Knapp et al. (Phys. Rev. D 113, 124001 (2026)) compared waveforms of binary-black-hole simulations from the SXS catalog produced by the Spectral Einstein Code (SpEC) at different numerical resolutions, and found that both the generalized frequency-weighted mismatch and the spread of per-mode amplitude and phase differences grow with the effective precession parameter χp\chi_p (the in-plane, precessing spin), while showing little correlation with aligned spin or eccentricity. The authors only suspect that the origin lies in SpEC's co-orbital-frame grid, whose spin-dependent near-zone geometry varies on the fast orbital timescale when in-plane spins are large. The open problem is to definitively establish the numerical mechanism responsible for this precessing-spin error scaling — confirming, refuting, or replacing the co-orbital-grid hypothesis — to determine whether the effect is specific to SpEC's spectral discretization or generic across numerical-relativity codes, and thereby to establish whether and how it can be mitigated in future versions of SpEC.

Background

Numerical relativity (NR) simulations solve Einstein's equations numerically to obtain the complete dynamics and gravitational radiation of merging compact binaries. The Spectral Einstein Code (SpEC), developed by the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) Collaboration, is a pseudo-spectral collocation code: rather than finite differences on a fixed grid, it expands the fields in spectral (polynomial) basis functions on a set of subdomains that move and deform with the binary. SpEC produced the SXS catalog, the largest public catalog of binary-black-hole waveforms; its third release contains 3,756 configurations, many evolved at more than one numerical resolution so that accuracy can be estimated by comparing different resolutions of the same physical system — the inter-resolution error. These waveforms calibrate and train the surrogate models (fast interpolants built directly on NR waveforms) and phenomenological models used in LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data analysis, so their numerical error floor directly limits gravitational-wave inference, especially for loud events observed by next-generation detectors.

Knapp et al. introduced three inter-resolution accuracy metrics and applied them across the SXS catalog: (i) the generalized frequency-weighted mismatch, an extension of the standard noise-weighted waveform inner product in which a frequency weight indexed by an integer nn increasingly emphasizes higher frequencies (and hence the late inspiral, merger, and ringdown), with the two resolutions first aligned in time and phase by minimizing a normalized L2L^2 norm; (ii) the relative amplitude difference; and (iii) the phase difference between resolutions, computed mode by mode for the dominant spin-weighted spherical-harmonic modes (2,2)(2,2), (2,1)(2,1), and (3,3)(3,3) of the gravitational-wave strain. Their findings: errors accumulate over the evolution but are not intrinsically larger at merger; amplitude and phase differences are statistically symmetric under exchanging the two resolutions, indicating random rather than systematic error; and, centrally here, both the mismatch and the width of the phase-difference distributions grow with χp\chi_p — a mass-ratio-weighted measure of the black-hole spin components lying in the orbital plane (in-plane spins). When spins are misaligned with the orbital angular momentum, the orbital plane precesses, so χp\chi_p quantifies how strongly precessing the binary is; no comparable correlation was found with the aligned-spin combination χeff\chi_{\rm eff} or with eccentricity.

The authors' explanation for the χp\chi_p correlation is explicitly a suspicion, not an established result. SpEC's computational grid is defined in the co-orbital frame, a frame tied to the orbital motion. In that frame, in-plane spin components vary on the fast orbital timescale, whereas aligned spin components vary only on the much slower radiation-reaction (inspiral-shrinking) timescale; since the near-zone geometry around rapidly spinning holes is strongly spin-dependent, the geometry that the grid must resolve changes most rapidly for large in-plane spins, plausibly making those systems harder to resolve. Confirming, refuting, or refining this mechanism — and, depending on the answer, removing it — is left open. Known confounders that any such investigation must control include junk radiation (spurious initial gravitational radiation from imperfect initial data, handled by discarding early times), waveform-extraction and extrapolation errors, gauge choices, and the physical growth of waveform morphological complexity with precession, which is distinct from any discretization artifact.

Problem Statement

Knapp et al. measured, but did not establish the origin of, the growth of inter-resolution waveform error with in-plane (precessing) spin χp\chi_p in SpEC simulations of binary black holes, across all three of their accuracy metrics (the generalized frequency-weighted mismatch and the per-mode relative amplitude and phase differences). The open problem is to determine, definitively, the numerical mechanism responsible for this error scaling.

Specifically: (1) confirm, refute, or replace the authors' hypothesis that SpEC's co-orbital-frame grid — in which the spin-dependent near-zone geometry varies on the fast orbital timescale when in-plane spins are large — is the root cause of the larger errors; (2) as part of the mechanism attribution, establish whether the χp\chi_p-dependence is specific to SpEC's spectral, co-orbital-grid discretization or generic to the discretizations commonly used in numerical relativity, since this determines whether the trend is a removable artifact of one code; and (3) on that basis, establish whether and how the effect can be mitigated.

These three components serve one overarching objective: a settled, evidence-based account of why precessing systems are harder to resolve in SpEC (or a demonstration that they are not, once confounders are excluded). Components (2) and (3) enter as downstream consequences of settling the mechanism, not as independent sub-questions. The effect is settled when the co-orbital-grid hypothesis is confirmed, refuted with an identified alternative, or refined by sufficient evidence. Confounders such as junk radiation, waveform-extraction error, gauge choices, and the physical increase of waveform complexity with precession must be controlled or excluded, since any of them could mimic a grid effect.

References

  1. T. Knapp, K. Chatziioannou, K. Mitman, M. A. Scheel, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, and H. Pfeiffer, "A comprehensive look into the accuracy of SpEC binary black hole waveforms", Physical Review D 113, 124001 (2026). DOI: 10.1103/dmpn-q3fk (arXiv:2510.06393), https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06393
  2. M. A. Scheel, M. Boyle, K. Mitman, N. Deppe, L. C. Stein, C. Armaza, M. S. Bonilla, L. T. Buchman, A. Ceja, H. Chaudhary, et al. (SXS Collaboration), "The SXS Collaboration's third catalog of binary black hole simulations", Classical and Quantum Gravity 42, 195017 (2025). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6382/adfd34 (arXiv:2505.13378), https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.13378
  3. G. Ficarra, J. Healy, and C. O. Lousto, "The Fifth RIT Catalog of Binary Black Hole Simulations: Multiple-Resolution Studies of Eccentric Orbits" (2026). arXiv:2606.10104, https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.10104
  4. B. C. Seymour, J. Golomb, and Y. Chen, "Inspiral tests of general relativity and waveform geometry", Physical Review D 114, 024059 (2026). DOI: 10.1103/nw3l-qld4 (arXiv:2602.17524), https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.17524
  5. L. M. Thomas, K. Chatziioannou, S. Johar, T. Knapp, and M. Boyle, "Revisiting the Coprecessing Frame in the Presence of Orbital Eccentricity" (2026). arXiv:2603.29307, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29307
  6. S. Kumar, M. Melching, and F. Ohme, "Accounting for the Known Unknowns: A Parametric Framework to Incorporate Systematic Waveform Errors in Gravitational-Wave Parameter Estimation", Physical Review D 112, 104071 (2025). DOI: 10.1103/nkq9-zh2y (arXiv:2502.17400), https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.17400
  7. L. Pompili, A. Buonanno, and M. Pürrer, "Accounting for numerical-relativity calibration uncertainty in gravitational-wave modeling and inference", Physical Review D 112, 044062 (2025). DOI: 10.1103/5kbh-83k7 (arXiv:2410.16859), https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.16859