Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 35 references

Constraining Proper Motion of Strongly Lensed Eccentric Binary Mergers using Doppler Triangulation

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Strongly lensed eccentric binary mergers produce a gravitational-wave phase shift between images that scales as $e^{30/19}(1-e^2)g(e)^{5/2}$, peaks at eccentricity $e \approx 0.7$, and can be used to Doppler-triangulate the source's…

desk verdict Eccentric lensed-GW phase-shift scalings are new and mostly right, but the observable is tied to the orbital fundamental, so the headline predictions may not be measurable. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12494 v1 pith:HQLX25OD submitted 2025-01-21 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Johan Samsing , Lorenz Zwick , Pankaj Saini , Kai Hendriks , Rico K. L. Lo , Luka Vujeva , Georgi D. Radev , Yan Yu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords gravitationalwavesstronglensingeccentricbinariespropermotionDopplertriangulationGWphaseshiftEinsteinTelescopeCosmicExplorer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that for a strongly lensed, eccentric binary merger, the gravitational-wave phase shift between the two lensed images is a unique function of the binary's eccentricity: it grows as $\delta\phi \propto e^{30/19}(1-e^2)g(e)^{5/2}$, reaching a maximum at $e \approx 0.7$, and in time it first rises as $t^{5/8}$ and then falls as $t^{-2}$ as the source is traced backward from merger toward its eccentric formation. Because the phase shift accumulates from the difference in Doppler factors between images, it encodes the source's transverse proper motion relative to lens and observer, a quantity that is otherwise nearly impossible to measure for gravitational-wave sources. The authors argue that next-generation observatories such as Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer should see hundreds of lensed events per year, a significant fraction eccentric, making this phase-shift pattern a practical observable for constraining source velocities and for distinguishing dynamically formed eccentric mergers from isolated circular ones.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the phase-shift formula $\delta\phi = 2\pi\tau/T$, which converts the time delay $\tau$ between lensed images, produced by the source's transverse velocity, into a phase in radians using the binary orbital period $T$. For eccentric binaries the orbital period is tied to the semi-major axis through Kepler's third law, and the time evolution of $(a, e)$ is taken from Peters (1964). Combining these gives the central object of the paper: the shape function $F(e) = e^{30/19}(1-e^2)g(e)^{5/2}$, which isolates the pure eccentricity dependence of the phase shift; the companion ratio $H(e) = (1+e)^{7/2}(1-e)$ then compares eccentric to circular phase shifts at equal GW frequency. These two functions carry the entire derivation, reducing the problem to simple algebraic scalings.

What would settle it

For a strongly lensed eccentric merger with independently measured orbital eccentricity (for example from the harmonic content of the waveform), compare the phase shift between images as a function of time to the predicted $t^{5/8} \to t^{-2}$ turnover; observing a monotonic increase up to merger, or a peak at an eccentricity far from $e \approx 0.7$, would falsify the $F(e)$ scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Doppler-triangulation method for lensed gravitational waves, previously developed for circular binaries, extends naturally to eccentric binaries with a distinctive signature. Working from the general phase-shift expression $\delta\phi = 4\pi\theta v_d\, t / (c T)$ and Peters' (1964) radiation-driven orbital evolution, the paper derives an analytical eccentricity dependence $\delta\phi \propto F(e) = e^{30/19}(1-e^2)g(e)^{5/2}$ with $g(e) = (1+121e^2/304)^{870/2299}$. This function peaks at $e \approx 0.7$, meaning the phase shift first grows and then shrinks as the binary inspirals; in time, the same result reads $\delta\phi \propto t^{5/8}$ near merger ($e\to 0$) and $\delta\phi \propto t^{-2}$ in the high-eccentricity limit. At fixed GW peak frequency, the eccentric phase shift exceeds the circular one by up to a factor of about 2, peaking at $e \approx 0.6$, and the maximum is reached at a frequency only about 1.2 times the formation frequency $f_0$. For dynamically formed binaries with $f_0$ in the 1-10 Hz band, this places the observable peak within reach of proposed ground-based detectors.

