry at and near \(\mathcal {J}^+\) may appear very different to one that is foliated by spherical 2surfaces of constant curvature. Of course, the Bondi gauge and the general gauge are related by a coordinate transformation, and formulas for \({{\mathcal {N}}}\) and \(\psi _4\) are obtained by constructing the transformation.
An explicit formula in the general gauge for the news was obtained in Bishop et al. (1997b) (“Appendix 2”); and a calculation of \(\psi _4\) was reported in Babiuc et al. (2009), but the formula produced was so lengthy that it was not published. These formulas have been used in the production of most waveforms calculated by characteristic codes. An alternative approach, in which the coordinate transformation is explicit, rather than partially implicit, was suggested (Bishop and Deshingkar 2003) but has not been further used or developed. Recently, a formula for the wave strain \((h_+,h_\times )\), which is the quantity used in the construction of templates for gravitationalwave data analysis, was derived (Bishop and Reisswig 2014). An important special case is that of the linearized approximation, in which deviations from the Bondi gauge are small. The resulting formulas for \({{\mathcal {N}}}\), \(\psi _4\) and \((h_+,h_\times )\), are much simpler and so much easier to interpret than in the general case. Further these formulas are widely used because the linearized approximation often applies to the results of a waveform computation in a realistic scenario.
We set the context for this section by summarizing the Einstein equations in characteristic coordinates, and outlining the characteristic evolution procedure. The focus of this section is formulas for gravitational waves, and we next present the formulas in the simplest case, when the coordinates satisfy the Bondi gauge conditions. Much of the remainder of the section will be devoted to formulas for gravitational waves in the general gauge, and will include a discussion of conformal compactification. This section makes extensive use of spinweighted spherical harmonics and the eth formalism, which topics are discussed in “Appendix 2”.
6.1 The Einstein equations in Bondi–Sachs coordinates
6.2 The Bondi gauge
6.3 General gauge
6.4 The gravitationalwave strain
6.5 Conformal compactification
Here we give only a brief introduction to this topic, as these matters are discussed more fully in many standard texts and reviews, e.g., Wald (1984) and Frauendiener (2004). We have made a coordinate compactification, resulting in the metric and null tetrad being singular at \(\rho =0\), which is therefore not included in the manifold. Thus, quantities are not evaluated at \(\rho =0\), but in the limit as \(\rho \rightarrow 0\). Introducing a conformal transformation has the advantage that this technical issue is avoided and \(\mathcal {J}^+\) at \(\rho =0\) is included in the manifold; but also that the resulting formulas for \({{\mathcal {N}}}\) and \(\psi ^0_4\) are simpler. (Of course, it should be possible to use the asymptotic Einstein equations to simplify expressions derived in physical space, but due to the complexity of the formulas this approach has not been adopted).
6.5.1 The news \({{\mathcal {N}}}\)
The attentive reader may have noticed that the derivation above used \(\tilde{\rho }=\rho \omega \) rather than \(\tilde{\rho }=\rho (\omega +\rho A^\rho )\), so that \(\partial _\rho \omega \) should not be taken as 0 but as \(A^\rho \). However, the corrections that would be introduced remain \({{\mathcal {O}}}(\rho )\) since (a) \(\hat{m}_{_{[G]}}^1=0\), (b) in Eq. (319) the term \(\hat{g}^{11}A^\rho \) contained in \(\hat{g}^{1\gamma }\partial _\gamma \omega \) is \({{\mathcal {O}}}(\rho ) A^\rho \), and (c) in Eq. (321) the term \(F^A F^B \hat{\varGamma }^1_{_{AB}}A^\rho \) contained in \(F^A F^B \hat{\varGamma }^\gamma _{_{AB}}\partial _\gamma \omega \) is also \({{\mathcal {O}}}(\rho ) A^\rho \).
6.5.2 The Newman–Penrose quantity \(\psi ^0_4\)
6.6 Linearized case
In the linearized case the Bondi–Sachs metric variables \(\beta ,J,U,W_c\) and the coordinate transformation variables \(u_0,A^u,(\omega 1),A^\rho ,x^{^{_A}}_0,A^{^{_A}}\) are regarded as small. Algebraically, the approximation is implemented by introducing a parameter \(\epsilon =\) max\((\beta ,J,U,W_c)\) in a neighbourhood of \(\mathcal {J}^+\). Then, the metric variables are rewritten as \(\beta \rightarrow \epsilon \beta \) etc., and quantities such as \({{\mathcal {N}}},\psi ^0_4\) are expressed as Taylor series in \(\epsilon \) with terms \({{\mathcal {O}}}(\epsilon ^2)\) ignored, leading to considerable simplifications. It is common practice to assume that the error in the approximation is about \(\epsilon ^2\). While computational results do not contradict this assumption, a word of caution is needed: no work on establishing a formal error bound for this problem has been reported.
7 Numerical implementations of the characteristic approach
As first steps towards CCM in relativity, it was implemented for the model problem of a nonlinear scalar wave equation (Bishop et al. 1996a, 1997a) without any symmetries, and for the Einstein equations with a scalar field under the condition of spherical symmetry (Gómez et al. 1996; Lehner 2000). There has been a series of papers on CCM under axial symmetry (Clarke and d’Inverno 1994; Clarke et al. 1995; d’Inverno and Vickers 1997; d’Inverno et al. 2000; d’Inverno and Vickers 1996; Dubal et al. 1995, 1998). A detailed algorithm for CCM in relativity in the general case was presented in Bishop et al. (1999a). The stable implementation of matching is quite a challenge, and this goal has not yet been achieved (Szilágyi et al. 2000; Szilágyi 2000); although a stable implementation without symmetry has been reported with the Einstein equations linearized and using harmonic “3+1” coordinates (Szilágyi and Winicour 2003; Szilágyi et al. 2002). The issue of progress towards CCM is much more fully discussed in the review by Winicour (2005).
 1.
The coordinate transformation has to be made in two steps, firstly to a null coordinate system in which the radial coordinate is an affine parameter on the outgoing null radial geodesics, and secondly to Bondi–Sachs coordinates.
 2.
In general \(\varGamma \) is not a worldtube of constant r, so setting data at the innermost radial grid point of the Bondi–Sachs system requires special care.
7.1 Worldtube boundary data
 1.
It filters out high frequency noise.
 2.
It greatly simplifies the process of interpolation onto a regular angular grid.
7.2 Reconstruction from spectral modes
7.3 Transformation to null affine coordinates
Although the above is given in terms of stereographic angular coordinates (q, p), rather than general angular coordinates \(\phi ^{^{_A}}\), the formulas that follow will not be specific to stereographic coordinates.
7.4 Null affine metric
7.5 Metric in Bondi–Sachs coordinates
7.6 Starting up the null code at the worldtube
As already mentioned, a difficulty faced is that Eq. (372) gives metric quantities on the worldtube \(\varGamma \), which is not in general a hypersurface at a constant value of the rcoordinate. The original method for tackling the problem makes use of a Taylor series in \(\lambda \) (Bishop et al. 1999a), and has been implemented in Szilágyi et al. (2000), Szilágyi (2000), Babiuc et al. (2005), Reisswig et al. (2009) and Reisswig et al. (2010). Recently, a method that uses a special integration algorithm between the worldtube and the first characteristic gridpoint, has been proposed and tested (Babiuc et al. 2011a, b). Both approaches are outlined below.
7.6.1 Taylor series method
7.6.2 Special evolution routine between the worldtube and the first radial gridpoint
Since the value of r varies on the worldtube, it may happen that the angular neighbour of a B+1 point is a B point. Thus, the code must also set data for the metric variables at the B points, even though much of this data will not be needed.
7.7 Initial data
The above discussion has shown how data should be set at, or on a neighbourhood of, the inner worldtube \(\varGamma \), but in order to run a characteristic code data for J is also required on an initial null cone \(u=\) constant. Earlier work has adopted the simplistic but unphysical approach of just setting \(J=0\), assuming that the error so introduced would quickly be eliminated from the system. Babiuc et al. (2011a) and Bishop et al. (2011) investigated the matter. It was found that the error due to simplistic initial data is usually small, but it can take a surprisingly long time, up to 800 M, until saturation by other effects occurs. In terms of observations by a gravitationalwave detector, the effect of the error in search templates is not relevant. However, if a signal is detected, the effect would be relevant for accurate parameter estimation at large SNR (signal to noise ratio), but no quantitative estimates have been given.
7.8 Implementation summary
The issues summarized here are: (1) setting up a characteristic code that starts from the output of a “3+1” code; (2) estimating the gravitational waves from metric data in a compactified domain output by a characteristic code; (3) estimating quantities derived from the gravitational waves, i.e., the energy, momentum and angular momentum.
7.8.1 Setting worldtube boundary data for the characteristic code
 1.
Within the “3+1” code, write a routine that uses Eq. (342) to perform a spectral decomposition of the threemetric, lapse and shift, and outputs the data to file.
 2.
In a frontend to the characteristic code, write a routine that reads the data from the file created in the previous step, and reconstructs the fourmetric and its first derivatives at the angular gridpoints of the extraction worldtube.
 3.
Construct the generators \(\ell ^\alpha \) of the outgoing null cone using Eq. (351), and then the Jacobian \(\partial x_{\scriptscriptstyle [C]}^{\mu }/\partial x_{\scriptscriptstyle [N]}^{\alpha }\) as a series expansion in the affine paramenter \(\lambda \), for each angular gridpoint on the worldtube.
 4.
As described in Sect. 7.4, construct the null affine metric \(g_{{\scriptscriptstyle [N]}\alpha \beta }\) and its first \(\lambda \)derivative at the angular gridpoints of the extraction worldtube; then construct the contravariant forms \(g_{\scriptscriptstyle [N]}^{\alpha \beta }\) and \(\partial _\lambda g_{\scriptscriptstyle [N]}^{\alpha \beta }\).
 5.
From Eq. (365), determine the surface area coordinate r and its first derivatives at the angular gridpoints of the extraction worldtube.
 6.
Construct the Jacobian \(\partial x_{\scriptscriptstyle [B]}^{\mu }/\partial x_{\scriptscriptstyle [N]}^{\alpha }\), and thus the Bondi–Sachs metric \(g_{\scriptscriptstyle [N]}^{\alpha \beta }\) and then the metric coefficients \(\beta ,J,U,W_c\) at the angular gridpoints of the extraction worldtube.
 7.
Implement either of the special startup procedures described in Sect. 7.6.
 8.
The construction of a characteristic code is not described in this review, but see section “Numerical codes” in “Appendix 3” for information about the availability of such codes.
7.8.2 Estimation of gravitational waves

