pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2510.04332 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-05 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

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

Divyajyoti , Isobel M. Romero-Shaw , Vaishak Prasad , Kaushik Paul , Chandra Kant Mishra , Prayush Kumar , Akash Maurya , Michael Boyle
show 3 more authors
Lawrence E. Kidder Harald P. Pfeiffer Mark A. Scheel
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 09:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords binary black holesgravitational wavesorbital eccentricityspin precessionparameter estimationwaveform modelsLIGO-Virgo
0
0 comments X

The pith

Eccentric binary black hole signals recovered with circular-orbit models produce large biases in inferred masses and spins.

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

The paper demonstrates that gravitational-wave signals from binary black holes on highly eccentric orbits, when analyzed with standard models that assume circular orbits and allow for spin precession, yield significantly incorrect values for quantities such as the chirp mass and the effective precession parameter. The authors generate test signals that combine eccentricity with aligned or precessing spins using hybrid waveforms, the TEOBResumS-DALI approximant, and new numerical relativity simulations, then recover them with a quasi-circular precessing model. They also compute Bayes factors showing that, when both eccentricity and precession are present, the data favors an eccentric aligned-spin model over the quasi-circular precessing one. A reader would care because misattributing eccentricity to spin precession or vice versa can lead to wrong conclusions about how the binaries formed and about their astrophysical environments.

Core claim

When signals from highly-eccentric binary black holes, generated with no spins, aligned spins, or precessing spins, are recovered using a quasi-circular precessing-spin waveform model, the resulting posteriors for source parameters such as chirp mass and the spin-precession parameter exhibit significant biases; Bayes factor calculations further establish that an eccentric aligned-spin model is preferred over a quasi-circular precessing-spin model for signals containing both effects.

What carries the argument

Parameter estimation and Bayes-factor model comparison between an eccentric aligned-spin recovery waveform and a quasi-circular precessing-spin recovery waveform when applied to injected eccentric spin-precessing signals.

If this is right

  • Chirp-mass and spin-precession inferences will be systematically offset for any real event whose eccentricity is ignored.
  • Model selection will favor eccentricity over precession when both effects are genuinely present in the data.
  • Formation-channel interpretations that rely on measured spins or masses can be misleading for eccentric systems.
  • Current quasi-circular analyses may misclassify some events as precessing when they are actually eccentric.
  • Ready-to-use inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms that include both eccentricity and spin precession are required for unbiased results.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If real events show the same model preference, some signals currently interpreted as spin-precessing may instead be eccentric.
  • The observed bias pattern suggests that eccentricity and precession can produce similar waveform features, creating a practical degeneracy in existing analyses.
  • Higher-sensitivity detectors could break this degeneracy by resolving higher-order harmonics that distinguish the two effects.
  • Extending the study to a broader range of eccentricities and mass ratios would map the region where the bias becomes negligible.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated signals with eccentricity and precession are treated as faithful stand-ins for real gravitational waves, so that any biases seen with the simpler model arise from the model mismatch rather than from inaccuracies in the simulations themselves.

What would settle it

Recovering an actual LIGO-Virgo event with both an eccentric aligned-spin model and a quasi-circular precessing model and finding that the parameter shifts and model preference match the pattern seen in the injected simulations would support the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.04332 by Akash Maurya, Chandra Kant Mishra, Divyajyoti, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Kaushik Paul, Lawrence E. Kidder, Mark A. Scheel, Michael Boyle, Prayush Kumar, Vaishak Prasad.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The recovery of various parameters of non-spinning hybrid injections (see Sec. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Recovery of the chirp mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Recovery of spin-precession parameter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Aligned spin injections with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Figures show the recovery of the spin-precession parameter ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Bayes factors for eccentric aligned-spin recovery [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

