pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.22862 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-30 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Parameter Estimation with Targeted Eccentric Numerical-Relativity Simulations for GW200208₂2 and GW190620

Patricia McMillin (RIT) , Katelyn J. Wagner (RIT) , Giuseppe Ficarra (UNICAL) , Carlos O. Lousto (RIT) , Richard O'Shaughnessy (RIT) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 02:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavesbinary black holeseccentricitynumerical relativityparameter estimationLVK eventsGW200208_22GW190620
0
0 comments X

The pith

Targeted numerical relativity simulations confirm eccentricity around 0.2 for GW200208_22

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper takes gravitational wave events previously flagged for possible eccentricity by approximate models and tests them directly against exact numerical solutions of Einstein's equations. It adds 42 new targeted eccentric binary black hole simulations to an existing bank and runs Bayesian parameter estimation on the LVK data for GW200208_22 and GW190620. The resulting posterior for GW200208_22 favors an eccentricity of roughly 0.2 at 20 Hz with a 90 percent credible interval, and the single best-matching waveform improves the likelihood relative to model-based fits.

Core claim

By confronting the LVK data for GW200208_22 with a bank of full numerical relativity waveforms that includes 42 newly generated targeted eccentric simulations, the RIFT analysis produces a KDE posterior that favors e20 = 0.198 with uncertainties -0.180 to +0.119 at 20 Hz; the highest-likelihood waveform has e20 = 0.200. The same approach applied to GW190620 yields a KDE estimate e10 = 0.190 with uncertainties -0.186 to +0.046 at 10 Hz. The authors note that additional targeted simulations will be needed to tighten these ranges.

What carries the argument

A bank of nearly two thousand numerical relativity simulations of eccentric binary black holes, augmented with 42 event-specific targeted runs, inserted into the RIFT Bayesian parameter estimation pipeline to produce KDE posteriors and maximum-likelihood waveform matches.

If this is right

  • GW200208_22 data are better matched by an eccentric numerical waveform than by previous model-based circular or low-eccentricity assumptions.
  • The eccentricity hypothesis for GW200208_22 is independently reinforced by direct comparison to full numerical solutions rather than approximate models alone.
  • GW190620 shows a similar but broader preference for eccentricity near 0.19 at 10 Hz.
  • Further targeted numerical relativity runs are required before the eccentricity intervals can be narrowed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method supplies an independent cross-check on eccentricity estimates obtained from effective-one-body or phenomenological models.
  • Repeating the targeted-simulation approach on additional candidate eccentric events would test how often such signals appear in the current catalog.
  • Narrower eccentricity posteriors would sharpen constraints on the relative contribution of dynamical versus isolated binary formation channels.

Load-bearing premise

The 42 new targeted numerical relativity simulations cover the relevant parameter space around the candidate eccentric values without gaps that could bias the maximum-likelihood selection or the KDE posterior.

