A pipeline to search for signatures of line-of-sight acceleration in gravitational wave signals produced by compact binary coalescences

Aditya Vijaykumar; Alex B. Nielsen; Avinash Tiwari; Shasvath J. Kapadia; Shrobana Ghosh

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 4 cited by

A pipeline to search for signatures of line-of-sight acceleration in gravitational wave signals produced by compact binary coalescences

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives post-Newtonian phase corrections that make line-of-sight acceleration of a merging compact binary measurable from its gravitational-wave signal, and identifies the unmodeled effects that can fake it.

desk verdict A genuinely useful extension of LOSA phasing to tides, with a careful mimicker study — the main caveat is the asserted (not validated) merger/ringdown insensitivity and a missing code release. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22272 v3 pith:FNXDFP5Q submitted 2025-06-27 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Avinash Tiwari , Aditya Vijaykumar , Shasvath J. Kapadia , Shrobana Ghosh , Alex B. Nielsen This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc PACS 04.30.-w95.85.Sz

keywords gravitationalwavesline-of-sightaccelerationcompactbinarycoalescencepost-Newtoniancorrectionsalignedspinstidaldeformabilityparameterestimationwaveformsystematics

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

The paper's goal is to show that a constant line-of-sight acceleration of a compact binary's centre of mass leaves a specific, calculable imprint on the gravitational-wave phase, and that this imprint can be searched for in real detections. The authors derive post-Newtonian phase corrections for the dominant $(2,2)$ mode, starting from the leading order at $-4$PN below the quadrupole term and extending to 3.5PN beyond it, for binaries with aligned spins and for binaries with tidal deformation. They implement the corrections in a standard parameter-estimation pipeline and show in zero-noise injections that a known acceleration is recovered when the injection and recovery models match. They then show that several unmodeled effects — higher harmonics, spin precession, eccentricity, missing tidal terms, dipole radiation, and a massive graviton — can each shift the recovered acceleration away from zero, and they turn this into selection criteria for which events can be trusted. If the paper is right, a single merger in a dense stellar environment could be identified by its acceleration signature, and a published acceleration claim in the event GW190814 would need to be re-examined.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the time-dependent Doppler rescaling produced by a constant acceleration. Instead of a constant redshift, which is degenerate with mass, an accelerating centre of mass changes the mapping between emitted and observed frequencies over the signal: $f_u = f_o(1+\Gamma_1(t_o-t_c))$. Feeding this into the stationary-phase approximation — the standard tool for converting a slowly chirping time-domain signal into the frequency domain — converts the acceleration into explicit post-Newtonian phase terms, with the leading correction entering at $-4$PN relative to the Newtonian quadrupole term. The paper's new input is to insert the standard aligned-spin and tidal corrections to the orbital energy and gravitational-wave flux into this Doppler-shifted integral, producing closed-form expressions for $\Delta\Psi_{\mathrm{AS}}$ and $\Delta\Psi_\Lambda$ that can be added to the existing point-particle LOSA phase. The same rescaling also yields the validity condition $|\Gamma_1(t_o-t_c)|\ll 1$, which underpins the paper's selection criteria on total mass and signal duration.

What would settle it

Generate a self-consistent accelerated waveform — one computed with the centre-of-mass acceleration acting through the entire inspiral, merger, and ringdown — inject it through the pipeline, and check whether the recovered $\Gamma_1$ and masses match the injection. If recovery is biased, the paper's assumption that merger and ringdown are insensitive to acceleration fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that finite line-of-sight acceleration is not just a nuisance redshift but a structured phase correction: a constant acceleration $\Gamma_1=a/c$ changes the frequency-time relation to $f_u=f_o(1+\Gamma_1(t_o-t_c))$, and under the stationary-phase approximation this generates power-law corrections to the Fourier-domain phase of the $(2,2)$ mode, beginning at $-4$PN and computed here through 3.5PN beyond the leading term. The paper supplies those corrections in closed form for aligned-spin binaries and for binaries with nonzero tidal deformability, in addition to the known point-particle result, and shows by zero-noise parameter-estimation studies that when the model used for recovery matches the one used for injection, the injected value of $\Gamma_1$ is recovered within 90% credible intervals. It further claims that any one of several missing physical ingredients can masquerade as acceleration: significant higher-mode amplitude, spin precession, eccentricity, neglected tidal effects, dipole gravitational radiation, or a nonzero graviton mass. Consequently, the paper concludes that a claimed LOSA detection is only as credible as the exclusion of these mimickers, and that the reported acceleration signature in GW190814 — a highly asymmetric binary with strong higher modes — should be treated with caution until higher-mode LOSA corrections exist.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that corrections computed for the early, inspiral part of the signal remain valid when added to full waveforms that include the merger and ringdown, because the acceleration effect is assumed to be negligible at those later stages; the paper asserts this on physical grounds but does not test it with a self-consistent accelerating merger-to-ringdown waveform.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A single loud CBC event whose acceleration is measured could identify its host environment, because the acceleration and its time variation track the local gravitational potential.
For current ground-based detectors, the approximation restricts reliable LOSA searches to events with total detector-frame mass below about 10 solar masses; heavier events must be discarded.
BNS searches must use the tidal corrections in the recovery waveform, because leaving tides out produces a spurious acceleration signal.
Eccentricity of roughly 0.001–0.1 at 20 Hz can mimic accelerations of $10^{-7}$–$10^{-3}\mathrm{s}^{-1}$, so eccentric mergers must be excluded by model selection before claiming acceleration.
Claimed LOSA detections such as the one in GW190814 should be re-derived with higher-mode LOSA corrections before being accepted, since a 22-mode-only correction on a strong-higher-mode signal is shown to be biased.

