Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 3 cited by

gwharmone: first data-driven surrogate for eccentric harmonics in binary black hole merger waveforms

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read gwharmone reproduces eccentric merger harmonics in 0.1 seconds

desk verdict Solid surrogate for eccentric harmonics at fixed mean anomaly, but the headline mean-anomaly capability is imported from an unpublished companion and never validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.12420 v1 pith:DOBUEWHW submitted 2025-04-16 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Tousif Islam , Tejaswi Venumadhav , Ajit Kumar Mehta , Isha Anantpurkar , Digvijay Wadekar , Javier Roulet , Jonathan Mushkin , Barak Zackay
show 1 more author
Matias Zaldarriaga
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc PACS 04.30.-w
keywords gravitationalwaveseccentricbinaryblackholessurrogatemodelharmonicsGaussianprocessregressionsingularvaluedecompositioneffective-one-bodywaveformsmeananomaly
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 presents gwharmone, the first data-driven surrogate model for the eccentric harmonics that make up the dominant quadrupolar gravitational-wave mode of eccentric, non-spinning binary black hole mergers. The authors try to show that a model trained on 173 effective-one-body waveforms can rapidly predict the four leading harmonics and the full quadrupolar mode for mass ratios $q\in[1,3.5]$ and eccentricities $e_{\rm ref}\in[0.03,0.175]$, including dependence on the mean anomaly, with frequency-domain mismatches below one percent against the training approximant. If true, this removes a major computational bottleneck: the full harmonic extraction takes about 300 seconds per waveform, while the surrogate evaluates in about 0.1 seconds. That speed matters because measuring eccentricity in detected mergers is a promising route to identifying how binary black holes form.

What carries the argument

The central object is the eccentric harmonic decomposition: each spherical harmonic mode $h_{\ell m}(t)$ is split into a sum of monotonic harmonics $h_{\ell m,j}(t)$ whose frequencies and phases follow a hierarchical structure. The argument runs on the hierarchical surrogate built from this decomposition: a circular base model for amplitude and phase, delta amplitude and phase corrections for the dominant $j=2$ harmonic, direct models for the $j=1,3,4$ amplitudes, and phase relations $\phi_{22,1}=\phi_\lambda+\phi_{\rm ecc}$ and $\phi_{22,3}=3\phi_\lambda+\phi_{\rm ecc}+\pi$ that reconstruct the odd harmonics from the orbital and eccentric phases derived from $j=2$ and $j=4$. SVD provides the reduced basis and Gaussian process regression interpolates the coefficients; together these carry the speed and smoothness claims.

What would settle it

Run the harmonic-extraction pipeline on effective-one-body waveforms at parameter points inside the training box with mean anomalies far from $\pi$ (for example $l_{\rm ref}=0$ or $\pi/2$), and compare the $j=1$ and $j=3$ phases and the full $(2,2)$ mode against gwharmone; mismatches well above the reported one percent would show the universal mean-anomaly or phase relations are not correct. A second check is to compare gwharmone against eccentric numerical-relativity waveforms in the same mass-ratio and eccentricity range, which would reveal whether the surrogate has learned the physics or only the approximant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the eccentric harmonic decomposition of a gravitational-wave mode, not the full oscillatory waveform, is the right object to model. Each spherical harmonic mode is written as a sum of monotonic harmonics $h_{\ell m}(t)=\sum_j h_{\ell m,j}(t)$, and the surrogate models the amplitudes and phases of the first four harmonics $j=1,2,3,4$ separately. The $j=2$ harmonic is treated as the circular waveform plus eccentric corrections; the $j=4$ harmonic gets its own correction; and the $j=1$ and $j=3$ phases are reconstructed from phenomenologically derived phase relations from the companion paper. Singular value decomposition compresses each data piece to one to three basis vectors, Gaussian process regression interpolates the coefficients in $(q,e_{\rm ref})$, and a claimed universal relation supplies the mean-anomaly direction. The result, the paper argues, is a model whose validation errors are around $10^{-3}$ in the time domain, whose average advanced-LIGO mismatch is about 0.004, and whose evaluation cost is roughly 0.1 seconds.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the companion paper's universal relations for how the harmonics change with the mean anomaly (the orbital angle at the reference time) and for the phases of the $j=1$ and $j=3$ harmonics are correct, since the surrogate trains at only one mean-anomaly value and uses those asserted relations for every other value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A template bank for eccentric binary black hole searches becomes affordable: one model evaluation costs about 0.1 seconds rather than the roughly 300 seconds of a full harmonic extraction.
  • The model returns individual monotonic eccentric harmonics, so mode-by-mode filtering and fast likelihood schemes can be built directly on its output.
  • Because the $j=2$ harmonic is modeled as circular plus corrections, the same machinery doubles as a fast surrogate for the full quadrupolar mode of the effective-one-body approximant.
  • The stated accuracy holds throughout $q\in[1,3.5]$ and $e_{\rm ref}\in[0.03,0.175]$, with degradation only near the high-eccentricity edge, so the model is usable across most of its advertised box.
  • The modeling framework is stated to carry over to eccentric, non-precessing systems with spins, making the harmonic representation a plausible basis for future eccentric waveform models.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The strongest test of the model is not the reported validation against the same approximant, but a comparison at mean anomalies far from the training value $l_{\rm ref}=\pi$ and against independent numerical-relativity eccentric waveforms.
  • If the universal mean-anomaly relation from the companion paper is confirmed, the same trick could be reused for other waveform approximants, avoiding the expensive per-point harmonic extraction grid.
  • The monotonicity of eccentric harmonics may enable parameter-estimation speed-ups beyond searches, such as heterodyned likelihood evaluations that exploit smoothly evolving phases.
  • Users should treat the claimed $l_{\rm ref}$ coverage as provisional until the companion paper appears, since that direction is supplied by asserted relations rather than trained data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 paper presents gwharmone, a surrogate model trained on TEOBResumS eccentric waveforms that predicts the first four eccentric harmonics (j=1,...,4) of the dominant quadrupolar mode for non-spinning binary black hole mergers, together with the full (2,2) mode. The model uses SVD-based model order reduction and Gaussian process regression over mass ratio q in [1,3.5] and reference eccentricity e_ref in approximately [0.03,0.175], with training data generated at a fixed mean anomaly l_ref=pi. The claimed l_ref dependence is inserted through a 'universal relation' imported from a companion paper (Ref. [75], in preparation), as are the phase relations for the j=1 and j=3 harmonics. Reported validation errors are around 1e-3 in the time domain and average mismatches around 0.004 against Advanced LIGO noise, with evaluation cost around 0.1 seconds.