Load-bearing premise

The phase shift is defined as $\delta\phi = 2\pi\tau/T$ with $T$ the binary's orbital period, even though an eccentric binary radiates at many harmonics of that period; if the orbital period does not correspond to the dominant measurable GW phase, the predicted single-number phase shift may not match what a detector can extract from a broadband eccentric signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a lensed eccentric source, the phase shift between images reaches a maximum at $e \approx 0.7$, so the epoch and frequency of peak phase shift ($f \approx 1.2 f_0$) mark a specific stage of the inspiral.
  • Ground-based detectors observing down to roughly 1-10 Hz should catch the phase-shift maximum for dynamically assembled binaries with formation frequencies in that band.
  • At the same GW frequency, an eccentric source can produce up to twice the circular phase shift, giving a clean eccentricity fingerprint from the image phase comparison alone.
  • The method extends Doppler triangulation to an eccentric population, offering a route to constrain the transverse velocity distribution of dynamically formed mergers.
  • Deviations from the derived $\delta\phi(t)$ scaling could reveal additional dissipative effects such as gas or dynamical friction, since those change the exponent $\alpha$ in the general relation $a(t) \propto t^{\alpha}$ used to derive the time dependence.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A real detector analysis of an eccentric lensed event will likely need to work with harmonic-resolved phases rather than a single orbital-period phase; the paper's scalings identify the frequency window where the effect is largest, not the full matched-filter response.
  • The $e \approx 0.7$ peak suggests observations of lensed eccentric mergers are best timed to catch the inspiral at $f \approx 1.2 f_0$, which may require sensitivity below 10 Hz even if the merger itself is louder at higher frequencies.
  • If eccentric mergers preferentially form in dense clusters, their transverse velocity distribution could carry dynamical information about cluster interiors; lensed eccentric events would then probe the host environment rather than just the binary.
  • The paper's constant-velocity assumption may break down for sources accelerating in a cluster; an accelerated lensed source would show a phase-shift evolution that partially mimics high-eccentricity behavior, and separating the two effects is a natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the Doppler-triangulation method for strongly lensed gravitational-wave (GW) sources to eccentric binaries. It defines a GW phase shift between lensed images as δφ = 2πτ/T, where τ is the time displacement induced by relative proper motion and T is the orbital period of the binary. Using Peters (1964) orbital evolution, the authors derive analytic scalings for δφ as a function of look-back time, eccentricity, and GW peak frequency: δφ ∝ t^{5/8} near merger and δφ ∝ t^{-2} near assembly, with a non-monotonic turnover in time; a maximum at e ≈ 0.7 in the eccentricity dependence (F(e), Eq. 20); and a modest enhancement factor ≈ 2 relative to circular at fixed GW frequency (H(e), Eqs. 23–25). Numerical examples are given for a fiducial equal-mass 5M☉ binary with v_d = 1500 km/s and θ = 25″.