Reading between the lines

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

One extension the authors do not spell out: the eccentricity-LOSA degeneracy can be turned into a joint measurement, with the recovered $\Gamma_1$ posterior serving as an upper limit on acceleration once eccentricity is bounded, and a joint fit separating the two.
The selection criteria are tied to the current detector band; instruments with lower-frequency sensitivity would increase the signal duration and shift the valid mass range upward, making small accelerations easier to measure rather than harder.
If the (3,3) and (4,4) LOSA corrections planned by the authors are computed, the GW190814 question becomes a decisive test of whether the earlier claimed signal was real or a higher-mode artifact.
A practical search strategy implied by the systematics study is that any one-parameter LOSA recovery should be paired with Bayes-factor comparisons against eccentric, higher-mode, precessing, tidal, and modified-gravity alternatives before a detection claim is made.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a solid methods paper that deserves a serious referee. The truly new pieces are the tidal LOSA phase corrections to 3.5PN and the systematic study of LOSA mimickers (higher modes, precession, eccentricity, tides, dipole radiation, massive graviton), plus the selection criteria that come out of it. The aligned-spin part overlaps with Lazarow et al. [24], which the authors cite honestly, so the increment there is modest; the tidal terms are not in the earlier papers.

The paper does the obvious sanity check correctly: identical injection and recovery models recover injected LOSA values, for both a BNS and an aligned-spin binary. The mimicker studies are informative and internally consistent. The GW190814 caution looks justified: a non-accelerating GW190814-like injection recovered with a 22-mode-only LOSA model gives biased posteriors, including with a standard waveform family like IMRPhenomPv2. That is a useful correction to a potentially premature claim.

Now the soft spots. The load-bearing one is the TaylorF2-to-IMR step. The LOSA phase is derived in the inspiral-only TaylorF2 context and then added to full IMR waveforms. The authors argue the -4PN leading term is suppressed in merger and ringdown and that Gamma1*Delta_t becomes nearly constant after the last stable orbit, so those phases are insensitive — but they never validate this with a self-consistent accelerated IMR waveform. Every injection is recovered with the same approximate model, so the tests check internal consistency, not physical fidelity. The argument is physically plausible and the paper flags the limitation itself, so I would not call this fatal — but it is exactly the kind of assumption a referee should push on, and ideally the authors should construct one accelerated IMR test rather than rest on the suppression argument. Second, the long PN formulas are not checked against an independent derivation, and there is no direct comparison with the existing aligned-spin result of [24]. A cross-check there would be cheap and would reduce the typo risk that plagues expressions this long. Third, a pipeline paper with no public code or data release is a real gap — 'LOSA-Pipe' should have a link.

The circularity burden is low. The new corrections come from standard PN energy and flux results in the cited literature, not from the effect being predicted. Self-citation is limited to the leading point-particle term from their own [22], which is an appropriate ingredient.

Who is this for: anyone doing environmental searches or theory-agnostic GR tests on low-mass CBCs, and anyone following up the GW190814 third-body claim. I would send it to peer review, and as a revision condition I would ask for the code release and, ideally, the [24] cross-check and one accelerated IMR validation run.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper derives post-Newtonian phase corrections for the (2,2) mode of a gravitational-wave signal from a compact binary whose center of mass undergoes constant line-of-sight acceleration (LOSA), extending the authors' earlier point-particle result to binaries with aligned spins and finite tidal deformability (Section II). These corrections are implemented in a Bilby-based parameter-estimation pipeline called LOSA-Pipe. The paper maps the validity region of the small-acceleration approximation with a Fisher-matrix calculation (Section III), verifies that the pipeline recovers injected LOSA when injection and recovery models are identical (Section IV), and then studies a list of potential LOSA mimickers: higher harmonics, precession, eccentricity, neglected tides, dipole radiation, and a massive graviton (Section V). It applies the pipeline to a GW190814-like injection to argue that earlier LOSA claims for that event must be treated with caution (Section VI), and closes with explicit selection criteria for real-LVK-event use (Section VII).

