Radiation, Observation, and Black-Hole Astrophysics Source Map

From radiation theory to measured astrophysical parameters

This map separates five layers that are often compressed into one citation: asymptotic radiation, perturbative or binary dynamics, waveform extraction, detector data and inference, and model-dependent astrophysical interpretation. Full treatments live in Gravitational Radiation, Black-Hole Perturbation Theory, Relativistic Two-Body Dynamics, Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, and Black-Hole Astrophysics. Each entry states what a located source can support and the nearest conclusion it cannot support.

Question	Source class and exact locator	What the source supports	Decisive exclusion
What radiative data and balance law are defined at future null infinity?	Authoritative review: Mädler and Winicour 2018, §2, printed pp. 3–7; §3, Eqs. (33)–(62), pp. 8–16; and §4, pp. 17–20.	Bondi–Sachs coordinates, asymptotic shear and news, mass aspect, vacuum mass loss, conformal completion, and BMS transformations in a declared Bondi frame.	These statements do not identify finite-radius coordinate fields with asymptotic radiation, choose a preferred BMS frame, include undeclared matter influx, or eliminate the source’s news-normalization translation.
Which equation separates Kerr perturbations, and what makes a physical boundary problem?	Primary theory paper: Teukolsky 1973, §§II–V; Eq. (4.7) and Table 1, printed pp. 640–641; Eqs. (4.8)–(4.11), p. 641; and Eqs. (5.1)–(5.8) and (5.10)–(5.11), pp. 642–643.	Linear massless integer-spin master variables on Kerr, separation into angular and radial equations, source structure, asymptotic branches, and physical horizon and infinity conditions after translating the signature, tetrad, and source conventions together.	Separation is not nonlinear stability, a generic metric-reconstruction or completeness theorem, a source-independent waveform, or a detector-level inference.
What does the original effective-one-body map actually establish?	Primary construction paper: Buonanno and Damour 1999, §§III–IV, Eqs. (49)–(65); §V, Eqs. (67)–(73); §VI; and §VII, Eqs. (127)–(137).	The original nonspinning finite-2PN real-to-effective conservative map, its canonical transformation, an improved real Hamiltonian, and a 2.5PN radiation-reaction proposal.	It does not establish modern spinning, eccentric, higher-order, or numerical-relativity-calibrated EOB accuracy, nor uniqueness of the resummation or map.
How are numerical spacetimes turned into asymptotic waveforms?	Corrected authoritative review: Bishop and Rezzolla 2016, §§2–4, especially §3.3.2, and §§5–8.	The declared $\Psi_4$, background-perturbation, extrapolation, characteristic-extraction, and Cauchy-characteristic pipelines, including tetrad, retarded-time, integration, and method-comparison checks.	Finite-radius coordinate data are not automatically Bondi data, two integrations of $\Psi_4$ are not unique without constants and drift control, and no extraction method is universally exact.
How does an interferometer produce calibrated strain?	Instrument description: Aasi et al. 2015, §§2–4. Calibration analysis: Cahillane et al. 2017, §II, Eqs. (1)–(12); §§III.1–III.4; and §IV.	Differential-arm optical response, sensing and actuation models, control-loop response reconstruction, time dependence, and frequency-dependent amplitude and phase uncertainty.	Design sensitivity is not achieved sensitivity; displacement is not strain until the response is applied; and an O1/O2 calibration model or uncertainty budget does not transfer unchanged to a later release.
When is matched filtering optimal, and what does FINDCHIRP compute?	Algorithm paper: Allen et al. 2012, §II, Eqs. (2.1)–(2.3); §IV, Eq. (4.1); and §§V–VIII.	One-sided-PSD matched filtering, data conditioning, template normalization, and trigger construction for a declared compact-binary signal family under the stationary Gaussian-noise model.	This is not a complete current search, a false-alarm or trials calculation, a universal glitch treatment, arbitrary-noise optimality, or parameter inference.
What posterior does a coherent compact-binary analysis sample?	Inference and software paper: Veitch et al. 2015, §II, Eqs. (1)–(5); §II.A, Eqs. (8)–(12); and §§III–V.	The network likelihood, priors, evidence, detector factorization, sampler implementations, and injection, convergence, and coverage checks for the stated data and waveform models.	The paper does not establish current software or waveform adequacy, universal coverage under nonstationary noise, prior-independence, or population-level inference.
What exactly is a reproducible open-data input?	Official data documentation: GWOSC 2026, § O4a and O4b R1 release details, checked 2026-08-24 and GWOSC 2026, § Event API documentation, checked 2026-08-24.	A pinned contract comprising detector, O4a or O4b R1 release, GPS interval, 4 kHz or 16 kHz strain channel, data-quality and injection masks, calibration caveats, file metadata, checksum, and retrieval date.	Availability is not data quality, a tutorial is not a production search, and an unpinned channel or mutable landing page is not enough to reproduce an analysis input.
What does binary dynamics determine about a black-hole mass?	Authoritative review: Casares and Jonker 2014, §2, Eq. (1), and §§2–2.1.	The binary mass function as a robust lower bound and the additional inclination, mass-ratio, donor, irradiation, and veiling information needed for a model-dependent posterior.	A mass function is not the exact compact-object mass, a horizon demonstration, a model-free result, or a current population statement.
Which assumptions turn accretion spectra into disk and spin estimates?	Authoritative reviews: Abramowicz and Fragile 2013, §§2–3 and §§5–10 and Reynolds 2021, §§2–6.	Disk-regime definitions and the continuum, reflection, timing, and related forward models used to infer accretion properties and dimensionless spin.	A unique spin does not follow without assumptions about disk thickness, inner edge and torque, atmosphere, distance, mass, inclination, ionization, density, emissivity, variability, calibration, and shared nuisance parameters.
What separates horizon energy extraction from an observed relativistic jet?	Authoritative review: Blandford, Meier, and Readhead 2019, §§2–4. Primary simulation: Tchekhovskoy, Narayan, and McKinney 2011, §§2–3.	Distinct layers of electromagnetic extraction, magnetic-flux supply, mass loading, collimation, propagation, dissipation, radiation, and environmental work, plus one declared GRMHD magnetically arrested energy budget.	Neither the mechanism nor one simulated efficiency proves that every observed jet is spin-powered or magnetically arrested; horizon flux and large-scale inferred jet power are different quantities.
What do EHT visibilities establish, and where does metric interpretation enter?	Primary imaging analysis: Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019, Paper IV, §§2–9. Primary metric interpretation: Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019, Paper VI, §§3–6 and §8. Official products: Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019, § releases 2019-D01-01 and 2019-D01-02, including Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019, release § 2019-D01-01 DOI record and Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration 2019, release § 2019-D01-02 imaging pipelines.	Calibrated visibility provenance, independently tested imaging pipelines, robust ring reconstruction, and the additional simulation and external-information layer used to infer a gravitational angular scale.	An emission ring is not automatically the metric critical curve, shadow boundary, or horizon; sparse coverage, calibration, variability, regularization, simulation-library, distance, and pipeline systematics remain.