Significance. If the predicted frequency-resolved phase shift were demonstrated, the paper would add a genuinely new observable for eccentric strongly lensed GW sources. Its strengths are explicit and largely parameter-free functional forms, clean limiting scalings for the orbital-fundamental phase, and a direct connection to planned third-generation detectors such as Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. The algebra in Eqs. 14, 19, 23, and 25 is internally consistent under the stated Peters-based approximations. However, the significance is undermined by an unresolved question about what is actually meant by 'the GW phase' of a broadband eccentric signal; the central non-monotonic predictions are not yet tied to a demonstrated measurable quantity.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2)] The observable is defined as δφ = 2πτ/T with T the orbital period, and the text correctly notes that eccentric binaries emit a broad GW spectrum but are still periodic with T. For a broadband signal, a time shift τ shifts the phase of each frequency component f by 2πfτ, not by 2πτ/T. During the eccentric inspiral, the peak GW frequency f_p ≈ π^{-1}√(2Gm/r_p^3) (Eq. 22) stays nearly constant while τ ∝ t, so the phase shift at the dominant emitted frequency grows ∝ t; it does not fall as t^{-2}. Thus the non-monotonic δφ(t) and the maximum at e ≈ 0.7 (Eqs. 20–21 and Fig. 2, top) are properties of the orbital-fundamental phase, not of the phase of the dominant GW harmonic. The authors do not show that the fundamental harmonic can be isolated from the broadband strain, and for e → 1 that harmonic is strongly suppressed. The authors' own suggestion in Sec. 3 of shifting full GW forms by τ would produce frequency-dependent phase shifts 2πfτ, not a single δφ = 2πτ/T. This is a load-bearing gap between the quantity derived in the paper and the quantity that a GW detector would measure.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2) and (5)] There is a factor-of-two inconsistency in the phase-shift definition. Eq. (2) states δφ = 2πτ/T, but Eq. (5) gives δφ = 4πθv_d t/(cT), which with Eq. (4) equals 4πτ/T. The text immediately below Eq. (2) states that 2/T is the GW frequency for circular sources, so a circular GW phase shift should be 2π(2/T)τ = 4πτ/T. Either Eq. (2) is missing a factor of 2, or Eq. (5) and the circular interpretation are off by a factor of 2. This should be corrected and propagated through the numerical values, although the scalings are unaffected.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (15)] The paper states that t_e ≈ t_c × (1−e^2)^{7/2} and explicitly omits the front factor 768/425 from Peters (1964). This is a reasonable approximation for obtaining asymptotic scalings, but Eq. (19) is presented as an exact analytic result. With the omitted factor, the amplitude is in error by 768/425 ≈ 1.81 relative to the Peters result. Please either include the factor in Eqs. (15), (19), (23), and (26), or clearly label these as approximate and state the quantitative effect of the omitted factor. The t^{-2} and frequency scalings are unaffected.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4, Conclusions] The text quotes δφ ∝ e^{30/10}(1−e^2)g(e)^{5/2}, but Eq. (20) has e^{30/19}; this exponent should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, near Eq. (2)] The word 'stronly' should read 'strongly'.
  3. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (26)] The approximation (f/f0)^{-2/3} ≈ e^{12/19} is stated to be valid in the high-eccentricity limit; a brief derivation or a sentence noting that it follows from Eq. (17) with g(e) ≈ g(1) would help the reader judge its range of validity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eccentric phase-shift scalings follow from Peters (1964) plus an explicitly stated orbital-period definition, not from fitted inputs or self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external physics. The observable is defined in Eq. 2 as δφ = 2πτ/T with T the binary orbital period, and the paper explicitly acknowledges this choice by noting that eccentric signals are broadband but still periodic with time T. This is a definition, not a concealed equivalence to the result. The geometric time delay τ in Eq. 4 and the effective Doppler velocity in Eqs. 5-6 are taken from lensing kinematics (including the authors' prior work), but they are parameter-free inputs that do not by themselves determine the eccentric scalings. The eccentric evolution is obtained by combining this definition with Peters (1964): Eq. 12 combines δφ with T(a); Eqs. 13-16 use Peters' time-to-(a,e) relations to derive the t^{5/8} near-merger and t^{-2} high-eccentricity limits; Eqs. 17-20 combine Peters' a(e) relation with Eq. 12 to produce F(e)=e^{30/19}(1-e^2)g(e)^{5/2}; and Eq. 21 is the algebraic maximizer of that function, giving e≈0.7. Eq. 24's H(e) is likewise an algebraic rewrite at fixed peak frequency. The Fiducial Model values are explicitly illustrative and do not enter these functional forms. Self-citations to Samsing et al. 2024a,b supply the circular-limit formula and the lensing delay relation, but the eccentric predictions do not reduce to those citations; they reduce to Peters' external results and the paper's own stated definition. The skeptical concern that the orbital-fundamental phase may not equal the phase of the dominant GW harmonic is a physical measurability modeling question, not a circularity of the derivation chain: the paper openly states its choice of T and even suggests shifting full GW forms by τ for more accurate waveforms. No load-bearing step is equivalent to its inputs by construction, so no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling results depend on standard Peters mechanics and the lensing geometry, plus four illustrative Fiducial parameters that set only the absolute scale of the example curves. The harmonic approximation is the least secure input.