\(\phi _0^{_A}(u,x^{_A})\). Solve the evolution problem Eq. (281) with initial data \(\phi _0^{_A}(0,x^{_A})=0\). This initial condition assumes that the initial data for J has been set with \(J=0\) at \(\mathcal {J}^+\).

\(\omega (u,x^{_A})\). Either solve the evolution problem Eq. (282) with initial data \(\omega (0,x^{_A})=1\), or evaluate the explicit formula Eq. (287).

\(u_0(u,x^{_A})\). Solve the evolution problem Eq. (280). In this case, there is a gauge freedom to set the initial data \(u_0(0,x^{_A})\) arbitrarily.
7.8.3 Energy, momentum and angular momentum in the waves
8 A comparison among different methods

The quadrupole formula, including various modifications, leading to the wave strain \((h_+,h_\times )\);

\(\psi _4\) (fixed radius) and \(\psi _4\) (extrapolation), leading to the Newman–Penrose quantity \(\psi _4\);

Gaugeinvariant metric perturbations, leading to the wave strain \((h_+,h_\times )\);

Characteristic extraction, leading to the wave strain \((h_+,h_\times )\), the gravitational news \({\mathcal {N}}\), or the Newman–Penrose quantity \(\psi _4\).

Physical problem motivating the simulation. The most appropriate method for extracting gravitational waves is affected by how the result is to be used. It may be that only moderate accuracy is required, as would be the case for waveform template construction for use in searches in detector data; on the other hand, high accuracy would be needed for parameter estimation of an event in detector data at large SNR. Further, the purpose of the simulation may be not to determine a waveform, but to find the emitted momentum of the radiation and thus the recoil velocity of the remnant.

Domain and accuracy of the simulation. The domain of the simulation may restrict the extraction methods that can be used. All methods, except that using the quadrupole formula, require the existence of a worldtube, well removed from the domain boundary, on which the metric is Minkowskian (or Schwarzschild) plus a small correction. As discussed in Sect. 3.3.2, extrapolation methods need these worldtubes over an extended region. Further, the accuracy of the simulation in a neighbourhood of the extraction process clearly limits the accuracy that can be expected from any gravitationalwave extraction method.

Ease of implementation of the various extraction methods. All the methods described in this review are well understood and have been applied in different contexts and by different groups. Nevertheless, the implementation of a new gravitationalwave extraction tool will always require some effort, depending on the method, for coding, testing and verification.

Accuracy of the various extraction methods. Theoretical estimates of the expected accuracy of each method are known, but precise data on actual performance is more limited because suitable exact solutions are not available. In a simulation of a realistic astrophysical scenario, at least part of the evolution is highly nonlinear, and the emitted gravitational waves are oscillatory and of varying amplitude and frequency. On the other hand, exact solutions are known in the linearized case with constant amplitude and frequency, or in the general case under unphysical conditions (planar or cylindrical symmetry, or nonvacuum). One exception is the Robinson–Trautman solution (Robinson and Trautman 1962), but in that case the gravitational waves are not oscillatory and instead decay exponentially.
Thus, in an astrophysical application, the accuracy of a computed waveform is estimated by repeating the simulation using a different method; then the difference between the two waveforms is an estimate of the error, provided that it is in line with the theoretical error estimates. In some work, the purpose of comparing results of different methods is not method testing, but rather to provide validation of the gravitationalwave signal prediction. The only method that is, in principle, free of any systematic error is characteristic extraction, but the method was not available for general purpose use until the early 2010s. It should also be noted that there remains some uncertainty about factors that could influence the reliability of a computed waveform (Boyle 2016).
8.1 Comparisons of the accuracy of extraction methods

Nagar et al. (2005) investigates various modifications of the standard quadrupole formula in comparison to results obtained using gaugeinvariant metric perturbations for the case of oscillating accretion tori. Good results are obtained when backscattering is negligible, otherwise noticeable differences in amplitude occur.

Balakrishna et al. (2006) computes \(\psi _4\) (fixed radius) and gaugeinvariant metric perturbations for gravitational waves from boson star perturbations, but detailed comparisons between the two methods were not made.

Pollney et al. (2007) compares gaugeinvariant metric perturbations to \(\psi _4\) (fixed radius) extraction for the recoil resulting from a binary black hole merger. It was found that results for the recoil velocities are consistent between the two extraction methods.

Shibata et al. (2003) and Baiotti et al. (2009) compare gaugeinvariant metric perturbations, modified quadrupole formula and \(\psi _4\) (fixed radius) extraction for a perturbed neutron star. While the results are generally consistent, each method experienced some drawback. The gaugeinvariant method has a spurious initial junk component that gets larger as the worldtube radius is increased. In \(\psi _4\) extraction, fixing the constants of integration that arise in obtaining the wave strain can be a delicate issue, although such problems did not arise in this case. The generalized quadrupole formula led to good predictions of the phase, but to noticeable error in the signal amplitude.

Reisswig et al. (2009, 2010) compare \(\psi ^0_4\) from characteristic extraction and from \(\psi _4\)extrapolation for Binary Black Hole (BBH) inspiral and merger in spinning and nonspinning equal mass cases. The “3+1” evolution was performed using a finite difference BSSNOK code (Pollney et al. 2011). A comparison was also made in Babiuc et al. (2011a) for the equal mass, nonspinning case. Recently, a more detailed investigation of the same problem and covering a somewhat wider range of BBH parameter space, was undertaken (Taylor et al. 2013) using SpEC for “3+1” evolution (Szilágyi et al. 2009).
These results lead to two main conclusions. (1) The improved accuracy of characteristic extraction is not necessary in the context of constructing waveform templates to be used for event searches in detector data. (2) Characteristic extraction does provide improved accuracy over methods that extract at only one radius. The \(\psi _4\)extrapolation method performs better, and there are results for \(\psi ^0_4\) that are equivalent to characteristic extraction in the sense that the difference between the two methods is less than an estimate of other errors. However, that does not apply to all modes, particularly the slowly varying \(m=0\) “memory” modes.

A study of gravitationalwave extraction methods in the case of stellar core collapse (Reisswig et al. 2011) compared characteristic extraction, \(\psi _4\) extraction (fixed radius), gaugeinvariant metric perturbations, and the quadrupole formula. In these scenarios, the quadrupole formula performed surprisingly well, and gave results for the phase equivalent to those obtained by characteristic extraction, with a small underestimate of the amplitude. However, quadrupole formula methods fail if a black hole forms and the region inside the horizon is excised from the spacetime. The gaugeinvariant metric perturbation method gave the poorest results, with spurious high frequency components introduced to the signal. In characteristic extraction and \(\psi _4\) extraction the waveform was obtained via a double time integration, and the signal was cleaned up using Fourier methods to remove spurious low frequency components.