What would settle it

A re-analysis with a denser set of eccentric or circular numerical relativity simulations that produces a significantly higher likelihood for a waveform with eccentricity below 0.05 would falsify the current eccentric preference.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22862 by Carlos O. Lousto (RIT), Giuseppe Ficarra (UNICAL), Katelyn J. Wagner (RIT), Patricia McMillin (RIT), Richard O'Shaughnessy (RIT).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. We ensure that a consistent definition of eccen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. A corner plot showing the results of NR based PE for GW200208 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. A corner plot showing the results of NR based PE for GW200208 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Model-based parameter estimation using RIFT with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of frequency vs time (left), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Model-based parameter estimation using RIFT with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. In addition to the (2,2) mode, we examine higher [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Gaussian Process fit for the top match [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Best fitting time-domain NR waveform (eBBH::08) overlaid on whitened strain data near GW200208 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. A corner plot showing the results of NR based PE for GW190620 using all available RIT NR simulations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Kernel density estimate of the GW200208 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We have analyzed LVK gravitational wave events that show some evidence of eccentricity from TEOBResumS modeling parameter estimations and have confronted them independently with full numerical generated waveforms from our bank of nearly two thousand simulations of binary black holes. We have used RIFT for Bayesian parameter estimation and found that GW200208_22 KDE estimates favor eccentricities $e_{20} = 0.198_{-0.180}^{+0.119}$ upon entering the LVK band at $\sim20$Hz within a $90\%$ confidence interval. Within this event analysis we employed 42 new targeted full numerical relativity simulations and we have thus found a top improved likelihood $\ln\mathcal{L}$ matching waveform, compared to model-based analysis, with an estimated eccentricity at 20Hz, $e_{20}=0.200$, thus reinforcing the eccentric hypothesis of the binary. We have also used our full bank of numerical waveforms on GW190620 finding that the KDE estimate favors eccentricities at 10 Hz in $e_{10}=0.190_{-0.186}^{+0.046}$. New specifically targeted simulations will be required to narrow these eccentricity ranges.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes two LVK gravitational-wave events, GW200208_22 and GW190620, that previously showed eccentricity indications under TEOBResumS modeling. Using a bank of nearly 2000 binary black hole numerical relativity simulations (supplemented by 42 new targeted runs for the first event) and the RIFT Bayesian inference code, the authors derive KDE posteriors on eccentricity at a reference frequency, reporting e_{20} = 0.198_{-0.180}^{+0.119} (90% CI) for GW200208_22 at 20 Hz and e_{10} = 0.190_{-0.186}^{+0.046} for GW190620 at 10 Hz. For GW200208_22 the best-matching targeted NR waveform yields an improved ln L and an eccentricity e_{20}=0.200, which the authors interpret as reinforcing the eccentric hypothesis; they note that further targeted simulations will be required to narrow the ranges.

Significance. If the 42 targeted NR simulations provide adequate coverage and the likelihood improvement is robust to interpolation and error budgets, the work would supply an independent NR-based check on eccentricity for specific events, complementing model-based analyses and demonstrating the utility of hybrid NR banks for parameter estimation. The scale of the existing simulation bank and the direct use of RIFT on discrete NR waveforms are positive features that could be strengthened by explicit validation.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 and §4] §3 (Targeted NR Simulations) and §4 (Parameter Estimation): the manuscript states that 42 new targeted simulations were generated around candidate eccentric values from prior TEOBResumS results, yet provides no quantitative description of the selection grid, spacing in the (mass, spin, eccentricity) space, or mismatch-based coverage tests. Because RIFT selects or interpolates from the discrete bank, insufficient sampling could bias the reported maximum-likelihood waveform and distort the KDE posterior; this is load-bearing for the central claim of an improved ln L at e_{20}=0.200.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (Results for GW200208_22): the reported KDE interval e_{20} = 0.198_{-0.180}^{+0.119} and the best-match eccentricity e_{20}=0.200 rest on the assumption that the true parameters lie inside the volume covered by the 42 simulations; without reported validation (e.g., waveform mismatch surfaces or recovery tests on injected signals), the possibility remains that unsampled regions hide higher-likelihood solutions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §2] The notation e_{20} and e_{10} is introduced without an explicit definition of the reference frequency or the exact eccentricity measure (e.g., at a fixed time or frequency); a brief clarifying sentence would improve readability.
  2. [Figure 1 and §4] Figure captions and text should state the total number of simulations actually used in the RIFT runs for each event (bank size versus the 42 targeted subset) to allow readers to assess effective sampling density.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments and positive evaluation of the potential significance of our work. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4] §3 (Targeted NR Simulations) and §4 (Parameter Estimation): the manuscript states that 42 new targeted simulations were generated around candidate eccentric values from prior TEOBResumS results, yet provides no quantitative description of the selection grid, spacing in the (mass, spin, eccentricity) space, or mismatch-based coverage tests. Because RIFT selects or interpolates from the discrete bank, insufficient sampling could bias the reported maximum-likelihood waveform and distort the KDE posterior; this is load-bearing for the central claim of an improved ln L at e_{20}=0.200.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative description of the targeted simulation selection is needed to fully support the robustness of the RIFT results. In the revised manuscript we will add an explicit description of the grid in (mass, spin, eccentricity) space, the spacing used, and any mismatch-based coverage tests that were performed on the 42 new runs. This addition will directly address the concern about possible bias in the maximum-likelihood waveform and KDE posterior. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (Results for GW200208_22): the reported KDE interval e_{20} = 0.198_{-0.180}^{+0.119} and the best-match eccentricity e_{20}=0.200 rest on the assumption that the true parameters lie inside the volume covered by the 42 simulations; without reported validation (e.g., waveform mismatch surfaces or recovery tests on injected signals), the possibility remains that unsampled regions hide higher-likelihood solutions.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit validation would strengthen the claim that the sampled volume contains the relevant high-likelihood region. In the revised manuscript we will include waveform mismatch surfaces and/or recovery tests on injected signals to demonstrate coverage and to show that no substantially higher-likelihood solutions exist outside the targeted grid. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper selects LVK events showing eccentricity evidence from prior TEOBResumS modeling and then performs independent Bayesian parameter estimation using RIFT on a bank of full numerical-relativity waveforms, including 42 newly generated targeted simulations. The reported KDE posteriors (e.g., e20 = 0.198 with uncertainties) and best-match likelihoods are obtained directly from comparisons to these NR waveforms rather than by re-deriving or fitting to the TEOBResumS results. No equations or steps reduce the final eccentricity estimates to the input selection by construction, and the approach relies on first-principles NR simulations as an external benchmark. The derivation is therefore self-contained with no self-definitional, fitted-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of general relativity and numerical relativity accuracy for eccentric binaries, plus the modeling choice that the selected events are well-described by the existing NR bank plus the 42 new runs. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond the usual binary parameters.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Numerical relativity waveforms accurately represent the true gravitational wave signal for eccentric binary black holes within the parameter range explored.
    Invoked when using the NR bank and new simulations to confront the data.
  • domain assumption The RIFT Bayesian sampler correctly marginalizes over the parameters when comparing to the discrete NR waveform bank.
    Required for the reported KDE posteriors and likelihood comparisons.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5775 in / 1451 out tokens · 67314 ms · 2026-05-19T02:46:37.840227+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Population Properties of Binary Black Holes with Eccentricity