Significance. If the central IMR-validity assumption holds, this is a valuable methodological contribution to environmental-acceleration searches with current ground-based detectors. The new tidal and aligned-spin phase corrections go beyond the point-particle treatment of Ref. [22], and the systematic catalog of LOSA mimickers in Section V is useful for any future search or reanalysis. The paper is appropriately cautious: it does not claim a detection, it recommends model selection when selection criteria are violated, and it flags its own limitations. The main deliverable is a pipeline plus validity criteria, and the self-consistency tests in Section IV establish that the implementation is internally sound. However, all recovery tests use the same approximate LOSA-corrected model for injection and recovery, so the physical fidelity of the merger/ringdown treatment remains the central open question.

major comments (2)

[Section II, final paragraph; Sections IV-VI] The assumption that TaylorF2-derived LOSA corrections can be added to full IMR waveforms is asserted but not validated. The paper argues that the -4PN-leading LOSA term is suppressed at merger/ringdown and that Gamma1*Delta_t becomes nearly constant after the last stable orbit, but no self-consistent accelerated IMR waveform is constructed or injected; every recovery test uses the same approximate LOSA-corrected model for injection and recovery, so it checks internal consistency rather than physical fidelity. If the suppression argument fails, the recovered Gamma1 for real signals containing merger and ringdown would be biased, and the Section VII selection criteria would inherit that bias. I request a concrete validation, for example by generating an accelerated IMR waveform through the same frequency/time mapping applied to an existing phenomenological or EOB IMR model, and checking with injections and recoveries that the pipeline recovers zero LOSA for a non-accelerating IMR signal and the injected LOSA for an accelerating one; alternatively, the pipeline should be restricted to inspiral-only analyses until such a validation is provided.
[Section II A-B, Eqs. (7)-(13)] The new tidal and aligned-spin LOSA phase corrections are presented without a derivation or an independent validation. The text only states that they follow from standard energy and flux expressions (Eqs. 3.1-3.2 of Ref. [26] and the cited tidal/spin references), which is not sufficient to establish correctness of such long formulas. I recommend either (i) an appendix showing the derivation steps for at least one representative term, or (ii) a numerical consistency check in which the stationary-phase phase is evaluated directly from the cited energy and flux and compared with Eqs. (9) and (13), together with a check that the point-particle limit reproduces the results of Ref. [22] and that the spin terms are compared with the independent results of Ref. [24]. This is load-bearing because the formulas are the central deliverable and all subsequent pipeline tests rely on them.

minor comments (7)

[Section I] The phrase "The the vast majority" contains a duplicated article and should read "The vast majority."
[Section II] There are typos in the text: "substitue" should be "substitute" and "rigndown" should be "ringdown."
[Section III] The sentence "we perform estimate the Fisher Matrix over a grid" is ungrammatical and should be rephrased.
[Section V D] The waveform model is spelled "IMRPhenomXP_NRTIdalv2" in one place; this should be "IMRPhenomXP_NRTidalv2."
[Section VII] The higher-mode selection criterion is ambiguous: the text says a waveform without higher modes "should be used unless the median value of mass ratio q<0.25," but Appendix A shows acceptable recovery at q=0.15 for high SNR. Please clarify whether the criterion is SNR-dependent and state the exact q threshold for each SNR regime.
[Section II and Section VIII] The paper advertises an accompanying LOSA-Pipe software pipeline but does not provide a repository URL or data availability statement; adding one would improve reproducibility.
[Table II] The pairing of the three values of Gamma1 with the three values of e0 is visually unclear in a two-row format; a three-column layout would make the correspondence unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LOSA phase corrections are derived from independent PN energy/flux inputs, and the injection-recovery checks are explicitly self-consistency tests rather than predictions.

full rationale

No circular derivation is present. The new LOSA phase corrections for tidal and aligned-spin binaries are obtained by taking standard, externally derived PN expressions for binding energy and flux (Eqs. 3.1 and 3.2 of [26]; Eq. 6.5b of [27] and Eq. 6.2 of [28]; Eqs. 6.18 and 6.19 of [29,30]) and composing them with the time-dependent Doppler mapping of Eqs. (3)-(6) in the manner of the authors' earlier [22]. The resulting phase corrections ΔΨ_Λ (Eq. 9) and ΔΨ_AS (Eq. 13) are mathematical consequences of those stated inputs, not restatements of the inputs. The point-particle LOSA phase is taken from [22], but that is a parameter-free, independently published prior result whose stated assumptions (non-spinning point-particle inspiral) do not include the target tidal or aligned-spin corrections, so the self-citation is genuine evidence rather than a circular premise. The injection/recovery studies in Sections IV-VI explicitly use identical injection and recovery models and are framed as sanity checks, not as independent physical confirmation; correspondingly, the paper's central claim is only that LOSA is recovered when the models match. The paper itself flags the one genuinely load-bearing assumption: inspiral-only TaylorF2 LOSA corrections are added to full IMR waveforms (Section II, final paragraph), justified by an asserted suppression of the -4PN term and near-constant Γ1Δt after the last stable orbit, without a self-consistent accelerated IMR validation. That is a physical-fidelity limitation for real-event applications, but it is not circularity: the phase corrections are derived independently of the merger/ringdown behavior, and the selection criteria transparently restrict claims to the regime where the approximation is intended to hold.