Significance. If the claims are substantiated, gwharmone would be a practically useful fast surrogate for TEOBResumS eccentric waveforms, with clear value for searches and parameter estimation. The paper's strengths include a clear hierarchical modeling strategy, a concrete SVD/GPR pipeline, validation against the same approximant used for training (the appropriate test for a surrogate), and a commitment to public release through gwModels. The central limitation is that the mean-anomaly direction, which is part of the headline claim, is not trained on data but is imported from an unpublished companion paper and is not validated at l_ref != pi. The j=1 and j=3 phase relations are likewise imported and are not validated per harmonic. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope, but they currently leave the central claim conditional.

major comments (3)
  1. [Snapshot data, Model evaluation, Model accuracy] The mean-anomaly direction is the only part of the model that is not trained on data. All 162 eccentric training points are generated at l_ref=pi, and the l_ref dependence is inserted through a 'phenomenologically observed universal relation between eccentric harmonics at different lref values' and a 'universal relation between SVD coefficients and mean anomaly values,' both attributed to the unpublished Ref. [75]. No equation for either relation is given, and the accuracy section does not state that l_ref is varied in the 1751 validation points. If those points are all at l_ref=pi, every reported error is consistent with an incorrect or restricted l_ref relation. Because the abstract explicitly claims that the model 'includes the effect of mean anomaly,' this step must be made available (or derived) and validated with l_ref varied, or the claim of mean-anomaly dependence must be withdrawn.
  2. [Model evaluation, Eqs. (10)-(11)] The phases of the j=1 and j=3 harmonics are imposed via phi_22,1 = phi_lambda + phi_ecc and phi_22,3 = 3 phi_lambda + phi_ecc + pi, taken from Eq. (24) of Ref. [75], a companion paper listed as in preparation. These relations are not derived in the manuscript, and the reported accuracy metrics (Fig. 2 and Fig. 3) are for the full h22 waveform, not for each harmonic separately. The fidelity of the individual predicted harmonic components is therefore not directly demonstrated. Adding per-harmonic validation that compares each h22,j(t) against the gwMiner extraction at held-out points would substantiate the 'surrogate for eccentric harmonics' claim.
  3. [Model accuracy] The 1751 validation points are described only as 'randomly distributed throughout the parameter space.' The parameter ranges for q, e_ref, and l_ref over which these points are drawn are not specified. This is important not only for interpreting the average error but also for determining whether the mean-anomaly direction has been tested at all. Please state the validation distribution explicitly, including the l_ref values, and report mismatches binned in l_ref.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Model order reduction] The SVD dimensions are stated incorrectly: for a data matrix X of shape n x m, the factorization is X = U Sigma V^T with U of shape n x n, Sigma of shape n x m, and V^T of shape m x m, not U of shape m x m and V^T of shape m x n as written.
  2. [Abstract and Summary] The abstract states the training eccentricity range as e_ref in [0,0.2] while the target parameter space is defined later as e_ref in [0.03,0.175] with training extending to 0.2. Please make this distinction explicit at first mention to avoid confusion between the training range and the validated target range.
  3. [Figure 4 and Model evaluation cost] The evaluation-time comparison is computed at the training parameter points only. A few timing measurements at validation points, or at least a statement that the cost is parameter-independent, would make the speed comparison more robust.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Mean-anomaly dependence and j=1/j=3 phase reconstruction are imported from an in-preparation companion paper by the same authors; the advertised mean-anomaly capability is not independently fit or validated in this manuscript.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Snapshot data section; Model evaluation section (after Eq. 11)]
    "While generating the harmonics, we fix mean anomaly lref = π ... We then use the phenomenologically observed universal relation between eccentric harmonics at different lref values ... Details of these relations are provided in Ref. [75]. ... We then utilize the phenomenologically derived universal relation between SVD coefficients and mean anomaly values to obtain the corresponding coefficients for the input lref (using the framework given in Ref. [75])."

    All SVD/GPR fits are built from harmonics extracted at lref=π, so the trained coefficients contain no lref dependence. The model's lref output is produced by applying the 'universal relation' of Ref. [75] (an in-preparation companion paper with the same author list) to those lref=π coefficients. No equation for this relation appears in the manuscript, and no validation with lref≠π is reported: validation points are only described as 'randomly distributed throughout the parameter space' while harmonic extraction is fixed at lref=π. The advertised capability that the model 'includes the effect of mean anomaly' therefore reduces, for lref≠π, to the borrowed companion relation rather than to a fit or derivation performed here.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Denoising certain SVD bases; Model evaluation, Eqs. (10)-(11)]
    "We choose not to model these data pieces using the SVD basis. Instead, we employ phenomenologically derived phase relations between eccentric harmonics to reconstruct these two phases at a later stage (using the framework given in Ref. [75]). ... phi_22,1(t) = phi_lambda + phi_ecc, phi_22,3(t) = 3 phi_lambda + phi_ecc + pi."