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 8.0

    First joint population inference on binary black hole eccentricity from GWTC-4 bounds the eccentric branching ratio below 5% at 90% confidence, with results consistent with quasi-circular models but highly model-dependent.

  2. Including higher-order modes in a quadrupolar eccentric numerical relativity surrogate using universal eccentric modulation functions

    gr-qc 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    The gwNRHME framework constructs a multi-modal non-spinning eccentric gravitational waveform surrogate by modulating quasi-circular models with universal eccentric functions, achieving median mismatches of ~9e-5 again...

  3. Assessing the imprint of eccentricity in GW signatures using two independent waveform models

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Dual-model analysis of 162 GW sources disfavors eccentricity for most events but finds potential evidence in GW200129, GW231001, and GW231123.

  4. Biased parameter inference of eccentric, spin-precessing binary black holes

    gr-qc 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Eccentric BBH signals recovered with quasi-circular precessing models show biases in chirp mass and χ_p; Bayes factors favor eccentric aligned-spin models when both eccentricity and precession are present.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 90 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 25 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Parameter Estimation with Targeted Eccentric Numerical-Relativity Simulations for GW200208_22 and GW190620

    and Virgo [2], now joined by KAGRA [3] con- tinue to identify coalescing compact binaries [4–9]. Their properties are understood by comparing gravi- tational wave (GW) observations to estimates of the radiation emitted from merging binary black holes, produced by detailed numerical calculations or phe- nomenological estimates. Most compact binaries that e...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    posterior samples