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

The central derivation rests on standard PN energy and flux results from the cited literature, plus the TaylorF2-to-IMR transfer assumption. The hand-chosen thresholds are analysis choices used to define safe applicability. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Validity threshold on |Γ1(to-tc)| = 0.01
Hand-chosen threshold to define the 'much less than 1' approximation in Eq. (1); events above this are deemed unreliable (Section III).
Total detector-frame mass cut = 10 solar masses
Chosen from the Fisher-matrix grid to keep |Γ1|tsd below 0.01 at 90% CI; events above the cut are excluded (Sections III and VII).
Mass-ratio cut for higher-mode safe use = 0.25
Heuristic cut from injection studies; below this, LOSA with IMRPhenomXP may be biased (Section V A and Appendix).
Precession effective spin cut = 0.4 (χp)
Heuristic cut from injection studies; above this, using aligned-spin LOSA corrections on precessing waveforms may bias parameters (Section V B).

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The stationary phase approximation is valid for the LOSA-modulated waveform
Used to write Eq. (2); standard in GW data analysis but not proved here.
domain assumption The cited PN energy and flux expressions for point particles, aligned spins, and tidal deformations are correct to the stated PN orders
The derivations in Section II start from these expressions (for example Eq. 3.1 and 3.2 of [26], Eq. 6.2 of [27], Eq. 6.18 and 6.19 of [29,30]); any error propagates directly into the new phase corrections.
domain assumption The approximation |Γ1(to-tc)| much less than 1 and the restriction to first order in Γ1 is valid for the events analyzed
Eq. (1) and the validity analysis in Section III; the pipeline rejects events violating |Γ1|tsd below 0.01.
ad hoc to paper LOSA phase corrections derived in the inspiral-only TaylorF2 model can be added to IMR waveforms without biasing inference
Section II states that merger and ringdown are insensitive because the -4PN correction is suppressed at high frequency and Γ1Δt becomes constant after last stable orbit; this is argued but not verified with a self-consistent accelerated IMR waveform.
domain assumption The quasi-circular, aligned-spin, dominant-mode assumption and separate linear addition of tidal and spin corrections are adequate
Throughout Section II, tidal and spin effects are treated separately, and the (2,2) mode is the only mode; the paper maps the consequences of these restrictions in Section V.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A pipeline to search for signatures of line-of-sight acceleration in gravitational wave signals produced by compact binary coalescences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FNXDFP5Q

@misc{pith2026250622272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A pipeline to search for signatures of line-of-sight acceleration in gravitational wave signals produced by compact binary coalescences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FNXDFP5Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22272}
}

abstract

Compact binary coalescences (CBCs), such as merging binary black holes (BBHs), binary neutron stars (BNSs), or neutron star black holes (NSBHs), hosted by dense stellar environments, could produce gravitational waves (GWs) that contain signatures of line-of-sight acceleration (LOSA) imparted by the environment's gravitational potential. We calculate the Post-Newtonian (PN) corrections to the $(2,\,2)$ mode GW phase due to a finite LOSA, starting from the leading order at -4 PN below the quadrupole order, up to 3.5 PN above the leading order correction. We do so for binaries whose component spins are aligned with the orbital angular momentum, as well as for binaries with non-zero tidal deformation. We implement these corrections into the LIGO-Virgo-Kagra (LVK) collaboration's flagship parameter estimation (PE) software Bilby_tgr. We study the systematics associated with recovering LOSAs. We find that, when the injection and recovery waveform models are identical, LOSAs are recovered as expected. We test the robustness of the pipeline against waveforms with strong higher-mode signatures or signatures of beyond-general-relativistic (beyond-GR) effects, to delimit the range of applicability of our GR-consistent quasi-circular LOSA-corrected waveforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22272 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Left Panel: The precision in the measurement of Γ1 at SNR 10 by aLIGO over a grid of detector frame component masses. The dashed lines represent the contours of constant ∆(Γ1). Right Panel: The validity condition of the approximation Eq. 1 at SNR 10 for aLIGO over a grid of detector frame component masses. The dash-dotted lines represent the contours of constant ∆Γ1tsd. highly asymmetric6 binary of total mass M = 10… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The corner plots of Γ1, M, and q highlighting the waveform systematics when using IMRPhenomXP (green) and IMRPhenomXPHM (brown) as the base waveforms during recovery of parameters of a non-accelerating binary injected with IMRPhenomXPHM. The dotted lines represent the 90% CIs, while the blue solid lines represent the injected values. The values in the titles of 1d posteriors correspond to the median and 90% CI value… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** The corner plots of Γ1, M, and q highlighting the waveform systematics when using IMRPhenomXP as the base waveforms during recovery of parameters of a non-accelerating binary injected with SEOBNRv5PHM, assuming aligned (green) and precessing (brown) spins. e = 0.1 (brown) cases. In all of the cases, Γ1 is recovered away from zero, and the bias becomes more severe for high eccentricities. Therefore, an eccentric mer… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The corner plot of Γ1, M, and q highlighting the waveform systematics when using IMRPhenomXP (green) and IMRPhenomXP_NRTidalv2 (brown) as the base waveforms during recovery of parameters of a non-accelerating GW170817-like signal injected with IMRPhenomXP_NRTidalv2 in …