free parameters (4)
  • effective Doppler velocity v_d = 1500 km/s
    Illustrative Fiducial Model choice, not fitted; sets the vertical scale in Fig. 2 but drops out of the scaling functions F(e) and H(e).
  • component mass m = 5 solar masses
    Illustrative Fiducial Model choice for a stellar-mass binary; enters the absolute δφ normalization only.
  • image angular separation θ = 25 arcsec
    Illustrative Fiducial Model choice; δφ scales linearly with θ, so the chosen value sets the plotted magnitude.
  • initial GW peak frequency f0 = 2 Hz
    Illustrative Fiducial Model choice for dynamically assembled binaries; only sets the low-frequency end of the example curves.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Peters (1964) equations describe the secular evolution of a and e for GW-driven eccentric binaries.
    Used throughout Sec. 3 to relate a(t), e(t), and merger time; limits of this approximation are noted by the authors citing Zwick et al. 2020.
  • domain assumption The lensing-induced time offset τ between images follows Eq. 4, linear in source-plane angular motion v' t.
    Adopted in Sec. 2.1 from Kayser et al. 1986, Itoh et al. 2009, and Samsing et al. 2024b; this is the bridge between source motion and GW phase shift.
  • domain assumption The relative transverse velocity v_d (Eq. 6) and the lensing geometry are constant over the observation time.
    Stated in Sec. 2.2; if the source accelerates or the lens model changes during observation, the derived power-law scalings break down.
  • domain assumption The binary components have equal and constant mass m.
    Assumed in Sec. 3 before Eq. 12 to simplify the orbital period; unequal masses would modify the numerical coefficients but not the functional forms.
  • domain assumption The GW phase shift can be represented by 2πτ/T with T the orbital period, even for eccentric sources.
    Introduced after Eq. 2; eccentric binaries emit at many harmonics, so this single-period description is a simplification the authors explicitly acknowledge.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining Proper Motion of Strongly Lensed Eccentric Binary Mergers using Doppler Triangulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HQLX25OD

@misc{pith2026250112494,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining Proper Motion of Strongly Lensed Eccentric Binary Mergers using Doppler Triangulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HQLX25OD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12494}
}
abstract

Strong lensing of gravitational wave (GW) sources allows the observer to see the GW source from different lines-of-sight (LOS) through the corresponding images, which provides a way for constraining the relative proper motion of the GW source. This is possible as the GW signals received from each image will have slightly different projected velocity components, from which one can `Doppler-Triangulate' for the GW source velocity vector. The difference in projected velocity between the different images can be observationally inferred through pairwise GW phase measurements that accumulate over the time-of-observation. In this paper we study lensed eccentric GW sources and explore how the observable GW phase shift between images evolve as a function of time, eccentricity, lens- and binary parameters. Next generation GW observatories, including the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer, will see $\sim $hundreds/year of lensed GW sources, where a significant fraction of these are expected to be eccentric. We discuss the expected unique observables for such eccentric lensed GW sources, and the relation to their observable relative linear motion, which otherwise is exceedingly difficult to constrain in general.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12494 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of a Strongly Lensed Eccentric Gravi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Evolution of Gravitational Wave Phase Shift: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Eccentric GW Source Relative to Circular: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    2014, PhRvD, 89, 104059, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059

    Barausse, E., Cardoso, V., & Pani, P. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 104059, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.104059 2014

  2. [2]

    1989, in Gravitational Lenses, ed

    Birkinshaw, M. 1989, in Gravitational Lenses, ed. J. M. Moran, J. N. Hewitt, & K.-Y. Lo, Vol. 330, 59, doi: 10.1007/3-540-51061-3_36

    doi:10.1007/3-540-51061-3_36 1989

  3. [3]

    M., & Saslaw, W

    Chitre, S. M., & Saslaw, W. C. 1989, Nature, 341, 38, doi: 10.1038/341038a0 D’Orazio, D. J., & Loeb, A. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 083031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083031

    doi:10.1038/341038a0 1989

  4. [4]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948

    Fabj, G., & Samsing, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.16948 Gondán, L., & Kocsis, B. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 3299, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1985 Gültekin, K., Miller, M. C., & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, ApJ, 640, 156