    The j=1 and j=3 harmonic phases are not outputs of the SVD/GPR regression; they are imposed through Eq. (24) of Ref. [75], a companion paper by the same authors listed as in preparation. This is an ansatz imported via self-citation. At lref=π the validation set does contain these harmonics, so the phase relations receive an indirect empirical check; but for lref≠π they inherit the unvalidated lref map from Ref. [75], so the 'universal' status of the phase relations is asserted by citation rather than established in this paper.

full rationale

The core of gwharmone is a standard SVD+GPR surrogate trained on TEOBResumS eccentric harmonics and validated against TEOBResumS; reproducing the training approximant is the intended benchmark, not circularity. The circularity concern is confined to the mean-anomaly axis and to the j=1/j=3 phase reconstruction. The manuscript states explicitly that all harmonics used for training are generated at lref=π and that the lref direction is supplied by a 'universal relation' from Ref. [75], which is an in-preparation companion paper by the same author list. No equation or separate validation for that relation is given, and the reported validation errors/mismatches are not stated to vary lref. Consequently the abstract's claim that the model 'includes the effect of mean anomaly' is, at lref≠π, inherited from an unavailable self-citation rather than demonstrated by this paper's own fits. This is a partial circularity: the lref=π surrogate appears self-contained and accurate, but the headline mean-anomaly capability and the j=1/j=3 phase model rest on the companion citation. Score 5 reflects partial circularity, not a fully forced derivation.

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

The model is a fitted surrogate: its parameters are determined by the training data, and its key structural relations are imported from an unpublished companion paper. The list captures the hand-chosen truncation and regression settings plus the imported assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • SVD basis count per data piece = 1 to 3 basis vectors
    The authors restrict each data piece to 2 or 3 (sometimes 1) SVD vectors, chosen by hand to balance accuracy and smoothness; this truncation affects model fidelity.
  • GPR kernel and hyperparameters = not reported
    The authors test multiple kernels and hyperparameters and select the best-performing GPR without reporting the final choices, so the interpolation depends on unreported fit settings.
  • Smoothing spline parameters = not reported
    Basis vectors are smoothed with smoothing splines chosen visually; the smoothing strength is a hand choice that slightly reduces accuracy.
  • Training range extension = e_ref up to 0.2 while target is 0.175
    Training data extend beyond the target eccentricity, a design choice that shapes boundary behavior and reduces edge errors.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The first four eccentric harmonics (j=1 to 4) fully capture the radiation content of the (2,2) mode in TEOBResumS eccentric waveforms.
    The model is built on the harmonic decomposition extracted by gwMiner (Ref [75]); no completeness proof is given in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Phase relations phi_22,1 = phi_lambda + phi_ecc and phi_22,3 = 3 phi_lambda + phi_ecc + pi, from Eq. (24) of Ref [75], are correct.
    These relations are imported from the authors' companion paper, which is in preparation and not independently available.
  • ad hoc to paper There is a universal relation between eccentric harmonics at different mean anomalies lref (from Ref [75]) that allows the model to span lref despite training only at lref=pi.
    The lref dependence is not directly trained or validated in this paper; it is applied via a relation in the companion paper.
  • domain assumption TEOBResumS is a faithful model of the true gravitational waveform for non-spinning eccentric binary black hole mergers.
    The surrogate is trained on TEOBResumS and validated only against TEOBResumS; fidelity to actual gravitational waves is inherited from the approximant.
  • standard math Gaussian process interpolation of SVD coefficients is smooth across the q-e_ref target space.
    GPR assumes a smooth latent function; the authors verify by validation but do not provide uncertainty quantification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of gwharmone: first data-driven surrogate for eccentric harmonics in binary black hole merger waveforms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DOBUEWHW

@misc{pith2026250412420,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: gwharmone: first data-driven surrogate for eccentric harmonics in binary black hole merger waveforms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DOBUEWHW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.12420}
}
abstract

We present gwharmone, the first data-driven surrogate model for eccentric harmonics (as well as the full radiation content) of the dominant quadrupolar mode in eccentric, non-spinning binary black hole mergers. Our model is trained on 173 waveforms, each $100,000M$ long (where $M$ is the total mass), generated for mass ratios $q \in [1,3.5]$ and eccentricities $e_{\rm ref} \in [0,0.2]$ (at the start of the waveform). The eccentric harmonics are extracted from the effective-one-body waveforms using the \texttt{gwMiner} package. We apply a singular value decomposition (SVD) to obtain a set of reduced basis vectors, necessary to construct a lower-dimensional representation of data, and use Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) to interpolate SVD coefficients across parameter space, allowing for prediction at new parameter points. The model includes the effect of mean anomaly, its evaluation cost is only $\sim 0.1$ second and it achieves an average time-domain (validation) error of ~0.001 and frequency-domain (validation) mismatches below 0.01 for advanced LIGO sensitivity. Our model can therefore be useful in efficient searches and parameter estimation of eccentric mergers. gwharmone will be publicly available through the gwModels package.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.12420 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left panel:) We show the training points (both for the circular and eccentric cases) used in building the gwharmone model with TEOBResumS eccentric waveforms. The red dashed rectangle indicates our target parameter space. (Middle panel): We show the 3PN eccentricity evolution of these systems. (Right panel): We show the Newtonian expectation of the leading eccentric harmonic jM as a function of the Newtonian eccent… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Upper panel: We show the time-domain errors of the gwharmone model during the training and validation stages for ec￾centricities less than 0.175 (our intended parameter space), compared against the baseline TEOBResumS eccentric waveforms. For com￾parison, we also present the reconstruction error of the eccentric harmonics obtained using the SVD method. Bottom panel: Further￾more, we show the error as a function of t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. We show the frequency-domain mismatches of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We present the evaluation times for the full-order model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Chase Orbits, not Time: A Scalable Paradigm for Long-Duration Eccentric Gravitational-Wave Surrogates

