AWhat changed
The LIGO Scientific, Virgo and KAGRA collaborations analysed the post-merger signal of GW250114, detected by the two LIGO instruments in January 2025. Fits to the post-peak waveform favored a second rapidly damped component alongside the dominant ringdown, consistent within uncertainty with a Kerr black hole’s first overtone. A separate analysis of the full inspiral–merger–ringdown waveform constrained additional mode-frequency deviations and found consistency with the modeled general-relativity prediction.
Scientific scope
The LIGO Scientific, Virgo and KAGRA collaborations analysed the post-merger signal of GW250114, detected by the two LIGO instruments in January 2025. Fits to the post-peak waveform favored a second rapidly damped component alongside the dominant ringdown, consistent within uncertainty with a Kerr black hole’s first overtone. A separate analysis of the full inspiral–merger–ringdown waveform constrained additional mode-frequency deviations and found consistency with the modeled general-relativity prediction. Virgo and KAGRA instruments were offline for the event, though their collaborations coauthored the analysis. Mode identification, significance and parameter bounds depend on fit start time, noise, priors and waveform model. The full-signal 440-mode model does not allow its amplitude to vanish and alone cannot establish the mode’s presence. The second overtone was not confidently measured. The v1 paper discloses a likelihood error affecting some PCA and prior-event comparison analyses; other corrected and unaffected analyses must not be conflated with those results. The 2026 published version and raw data have not been independently reconciled. The supplementary area-law comparison uses inspiral and post-inspiral portions of the same event split in frequency, with Kerr area and numerical-relativity fits. The authors report 4.8σ under a difference-of-means statistic and 3.7σ for a fractional-area statistic, not interchangeable significances; stronger GR assumptions and full-signal use make comparison with the separate time-domain analysis conditional. The residual test reports p = 0.34 for this one event, which does not prove GR or exclude every alternative.
Evidence
The linked original works support the scoped statement and contribution attribution. WRS has not independently replayed experiments or reconstructed a full mathematical proof. Virgo and KAGRA instruments were offline for the event, though their collaborations coauthored the analysis. Mode identification, significance and parameter bounds depend on fit start time, noise, priors and waveform model. The full-signal 440-mode model does not allow its amplitude to vanish and alone cannot establish the mode’s presence. The second overtone was not confidently measured. The v1 paper discloses a likelihood error affecting some PCA and prior-event comparison analyses; other corrected and unaffected analyses must not be conflated with those results. The 2026 published version and raw data have not been independently reconciled. The supplementary area-law comparison uses inspiral and post-inspiral portions of the same event split in frequency, with Kerr area and numerical-relativity fits. The authors report 4.8σ under a difference-of-means statistic and 3.7σ for a fractional-area statistic, not interchangeable significances; stronger GR assumptions and full-signal use make comparison with the separate time-domain analysis conditional. The residual test reports p = 0.34 for this one event, which does not prove GR or exclude every alternative.
Contributors
- The named authors in the research record · SCIENCE: Credit belongs to the cited collaborations. The individual author list is incomplete; no sole discoverer or individual effort share is inferred.
Provisional WRS assessment, edition 2026-10-28.1. Independent expert calibration is pending. This grade does not certify correctness or assign ownership.
Full scientific record · Browse contribution grades · Request a correction