While the majority of gravitational wave (GW) events observed by the LIGO and Virgo detectors are consistent with mergers of binary black holes (BBHs) on quasi-circular orbits, some events are also consistent with non-zero orbital eccentricity, indicating that the binaries could have formed via dynamical interactions. Moreover, there may be GW events which show support for spin-precession, eccentricity, or both. In this work, we study the interplay of spins and eccentricity on the parameter estimation of GW signals from BBH mergers. We inject eccentric signals with no spins, aligned spins, and precessing spins using hybrids, TEOBResumS-DALI, and new Numerical Relativity (NR) simulations, respectively, and study the biases in the posteriors of source parameters when these signals are recovered with a quasi-circular precessing-spin waveform model, as opposed to an aligned-spin eccentric waveform model. We find significant biases in the source parameters, such as chirp mass and spin-precession ($\chi_p$), when signals from highly-eccentric BBHs are recovered with a quasi-circular waveform model. Moreover, we find that for signals with both eccentricity and spin-precession effects, Bayes factor calculations confirm that an eccentric, aligned-spin model is preferred over a quasi-circular precessing-spin model. Our study highlights the complex nature of GW signals from eccentric, precessing-spin binaries and the need for readily usable inspiral-merger-ringdown eccentric, spin-precessing waveform models for unbiased parameter estimation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates biases in gravitational-wave parameter estimation for eccentric binary black hole signals recovered with a quasi-circular precessing-spin waveform model. Eccentric injections with no spins, aligned spins, and precessing spins are generated using hybrid waveforms, TEOBResumS-DALI, and new numerical relativity simulations, respectively. The authors report significant biases in parameters such as chirp mass and the spin-precession parameter χ_p, and find via Bayes factor comparisons that an eccentric aligned-spin model is preferred over the quasi-circular precessing model when both eccentricity and precession are present in the signal.

Significance. If the reported biases and model preferences are shown to be robust against injection-generator systematics, the result would be significant for LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA analyses of dynamically formed binaries. It provides concrete motivation for the development of eccentric, spin-precessing inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform models to avoid systematic errors in mass, spin, and formation-channel inference.

major comments (2)
  1. Methods section: The central claims rest on injections generated with three distinct families (hybrids for non-spinning eccentric, TEOBResumS-DALI for aligned-spin eccentric, and new NR for precessing eccentric). Because these families differ in eccentricity handling, spin modeling fidelity, and overall accuracy—especially at high eccentricity—the observed posterior shifts in chirp mass and χ_p, as well as the Bayes-factor preference, cannot be unambiguously attributed to the eccentricity–precession interplay rather than generator-specific mismatches. A controlled comparison that holds the injection method fixed while varying only the spin configuration is required to support the attribution in the strongest claim.
  2. Results section (Bayes-factor analysis): The statement that 'an eccentric, aligned-spin model is preferred over a quasi-circular precessing-spin model' for signals with both effects is load-bearing for the paper's conclusion about model selection. Without reported quantitative Bayes-factor values, the number of injections, or the specific eccentricity and spin magnitudes at which the preference appears, it is difficult to assess whether the preference is decisive or sensitive to the choice of prior and noise realization.
minor comments (2)
  1. Abstract: The phrase 'new Numerical Relativity (NR) simulations' should be accompanied by at least a brief statement of the number of simulations, their eccentricity range, and mass ratios to allow readers to gauge the scope of the study.
  2. Figure captions and text: Several references to 'significant biases' would be clearer if accompanied by explicit statements of the bias magnitude relative to the 90 % credible-interval width or the number of standard deviations from the injected value.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results. We address each major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Methods section: The central claims rest on injections generated with three distinct families (hybrids for non-spinning eccentric, TEOBResumS-DALI for aligned-spin eccentric, and new NR for precessing eccentric). Because these families differ in eccentricity handling, spin modeling fidelity, and overall accuracy—especially at high eccentricity—the observed posterior shifts in chirp mass and χ_p, as well as the Bayes-factor preference, cannot be unambiguously attributed to the eccentricity–precession interplay rather than generator-specific mismatches. A controlled comparison that holds the injection method fixed while varying only the spin configuration is required to support the attribution in the strongest claim.