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric inspiral waveforms are modeled against mean anomaly rather than time, yielding an order-of-magnitude compression and a 2.77e6 M surrogate that is ~20x faster to evaluate.

  2. Testing the nature of GW200105 by probing the frequency evolution of eccentricity

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GW200105's recovered eccentricity as a function of frequency is consistent with the general-relativistic decay law at 68% confidence, supporting the eccentric-orbit interpretation.

  3. Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model

    gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using a waveform model that includes both eccentricity and spin precession, the authors confirm GW150914 was a quasi-circular, slowly spinning black hole merger, with eccentricity below 0.08 at 15 Hz.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [75]

    Data-driven extraction, phenomenology and modeling of eccentric harmonics in binary black hole merger waveforms,

    Tousif Islam, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Ajit K. Mehta, Isha Anant- purkar, Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Jonathan Mushkin, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “Data-driven extraction, phenomenology and modeling of eccentric harmonics in binary black hole merger waveforms,” (2025), In preparation

    2025

  2. [1]

    Advanced LIGO: The next generation of gravitational wave detectors,

    Gregory M. Harry (LIGO Scientific), “Advanced LIGO: The next generation of gravitational wave detectors,” Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084006 (2010)

    2010

  3. [2]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), “Advanced Virgo: a second- 6 For LISA or other 3G detectors, waveform models capable of generating longer harmonics are needed. generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [3]

    Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history,

    T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA), “Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history,” PTEP 2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs,” Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), 6 arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  6. [5]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [6]

    GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), “GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,” (2021), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [7]

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

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), “GWTC- 3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” (2021), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 86 references
  1. [8]

    Post-Newtonian Dynamics in Dense Star Clusters: Highly-Eccentric, Highly-Spinning, and Repeated Bi- nary Black Hole Mergers,

    Carl L. Rodriguez, Pau Amaro-Seoane, Sourav Chatterjee, and Frederic A. Rasio, “Post-Newtonian Dynamics in Dense Star Clusters: Highly-Eccentric, Highly-Spinning, and Repeated Bi- nary Black Hole Mergers,” Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Post-Newtonian Dynamics in Dense Star Clusters: Formation, Masses, and Merger Rates of Highly- Eccentric Black Hole Binaries,

    Carl L. Rodriguez, Pau Amaro-Seoane, Sourav Chatterjee, Kyle Kremer, Frederic A. Rasio, Johan Samsing, Claire S. Ye, and Michael Zevin, “Post-Newtonian Dynamics in Dense Star Clusters: Formation, Masses, and Merger Rates of Highly- Eccentric Black Hole Binaries,” Phys. Rev. D9...

    2018 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Eccentric Black Hole Mergers Forming in Globular Clusters,

    Johan Samsing, “Eccentric Black Hole Mergers Forming in Globular Clusters,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 103014 (2018), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Eccentric Black Hole Merg- ers in Dense Star Clusters: The Role of Binary–Binary Encoun- ters,

    Michael Zevin, Johan Samsing, Carl Rodriguez, Carl-Johan Haster, and Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, “Eccentric Black Hole Merg- ers in Dense Star Clusters: The Role of Binary–Binary Encoun- ters,” Astrophys. J. 871, 91 (2019), arXiv:1810.00901 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Implications of Eccentric Observa- tions on Binary Black Hole Formation Channels,

    Michael Zevin, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Kyle Kremer, Eric Thrane, and Paul D. Lasky, “Implications of Eccentric Observa- tions on Binary Black Hole Formation Channels,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L43 (2021), arXiv:2106.09042 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [13]

    AGN as potential factories for eccentric black hole mergers,

    J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, “AGN as potential factories for eccentric black hole mergers,” Nature603, 237–240 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Measuring orbital eccentricity and perias- tron advance in quasi-circular black hole simulations,

    Abdul H. Mroue, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Saul A. Teukolsky, “Measuring orbital eccentricity and perias- tron advance in quasi-circular black hole simulations,” Phys. Rev. D 82, 124016 (2010), arXiv:1004.4697 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Post-Newtonian Quasicircular Initial Orbits for Nu- merical Relativity,

    James Healy, Carlos O. Lousto, Hiroyuki Nakano, and Yosef Zlochower, “Post-Newtonian Quasicircular Initial Orbits for Nu- merical Relativity,” Class. Quant. Grav.34, 145011 (2017), [Erra- tum: Class.Quant.Grav. 40, 249502 (2023)], arXiv:1702.00872 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Inspiral, merger and ring-down of equal-mass black-hole bina- ries,

    Alessandra Buonanno, Gregory B. Cook, and Frans Pretorius, “Inspiral, merger and ring-down of equal-mass black-hole bina- ries,” Phys. Rev. D75, 124018 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610122