It is only very recently (Bishop and Reisswig 2014) that a method was developed in characteristic extraction to obtain the wave strain directly instead of via integration of \({{\mathcal {N}}}\) or \(\psi ^0_4\). That work also compared the accuracy of the waveform obtained to that found from integration of \(\psi _4^0\) using \(\psi _4\)extrapolation, in two cases—a binary black hole merger, and a stellar core collapse simulation. When comparing the wave strain from characteristic extraction to that found by time integration of \(\psi ^0_4\), good agreement was found for the dominant (2,2) mode, but there were differences for \(\ell \ge 4\).
Footnotes
 1.
Note that the “bar” operator can in principle be applied also to the trace so that \({\bar{h}}=h\).
 2.
Note that the orthogonality condition fixes three and not four components since one further constraint needs to be satisfied, i.e., \(\kappa ^{\mu } A_{\mu \nu } u^{\nu } = 0\).
 3.
Of course no gravitational waves are present in Newton’s theory of gravity and the formula merely estimates the time variations of the quadrupole moment of a given distribution of matter.
 4.
 5.
The values of \(r_k\) may vary with \(t_*\) since the extraction spheres are constructed to be of constant coordinate radius s.
 6.
In the case of nonoscillatory modes, usually with \(m=0\), fitting to the real and imaginary parts of \(\psi _4^{\ell m}\) is preferred.
 7.
All of our discussion hereafter will deal with perturbative analyses in the time domain. However, a hybrid approach is also possible in which the perturbation equations are solved in the frequency domain. In this case, the source terms are given by timedependent perturbations created, for instance, by the motion of matter and computed by fully nonlinear threedimensional codes (Ferrari et al. 2006).
 8.
These results were originally obtained by Regge and Wheeler (1957) and by Zerilli (1970a, b) in a specific gauge (i.e., the Regge–Wheeler gauge). Subsequently, the work of Moncrief showed how to reformulate the problem in a gaugeinvariant form by deriving the equations from a suitable variational principle (Moncrief 1974).
 9.
We recall that in the notation of Cunningham et al. (1978) \(\widetilde{\psi } = \varLambda (\varLambda 2)\varPsi ^{(\mathrm o)}\), and the multipoles in Cunningham et al. (1978) are related to ours as \(\widetilde{h}_2 = h_2 = 2h\), \(\widetilde{h}_{0} = h^{(\mathrm o)}_{0}\) and \(\widetilde{h}_{1} = h^{(\mathrm o)}_{1}\).
 10.
Note that in principle the gauge invariant quantities are independent of radius [cf. Eq. (219)]. In practice, however, their amplitudes may reach the correct asymptotic value only at sufficiently large distances. For this reason the extraction is in practice performed at different extraction radii and the amplitudes compared for convergence to an asymptotic value (Rupright et al. 1998; Rezzolla et al. 1999a).
 11.
This is a standard choice in modern numericalrelativity codes but there are no restrictions on the choice of the coordinate system.
 12.
There is a misprint in Eq. (A3) of the journal version of the reference, which has been corrected in the version on the arXiv, and also in Reisswig et al. (2013a).
 13.
This result applies only to conformal space, not to physical space.
Notes
Acknowledgements
N.T.B. thanks the National Research Foundation, South Africa, for financial support, and the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), the Institute for Theoretical Physics, Frankfurt, and the InterUniversity Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, India, for hospitality while this article was being completed. The authors thank Alessandro Nagar and Christian Reisswig for comments on the article. Partial support comes from “NewCompStar”, COST Action MP1304, from the LOEWEProgram in HIC for FAIR, from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under Grant Agreement No. 671698 (call FETHPC12014, project ExaHyPE), and from the ERC Synergy Grant “BlackHoleCam: Imaging the Event Horizon of Black Holes” (Grant 610058).
Supplementary material
References
 Abbott BP et al (2016) Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Phys Rev Lett 116:061102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. arXiv:1602.03837 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Abrahams A, Cook G (1994) Collisions of boosted black holes: perturbation theory prediction of gravitational radiation. Phys Rev D 50:R2364. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.50.R2364 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Abrahams A, Evans C (1988) Reading off gravitational radiation waveforms in numerical relativity calculations: matching to linearised gravity. Phys Rev D 37:318–332. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.37.318 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Abrahams A, Evans C (1990) Gauge invariant treatment of gravitational radiation near the source: analysis and numerical simulations. Phys Rev D 42:2585–2594. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.42.2585 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Abrahams A, Price RH (1996a) Blackhole collisions from Brill–Lindquist initial data: predictions of perturbation theory. Phys Rev D 53:1972–1976. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.1972
 Abrahams AM, Price RH (1996b) Applying black hole perturbation theory to numerically generated spacetimes. Phys Rev D 53:1963. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.53.1963
 Abrahams A, Bernstein D, Hobill D, Seidel E, Smarr LL (1992) Numerically generated black hole spacetimes: interaction with gravitational waves. Phys Rev D 45:3544–3558. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.45.3544 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Abrahams AM, Shapiro SL, Teukolsky SA (1995) Calculation of gravitational wave forms from black hole collisions and disk collapse: applying perturbation theory to numerical spacetimes. Phys Rev D 51:4295–4301. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.4295. arXiv:grqc/9408036 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Abrahams AM, Rezzolla L, Rupright ME et al (1998) Gravitational wave extraction and outer boundary conditions by perturbative matching. Phys Rev Lett 80:1812–1815. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.1812. arXiv:grqc/9709082 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Adamo TM, Newman ET, Kozameh CN (2012) Null geodesic congruences, asymptoticallyflat spacetimes and their physical interpretation. Living Rev Relativ 15:lrr20121. doi: 10.12942/lrr20121. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20121, arXiv:0906.2155
 Alcubierre M (2008) Introduction to 3+1 numerical relativity, international series of monographs on physics, vol 140. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199205677.001.0001 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Alic D, BonaCasas C, Bona C, Rezzolla L, Palenzuela C (2012) Conformal and covariant formulation of the Z4 system with constraintviolation damping. Phys Rev D 85:064040. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.064040. arXiv:1106.2254 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Alic D, Kastaun W, Rezzolla L (2013) Constraint damping of the conformal and covariant formulation of the Z4 system in simulations of binary neutron stars. Phys Rev D 88:064049. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.064049. arXiv:1307.7391 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Allen G, Camarda K, Seidel E (1998) 3D black hole spectroscopy: determining waveforms from 3D excited black holes. ArXiv eprints arXiv:grqc/9806036
 Allen G, Goodale T, Seidel E (1999) The cactus computational collaboratory: Enabling technologies for relativistic astrophysics, and a toolkit for solving pdes by communities in science and engineering. In: The seventh symposium on the frontiers of massively parallel computation (frontiers’99). IEEE, Los Alamitos, pp 36–41Google Scholar
 Andrade Z, Price RH (1999) Excitation of the odd parity quasinormal modes of compact objects. Phys Rev D 60:104037. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.104037. arXiv:grqc/9902062 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Anninos P, Hobill D, Seidel E, Smarr LL, Suen WM (1993) The collision of two black holes. Phys Rev Lett 71:2851–2854. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.71.2851. arXiv:grqc/9309016 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Anninos P, Hobill D, Seidel E, Smarr LL, Suen WM (1995a) The headon collision of two equal mass black holes. Phys Rev D 52:2044–2058 arXiv:grqc/9408041 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Anninos P, Price RH, Pullin J, Seidel E, Suen WM (1995b) Headon collision of two black holes: comparison of different approaches. Phys Rev D 52:4462–4480ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Arnowitt R, Deser S, Misner CW (2008) Republication of: the dynamics of general relativity. Gen Relativ Gravit 40:1997–2027. doi: 10.1007/s1071400806611. arXiv:grqc/0405109 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Aylott B et al (2009) Testing gravitationalwave searches with numerical relativity waveforms: results from the first Numerical INJection Analysis (NINJA) project. Class Quantum Gravity 26:165008. doi: 10.1088/02649381/26/16/165008. arXiv:0901.4399 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Babiuc MC, Szilágyi B, Hawke I, Zlochower Y (2005) Gravitational wave extraction based on Cauchycharacteristic extraction and characteristic evolution. Class Quantum Gravity 22:5089–5108. doi: 10.1088/02649381/22/23/011. arXiv:grqc/0501008 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Babiuc MC, Bishop NT, Szilágyi B, Winicour J (2009) Strategies for the characteristic extraction of gravitational waveforms. Phys Rev D 79:084011. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084011. arXiv:0808.0861 [grqc]ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Babiuc MC, Szilágyi B, Winicour J, Zlochower Y (2011a) Characteristic extraction tool for gravitational waveforms. Phys Rev D 84:044057. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.044057. arXiv:1011.4223
 Babiuc MC, Winicour J, Zlochower Y (2011b) Binary black hole waveform extraction at null infinity. Class Quantum Gravity 28:134006. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/13/134006. arXiv:1106.4841