    Authors: We acknowledge the potential for generator-specific systematics when employing distinct waveform families. This choice reflects current limitations in available models: hybrid waveforms are established for non-spinning eccentric signals, TEOBResumS-DALI accurately models aligned-spin eccentric cases, and NR simulations are required to capture the full precessing eccentric dynamics at the eccentricities of interest. No single family presently supports all configurations with equivalent fidelity. In the revised manuscript we will expand the Methods section to explicitly discuss these model limitations and the rationale for our selections, and we will add a brief assessment of possible systematics arising from the different generators. revision: partial

  2. Referee: Results section (Bayes-factor analysis): The statement that 'an eccentric, aligned-spin model is preferred over a quasi-circular precessing-spin model' for signals with both effects is load-bearing for the paper's conclusion about model selection. Without reported quantitative Bayes-factor values, the number of injections, or the specific eccentricity and spin magnitudes at which the preference appears, it is difficult to assess whether the preference is decisive or sensitive to the choice of prior and noise realization.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative details strengthen the interpretability of the Bayes-factor results. In the revised manuscript we will report the specific Bayes-factor values obtained for each relevant injection, the total number of injections performed, and the eccentricity and spin-magnitude ranges at which the model preference is observed. These additions will enable readers to evaluate the decisiveness and robustness of the preference with respect to prior choices and noise realizations. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in simulation-based parameter estimation study

full rationale

The paper's central claims arise from direct numerical experiments: injecting eccentric signals (no-spin via hybrids, aligned-spin via TEOBResumS-DALI, precessing via new NR) and recovering with a quasi-circular precessing model, followed by posterior bias measurements and Bayes factor comparisons. No mathematical derivation chain exists that reduces any result to its own inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted and then relabeled as predictions, and no self-citation or uniqueness theorem is invoked as load-bearing justification. The work is self-contained against external benchmarks via the reported simulation outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract; the study relies on established general-relativity waveform modeling and standard Bayesian inference techniques.

axioms (1)
  • standard math Standard assumptions of general relativity and numerical-relativity techniques for generating binary-black-hole waveforms.
    The paper invokes existing GR and NR methods to produce the injected signals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5844 in / 1341 out tokens · 45779 ms · 2026-05-18T09:47:34.270074+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Constants of motion and fundamental frequencies for elliptic orbits at fourth post-Newtonian order

    gr-qc 2025-11 unverdicted novelty 8.0

    Derives the 4PN conservative map between constants of motion and fundamental frequencies for eccentric orbits, resummed over eccentricity and validated against circular-orbit and self-force results.

  2. Measuring Eccentricity and Addressing Waveform Systematics in GW231123

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0

    Reanalysis of GW231123 shows no significant eccentricity, with parameter estimate differences explained by waveform model disagreements at strong spin precession.

  3. Mitigating Systematic Errors in Parameter Estimation of Binary Black Hole Mergers in O1-O3 LIGO-Virgo Data

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Parametric models incorporating waveform phase and amplitude uncertainties mitigate systematic errors in gravitational wave parameter estimation, producing consistent results across models and raw/deglitched data for ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

148 extracted references · 148 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 69 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Xu et al

    demonstrate that an eccentric or precessing signal can be confidently and correctly identified via compari- son of Bayes factors as long as the signal is of adequate length. Xu et al. [35] show that for high-mass, short sig- nals, eccentricity lower than 0.2 at 10 Hz is insufficient to mimic precession. Divyajyotiet al.[36] find that for low-mass systems,...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Advanced LIGO

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2020), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2020), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2020

  4. [4]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Kimball, C

    C. Kimball, C. Talbot, C. P. L. Berry, M. Zevin, E. Thrane, V. Kalogera, R. Buscicchio, M. Carney, T. Dent, H. Middleton, E. Payne, J. Veitch, and D. Williams, ApJ915, L35 (2021), arXiv:2011.05332 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Antonini, I

    F. Antonini, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and T. Callister, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011401 (2025), arXiv:2406.19044 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Li, S.-P

    Y.-J. Li, S.-P. Tang, L.-Q. Xue, and Y.-Z. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2507.17551 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    Maga˜ na Hernandez and A

    I. Maga˜ na Hernandez and A. Palmese, (2025), arXiv:2508.19208 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Gravitational-wave constraints on the pair-instability mass gap and nuclear burning in massive stars

    F. Antonini, I. Romero-Shaw, T. Callister, F. Dosopoulou, D. Chattopadhyay, M. Gieles, and M. Mapelli, (2025), arXiv:2509.04637 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Evidence of the pair instability gap from black hole masses

    H. Tonget al., (2025), arXiv:2509.04151 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    GW231123: a Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190-265 $M_{\odot}$

    T. L. collaboration, “Gw231123: a binary black hole merger with total mass 190-265m ⊙,” (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Mapelliet al., Mon