    2007 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Reducing eccentricity in black-hole binary evolutions with initial parameters from post-Newtonian inspiral,

    Sascha Husa, Mark Hannam, Jose A. Gonzalez, Ulrich Sperhake, and Bernd Bruegmann, “Reducing eccentricity in black-hole binary evolutions with initial parameters from post-Newtonian inspiral,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 044037 (2008), arXiv:0706.0904 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Sim- ple procedures to reduce eccentricity of binary black hole sim- ulations,

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Sascha Husa, and Geraint Pratten, “Sim- ple procedures to reduce eccentricity of binary black hole sim- ulations,” Phys. Rev. D99, 023003 (2019), arXiv:1810.00036 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    First survey of spinning eccen- tric black hole mergers: Numerical relativity simulations, hy- brid waveforms, and parameter estimation,

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Sascha Husa, Geraint Pratten, Héctor Estellés, Cecilio García-Quirós, Maite Mateu-Lucena, Marta Colleoni, and Rafel Jaume, “First survey of spinning eccen- tric black hole mergers: Numerical relativity simulations, hy- brid waveforms, and parameter estimat...

    2020 arXiv

  13. [20]

    An E fficient iterative method to reduce eccentricity in numerical-relativity simulations of compact binary inspiral,

    Michael Purrer, Sascha Husa, and Mark Hannam, “An E fficient iterative method to reduce eccentricity in numerical-relativity simulations of compact binary inspiral,” Phys. Rev. D85, 124051 (2012), arXiv:1203.4258 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Map- ping eccentricity evolutions between numerical relativity and e ffective-one-body gravitational waveforms,

    Alice Bonino, Patricia Schmidt, and Geraint Pratten, “Map- ping eccentricity evolutions between numerical relativity and e ffective-one-body gravitational waveforms,” (2024), arXiv:2404.18875 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Eccentric binary black holes: Comparing numerical relativity and small mass-ratio perturbation theory,

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Maarten van de Meent, Harald P. Pfeif- fer, Hannes R. Rüter, Mark A. Scheel, Michael Boyle, and Lawrence E. Kidder, “Eccentric binary black holes: Comparing numerical relativity and small mass-ratio perturbation theory,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 124040 (2022), ar...

    2022 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Third post-Newtonian angular momentum flux and the secu- lar evolution of orbital elements for inspiralling compact bina- ries in quasi-elliptical orbits,

    K. G. Arun, Luc Blanchet, Bala R. Iyer, and Siddhartha Sinha, “Third post-Newtonian angular momentum flux and the secu- lar evolution of orbital elements for inspiralling compact bina- ries in quasi-elliptical orbits,” Phys. Rev. D80, 124018 (2009), arXiv:0908.3854 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Frequency and time domain inspiral templates for comparable mass compact binaries in eccentric orbits,

    Sashwat Tanay, Maria Haney, and Achamveedu Gopakumar, “Frequency and time domain inspiral templates for comparable mass compact binaries in eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 064031 (2016), arXiv:1602.03081 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Spin effects in spher- ical harmonic modes of gravitational waves from eccentric compact binary inspirals,

    Kaushik Paul and Chandra Kant Mishra, “Spin effects in spher- ical harmonic modes of gravitational waves from eccentric compact binary inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 024023 (2023), arXiv:2211.04155 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [26]

    Spin effects in gravi- tational waveforms and fluxes for binaries on eccentric orbits to the third post-Newtonian order,

    Quentin Henry and Mohammed Khalil, “Spin effects in gravi- tational waveforms and fluxes for binaries on eccentric orbits to the third post-Newtonian order,” Phys. Rev. D108, 104016 (2023), arXiv:2308.13606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Ready-to-use Fourier domain tem- plates for compact binaries inspiraling along moderately eccen- tric orbits,

    Srishti Tiwari, Gopakumar Achamveedu, Maria Haney, and Phu- railatapam Hemantakumar, “Ready-to-use Fourier domain tem- plates for compact binaries inspiraling along moderately eccen- tric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D99, 124008 (2019), arXiv:1905.07956 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Accurate and e fficient waveforms for compact binaries on eccentric orbits,

    E. A. Huerta, Prayush Kumar, Sean T. McWilliams, Richard O’Shaughnessy, and Nicolás Yunes, “Accurate and e fficient waveforms for compact binaries on eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 084016 (2014), arXiv:1408.3406 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Gravitational-wave phasing for low-eccentricity inspi- ralling compact binaries to 3PN order,

    Blake Moore, Marc Favata, K. G. Arun, and Chandra Kant Mishra, “Gravitational-wave phasing for low-eccentricity inspi- ralling compact binaries to 3PN order,” Phys. Rev. D93, 124061 (2016), arXiv:1605.00304 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric bina- ries,

    Thibault Damour, Achamveedu Gopakumar, and Bala R. Iyer, “Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric bina- ries,” Phys. Rev. D70, 064028 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0404128

    2004 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric binaries at the third-and-a-half post-Newtonian order,

    Christian Konigsdorffer and Achamveedu Gopakumar, “Phasing of gravitational waves from inspiralling eccentric binaries at the third-and-a-half post-Newtonian order,” Phys. Rev. D 73, 124012 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0603056

    2006 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Third post-Newtonian accurate general- ized quasi-Keplerian parametrization for compact binaries in eccentric orbits,

    Raoul-Martin Memmesheimer, Achamveedu Gopakumar, and Gerhard Schaefer, “Third post-Newtonian accurate general- ized quasi-Keplerian parametrization for compact binaries in eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D 70, 104011 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0407049