 Babiuc MC, Kreiss HO, Winicour J (2014) Testing the wellposedness of characteristic evolution of scalar waves. Class Quantum Gravity 31:025022. doi: 10.1088/02649381/31/2/025022 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baiotti L, Hawke I, Rezzolla L, Schnetter E (2005) Gravitationalwave emission from rotating gravitational collapse in three dimensions. Phys Rev Lett 94:131101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.131101. arXiv:grqc/0503016 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baiotti L, De Pietri R, Manca GM, Rezzolla L (2007) Accurate simulations of the dynamical barmode instability in full general relativity. Phys Rev D 75:044023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.044023. arXiv:astroph/0609473 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baiotti L, Bernuzzi S, Corvino G, De Pietri R, Nagar A (2009) Gravitationalwave extraction from neutron stars oscillations: comparing linear and nonlinear techniques. Phys Rev D 79:024002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024002. arXiv:0808.4002 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker J, Campanelli M (2000) Making use of geometrical invariants in black hole collisions. Phys Rev D 62:127501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.127501 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker J, Brandt SR, Campanelli M, Lousto CO, Seidel E, Takahashi R (2000a) Nonlinear and perturbative evolution of distorted black holes: oddparity modes. Phys Rev D 62:127701. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.127701 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker J, Brügmann B, Campanelli M, Lousto CO (2000b) Gravitational waves from black hole collisions via an eclectic approach. Class Quantum Gravity 17:L149–L156. doi: 10.1088/02649381/17/20/102. arXiv:grqc/0003027 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker J, Brügmann B, Campanelli M, Lousto CO, Takahashi R (2001) Plunge waveforms from inspiralling binary black holes. Phys Rev Lett 87:121103. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.121103. arXiv:grqc/0102037 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker J, Campanelli M, Lousto CO (2002a) The Lazarus project: a pragmatic approach to binary black hole evolutions. Phys Rev D 65:044001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.044001. arXiv:grqc/0104063 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker J, Campanelli M, Lousto CO, Takahashi R (2002b) Modeling gravitational radiation from coalescing binary black holes. Phys Rev D 65:124012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.124012. arXiv:astroph/0202469 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baker JG, Centrella J, Choi DI, Koppitz M, van Meter J (2006) Gravitational wave extraction from an inspiraling configuration of merging black holes. Phys Rev Lett 96:111102. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111102. arXiv:grqc/0511103 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Balakrishna J, Bondarescu R, Daues G, Siddhartha Guzman F, Seidel E (2006) Evolution of 3d boson stars with waveform extraction. Class Quantum Gravity 23:2631–2652. doi: 10.1088/02649381/23/7/024. arXiv:grqc/0602078 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bardeen JM, Press WH (1973) Radiation fields in the Schwarzschild background. J Math Phys 14:7–19. doi: 10.1063/1.1666175 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bartnik R (1997) Einstein equations in the null quasispherical gauge. Class Quantum Gravity 14:2185–2194. doi: 10.1088/02649381/14/8/017. arXiv:grqc/9611045 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bartnik R, Norton AH (2000) Numerical methods for the Einstein equations in null quasispherical coordinates. SIAM J Sci Comput 22:917–950. doi: 10.1137/S1064827599356171 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baumgarte TW, Shapiro SL (1999) Numerical integration of Einstein’s field equations. Phys Rev D 59:024007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.024007. arXiv:grqc/9810065 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Baumgarte TW, Shapiro SL (2010) Numerical relativity: solving Einstein’s equations on the computer. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi: 10.1017/cbo9781139193344 zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Beetle C, Bruni M, Burko LM, Nerozzi A (2005) Towards wave extraction in numerical relativity: foundations and initialvalue formulation. Phys Rev D 72:024013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024013. arXiv:grqc/0407012 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bernuzzi S, Hilditch D (2010) Constraint violation in free evolution schemes: comparing bssnok with a conformal decomposition of z4. Phys Rev D 81:084003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084003. arXiv:0912.2920 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT (1992) Some aspects of the characteristic initial value problem in numerical relativity. In: d’Inverno RA (ed) Approaches to numerical relativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 20–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT (1993) Numerical relativity: combining the Cauchy and characteristic initial value problem. Class Quantum Gravity 10:333–341. doi: 10.1088/02649381/10/2/015 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT (2005) Linearized solutions of the Einstein equations within a Bondi–Sachs framework, and implications for boundary conditions in numerical simulations. Class Quantum Gravity 22:2393–2406. doi: 10.1088/02649381/22/12/006 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop N, Deshingkar S (2003) New approach to calculating the news. Phys Rev D 68:024031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.024031 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Reisswig C (2014) The gravitational wave strain in the characteristic formalism of numerical relativity. Gen Rel Gravit 46:1643. doi: 10.1007/s1071401316435. arXiv:1308.1521 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Clarke C, d’Inverno R (1990) Numerical relativity on a transputer array. Class Quantum Gravity 7:L23–L27. doi: 10.1088/02649381/7/2/001 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Holvorcem PR, Matzner RA, Papadopoulos P, Winicour J (1996a) Cauchycharacteristic matching: a new approach to radiation boundary conditions. Phys Rev Lett 76:4303–4306. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.76.4303 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Lehner L, Winicour J (1996b) Cauchycharacteristic extraction in numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 54:6153–6165. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6153 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Holvorcem PR, Matzner RA, Papadopoulos P, Winicour J (1997a) Cauchycharacteristic evolution and waveforms. J Comput Phys 136:140–167. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1997.5754
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Lehner L, Maharaj M, Winicour J (1997b) Highpowered gravitational news. Phys Rev D 56:6298–6309. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.6298. arXiv:grqc/9708065
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Isaacson RA, Lehner L, Szilágyi B, Winicour J (1999a) Cauchycharacteristic matching. In: Bhawal B, Iyer BR (eds) Black holes, gravitational radiation and the universe: essays in honour of c.v. Vishveshwara, fundamental theories of physics. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 383–408 arXiv:grqc/9801070 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Lehner L, Maharaj M, Winicour J (1999b) The incorporation of matter into characteristic numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 60:024005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.024005. arXiv:grqc/9901056 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Gómez R, Lehner L, Maharaj M, Winicour J (2005) Characteristic initial data for a star orbiting a black hole. Phys Rev D 72:024002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024002. arXiv:grqc/0412080 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bishop NT, Pollney D, Reisswig C (2011) Initial data transients in binary black hole evolutions. Class Quantum Gravity 28:155019. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/15/155019. arXiv:1101.5492 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Blanchet L (2014) Gravitational radiation from postNewtonian sources and inspiralling compact binaries. Living Rev Relativ 17:lrr20142. doi: 10.12942/lrr20142. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20142, arXiv:1310.1528
 Blanchet L, Damour T, Schäfer G (1990) PostNewtonian hydrodynamics and postNewtonian gravitational wave generation for numerical relativity. Mon Not R Astron Soc 242:289–305. doi: 10.1093/mnras/242.3.289 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bona C, PalenzuelaLuque C (2009) Elements of numerical relativity and relativistic hydrodynamics: from Einstein’s equations to black hole simulations, vol 673, lecture notes in physics. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/b135928
 Bona C, Ledvinka T, Palenzuela C, Žáček M (2003) Generalcovariant evolution formalism for numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 67:104005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.104005. arXiv:grqc/0302083 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bona C, Ledvinka T, Palenzuela C, Žáček M (2004) Symmetrybreaking mechanism for the Z4 generalcovariant evolution system. Phys Rev D 69:064036. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.064036. arXiv:grqc/0307067 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bona C, PalenzuelaLuque C, BonaCasas C (2009) Elements of numerical relativity and relativistic hydrodynamics: from Einstein’s equations to astrophysical simulations, vol 783, 2nd edn, lecture notes in physics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
 Bondi H (1960) Gravitational waves in general relativity. Nature 186:535. doi: 10.1038/186535a0 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Bondi H, van der Burg MGJ, Metzner AWK (1962) Gravitational waves in general relativity VII. Waves from axisymmetric isolated systems. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 269:21–52ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Boyle M (2016) Transformations of asymptotic gravitationalwave data. Phys Rev D 93:084031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084031. arXiv:1509.00862
 Boyle M, Mroué AH (2009) Extrapolating gravitationalwave data from numerical simulations. Phys Rev D 80:124045. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.124045. arXiv:0905.3177 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cactus (2016) The Cactus code. URL http://www.cactuscode.org/, project homepage