    Model Based RIFT In the second iterative stage for a model-based run, RIFT first approximates L(λ) based on the set of evaluations {(λα, Lα)}. Then, using this approxi- mation, RIFT generates a full posterior distribution over the intrinsic parameters ppost(λλλ) = Lmarg(λλλ)p(λλλ)R dλλλLmarg(λλλ)p(λλλ) (4) where p(λλλ) is the prior on the intrinsic parame...

    work page

  3. [3]

    NR Based RIFT The second phase of RIFT must be slightly differ- ent when using numerical relativity simulations as grid points. Each NR simulation corresponds to a particular combination of the intrinsic parameters λλλ (mass ratio, spin components, and eccentricity) but can be scaled to any value of total mass. Therefore the second phase of RIFT instead m...

    work page

  4. [4]

    is χeff = 0.45+0.43 −0.44 Figure 2 shows our analysis of GW200208 22 us- ing direct comparison to nonprecessing numerical relativity simulations, as described in Section II E. While our underlying catalog of nonprecessing ec- centric NR simulations has only a few simulations which have optimal e and χeff, our catalog and thus analysis specifically include...

    work page 2000

  5. [5]

    This event also has significant support for positive effective spin where the reported effective spin from Table VI of [8] is χeff = 0.33+0.22 −0.25

    GW190620 an event with SNR 12 .1+0.3 −0.4 where the component masses, mass ratio and chirp mass in the detector frame as reported in [82] are: m1 = 84.6+20.0 −15.4, m2 = 53.1+17.1 −19.7, q = 0.62+0.33 −0.27, and Mc = 57.6+9.0 −11.2. This event also has significant support for positive effective spin where the reported effective spin from Table VI of [8] i...

    work page

  6. [6]

    we have found a simulation with an even higher likelihood than any of the 39 targeted simulations. In summary, we have found strong support to the second case (after GW190521) of clear non negligible eccentricity in a BBH entering the sensitivity band of LVK with the studies performed on GW200208 22. This result is supported by waveform models and indepen...

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Acernese et al., Class

    F. Acernese et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  9. [9]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, Y. Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, Y. Aso, S. Bae, Y. Bae, L. Baiotti, R. Bajpai, M. A. Barton, K. Cannon, E. Capocasa, M. Chan, C. Chen, K. Chen, Y. Chen, 18 TABLE IV. Properties of the sequence of simulations described in Sec.II C. We report the remnant mass Mf /M and spin χf, the radiated energy δM = MADM − Mf, merger...

    work page arXiv 1904

  10. [10]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett 116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  11. [11]

    Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run

    B. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collabora- tion and the Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016), arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Col- laboration, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Ab- bott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett 119, 161101 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), As- trophys

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Ad- hikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., Astro- physical Journal 915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, and et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024)

    work page 2024

  15. [15]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agarwal, and et al., Physical Review X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    H. A. Bethe and G. E. Brown, The Astrophysical Journal 506, 780–789 (1998)

    work page 1998

  17. [17]

    Belczynski, V

    K. Belczynski, V. Kalogera, and T. Bulik, The As- trophysical Journal 572, 407–431 (2002)

    work page 2002

  18. [18]

    Stevenson, A

    S. Stevenson, A. Vigna-G´ omez, I. Mandel, J. W. Barrett, C. J. Neijssel, D. Perkins, and S. E. de Mink, Nature Communications 8 (2017), 10.1038/ncomms14906

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms14906 2017

  19. [19]

    Mandel and R

    I. Mandel and R. O 'Shaughnessy, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 114007 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    The Total Merger Rate of Compact Object Binaries In The Local Universe

    A. Sadowski et al., Astrophys. J. 676, 1162 (2008), arXiv:0710.0878 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  21. [21]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151101 (2018)

    work page 2018

  22. [22]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ec

    M. Zevin, J. Samsing, C. Rodriguez, C.-J. Haster, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astrophysical Journal 871 (2019), 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ec

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ec 2019

  23. [23]

    Fragione and J

    G. Fragione and J. Silk, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 498, 4591 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/498/4/4591/33798574/staa2629.pdf

    work page 2020

  24. [24]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The Astrophysical Journal 784, 71 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Close encounters of three black holes