References

• Aasi, J., et al. “Advanced LIGO.” Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 (2015) 074001. DOI; arXiv:1411.4547.
• Abramowicz, Marek A., and P. Chris Fragile. “Foundations of Black Hole Accretion Disk Theory.” Living Reviews in Relativity 16 (2013) 1. DOI; arXiv:1104.5499.
• Allen, Bruce, Warren G. Anderson, Patrick R. Brady, Duncan A. Brown, and Jolien D. E. Creighton. “FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for Detection of Gravitational Waves from Inspiraling Compact Binaries.” Physical Review D 85 (2012) 122006. DOI; arXiv:gr-qc/0509116.
• Bishop, Nigel T., and Luciano Rezzolla. “Extraction of Gravitational Waves in Numerical Relativity.” Living Reviews in Relativity 19 (2016) 2, corrected version. DOI; arXiv:1606.02532.
• Blandford, Roger, David Meier, and Anthony Readhead. “Relativistic Jets from Active Galactic Nuclei.” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 57 (2019) 467–509. DOI; arXiv:1812.06025.
• Buonanno, Alessandra, and Thibault Damour. “Effective One-Body Approach to General Relativistic Two-Body Dynamics.” Physical Review D 59 (1999) 084006. DOI; arXiv:gr-qc/9811091v1.
• Cahillane, Craig, et al. “Calibration Uncertainty for Advanced LIGO’s First and Second Observing Runs.” Physical Review D 96 (2017) 102001. DOI; arXiv:1708.03023v3.
• Casares, Jorge, and Peter G. Jonker. “Mass Measurements of Stellar and Intermediate-Mass Black Holes.” Space Science Reviews 183 (2014) 223–252. arXiv:1311.5118.
• Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. IV. Imaging the Central Supermassive Black Hole.” Astrophysical Journal Letters 875 (2019) L4. DOI; arXiv:1906.11241.
• Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. The Shadow and Mass of the Central Black Hole.” Astrophysical Journal Letters 875 (2019) L6. DOI; arXiv:1906.11243.
• Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. “Public Data Products for the First M87 Results.” Event Horizon Telescope official data-products registry, 2019. Registry; 2019-D01-01 calibrated data; 2019-D01-02 imaging pipelines.
• Gravitational Wave Open Science Center. “O4 Data Release Details, API Documentation, and Acknowledgment Policy.” Checked 2026-08-24. O4 release; API; acknowledgment.
• Mädler, Thomas, and Jeffrey Winicour. “Bondi–Sachs Formalism.” Scholarpedia 11 (2016) 33528; revised arXiv version, 2018. arXiv:1609.01731v3.
• Reynolds, Christopher S. “Observational Constraints on Black Hole Spin.” Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 59 (2021) 117–154. DOI; arXiv:2011.08948.
• Tchekhovskoy, Alexander, Ramesh Narayan, and Jonathan C. McKinney. “Efficient Generation of Jets from Magnetically Arrested Accretion on a Rapidly Spinning Black Hole.” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 418 (2011) L79–L83. DOI; arXiv:1108.0412v1.
• Teukolsky, Saul A. “Perturbations of a Rotating Black Hole. I. Fundamental Equations for Gravitational, Electromagnetic, and Neutrino-Field Perturbations.” Astrophysical Journal 185 (1973) 635–647. DOI; ADS scan.
• Veitch, John, et al. “Parameter Estimation for Compact Binaries with Ground-Based Gravitational-Wave Observations Using the LALInference Software Library.” Physical Review D 91 (2015) 042003. DOI; arXiv:1409.7215.