    M. Mapelliet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 339 (2021), arXiv:2103.05016 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Nature Astron.5, 749 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Torniamenti, M

    S. Torniamenti, M. Mapelli, C. P´ erigois, M. A. Sedda, M. C. Artale, M. Dall’Amico, and M. P. Vaccaro, As- tron. Astrophys.688, A148 (2024), arXiv:2401.14837 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Banagiri, E

    S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, (2025), arXiv:2509.15646 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Zevin, I

    M. Zevin, I. M. Romero-Shaw, K. Kremer, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Astrophys. J. Lett.921, L43 (2021), arXiv:2106.09042 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Dall’Amico, M

    M. Dall’Amico, M. Mapelli, S. Torniamenti, and M. A. Sedda, Astron. Astrophys.683, A186 (2024), arXiv:2303.07421 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Samsing, I

    J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, Nature603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

    work page 1964

  23. [23]

    C. L. Rodriguez and F. Antonini, Astrophys. J.863, 7 (2018), arXiv:1805.08212 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    B. Liu, D. Lai, and Y.-H. Wang, (2019), 10.3847/1538- 4357/ab2dfb, arXiv:1905.00427 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2019

  25. [25]

    Dorozsmai, I

    A. Dorozsmai, I. M. Romero-Shaw, A. Vijaykumar, S. Toonen, F. Antonini, K. Kremer, M. Zevin, and E. Grishin, (2025), arXiv:2507.23212 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Tagawa, B

    H. Tagawa, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, K. Omukai, and J. Samsing, Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L20 (2021), arXiv:2010.10526 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. C. Bustillo, Astrophys. J. Lett.903, L5 (2020), arXiv:2009.04771 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Gayathri, J

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Gamba, M

    R. Gamba, M. Breschi, G. Carullo, S. Albanesi, P. Ret- tegno, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Nature Astron.7, 11 (2023), arXiv:2106.05575 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Romero-Shaw, P

    I. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, ApJ940, 171 (2022), arXiv:2206.14695 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    M. d. L. Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, and M. Haney, (2025), arXiv:2504.15833 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Romero-Shaw, J

    I. Romero-Shaw, J. Stegmann, H. Tagawa, D. Gerosa, J. Samsing, N. Gupte, and S. R. Green, (2025), arXiv:2506.17105 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

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

    P. McMillin, K. J. Wagner, G. Ficarra, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, (2025), arXiv:2507.22862 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, D. Gerosa, and N. Loutrel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.519, 5352 (2023), arXiv:2211.07528 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Xu and E

    Y. Xu and E. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. D107, 103049 (2023), arXiv:2211.09561 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Kumar, S

    Divyajyoti, S. Kumar, S. Tibrewal, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D109, 043037 (2024), arXiv:2309.16638 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

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

    B. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Physical Re- view X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    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. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  42. [42]

    Nagar, R

    A. Nagar, R. Gamba, P. Rettegno, V. Fantini, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 084001 (2024), arXiv:2404.05288 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Gamboa, A

    A. Gamboa, A. Buonanno, R. Enficiaud, M. Khalil, A. Ramos-Buades, L. Pompili, H. Estell´ es, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, H. R. R¨ uter, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D112, 044038 (2025), arXiv:2412.12823 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    de Lluc Planas, A

    M. de Lluc Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, and M. Haney, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.13062 (2025), arXiv:2503.13062 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Fourier domain gravitational waveforms for precessing eccentric binaries

    A. Klein, Y. Boetzel, A. Gopakumar, P. Jetzer, and L. de Vittori, Phys. Rev. D98, 104043 (2018), arXiv:1801.08542 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  46. [46]

    Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    A. Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Gravitational Waveforms for Precessing, Quasi-circular Binaries via Multiple Scale Analysis and Uniform Asymptotics: The Near Spin Alignment Case

    A. Klein, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D88, 124015 (2013), arXiv:1305.1932 [gr-qc]. 11

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    E. A. Huerta, P. Kumar, S. T. McWilliams, R. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D90, 084016 (2014), arXiv:1408.3406 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    A Fourier Domain Waveform for Non-Spinning Binaries with Arbitrary Eccentricity

    B. Moore, T. Robson, N. Loutrel, and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 235006 (2018), arXiv:1807.07163 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Tanay, A