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D77, 101501(R) (2008), arXiv:0710.0879 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  26. [26]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D77, 024034 (2008), arXiv:0711.1165 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Close encounter of three black holes revisited,

    G. Ficarra, A. Ciarfella, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064045 (2023), arXiv:2308.07365 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Close en- counter of three black holes. III,

    G. Ficarra and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084072 (2024), arXiv:2406.11985 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, K. Kremer, F. A. Rasio, J. Samsing, C. S. Ye, and M. Zevin, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123005 (2018)

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    Romero-Shaw, P

    I. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. C. Bustillo, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 903, L5 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Romero-Shaw, P

    I. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, As- trophysical Journal 921, L31 (2021)

    work page 2021

  32. [32]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J. 940, 171 (2022), arXiv:2206.14695 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 490, 5210–5216 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [34]

    Payne, C

    E. Payne, C. Talbot, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D 100, 123017 (2019)

    work page 2019

  35. [35]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, X. Jim´ enez Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Phys. Rev.D93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  36. [36]

    Cao and W.-B

    Z. Cao and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044028 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044049 (2020)

    work page 2020

  38. [38]

    Romero-Shaw, P

    I. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, The Astrophysical Journal 940, 171 (2022)

    work page 2022

  39. [39]

    Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA

    N. Gupte et al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buo- nanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Physical Review Letters 127 (2021), 10.1103/physrevlett.127.241103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.241103 2021

  41. [41]

    An improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors

    A. Boh´ e et al. , Phys. Rev. D95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Cotesta, A

    R. Cotesta, A. Buonanno, A. Boh´ e, A. Taracchini, I. Hinder, and S. Ossokine, Physical Review D 98 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.98.084028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.084028 2018

  43. [43]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Ossokine, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.044035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.044035 2022

  44. [45]

    Romero-Shaw, J

    I. Romero-Shaw, J. Stegmann, H. Tagawa, D. Gerosa, J. Samsing, N. Gupte, and S. R. Green, “Gw200208 222617 as an eccentric black-hole bi- nary merger: properties and astrophysical implica- tions,” (2025), arXiv:2506.17105 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    H. L. Iglesias, J. Lange, I. Bartos, S. Bhaumik, 20 R. Gamba, V. Gayathri, A. Jan, R. Nowicki, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. M. Shoemaker, R. Venkatara- manan, and K. Wagner, Astrophysical Journal 972, 65 (2024), arXiv:2208.01766 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    Manca, S

    A. Nagar, S. Bernuzzi, W. D. Pozzo, G. Riemen- schneider, S. Akcay, G. Carullo, P. Fleig, S. Babak, K. W. Tsang, M. Colleoni, F. Messina, G. Pratten, D. Radice, P. Rettegno, M. Agathos, E. Fauchon- Jones, M. Hannam, S. Husa, T. Dietrich, P. Cerd´ a- Duran, J. A. Font, F. Pannarale, P. Schmidt, and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018), 10.1103/phys- revd.98.104052

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2018

  47. [48]

    Nagar, A

    A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  48. [49]

    Albanesi, A

    S. Albanesi, A. Placidi, A. Nagar, M. Orselli, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 105, L121503 (2022), arXiv:2203.16286 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  49. [50]

    Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries

    J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:1805.10457 (2018), arXiv:1805.10457 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [51]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, J. Lange, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124053 (2020), arXiv:2010.00108 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  51. [52]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104018 (2020), arXiv:2007.07910 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [53]

    Chatziioannou et al

    K. Chatziioannou et al. , Phys. Rev. D100, 104015 (2019), arXiv:1903.06742 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  53. [54]

    Modeling the source of GW150914 with targeted numerical-relativity simulations

    G. Lovelace et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 244002 (2016), arXiv:1607.05377 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [55]

    Gayathri, J

    V. Gayathri, J. Healy, J. Lange, B. O’Brien, M. Szczepanczyk, I. Bartos, M. Campanelli, S. Kli- menko, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Na- ture Astron. 6, 344 (2022), arXiv:2009.05461 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  55. [56]