 Camarda K, Seidel E (1999) Threedimensional simulations of distorted black holes: comparison with axisymmetric results. Phys Rev D 59:064019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.064019. arXiv:grqc/9805099 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Campanelli M, Lousto CO (1998) The imposition of Cauchy data to the Teukolsky equation I: the nonrotating case. Phys Rev D 58:024015ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Campanelli M, Lousto CO (1999) Second order gauge invariant gravitational perturbations of a Kerr black hole. Phys Rev D 59:124022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.124022. arXiv:grqc/9811019 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Campanelli M, Krivan W, Lousto CO (1998) The imposition of Cauchy data to the Teukolsky equation II: numerical comparison with the Zerilli–Moncrief approach to black hole perturbations. Phys Rev D 58:024016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.024016 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Campanelli M, Lousto CO, Baker J, Khanna G, Pullin J (2000) The imposition of Cauchy data to the Teukolsky equation III: the rotating case. Phys Rev D 58:084019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.069901 Erratumibid. D62:069901ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Campanelli M, Kelly BJ, Lousto CO (2006) The Lazarus project II: spacelike extraction with the quasiKinnersley tetrad. Phys Rev D 73:064005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.064005. arXiv:grqc/0510122 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Campanelli M, Lousto CO, Nakano H, Zlochower Y (2009) Comparison of numerical and postNewtonian waveforms for generic precessing blackhole binaries. Phys Rev D 79:084010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084010. arXiv:0808.0713 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 CerdáDurán P, Faye G, Dimmelmeier H, Font JA, Ibáñez JM, Müller E, Schäfer G (2005) CFC+: improved dynamics and gravitational waveforms from relativistic core collapse simulations. Astron Astrophys 439:1033–1055. doi: 10.1051/00046361:20042602. arXiv:astroph/0412611 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Chandrasekhar S (1978) The gravitational perturbations of the kerr black hole. I. The perturbations in the quantities which vanish in the stationary state. Proc R Soc Lond 358:138–156. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1978.0020 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 Chandrasekhar S (1983) The mathematical theory of black holes, the international series of monographs on physics, vol 69. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
 Chandrasekhar S, Detweiler S (1975) The quasinormal modes of the Schwarzschild black hole. Proc R Soc Lond 344:441–452. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1975.0112 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Clarke CJS, d’Inverno RA (1994) Combining Cauchy and characteristic numerical evolutions in curved coordinates. Class Quantum Gravity 11:1463–1468. doi: 10.1088/02649381/11/6/011 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Clarke CJS, d’Inverno RA, Vickers JA (1995) Combining Cauchy and characteristic codes. i. The vacuum cylindrically symmetric problem. Phys Rev D 52:6863–6867. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.6863 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cook GB, Huq MF, Klasky SA et al (1998) Boosted threedimensional blackhole evolutions with singularity excision. Phys Rev Lett 80:2512–2516. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2512 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Corkill RW, Stewart JM (1983) Numerical relativity. II. Numerical methods for the characteristic initial value problem and the evolution of the vacuum field equations for spacetimes with two killing vectors. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 386:373–391. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1983.0041 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Corvino G, Rezzolla L, Bernuzzi S, De Pietri R, Giacomazzo B (2010) On the shear instability in relativistic neutron stars. Class Quantum Gravity 27:114104. doi: 10.1088/02649381/27/11/114104. arXiv:1001.5281 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cunningham CT, Price RH, Moncrief V (1978) Radiation from collapsing relativistic stars I. Linearized oddparity radiation. Astrophys J 224:643. doi: 10.1086/156413 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Cunningham CT, Price RH, Moncrief V (1979) Radiation from collapsing relativistic stars II. Linearized evenparity radiation. Astrophys J 230:870–892. doi: 10.1086/157147 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 d’Inverno RA, Vickers JA (1996) Combining Cauchy and characteristic codes. III. The interface problem in axial symmetry. Phys Rev D 54:4919–4928. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4919 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 d’Inverno RA, Vickers JA (1997) Combining Cauchy and characteristic codes. IV. The characteristic field equations in axial symmetry. Phys Rev D 56:772–784. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.56.772 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 d’Inverno RA, Dubal MR, Sarkies EA (2000) Cauchycharacteristic matching for a family of cylindrical solutions possessing both gravitational degrees of freedom. Class Quantum Gravity 17:3157–3170. doi: 10.1088/02649381/17/16/305 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Damour T, Gopakumar A (2006) Gravitational recoil during binary black hole coalescence using the effective one body approach. Phys Rev D 73:124006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.124006. arXiv:grqc/0602117 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Damour T, Nagar A (2016) Astrophysical black holes. In: Haardt F, Gorini V, Moschella U, Treves A, Colpi M (eds) The effectiveonebody approach to the general relativistic two body problem, vol 905, lecture notes in physics. Springer, Berlin, pp 273–312. doi: 10.1007/9783319194165_7
 de Felice F, Clarke CJS (1990) Relativity on curved manifolds. Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
 de Oliveira HP, Rodrigues EL (2009) A dynamical system approach for the Bondi problem. Int J Mod Phys A 24:1700–1704. doi: 10.1142/S0217751X09045261. arXiv:0809.2837 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dimmelmeier H, Ott CD, Janka H, Marek A, Müller E (2007) Generic gravitationalwave signals from the collapse of rotating stellar cores. Phys Rev Lett 98:251101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.251101. arXiv:astroph/0702305
 Dubal MR, d’Inverno RA, Clarke CJS (1995) Combining Cauchy and characteristic codes. II. The interface problem for vacuum cylindrical symmetry. Phys Rev D 52:6868–6881. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.6868 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Dubal MR, d’Inverno RA, Vickers JA (1998) Combining Cauchy and characteristic codes. V. Cauchycharacteristic matching for a spherical spacetime containing a perfect fluid. Phys Rev D 58:044019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.044019 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Einstein A (1916) Näherungsweise integration der feldgleichungen der gravitation. Sitzungsber K Preuss Akad Wiss and PhysMath Kl 1916:688–696zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Einstein A (1918) Über gravitationswellen. Sitzungsber K Preuss Akad Wiss 1918:154–167zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Favata M, Hughes SA, Holz DE (2004) How black holes get their kicks: gravitational radiation recoil revisited. Astrophys J 607:L5–L8. doi: 10.1086/421552. arXiv:astroph/0402056 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ferrari V, Kokkotas KD (2000) Scattering of particles by neutron stars: time evolutions for axial perturbations. Phys Rev D 62:107504. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.107504. arXiv:grqc/0008057 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ferrari V, Gualtieri L, Rezzolla L (2006) A hybrid approach to black hole perturbations from extended matter sources. Phys Rev D 73:124028. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.124028. arXiv:grqc/0606059 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Finn LS, Evans CR (1990) Determining gravitational radiation from Newtonian selfgravitating systems. Astrophys J 351:588–600. doi: 10.1086/168497 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Fiske DR, Baker JG, van Meter JR, Choi DI, Centrella JM (2005) Wave zone extraction of gravitational radiation in threedimensional numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 71:104036. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.104036. arXiv:grqc/0503100 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Font JA, Goodale T, Iyer S, Miller M, Rezzolla L, Seidel E, Stergioulas N, Suen WM, Tobias M (2002) Threedimensional numerical general relativistic hydrodynamics. II. Longterm dynamics of single relativistic stars. Phys Rev D 65:084024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.084024. arXiv:grqc/0110047 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Frauendiener J (2004) Conformal infinity. Living Rev Relativ 7:lrr20041. doi: 10.12942/lrr20041. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20041