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: 1d posteriors of LOSA (left panel), M (central panel), and q (right panel) with IMRPhenomXP as the base waveforms for a non-spinning and non-accelerating GW170817-like CBC at 100 Mpc, injected with IMRPhenomXP modified with contributions from dipole GW emission. 0 5 Γ1…

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: 1d posteriors of LOSA (left panel), M (central panel), and q (right panel) with IMRPhenomXP as the base waveforms for a non-spinning and non-accelerating GW170817-like CBC at 100 Mpc, injected with IMRPhenomXP together with the modifications due to a finite graviton ma…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: The corner plots of Γ1, M, and q highlighting the waveform systematics when using IMRPhenomXP (green), IMRPhenomXPHM (brown), and IMRPhenomPv2 (magenta) as the base waveforms for a non-accelerating GW190814-like CBC, injected with IMRPhenomXPHM in zero-noise. passing t…

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: The corner plots of Γ1, M, and q recovered using IMRPhenomXP as the base waveform for the non-accelerating (left panel) and accelerating (right panel) IMRPhenomXPHM injections of CBC of total mass M = 10 M⊙ and mass ratio q = 0.15 with DLs: 37 Mpc (green) and 200 Mpc …

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: The corner plots of Γ1, M, and q recovered using IMRPhenomXP with precessing spins as the base waveform for the injection used in subsection V B with different DLs: 200 Mpc (green) and 100 Mpc (brown) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: The corner plots of Γ1, M, and q recovered using IMRPhenomXP as the base waveform for the accelerating IMRPhenomXP precessing injections of CBC used in subsection V B with DLs: 50 Mpc (brown) and 100 Mpc (green). Left panel: Γ1 = 5 × 10−5 s −1 . Right panel: Γ1 = 10−4…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

Joint inference of line-of-sight acceleration and orbital eccentricity in neutron-star--black-hole binaries
gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

All five NSBH events are consistent with zero line-of-sight acceleration; the joint posterior for GW200105_162426 disfavors both zero LOSA and zero eccentricity at 90% credibility.
Line-of-sight acceleration in compact binaries with higher harmonics and eccentricity
gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Implements consistent line-of-sight acceleration corrections in quasi-circular and eccentric GW waveform models, applies them to GWTC-3 events, and reports no substantial evidence for acceleration while warning of bia...
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.
GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameterized Tests
gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Analysis of GWTC-4.0 events finds no evidence for deviations from General Relativity and improves bounds on parameterized post-Newtonian coefficients by factors of 1.2-5.5 plus graviton mass limit to 1.92e-23 eV/c2.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[24]

Binary Black Hole Mergers: Formation and Populations,

Michela Mapelli, “Binary Black Hole Mergers: Formation and Populations,” Front. Astron. Space Sci. 7, 38 (2020), arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020
[22]

GW190425: Ob- servation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙,

B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190425: Ob- servation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020
[26]

Effect of massive perturbers on extreme mass-ratio inspiral waveforms,

Nicolás Yunes, M. Coleman Miller, and Jonathan Thornburg, “Effect of massive perturbers on extreme mass-ratio inspiral waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D83, 044030 (2011)

work page 2011
[1]

But for CBCs in a non-circular outer orbit, it will be time-varying and hence can create a LOSA-like signature

Time-varying gravitational redshift: For CBCs in a cir- cular (outer) orbit around an SMBH, the gravitational redshift will be constant and hence can not create a LOSA-like signature. But for CBCs in a non-circular outer orbit, it will be time-varying and hence can create a LOSA-like signature. The equivalent of Γ1 = ˙z is given by ˙z = − 1 2(1− Rs/r)−3/2...

work page
[2]

We are sensitive to LOSA well beyond this radius, where Shapiro delay is suppressed

Shapiro delay: This is a 4PN effect, and will be relevant for LVK sources if r≤ R⊙ for SMBHs, where R⊙ is the solar radius [43]. We are sensitive to LOSA well beyond this radius, where Shapiro delay is suppressed

work page
[3]

[44] and

Time-dependent lensing magnifications: Refs. [44] and

work page
[4]