    Gamba, M

    R. Gamba, M. Breschi, G. Carullo, S. Albanesi, P. Rettegno, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Nature Astronomy 7, 11–17 (2022)

    work page 2022

  56. [57]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [58]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and M. Cam- panelli, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 224001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  58. [59]

    Healy, C

    J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, Y. Zlochower, and M. Campanelli, Physical Review D 100 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.100.024021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.024021 2019

  59. [60]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Physical Review D 102 (2020), 10.1103/physrevd.102.104018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.104018 2020

  60. [61]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Physical Review D 105 (2022), 10.1103/physrevd.105.124010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.124010 2022

  61. [62]

    Accurate black hole evolutions by fourth-order numerical relativity

    Y. Zlochower, J. G. Baker, M. Campanelli, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D72, 024021 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505055

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  62. [63]

    Accuracy Issues for Numerical Waveforms

    Y. Zlochower, M. Ponce, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D86, 104056 (2012), arXiv:1208.5494 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  63. [64]

    A simple construction of initial data for multiple black holes

    S. Brandt and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3606 (1997), gr-qc/9703066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  64. [65]

    A single-domain spectral method for black hole puncture data

    M. Ansorg, B. Br¨ ugmann, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D70, 064011 (2004), gr-qc/0404056

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  65. [66]

    A Fast Apparent-Horizon Finder for 3-Dimensional Cartesian Grids in Numerical Relativity

    J. Thornburg, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 743 (2004), gr-qc/0306056

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  66. [67]

    Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Living Rev. Rel. 7, 10 (2004), gr-qc/0407042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  67. [68]

    Spin Flips and Precession in Black-Hole-Binary Mergers

    M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, B. Kr- ishnan, and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. D75, 064030 (2007), gr-qc/0612076

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [69]

    Evolutions in 3D numerical relativity using fixed mesh refinement

    E. Schnetter, S. H. Hawley, and I. Hawke, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 1465 (2004), gr-qc/0310042

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  69. [70]

    C. O. Lousto and J. Healy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 191102 (2020), arXiv:2006.04818 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  70. [71]

    Second order gauge invariant gravitational perturbations of a Kerr black hole

    M. Campanelli and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D59, 124022 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811019 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  71. [72]

    C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D76, 041502(R) (2007), gr-qc/0703061

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [73]

    Perturbative extraction of gravitational waveforms generated with Numerical Relativity

    H. Nakano, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D91, 104022 (2015), arXiv:1503.00718 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  73. [74]

    Ficarra and C

    G. Ficarra and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044015 (2025), arXiv:2409.18728 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [75]

    Ciarfella, J

    A. Ciarfella, J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and H. Nakano, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104035 (2022), arXiv:2206.13532 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  75. [76]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124010 (2022), arXiv:2202.00018 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [77]

    Coalescence of Two Spinning Black Holes: An Effective One-Body Approach

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D64, 124013 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0103018

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  77. [78]

    The hangup effect in unequal mass binary black hole mergers and further studies of their gravitational radiation and remnant properties

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D97, 084002 (2018), arXiv:1801.08162 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [79]

    Wysocki, R

    D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Lange, and Y.-L. L. Fang, Physical Review D 99 (2019), 10.1103/physrevd.99.084026

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.084026 2019

  79. [80]

    Wofford, A

    J. Wofford, A. B. Yelikar, H. Gallagher, E. Cham- pion, D. Wysocki, V. Delfavero, J. Lange, C. Rose, V. Valsan, S. Morisaki, J. Read, C. Henshaw, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024040 (2023)

    work page 2023

  80. [81]

    Narrowing rift: Focused simulation-based-inference for interpreting exceptional gw sources,

    K. J. Wagner, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Yelikar, N. Manning, D. Fernando, J. Lange, V. Tiwari, A. Fernando, and D. Williams, “Narrowing rift: Focused simulation-based-inference for interpreting exceptional gw sources,” (2025), arXiv:2505.11655 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.