    S. Tanay, A. Klein, E. Berti, and A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D100, 064006 (2019), arXiv:1905.08811 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D101, 044049 (2020), arXiv:1910.00784 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    Tiwari and A

    S. Tiwari and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D102, 084042 (2020), arXiv:2009.11333 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Albanesi, S

    S. Albanesi, S. Bernuzzi, T. Damour, A. Nagar, and A. Placidi, Phys. Rev. D108, 084037 (2023), arXiv:2305.19336 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    Albertini, R

    A. Albertini, R. Gamba, A. Nagar, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D109, 044022 (2024), arXiv:2310.13578 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    Nagar, D

    A. Nagar, D. Chiaramello, R. Gamba, S. Albanesi, S. Bernuzzi, V. Fantini, M. Panzeri, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D111, 064050 (2025), arXiv:2407.04762 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    E. A. Huertaet al., Phys. Rev. D95, 024038 (2017), arXiv:1609.05933 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  57. [57]

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

    T. Hinderer and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D96, 104048 (2017), arXiv:1707.08426 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  58. [58]

    An eccentric binary black hole inspiral-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model from numerical relativity and post-Newtonian theory

    I. Hinder, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D98, 044015 (2018), arXiv:1709.02007 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    A waveform model for eccentric binary black hole based on effective-one-body-numerical-relativity (EOBNR) formalism

    Z. Cao and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D96, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1708.00166 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  60. [60]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Nagar, A

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  62. [62]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D105, 044035 (2022), arXiv:2112.06952 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Manna, T

    P. Manna, T. RoyChowdhury, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D111, 124026 (2025), arXiv:2409.10672 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Carullo, S

    G. Carullo, S. Albanesi, A. Nagar, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, T. Andrade, and J. Trenado, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101401 (2024), arXiv:2309.07228 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Carullo, JCAP10, 061 (2024), arXiv:2406.19442 [gr- qc]

    G. Carullo, JCAP10, 061 (2024), arXiv:2406.19442 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  66. [66]

    Yun, W.-B

    Q. Yun, W.-B. Han, X. Zhong, and C. A. Benavides-Gallego, Phys. Rev. D103, 124053 (2021), arXiv:2104.03789 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    D. R. Becker and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D111, 064003 (2025), arXiv:2410.09160 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Estell´ es, A

    H. Estell´ es, A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, C. Garc´ ıa- Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, L. Haegel, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D103, 124060 (2021), arXiv:2004.08302 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  69. [69]

    Cotesta, A

    R. Cotesta, A. Buonanno, A. Boh´ e, A. Taracchini, I. Hinder, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D98, 084028 (2018), arXiv:1803.10701 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Ramos-Buades, S

    A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, G. Pratten, H. Estell´ es, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. Colleoni, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D101, 083015 (2020), arXiv:1909.11011 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  71. [71]

    Islam and T

    T. Islam and T. Venumadhav, Phys. Rev. D111, L081503 (2025), arXiv:2408.14654 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Islam, G

    T. Islam, G. Khanna, and S. E. Field, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124023 (2025), arXiv:2408.02762 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Islam, (2024), arXiv:2403.15506 [astro-ph.HE]

    T. Islam, (2024), arXiv:2403.15506 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Islam, T

    T. Islam, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, I. Anant- purkar, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D112, 044070 (2025), arXiv:2504.12469 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Islam, T

    T. Islam, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, I. Anant- purkar, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2025), arXiv:2504.12420 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Stegmann, D

    J. Stegmann, D. Gerosa, I. Romero-Shaw, G. Fumagalli, H. Tagawa, and L. Zwick, (2025), arXiv:2505.13589 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Chattaraj, T

    A. Chattaraj, T. RoyChowdhury, Divyajyoti, C. K. Mishra, and A. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D106, 124008 (2022), arXiv:2204.02377 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  78. [78]

    Boyleet al., Class

    M. Boyleet al., Class. Quant. Grav.36, 195006 (2019), arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    L. T. Buchman, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szi- lagyi, Phys. Rev.D86, 084033 (2012), arXiv:1206.3015 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  80. [80]

    T. Chu, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D80, 124051 (2009), arXiv:0909.1313 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

Showing first 80 references.