 Frittelli S (1997) Note on the propagation of the constraints in standard 3+1 general relativity. Phys Rev D 55:5992–5996. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.5992 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Frittelli S, Gómez R (2000) Illposedness in the Einstein equations. J Math Phys 41:5535–5549. doi: 10.1063/1.533423. arXiv:grqc/0006082 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gerlach UH, Sengupta UK (1979a) Even parity junction conditions for perturbations on most general spherically symmetric spacetimes. J Math Phys 20:2540–2546. doi: 10.1063/1.524060 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gerlach UH, Sengupta UK (1979b) Gaugeinvariant perturbations on most general spherically symmetric spacetimes. Phys Rev D 19:2268–2272. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2268 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gerlach UH, Sengupta UK (1980) Gaugeinvariant coupled gravitational, acoustical, and electromagnetic modes on most general spherical spacetimes. Phys Rev D 22:1300–1312. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.22.1300 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Geroch R (1977) Asymptotic structure of spacetime. In: Esposito FP, Witten L (eds) Asymptotic structure of spacetime. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Geroch R, Winicour J (1981) Linkages in general relativity. J Math Phys 22:803–812. doi: 10.1063/1.524987 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Goldberg JN, MacFarlane AJ, Newman ET, Rohrlich F, Sudarshan ECG (1967) Spin\(s\) spherical harmonics and \(\eth \). J Math Phys 8:2155–2161. doi: 10.1063/1.1705135 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gómez R (2001) Gravitational waveforms with controlled accuracy. Phys Rev D 64:024007 arXiv:grqc/0103011 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gómez R, Frittelli S (2003) Firstorder quasilinear canonical representation of the characteristic formulation of the einstein equations. Phys Rev D 68:084013ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gómez R, Papadopoulos P, Winicour J (1994) Null cone evolution of axisymmetric vacuum spacetimes. J Math Phys 35:4184ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gómez R, Laguna P, Papadopoulos P, Winicour J (1996) Cauchycharacteristic evolution of Einstein–Klein–Gordon systems. Phys Rev D 54:4719–4727. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.54.4719. arXiv:grqc/9603060 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gómez R, Lehner L, Papadopoulos P, Winicour J (1997) The eth formalism in numerical relativity. Class Quantum Gravity 14:977–990 arXiv:grqc/9702002 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gourgoulhon E (2012) 3+1 Formalism in general relativity: bases of numerical relativity, vol 846, lecture notes in physics. Springer, Berlin. doi: 10.1007/9783642245251. arXiv:grqc/0703035
 Gundlach C, MartínGarcía JM (2000) Gaugeinvariant and coordinateindependent perturbations of stellar collapse I: the interior. Phys Rev D 61:08024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.61.084024. arXiv:grqc/9906068 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gundlach C, MartínGarcía JM (2001) Gaugeinvariant and coordinateindependent perturbations of stellar collapse II: matching to the exterior. Phys Rev D 64:024012 arXiv:grqc/0012056 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Gunnarsen L, Shinkai H, Maeda K (1995) A ‘3+1’ method for finding principal null directions. Class Quantum Gravity 12:133–140. doi: 10.1088/02649381/12/1/011. arXiv:grqc/9406003 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Handmer CJ, Szilágyi B (2015) Spectral characteristic evolution: a new algorithm for gravitational wave propagation. Classical and Quantum Gravity 32:025008. doi: 10.1088/02649381/32/2/025008. arXiv:1406.7029 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Handmer CJ, Szilagyi B, Winicour J (2015) Gauge invariant spectral Cauchy characteristic extraction. Class Quantum Gravity 32:235018. doi: 10.1088/02649381/32/23/235018. arXiv:1502.06987 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Handmer CJ, Szilágyi B, Winicour J (2016) Spectral Cauchy characteristic extraction of strain, news and gravitational radiation flux. ArXiv eprints ArXiv:1605.04332
 Harada T, Iguchi H, Shibata M (2003) Computing gravitational waves from slightly nonspherical stellar collapse to black hole: oddparity perturbation. Phys Rev D 68:024002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.024002. arXiv:grqc/0305058
 Helfer AD (2010) Estimating energymomentum and angular momentum near null infinity. Phys Rev D 81:084001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084001. arXiv:0907.3461 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Henry RC (2000) Kretschmann scalar for a Kerr–Newman black hole. Astrophys J 535:350–353. doi: 10.1086/308819. arXiv:astroph/9912320 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Hinder I, Wardell B, Bentivegna E (2011) Falloff of the Weyl scalars in binary black hole spacetimes. Phys Rev D 84:024036. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024036. arXiv:1105.0781 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Isaacson R (1968) Gravitational radiation in the limit of high frequency. II. Nonlinear terms and the effective stress tensor. Phys Rev 166:1272–1280. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.166.1272 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Isaacson R, Welling J, Winicour J (1983) Null cone computation of gravitational radiation. J Math Phys 24:1824. doi: 10.1063/1.525904 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ishibashi A, Kodama H (2003) Stability of higherdimensional Schwarzschild black holes. Prog Theor Phys 110:901–919. doi: 10.1143/PTP.110.901. arXiv:hepth/0305185 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Karlovini M (2002) Axial perturbations of general spherically symmetric spacetimes. Class Quantum Gravity 19:2125–2140. doi: 10.1088/02649381/19/8/305. arXiv:grqc/0111066 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kawamura M, Oohara K (2004) Gaugeinvariant gravitational wave extraction from coalescing binary neutron stars. Prog Theor Phys 111:589–594. doi: 10.1143/PTP.111.589 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kawamura M, Oohara Ki, Nakamura T (2003) General relativistic numerical simulation on coalescing binary neutron stars and gaugeinvariant gravitational wave extraction. ArXiv eprints arXiv:astroph/0306481
 Kinnersley W (1969) Type d vacuum metrics. J Math Phys 10:1195. doi: 10.1063/1.1664958 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kodama H, Ishibashi A (2003) A master equation for gravitational perturbations of maximally symmetric black holes in higher dimensions. Prog Theor Phys 110:701–722. doi: 10.1143/PTP.110.701. arXiv:hepth/0305147 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kodama H, Ishibashi A (2004) Master equations for perturbations of generalized static black holes with charge in higher dimensions. Prog Theor Phys 111:29–73. doi: 10.1143/PTP.111.29. arXiv:hepth/0308128 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kodama H, Ishibashi A, Seto O (2000) Brane world cosmology: gaugeinvariant formalism for perturbation. Phys Rev D 62:064022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.064022. arXiv:hepth/0004160 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Kreiss HO, Winicour J (2011) The wellposedness of the nulltimelike boundary problem for quasilinear waves. Class Quantum Gravity 28:145020. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/14/145020 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Landau LD, Lifshitz EM (1975) The classical theory of fields, course of theoretical physics, vol 2, 4th edn. ButterworthHeinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
 Lehner L (1998) Gravitational radiation from black hole spacetimes. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
 Lehner L (1999) A dissipative algorithm for wavelike equations in the characteristic formulation. J Comput Phys 149:59. doi: 10.1006/jcph.1998.6137 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lehner L (2000) Matching characteristic codes: exploiting two directions. Int J Mod Phys D 9:459–473. doi: 10.1142/S0218271800000451. arXiv:grqc/9911033 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 Lehner L (2001) Numerical relativity: a review. Class Quantum Gravity 18:R25–R86. doi: 10.1088/02649381/18/17/202. arXiv:grqc/0106072 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lousto CO, Price RH (1997) Headon collisions of black holes: the particle limit. Phys Rev D 55:2124–2138. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.55.2124. arXiv:grqc/9609012 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lousto CO, Zlochower Y (2007) A practical formula for the radiated angular momentum. Phys Rev D 76:041502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.041502. arXiv:grqc/0703061 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Lousto CO, Nakano H, Zlochower Y, Campanelli M (2010) Intermediatemassratio black hole binaries: intertwining numerical and perturbative techniques. Phys Rev D 82:104057. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104057 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Martel K (2004) Gravitational waveforms from a point particle orbiting a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 69:044025. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.044025. arXiv:grqc/0311017 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Martel K, Poisson E (2002) A oneparameter family of timesymmetric initial data for the radial infall of a particle into a Schwarzschild black hole. Phys Rev D 66:084001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084001. arXiv:grqc/0107104 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Martel K, Poisson E (2005) Gravitational perturbations of the Schwarzschild spacetime: a practical covariant and gaugeinvariant formalism. Phys Rev D 71:104003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.104003. arXiv:grqc/0502028 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 MartínGarcía JM, Gundlach C (1999) All nonspherical perturbations of the choptuik spacetime decay. Phys Rev D 59:064031 arXiv:grqc/9809059 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Mathews J (1962) Gravitational multipole radiation. J Soc Ind Appl Math 10:768. doi: 10.1137/0110059 MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 McKechan DJA, Robinson C, Sathyaprakash BS (2010) A tapering window for timedomain templates and simulated signals in the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing compact binaries. Class Quantum Gravity 27:084020. doi: 10.1088/02649381/27/8/084020. arXiv:1003.2939 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Misner CW, Thorne KS, Wheeler JA (1973) Gravitation. W.H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