    2004

  26. [33]

    Ec- centric binary black hole inspiral-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model from numerical relativity and post-Newtonian theory,

    Ian Hinder, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfei ffer, “Ec- centric binary black hole inspiral-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model from numerical relativity and post-Newtonian theory,” Phys. Rev. D 98, 044015 (2018), arXiv:1709.02007 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Generalized quasi-Keplerian solution for ec- centric, nonspinning compact binaries at 4PN order and the associated inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform,

    Gihyuk Cho, Sashwat Tanay, Achamveedu Gopakumar, and 7 Hyung Mok Lee, “Generalized quasi-Keplerian solution for ec- centric, nonspinning compact binaries at 4PN order and the associated inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 064010 (2022), arXiv:2110.09608 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Abhishek Chattaraj, Tamal RoyChowdhury, Divyajyoti, Chan- dra Kant Mishra, and Anshu Gupta, “High accuracy post- Newtonian and numerical relativity comparisons involving higher modes for eccentric binary black holes and a dominant mode eccentric inspiral-merger-ringdown model,...

    2022 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Foundations of an effective-one-body model for coalescing binaries on eccentric orbits,

    Tanja Hinderer and Stanislav Babak, “Foundations of an effective-one-body model for coalescing binaries on eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D96, 104048 (2017), arXiv:1707.08426 [gr- qc]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Waveform model for an eccentric binary black hole based on the e ffective-one-body- numerical-relativity formalism,

    Zhoujian Cao and Wen-Biao Han, “Waveform model for an eccentric binary black hole based on the e ffective-one-body- numerical-relativity formalism,” Phys. Rev. D96, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1708.00166 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Faithful analytical effective-one-body waveform model for spin-aligned, moder- ately eccentric, coalescing black hole binaries,

    Danilo Chiaramello and Alessandro Nagar, “Faithful analytical effective-one-body waveform model for spin-aligned, moder- ately eccentric, coalescing black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Faithful e ffective-one- body waveform of small-mass-ratio coalescing black hole bi- naries: The eccentric, nonspinning case,

    Simone Albanesi, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Thibault Damour, Alessandro Nagar, and Andrea Placidi, “Faithful e ffective-one- body waveform of small-mass-ratio coalescing black hole bi- naries: The eccentric, nonspinning case,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 084037 (2023), arXiv:2305.19336 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  33. [40]

    New avenue for accurate analytical waveforms and fluxes for eccentric compact binaries,

    Simone Albanesi, Andrea Placidi, Alessandro Nagar, Marta Orselli, and Sebastiano Bernuzzi, “New avenue for accurate analytical waveforms and fluxes for eccentric compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 105, L121503 (2022), arXiv:2203.16286 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Assessment of consistent next-to- quasicircular corrections and postadiabatic approximation in effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for binary black hole coalescences,

    Gunnar Riemenschneider, Piero Rettegno, Matteo Breschi, Angelica Albertini, Rossella Gamba, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, and Alessandro Nagar, “Assessment of consistent next-to- quasicircular corrections and postadiabatic approximation in effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for bi...

    2021 arXiv

  35. [42]

    E ffective-one-body multipolar waveforms for eccentric binary black holes with nonprecessing spins,

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, Mohammed Khalil, and Serguei Ossokine, “E ffective-one-body multipolar waveforms for eccentric binary black holes with nonprecessing spins,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 044035 (2022), arXiv:2112.06952 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [43]

    E ffective- One-Body Numerical-Relativity waveform model for Eccen- tric spin-precessing binary black hole coalescence,

    Xiaolin Liu, Zhoujian Cao, and Zong-Hong Zhu, “E ffective- One-Body Numerical-Relativity waveform model for Eccen- tric spin-precessing binary black hole coalescence,” (2023), arXiv:2310.04552 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Complete waveform model for compact binaries on eccentric orbits,

    E. A. Huerta et al., “Complete waveform model for compact binaries on eccentric orbits,” Phys. Rev. D 95, 024038 (2017), arXiv:1609.05933 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Eccentric, nonspinning, inspiral, Gaussian- process merger approximant for the detection and characteriza- tion of eccentric binary black hole mergers,

    E. A. Huerta et al., “Eccentric, nonspinning, inspiral, Gaussian- process merger approximant for the detection and characteriza- tion of eccentric binary black hole mergers,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 024031 (2018), arXiv:1711.06276 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Numerical relativity higher order gravitational wave- forms of eccentric, spinning, nonprecessing binary black hole mergers,

    Abhishek V . Joshi, Shawn G. Rosofsky, Roland Haas, and E. A. Huerta, “Numerical relativity higher order gravitational wave- forms of eccentric, spinning, nonprecessing binary black hole mergers,” Phys. Rev. D107, 064038 (2023), arXiv:2210.01852 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Adding eccentricity to quasicircular binary-black-hole waveform models,

    Yoshinta Setyawati and Frank Ohme, “Adding eccentricity to quasicircular binary-black-hole waveform models,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 124011 (2021), arXiv:2101.11033 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Phenomenologi- cal relationship between eccentric and quasicircular orbital bi- nary black hole waveform,

    Hao Wang, Yuan-Chuan Zou, and Yu Liu, “Phenomenologi- cal relationship between eccentric and quasicircular orbital bi- nary black hole waveform,” Phys. Rev. D107, 124061 (2023), arXiv:2302.11227 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Eccentric binary black hole surrogate models for the gravitational waveform and remnant properties: comparable mass, nonspinning case,

    Tousif Islam, Vijay Varma, Jackie Lodman, Scott E. Field, Gau- rav Khanna, Mark A. Scheel, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Davide Gerosa, and Lawrence E. Kidder, “Eccentric binary black hole surrogate models for the gravitational waveform and remnant properties: comparable mass, nonspinni...