Repeated signals due to lensing : These will manifest in the detector as signals separated by∼ 1− 10 s time delays, essentially appearing as overlapping signals in the detector. If the delay is more than the autocorrela- tion length of the signal (typically ∼ 1 s, one can tell 11 □1.0 □0.5 0.0 □1 [10□3 s□1] □0.853+0.193 □0.220 1.20 1.21 1.22 M [M⊙] 1.216+...

work page 1978
[5]

specifically calculates the time-dependent magni- fications in the weak and strong lensing regimes for a stellar mass CBC around an SMBH. For the signal du- rations that we consider in ground-based detectors, the magnifications in the strong lensing regime would just be constant, and would just rescale the distance to the object. Therefore, these e ffects...

work page

Show all 56 references

[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,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[7]

References [46, 47] showed that for inner orbits ≲ 10−3 AU, this effect is not only subdominant to a LOSA but also to de Sitter precession of the orbital plane of the inner binary

Induced eccentricity due to Lidov-Kozai oscillations : Perturbation by the massive BH can lead to increase in eccentricities of the inner orbit. References [46, 47] showed that for inner orbits ≲ 10−3 AU, this effect is not only subdominant to a LOSA but also to de Sitter prec...

2019
[8]

Advanced LIGO,

J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), “Advanced LIGO,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[9]

Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,

F. Acerneseet al. (Virgo), “Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[10]

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]

2021
[11]

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), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[12]

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]

2021 arXiv
[13]

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

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, et al., “Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Ad- vanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA,” Living Reviews in Relativity 23, 3 (2020)

2020
[14]

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

R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), “GWTC- 3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[15]

3-ogc: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact-binary mergers,

Alexander H. Nitz, Collin D. Capano, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Marlin Schäfer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Miriam Cabero, “3-ogc: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact-binary mergers,” The Astrophysical Journal 922, 76 (2021)

2021
[16]

4-ogc: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact binary mergers,

Alexander H. Nitz, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Shichao Wu, Marlin Schäfer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Collin D. Capano, “4-ogc: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact binary mergers,” The Astrophysical Journal 946, 59 (2023)

2023
[17]

New binary black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3a data,

Seth Olsen, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Jonathan Mushkin, Javier Roulet, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “New binary black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3a data,” Phys. Rev. D106, 043009 (2022)

2022
[18]

New black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics,

Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Ajit Ku- mar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, Seth Olsen, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “New black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics,” (2023), arXiv:2312...

2023 arXiv
[19]

New binary black hole mergers in the ligo- 14 virgo o3b data,

Ajit Kumar Mehta, Seth Olsen, Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Jonathan Mushkin, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga, “New binary black hole mergers in the ligo- 14 virgo o3b data,” (2024), arXiv:2311.06061 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Effect of matter structure on the gravitational wave- form,

Camille Bonvin, Chiara Caprini, Riccardo Sturani, and Nicola Tamanini, “Effect of matter structure on the gravitational wave- form,” Phys. Rev. D95, 044029 (2017)

2017
[21]

GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral,

Benjamin P. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Obser- vation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star–Black Hole Coalescences,

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), “Obser- vation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star–Black Hole Coalescences,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[25]

One Chan- nel to Rule Them All? Constraining the Origins of Binary Black Holes Using Multiple Formation Pathways,

Michael Zevin, Simone S. Bavera, Christopher P. L. Berry, Vicky Kalogera, Tassos Fragos, Pablo Marchant, Carl L. Rodriguez, Fabio Antonini, Daniel E. Holz, and Chris Pankow, “One Chan- nel to Rule Them All? Constraining the Origins of Binary Black Holes Using Multiple Formatio...

2021 arXiv
[27]

Tidal effects in the equations of motion of compact binary systems to next-to-next-to-leading post-newtonian order,

Quentin Henry, Guillaume Faye, and Luc Blanchet, “Tidal effects in the equations of motion of compact binary systems to next-to-next-to-leading post-newtonian order,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 064047 (2020)

2020
[28]

Profiling stel- lar environments of gravitational wave sources,

Avinash Tiwari, Aditya Vijaykumar, Shasvath J. Kapadia, Sourav Chatterjee, and Giacomo Fragione, “Profiling stel- lar environments of gravitational wave sources,” (2024), arXiv:2407.15117 [astro-ph.HE]

2024
[29]

Waltzing binaries: Probing the line-of-sight acceleration of merging compact objects with gravitational waves,

Aditya Vijaykumar, Avinash Tiwari, Shasvath J. Kapadia, K. G. Arun, and Parameswaran Ajith, “Waltzing binaries: Probing the line-of-sight acceleration of merging compact objects with gravitational waves,” The Astrophysical Journal954, 105 (2023)

2023
[30]

Accelerated binary black holes in globular clusters: forecasts and detectability in the era of space-based gravitational-wave detectors,

Avinash Tiwari, Aditya Vijaykumar, Shasvath J. Kapadia, Gi- acomo Fragione, and Sourav Chatterjee, “Accelerated binary black holes in globular clusters: forecasts and detectability in the era of space-based gravitational-wave detectors,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 527, 8586–8...