 Moncrief V (1974) Gravitational perturbations of spherically symmetric systems. I. The exterior problem. Ann Phys 88:323–342ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nagar A, Rezzolla L (2006) Gaugeinvariant nonspherical metric perturbations of Schwarzschild blackhole spacetimes. Class Quantum Gravity 22:R167–R192. doi: 10.1088/02649381/23/12/C01 Erratumibid. 23, 4297MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nagar A, Díaz G, Pons JA, Font JA (2004) Accretiondriven gravitational radiation from nonrotating compact objects: infalling quadrupolar shells. Phys Rev D 69:124028. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.124028. arXiv:grqc/0403077 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nagar A, Font JA, Zanotti O, de Pietri R (2005) Gravitational waves from oscillating accretion tori: comparison between different approaches. Phys Rev D 72:024007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024007. arXiv:grqc/0506070 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nakamura T, Oohara K, Kojima Y (1987) General relativistic collapse to black holes and gravitational waves from black holes. Prog Theor Phys Suppl 90:1–218. doi: 10.1143/PTPS.90.1 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nakano H, Healy J, Lousto CO, Zlochower Y (2015) Perturbative extraction of gravitational waveforms generated with numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 91:104022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.104022 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nerozzi A (2007) Scalar functions for wave extraction in numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 75:104002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.75.104002. arXiv:grqc/0702001 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nerozzi A, Beetle C, Bruni M, Burko LM, Pollney D (2005) Towards wave extraction in numerical relativity: the quasiKinnersley frame. Phys Rev D 72:024014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.72.024014. arXiv:grqc/0407013 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Nerozzi A, Bruni M, Re V, Burko LM (2006) Towards a waveextraction method for numerical relativity. IV: testing the quasiKinnersley method in the Bondi–Sachs framework. Phys Rev D 73:044020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.73.044020. arXiv:grqc/0507068 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Newman ET, Penrose R (1963) An approach to gravitational radiation by a method of spin coefficients. J Math Phys 3:998. doi: 10.1063/1.1724257 Erratum in J. Math. Phys. 4ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Newman ET, Penrose R (1966) Note on the Bondi–Metzner–Sachs group. J Math Phys 7:863–870. doi: 10.1063/1.1931221 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Newman ET, SilvaOrtigoza G (2006) Tensorial spins harmonics. Class Quantum Gravity 23:497–510. doi: 10.1088/02649381/23/2/014. arXiv:grqc/0508028 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Oechslin R, Rosswog S, Thielemann FK (2002) Conformally flat smoothed particle hydrodynamics application to neutron star mergers. Phys Rev D 65:103005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.103005. arXiv:grqc/0111005 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ott CD et al (2011) Dynamics and gravitational wave signature of collapsar formation. Phys Rev Lett 106:161103. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.161103. arXiv:1012.1853 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pazos E, Dorband EN, Nagar A, Palenzuela C, Schnetter E, Tiglio M (2007) How far away is far enough for extracting numerical waveforms, and how much do they depend on the extraction method? Class Quantum Gravity 24:S341–S368. doi: 10.1088/02649381/24/12/S22. arXiv:grqc/0612149 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Penrose R (1963) Asymptotic properties of fields and spacetimes. Phys Rev Lett 10:66–68. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.10.66 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Penrose R (1964) The light cone at infinity. In: Infeld L (ed) Relativistic Theories of gravitation. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp 369–373Google Scholar
 Penrose R (1965a) Gravitational collapse and spacetime singularities. Phys Rev Lett 14:57. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57
 Penrose R (1965b) Zero restmass fields including gravitation: asymptotic behaviour. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 284:159–203. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1965.0058
 Penrose R, Rindler W (1984) Spinors and spacetime, vol. 1: twospinor calculus and relativistic fields. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Penrose R, Rindler W (1986) Spinors and spacetime, vol. 2: spinor and twistor methods in spacetime geometry. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pfeiffer HP et al (2007) Reducing orbital eccentricity in binary black hole simulations. Class Quantum Gravity 24:S59–S82. doi: 10.1088/02649381/24/12/S06. arXiv:grqc/0702106 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Poisson E (2004) Absorption of mass and angular momentum by a black hole: timedomain formalisms for gravitational perturbations, and the smallhole or slowmotion approximation. Phys Rev D 70:084044. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.084044. arXiv:grqc/0407050 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Poisson E, Pound A, Vega I (2011) The motion of point particles in curved spacetime. Living Rev Relativ 14:lrr20117. doi: 10.12942/lrr20117. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr20117, arXiv:1102.0529
 Pollney D et al (2007) Recoil velocities from equalmass binary blackhole mergers: a systematic investigation of spinorbit aligned configurations. Phys Rev D 76:124002. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.124002. arXiv:0707.2559 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pollney D, Reisswig C, Dorband N, Schnetter E, Diener P (2009) The asymptotic falloff of local waveform measurements in numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 80:121502. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.121502. arXiv:0910.3656 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pollney D, Reisswig C, Schnetter E, Dorband N, Diener P (2011) High accuracy binary black hole simulations with an extended wave zone. Phys Rev D 83:044045. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.044045. arXiv:0910.3803 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Press WH (1971) Long wave trains of gravitational waves from a vibrating black hole. Astrophys J 170:L105. doi: 10.1086/180849 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Pretorius F (2005) Numerical relativity using a generalized harmonic decomposition. Class Quantum Gravity 22:425–451. doi: 10.1088/02649381/22/2/014. arXiv:grqc/0407110 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Price RH (1972a) Nonspherical perturbations of relativistic gravitational collapse. I. Scalar and gravitational perturbations. Phys Rev D 5:2419–2438. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.2419 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Price RH (1972b) Nonspherical perturbations of relativistic gravitational collapse. II. Integerspin, zerorestmass fields. Phys Rev D 5:2439–2454. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.2439 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Price RH, Pullin J (1994) Colliding black holes: the close limit. Phys Rev Lett 72:3297–3300. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.72.3297 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Regge T, Wheeler J (1957) Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity. Phys Rev 108:1063–1069. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.108.1063 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C (2010) Binary black hole mergers and novel approaches to gravitational wave extraction in numerical relativity. PhD thesis, Universität Hannover, HannoverGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C, Pollney D (2011) Notes on the integration of numerical relativity waveforms. Class Quantum Gravity 28:195015. doi: 10.1088/02649381/28/19/195015. arXiv:1006.1632 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C, Bishop NT, Lai CW, Thornburg J, Szilagyi B (2007) Characteristic evolutions in numerical relativity using six angular patches. Class Quantum Gravity 24:327. doi: 10.1088/02649381/24/12/S21. arXiv:grqc/0610019 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C, Bishop NT, Pollney D, Szilágyi B (2009) Unambiguous determination of gravitational waveforms from binary black hole mergers. Phys Rev Lett 103:221101. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.221101. arXiv:0907.2637 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C, Bishop NT, Pollney D, Szilagyi B (2010) Characteristic extraction in numerical relativity: binary black hole merger waveforms at null infinity. Class Quantum Gravity 27:075014. doi: 10.1088/02649381/27/7/075014. arXiv:0912.1285 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C, Ott CD, Sperhake U, Schnetter E (2011) Gravitational wave extraction in simulations of rotating stellar core collapse. Phys Rev D 83:064008. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.064008. arXiv:1012.0595 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Reisswig C, Bishop NT, Pollney D (2013a) General relativistic nullcone evolutions with a highorder scheme. Gen Rel Gravit 45:1069–1094. doi: 10.1007/s1071401315131. arXiv:1208.3891
 Reisswig C, Haas R, Ott CD, Abdikamalov E, Mösta P, Pollney D, Schnetter E (2013b) Threedimensional generalrelativistic hydrodynamic simulations of binary neutron star coalescence and stellar collapse with multipatch grids. Phys Rev D 87:064023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.064023. arXiv:1212.1191
 Reula OA (1998) Hyperbolic methods for Einstein’s equations. Living Rev Relativ 1:lrr19983. doi: 10.12942/lrr19983. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr19983
 Rezzolla L, Zanotti O (2013) Relativistic hydrodynamics. Oxford University Press, Oxford. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528906.001.0001
 Rezzolla L, Abrahams AM, Matzner RA, Rupright ME, Shapiro SL (1999a) Cauchyperturbative matching and outer boundary conditions: computational studies. Phys Rev D 59:064001. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.064001. arXiv:grqc/9807047
 Rezzolla L, Shibata M, Asada H, Baumgarte TW, Shapiro SL (1999b) Constructing a masscurrent radiationreaction force for numerical simulations. Astrophys J 525:935–949. doi: 10.1086/307942. arXiv:grqc/9905027