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04603

    Hendriks, K., Zwick, L., & Samsing, J. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04603

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.04603

  6. [6]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08572, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08572

    Hendriks, K., Atallah, D., Martinez, M., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08572, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08572

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.08572

  7. [7]

    2017, National Science Review, 4, 685, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwx116

    Hu, W.-R., & Wu, Y.-L. 2017, National Science Review, 4, 685, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwx116

    doi:10.1093/nsr/nwx116 2017

  8. [8]

    2009, PhRvD, 80, 044009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044009

    Itoh, Y., Futamase, T., & Hattori, M. 2009, PhRvD, 80, 044009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.044009

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.044009 2009

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094011, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    Kawamura, S., Ando, M., Seto, N., et al. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 094011, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094011

    2011 doi

  2. [10]

    1986, A&A, 166, 36

    Kayser, R., Refsdal, S., & Stabell, R. 1986, A&A, 166, 36

    1986

  3. [11]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfb

    Liu, B., Lai, D., & Wang, Y.-H. 2019, ApJ, 881, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfb

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 103027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103027

    Liu, S., Hu, Y.-M., Zhang, J.-d., & Mei, J. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 103027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103027

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    1964 doi

  7. [15]

    L., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 123005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123005

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2018, PhRvD, 97, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    Samsing, J. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    2018a, ApJ, 855, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52

    Samsing, J., Askar, A., & Giersz, M. 2018a, ApJ, 855, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52

    doi

  10. [18]

    Samsing, J., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2334

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123010

    Askar, A. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123010

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    S., & Tyles, J

    Samsing, J., Hamers, A. S., & Tyles, J. G. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 043010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043010

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    J., & Liu, B

    Samsing, J., Hendriks, K., Zwick, L., D’Orazio, D. J., & Liu, B. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2403.05625, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.05625

    doi arXiv

  14. [22]

    2018, MNRAS, 476, 1548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty197

    Samsing, J., & Ilan, T. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 1548, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty197

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/71 —

    Samsing, J., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/71 —. 2018b, ApJ, 853, 140, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa715

    2014 doi

  16. [24]

    2017, ApJL, 840, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0b

    Samsing, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJL, 840, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0b

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    J., et al

    Samsing, J., Bartos, I., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 603, 237, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04333-1

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14159, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14159

    Samsing, J., Zwick, L., Saini, P., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.14159, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2412.14159

    doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 024064, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024064

    Savastano, S., Vernizzi, F., & Zumalacárregui, M. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 024064, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024064

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    P., Robertson, A., Mahler, G., et al

    Smith, G. P., Robertson, A., Mahler, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 702, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad140 Vijaykumar, A., Hanselman, A. G., & Zevin, M. 2024, ApJ, 969, 132, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4455

    2023 doi

  21. [29]

    Vujeva, L., María Ezquiaga, J., Lo, R. K. L., & Chan, J. C. L. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.02096, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.02096

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    2004, PhRvD, 69, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063001

    Wucknitz, O., & Sperhake, U. 2004, PhRvD, 69, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.063001

    2004 doi

  23. [31]

    M., & Holz, D

    Xu, F., Ezquiaga, J. M., & Holz, D. E. 2022, ApJ, 929, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac58f8

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16378, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16378

    Yang, X.-Y., Chen, T., & Cai, R.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.16378, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.16378

    2024 doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    M., Kremer, K., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P

    Zevin, M., Romero-Shaw, I. M., Kremer, K., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P. D. 2021, ApJL, 921, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac32dc

    2021 doi

  26. [34]

    2019, ApJ, 871, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ec Zwick,L.,Capelo,P.R.,Bortolas,E.,Mayer,L.,&Amaro-Seoane, P

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, ApJ, 871, 91, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf6ec Zwick,L.,Capelo,P.R.,Bortolas,E.,Mayer,L.,&Amaro-Seoane, P. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 2321, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1314

    2019 doi

  27. [35]

    R., & Mayer, L

    Zwick, L., Capelo, P. R., & Mayer, L. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad707

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.