    2021 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Unveiling the Merger Structure of Black Hole Binaries in Generic Planar Orbits,

    Gregorio Carullo, Simone Albanesi, Alessandro Nagar, Rossella Gamba, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Tomas Andrade, and Juan Tre- nado, “Unveiling the Merger Structure of Black Hole Binaries in Generic Planar Orbits,” Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101401 (2024), arXiv:2309.07228 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Effective one-body multipolar waveform model for spin-aligned, quasicir- cular, eccentric, hyperbolic black hole binaries,

    Alessandro Nagar, Alice Bonino, and Piero Rettegno, “Effective one-body multipolar waveform model for spin-aligned, quasicir- cular, eccentric, hyperbolic black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    ESIGMAHM: An Eccentric, Spinning inspiral-merger- ringdown waveform model with Higher Modes for the de- tection and characterization of binary black holes,

    Kaushik Paul, Akash Maurya, Quentin Henry, Kartikey Sharma, Pranav Satheesh, Divyajyoti, Prayush Kumar, and Chandra Kant Mishra, “ESIGMAHM: An Eccentric, Spinning inspiral-merger- ringdown waveform model with Higher Modes for the de- tection and characterization of binary blac...

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    An improved IMR model for BBHs on elliptical orbits,

    Pratul Manna, Tamal RoyChowdhury, and Chandra Kant Mishra, “An improved IMR model for BBHs on elliptical orbits,” (2024), arXiv:2409.10672 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned- spin binary black holes: The multipolar e ffective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM,

    Aldo Gamboa et al., “Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned- spin binary black holes: The multipolar e ffective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM,” (2024), arXiv:2412.12823 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [55]

    Third post-Newtonian dynamics for eccentric orbits and aligned spins in the e ffective-one-body waveform model SEOBNRv5EHM,

    Aldo Gamboa, Mohammed Khalil, and Alessandra Buo- nanno, “Third post-Newtonian dynamics for eccentric orbits and aligned spins in the e ffective-one-body waveform model SEOBNRv5EHM,” (2024), arXiv:2412.12831 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [56]

    E ffective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics,

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, “E ffective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    1999 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences,

    Alessandra Buonanno and Thibault Damour, “Transition from inspiral to plunge in binary black hole coalescences,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    2000 arXiv

  51. [58]

    GW190521: orbital eccentricity and signatures of dynamical formation in a binary black hole merger signal,

    Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Juan Calderon Bustillo, “GW190521: orbital eccentricity and signatures of dynamical formation in a binary black hole merger signal,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 903, L5 (2020), arXiv:2009.04771 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  52. [59]

    Eccentricity estimate for black hole mergers with numerical relativity simulations,

    V . Gayathri, J. Healy, J. Lange, B. O’Brien, M. Szczepanczyk, Imre Bartos, M. Campanelli, S. Klimenko, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, “Eccentricity estimate for black hole mergers with numerical relativity simulations,” Nature Astron. 6, 344– 349 (2022), arXiv:2009.05461...

    2022 arXiv

  53. [60]

    GW190521 as a dynamical capture of two nonspinning black holes,

    Rossella Gamba, Matteo Breschi, Gregorio Carullo, Simone Albanesi, Piero Rettegno, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, and Alessandro Nagar, “GW190521 as a dynamical capture of two nonspinning black holes,” Nature Astron. 7, 11–17 (2023), arXiv:2106.05575 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [61]

    Bayesian inference of binary black holes with inspiral- merger-ringdown waveforms using two eccentric parameters,

    Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, and Jonathan Gair, “Bayesian inference of binary black holes with inspiral- merger-ringdown waveforms using two eccentric parameters,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 124063 (2023), arXiv:2309.15528 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Evidence for eccentricity in the popula- tion of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA,

    Nihar Gupte et al., “Evidence for eccentricity in the popula- tion of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA,” (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves,

    Luc Blanchet, “Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves,” Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  57. [64]

    Numerically generated 8 quasiequilibrium orbits of black holes: Circular or eccentric?

    Thierry Mora and Cli fford M. Will, “Numerically generated 8 quasiequilibrium orbits of black holes: Circular or eccentric?” Phys. Rev. D 66, 101501 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0208089

    2002 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Defining eccentricity for gravitational wave astronomy,

    Md Arif Shaikh, Vijay Varma, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Antoni Ramos- Buades, and Maarten van de Meent, “Defining eccentricity for gravitational wave astronomy,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 104007 (2023), arXiv:2302.11257 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  59. [66]

    A Rosetta Stone for Eccentric Grav- itational Waveform Models,

    Alan M. Knee, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, Jess McIver, and Eric Thrane, “A Rosetta Stone for Eccentric Grav- itational Waveform Models,” Astrophys. J. 936, 172 (2022), arXiv:2207.14346 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [67]

    Orbital eccentricity in general relativity from catastrophe theory,

    Matteo Boschini, Nicholas Loutrel, Davide Gerosa, and Giulia Fumagalli, “Orbital eccentricity in general relativity from catastrophe theory,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 024008 (2025), arXiv:2411.00098 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  61. [68]

    Post-Newtonian theory- inspired framework for characterizing eccentricity in gravita- tional waveforms,