2023 arXiv
[31]

Gravi- tational waveform model for detecting accelerating inspiraling binaries,

Malcolm Lazarow, Nathaniel Leslie, and Liang Dai, “Gravi- tational waveform model for detecting accelerating inspiraling binaries,” Phys. Rev. D110, 083008 (2024)

2024
[32]

Indication for a compact object next to a LIGO-Virgo binary black hole merger,

Wen-Biao Han, Shu-Cheng Yang, Hiromichi Tagawa, Ye Jiang, Ping Shen, Qianyun Yun, Chen Zhang, and Xing-Yu Zhong, “Indication for a compact object next to a LIGO-Virgo binary black hole merger,” arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2401.01743 (2024), arXiv:2401.01743 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[33]

Comparison of post-newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detec- tors,

Alessandra Buonanno, Bala R. Iyer, Evan Ochsner, Yi Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Comparison of post-newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detec- tors,” Phys. Rev. D80, 084043 (2009)

2009
[34]

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
[35]

Tidal effects in the gravitational-wave phase evolution of compact binary systems to next-to-next-to-leading post-newtonian order,

Quentin Henry, Guillaume Faye, and Luc Blanchet, “Tidal effects in the gravitational-wave phase evolution of compact binary systems to next-to-next-to-leading post-newtonian order,” Phys. Rev. D 102, 044033 (2020)

2020
[36]

Higher-order spin effects in the amplitude and phase of gravitational waveforms emitted by inspiraling compact bina- ries: Ready-to-use gravitational waveforms,

K. G. Arun, Alessandra Buonanno, Guillaume Faye, and Evan Ochsner, “Higher-order spin effects in the amplitude and phase of gravitational waveforms emitted by inspiraling compact bina- ries: Ready-to-use gravitational waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D79, 104023 (2009)

2009
[37]

K. G. Arun, Alessandra Buonanno, Guillaume Faye, and Evan Ochsner, “Erratum: Higher-order spin effects in the amplitude and phase of gravitational waveforms emitted by inspiraling compact binaries: Ready-to-use gravitational waveforms [phys. rev. d 79, 104023 (2009)],” Phys. R...

2009
[38]

Quadratic-in-spin e ffects in the orbital dy- namics and gravitational-wave energy flux of compact bina- ries at the 3PN order,

Alejandro Bohé, Guillaume Faye, Sylvain Marsat, and Ed- ward K. Porter, “Quadratic-in-spin e ffects in the orbital dy- namics and gravitational-wave energy flux of compact bina- ries at the 3PN order,” Class. Quant. Grav.32, 195010 (2015), arXiv:1501.01529 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[39]

IMRPhenomXP_NRTidalv2: An improved frequency-domain precessing binary neutron star waveform model,

Marta Colleoni, Felip A. Ramis Vidal, Nathan K. Johnson- McDaniel, Tim Dietrich, Maria Haney, and Geraint Pratten, “IMRPhenomXP_NRTidalv2: An improved frequency-domain precessing binary neutron star waveform model,” (2023), arXiv:2311.15978 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[40]

Heterodyned likelihood for rapid gravitational wave parameter inference,

Neil J. Cornish, “Heterodyned likelihood for rapid gravitational wave parameter inference,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 104054 (2021), arXiv:2109.02728 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[41]

Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the ligo-virgo catalog gwtc-1,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham,et al. (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration), “Tests of general relativity with the binary black hole signals from the ligo-virgo catalog gwtc-1,” Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019)

2019
[42]

Accelerated parameter estimation in Bilby with relative binning,

Kruthi Krishna, Aditya Vijaykumar, Apratim Ganguly, Colm Talbot, Sylvia Biscoveanu, Richard N. George, Natalie Williams, and Aaron Zimmerman, “Accelerated parameter estimation in Bilby with relative binning,” (2023), arXiv:2312.06009 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[43]

Computationally e fficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precess- ing binary black holes,

Geraint Pratten et al., “Computationally e fficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precess- ing binary black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[44]

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
[45]

look at the scenarios of time-dependent lensing magnifications when a CBC is near an SMBH. Ref
[46]

LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KA- GRA Collaboration, “LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,” Free software (GPL) (2018), TaylorF2Ecc documentation

2018
[47]

Theory-agnostic constraints on black-hole dipole radiation with multiband gravitational-wave astrophysics,

Enrico Barausse, Nicolás Yunes, and Katie Chamberlain, “Theory-agnostic constraints on black-hole dipole radiation with multiband gravitational-wave astrophysics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241104 (2016)

2016
[48]

Model-independent test of general relativity: An extended post- einsteinian framework with complete polarization content,

Katerina Chatziioannou, Nicolás Yunes, and Neil Cornish, “Model-independent test of general relativity: An extended post- einsteinian framework with complete polarization content,” Phys. Rev. D 86, 022004 (2012)