 Robinson I, Trautman A (1962) Some spherical gravitational waves in general relativity. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 265:463–473. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1962.0036 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ruiz M, Alcubierre M, Núñez D, Takahashi R (2007) Multiple expansions for energy and momenta carried by gravitational waves. Gen Relativ Gravit 40:1705–1729. doi: 10.1007/s1071400705708 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ruiz M, Alcubierre M, Núñez D, Takahashi R (2008) Multipole expansions for energy and momenta carried by gravitational waves. Gen Relativ Gravit 40:2467–2467. doi: 10.1007/s1071400806847 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ruoff J (2001) New approach to the evolution of neutron star oscillations. Phys Rev D 63:064018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.064018. arXiv:grqc/0003088 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Ruoff J, Laguna P, Pullin J (2001) Excitation of neutron star oscillations by an orbiting particle. Phys Rev D 63:064019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.064019. arXiv:grqc/0005002 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Rupright ME, Abrahams AM, Rezzolla L (1998) Cauchyperturbative matching and outer boundary conditions I: methods and tests. Phys Rev D 58:044005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.044005 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sachs RK (1962) Gravitational waves in general relativity VIII. Waves in asymptotically flat spacetime. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 270:103–126. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1962.0206 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Santamaría L, Ohme F, Ajith P, Brügmann B, Dorband N, Hannam M, Husa S, Mösta P, Pollney D, Reisswig C, Robinson EL, Seiler J, Krishnan B (2010) Matching postNewtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for nonprecessing black hole binaries. Phys Rev D 82:064016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.064016. arXiv:1005.3306 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sarbach O, Tiglio M (2001) Gauge invariant perturbations of Schwarzschild black holes in horizonpenetrating coordinates. Phys Rev D 64:084016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.084016. arXiv:grqc/0104061 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Scheel MA, Boyle M, Chu T, Kidder LE, Matthews KD, Pfeiffer HP (2009) Highaccuracy waveforms for binary black hole inspiral, merger, and ringdown. Phys Rev D 79:024003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024003. arXiv:0810.1767 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Seidel E (1990) Gravitational radiation from evenparity perturbations of stellar collapse: mathematical formalism and numerical methods. Phys Rev D 42:1884–1907. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1884 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Seidel E (1991) Normal mode excitation from stellar collapse to a black hole: oddparity perturbations. Phys Rev D 44:950. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.44.950 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Seidel E, Da Costa GS, Demarque P (1987) Intermediateage core helium burning stars and the distance to the magellanic clouds. Astrophys J 303:192. doi: 10.1086/164961 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Seidel E, Myra ES, Moore T (1988) Gravitational radiation from typeii supernovae: the effect of the highdensity equation of state. Phys Rev D 38:2349–2356. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.38.2349 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Shibata M, Nakamura T (1995) Evolution of threedimensional gravitational waves: harmonic slicing case. Phys Rev D 52:5428–5444. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5428 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Shibata M, Sekiguchi Y (2004) Gravitational waves from axisymmetric rotating stellar core collapse to a neutron star in full general relativity. Phys Rev D 69:084024. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.084024 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Shibata M, Sekiguchi Y (2005) Threedimensional simulations of stellar core collapse in full general relativity: nonaxisymmetric dynamical instabilities. Phys Rev D 71:024014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.024014. arXiv:astroph/0412243 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Shibata M, Sekiguchi YI (2003) Gravitational waves from axisymmetrically oscillating neutron stars in general relativistic simulations. Phys Rev D 68:104020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.104020 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Shibata M, Taniguchi K, Uryū K (2003) Merger of binary neutron stars of unequal mass in full general relativity. Phys Rev D 68:084020. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.084020. arXiv:grqc/0310030 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Siebel F, Font JA, Müller E, Papadopoulos P (2003) Axisymmetric core collapse simulations using characteristic numerical relativity. Phys Rev D 67:124018. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.67.124018 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Smarr LL (1977) Spacetimes generated by computers: black holes with gravitational radiation. Ann NY Acad Sci 302:569–604. doi: 10.1111/j.17496632.1977.tb37076.x ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Sopuerta CF, Yunes N, Laguna P (2006) Gravitational recoil from binary black hole mergers: the closelimit approximation. Phys Rev D 74:124010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.74.124010. arXiv:astroph/0608600 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Stewart JM (1990) Advanced general relativity, Cambridge monographs on mathematical physics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
 Stewart JM, Friedrich H (1982) Numerical relativity. I. The characteristic initial value problem. Proc R Soc Lond Ser A 384:427–454. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1982.0166 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Szilágyi B (2000) Cauchycharacteristic matching in general relativity. PhD thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. arXiv:grqc/0006091
 Szilágyi B, Winicour J (2003) Wellposed initialboundary evolution in general relativity. Phys Rev D 68:041501. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.041501. arXiv:grqc/0205044 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Szilágyi B, Gómez R, Bishop NT, Winicour J (2000) Cauchy boundaries in linearized gravitational theory. Phys Rev D 62:104006. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.104006. arXiv:grqc/9912030 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Szilágyi B, Schmidt B, Winicour J (2002) Boundary conditions in linearized harmonic gravity. Phys Rev D 65:064015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.064015. arXiv:grqc/0106026 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Szilágyi B, Lindblom L, Scheel MA (2009) Simulations of binary black hole mergers using spectral methods. Phys Rev D 80:124010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.124010. arXiv:0909.3557 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Tamburino LA, Winicour J (1966) Gravitational fields in finite and conformal Bondi frames. Phys Rev 150:1039–1053. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.150.1039 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Taylor NW, Boyle M, Reisswig C, Scheel MA, Chu T, Kidder LE, Szilágyi B (2013) Comparing gravitational waveform extrapolation to Cauchycharacteristic extraction in binary black hole simulations. Phys Rev D 88:124010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.124010. arXiv:1309.3605 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Teukolsky SA (1972) Rotating black holes: separable wave equations for gravitational and electromagnetic perturbations. Phys Rev Lett 29:1114–1118. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.29.1114 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Teukolsky SA (1973) Perturbations of a rotating black hole. I. Fundamental equations for gravitational, electromagnetic, and neutrinofield perturbations. Astrophys J 185:635–647. doi: 10.1086/152444 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Thorne K (1980a) Gravitationalwave research: current status and future prospects. Rev Mod Phys 52:285. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.52.285 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Thorne K (1980b) Multipole expansions of gravitational radiation. Rev Mod Phys 52:299. doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.52.299 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Tominaga K, Saijo M, Maeda KI (1999) Gravitational waves from a test particle scattered by a neutron star: axial mode case. Phys Rev D 60:024004. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.024004. arXiv:grqc/9901040 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Vishveshwara CV (1970a) Scattering of gravitational radiation by a Schwarzschild blackhole. Nature 227:936. doi: 10.1038/227936a0 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Vishveshwara CV (1970b) Stability of the Schwarzschild metric. Phys Rev D 1:2870. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.1.2870 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Wald RM (1984) General relativity. University of Chicago Press, ChicagozbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Winicour J (1968) Some total invariants of asymptotically flat spacetimes. J Math Phys 9:861–867. doi: 10.1063/1.1664652 ADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Winicour J (1980) Angular momentum in general relativity. In: Held A (ed) General relativity and gravitation: one hundred years after the birth of Albert Einstein, vol 2. Plenum Press, New York, pp 71–96Google Scholar
 Winicour J (2005) Characteristic evolution and matching. Living Rev Relativ 8:lrr200510. doi: 10.12942/lrr200510. http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr200510, arXiv:grqc/0508097
 York JW Jr (1979) Kinematics and dynamics of general relativity. In: Smarr LL (ed) Sources of gravitational radiation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 83–126Google Scholar
 Zanotti O, Rezzolla L, Font JA (2003) Quasiperiodic accretion and gravitational waves from oscillating “toroidal neutron stars” around a Schwarzschild black hole. Mon Not R Astron Soc 341:832. doi: 10.1046/j.13658711.2003.06474.x ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zerilli FJ (1970a) Effective potential for evenparity Regge–Wheeler gravitational perturbation equations. Phys Rev Lett 24:737–738. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.24.737 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zerilli FJ (1970b) Gravitational field of a particle falling in a Schwarzschild geometry analyzed in tensor harmonics. Phys Rev D 2:2141. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.2.2141 ADSMathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zerilli FJ (1970c) Tensor harmonics in canonical form for gravitational radiation and other applications. J Math Phys 11:2203–2208. doi: 10.1063/1.1665380 ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zlochower Y, Gómez R, Husa S, Lehner L, Winicour J (2003) Mode coupling in the nonlinear response of black holes. Phys Rev D 68:084014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.084014 ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
 Zwerger T, Müller E (1997) Dynamics and gravitational wave signature of axisymmetric rotational core collapse. Astron Astrophys 320:209ADSGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.