    Tousif Islam and Tejaswi Venumadhav, “Post-Newtonian theory- inspired framework for characterizing eccentricity in gravita- tional waveforms,” (2025), arXiv:2502.02739 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  62. [69]

    Post-Circular Expansion of Eccentric Binary Inspirals: Fourier-Domain Waveforms in the Stationary Phase Approxima- tion,

    Nicolas Yunes, K. G. Arun, Emanuele Berti, and Cli fford M. Will, “Post-Circular Expansion of Eccentric Binary Inspirals: Fourier-Domain Waveforms in the Stationary Phase Approxima- tion,” Phys. Rev. D80, 084001 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 109901 (2014)], arXiv:0906.0313 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  63. [70]

    Phenomenology of amplitude-corrected post-Newtonian gravitational waveforms for compact binary inspiral. I. Signal-to-noise ratios,

    Chris Van Den Broeck and Anand S. Sengupta, “Phenomenology of amplitude-corrected post-Newtonian gravitational waveforms for compact binary inspiral. I. Signal-to-noise ratios,” Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 155–176 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0607092

    2007 arXiv

  64. [71]

    Higher harmonics increase LISA’s mass reach for supermassive black holes,

    K. G. Arun, Bala R. Iyer, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and Sid- dhartha Sinha, “Higher harmonics increase LISA’s mass reach for supermassive black holes,” Phys. Rev. D75, 124002 (2007), arXiv:0704.1086 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  65. [72]

    Proposal for determining the total masses of ec- centric binaries using signature of periastron advance in gravi- tational waves,

    Naoki Seto, “Proposal for determining the total masses of ec- centric binaries using signature of periastron advance in gravi- tational waves,” Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 251101 (2001), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 101, 209901 (2008)], arXiv:astro-ph/0111107

    2001 arXiv

  66. [73]

    Tidally Induced Apsidal Precession in Double White Dwarfs: A New Mass Measurement Tool with LISA,

    F. Valsecchi, W. M. Farr, B. Willems, C. J. Deloye, and V . Kalogera, “Tidally Induced Apsidal Precession in Double White Dwarfs: A New Mass Measurement Tool with LISA,” Astrophys. J. 745, 137 (2012), arXiv:1105.4837 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  67. [74]

    Identifying Eccentricity in Binary Black Hole mergers using a Harmonic Decomposition of the Gravitational Waveform,

    Ben G. Patterson, Sharon Mary Tomson, and Stephen Fairhurst, “Identifying Eccentricity in Binary Black Hole mergers using a Harmonic Decomposition of the Gravitational Waveform,” (2024), arXiv:2411.04187 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,

    Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Black- man, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, “Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,” Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.0930...

    2019 arXiv

  69. [77]

    On the eccentricity distribution of coalescing black hole binaries driven by the Kozai mechanism in globu- lar clusters,

    Linqing Wen, “On the eccentricity distribution of coalescing black hole binaries driven by the Kozai mechanism in globu- lar clusters,” Astrophys. J. 598, 419–430 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0211492

    2003

  70. [78]

    (Network Theory Ltd., 2009)

    Brian Gough, GNU Scientific Library Reference Manual - Third Edition, 3rd ed. (Network Theory Ltd., 2009)

    2009

  71. [79]

    Fast and faith- ful interpolation of numerical relativity surrogate waveforms using a meshfree approximation,

    Lalit Pathak, Amit Reza, and Anand S. Sengupta, “Fast and faith- ful interpolation of numerical relativity surrogate waveforms using a meshfree approximation,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 064022 (2024), arXiv:2403.19162 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    New search pipeline for gravitational waves with higher-order modes using mode-by-mode filtering,

    Digvijay Wadekar, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Javier Roulet, Ajit Ku- mar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, and Matias Zal- darriaga, “New search pipeline for gravitational waves with higher-order modes using mode-by-mode filtering,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 044063 (2024), arXiv:2405.17...

    2024 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Template Bank for Compact Binary Coalescence Searches in Gravitational Wave Data: A General Geometric Placement Algorithm,

    Javier Roulet, Liang Dai, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “Template Bank for Compact Binary Coalescence Searches in Gravitational Wave Data: A General Geometric Placement Algorithm,” Phys. Rev. D 99, 123022 (2019), arXiv:1904.01683 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  74. [82]

    A Surrogate Model of Gravitational Waveforms from Numer- ical Relativity Simulations of Precessing Binary Black Hole Mergers,

    Jonathan Blackman, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Chad R. Galley, Daniel A. Hemberger, Patricia Schmidt, and Rory Smith, “A Surrogate Model of Gravitational Waveforms from Numer- ical Relativity Simulations of Precessing Binary Black Hole Mergers,” Phys. Rev. D95, 104023 (201...

    2017 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?

    Curt Cutler and Eanna E. Flanagan, “Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?” Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658–2697 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

    1994 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA,

    B. P. Abbottet al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA,” Living Rev. Rel. 19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Rela- tive Binning and Fast Likelihood Evaluation for Gravitational Wave Parameter Estimation,

    Barak Zackay, Liang Dai, and Tejaswi Venumadhav, “Rela- tive Binning and Fast Likelihood Evaluation for Gravitational Wave Parameter Estimation,” (2018), arXiv:1806.08792 [astro- ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Fast marginalization algorithm for optimizing gravitational wave de- tection, parameter estimation, and sky localization,

    Javier Roulet, Jonathan Mushkin, Digvijay Wadekar, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “Fast marginalization algorithm for optimizing gravitational wave de- tection, parameter estimation, and sky localization,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 044010 (2024), arXiv:2404....

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.