2012
[49]

Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitational-wave observations of inspiralling compact binaries,

Clifford M. Will, “Bounding the mass of the graviton using gravitational-wave observations of inspiralling compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D 57, 2061–2068 (1998)

1998
[50]

Detecting Triple Systems with Gravitational Wave Observations,

Yohai Meiron, Bence Kocsis, and Abraham Loeb, “Detecting Triple Systems with Gravitational Wave Observations,” Astro- phys. J. 834, 200 (2017), arXiv:1604.02148 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[51]

Repeated gravitational 15 lensing of gravitational waves in hierarchical black hole triples,

Daniel J. D’Orazio and Abraham Loeb, “Repeated gravitational 15 lensing of gravitational waves in hierarchical black hole triples,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 083031 (2020), arXiv:1910.02966 [astro- ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[52]

Astrophysical gravitational- wave echoes from galactic nuclei,

László Gondán and Bence Kocsis, “Astrophysical gravitational- wave echoes from galactic nuclei,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 515, 3299–3318 (2022), arXiv:2110.09540 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[53]

Direct determination of supermas- sive black hole properties with gravitational-wave radiation from surrounding stellar-mass black hole binaries,

Hang Yu and Yanbei Chen, “Direct determination of supermas- sive black hole properties with gravitational-wave radiation from surrounding stellar-mass black hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 021101 (2021), arXiv:2009.02579 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[54]

Impact of a Spin- ning Supermassive Black Hole on the Orbit and Gravitational Waves of a Nearby Compact Binary,

Yun Fang, Xian Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, “Impact of a Spin- ning Supermassive Black Hole on the Orbit and Gravitational Waves of a Nearby Compact Binary,” (2019), 10.3847 /1538- 4357/ab510e, arXiv:1908.01443 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[55]

Gw190814: Gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object,

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, LIGO Scientific Collab- oration, and Virgo Collaboration, “Gw190814: Gravitational waves from the coalescence of a 23 solar mass black hole with a 2.6 solar mass compact object,” The Astrophysical Journal Letters 896, L44 (2020)

2020
[56]

Phenomenological model for the gravitational- wave signal from precessing binary black holes with two-spin effects,

Sebastian Khan, Katerina Chatziioannou, Mark Hannam, and Frank Ohme, “Phenomenological model for the gravitational- wave signal from precessing binary black holes with two-spin effects,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 024059 (2019), arXiv:1809.10113 [gr-qc]. APPENDIX A. Low mass ratio High...

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

Binary Black Hole Mergers: Formation and Populations,

Michela Mapelli, “Binary Black Hole Mergers: Formation and Populations,” Front. Astron. Space Sci. 7, 38 (2020), arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020

[2] [22]

GW190425: Ob- servation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙,

B.P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190425: Ob- servation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

arXiv 2020

[3] [26]

Effect of massive perturbers on extreme mass-ratio inspiral waveforms,

Nicolás Yunes, M. Coleman Miller, and Jonathan Thornburg, “Effect of massive perturbers on extreme mass-ratio inspiral waveforms,” Phys. Rev. D83, 044030 (2011)

work page 2011

[4] [1]

But for CBCs in a non-circular outer orbit, it will be time-varying and hence can create a LOSA-like signature

Time-varying gravitational redshift: For CBCs in a cir- cular (outer) orbit around an SMBH, the gravitational redshift will be constant and hence can not create a LOSA-like signature. But for CBCs in a non-circular outer orbit, it will be time-varying and hence can create a LOSA-like signature. The equivalent of Γ1 = ˙z is given by ˙z = − 1 2(1− Rs/r)−3/2...

work page

[5] [2]

We are sensitive to LOSA well beyond this radius, where Shapiro delay is suppressed

Shapiro delay: This is a 4PN effect, and will be relevant for LVK sources if r≤ R⊙ for SMBHs, where R⊙ is the solar radius [43]. We are sensitive to LOSA well beyond this radius, where Shapiro delay is suppressed

work page

[6] [3]

[44] and

Time-dependent lensing magnifications: Refs. [44] and

work page

[7] [4]

Repeated signals due to lensing : These will manifest in the detector as signals separated by∼ 1− 10 s time delays, essentially appearing as overlapping signals in the detector. If the delay is more than the autocorrela- tion length of the signal (typically ∼ 1 s, one can tell 11 □1.0 □0.5 0.0 □1 [10□3 s□1] □0.853+0.193 □0.220 1.20 1.21 1.22 M [M⊙] 1.216+...

work page 1978

[8] [5]

specifically calculates the time-dependent magni- fications in the weak and strong lensing regimes for a stellar mass CBC around an SMBH. For the signal du- rations that we consider in ground-based detectors, the magnifications in the strong lensing regime would just be constant, and would just rescale the distance to the object. Therefore, these e ffects...

work page