When vacuum breaks: a self-consistency test for astrophysical environments in extreme mass ratio inspirals

Enrico Barausse; Lorenzo Copparoni; Rohit S. Chandramouli

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

When vacuum breaks: a self-consistency test for astrophysical environments in extreme mass ratio inspirals

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A self-consistency test on vacuum EMRI templates can reveal unmodeled environmental effects without adding parameters.

desk verdict Useful proof-of-principle for a model-agnostic EMRI environmental diagnostic, but the significance threshold isn't properly calibrated for nested-segment mismatches and 'irrespective of noise' is overclaimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.06948 v3 pith:BEFFPL67 submitted 2025-10-08 gr-qc astro-ph.GA

Lorenzo Copparoni , Rohit S. Chandramouli , Enrico Barausse This is my paper

classification gr-qcastro-ph.GA

keywords extrememassratioinspiralLISAvacuumtemplatesenvironmentaleffectsself-consistencytestBayesianparameterestimationdiskmigrationgravitationalwaves

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 argues that when an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral (EMRI) is analyzed with vacuum templates, the vacuum hypothesis itself can be checked by comparing parameter posteriors estimated from signal segments of increasing length. If the shortest segment (the final half-year before plunge) is assumed to be genuinely vacuum, any statistically significant disagreement between its inferred parameters and those from longer segments indicates missing physics—an astrophysical environment or a deviation from general relativity. Using a fiducial EMRI with disk-driven migration, the paper shows the disagreement becomes significant for observations of two years or more, while a pure-vacuum signal with noise stays self-consistent. The test adds no parameters and assumes no specific environmental model, making it a practical diagnostic for LISA data analysis.

What carries the argument

The test is a posterior self-consistency check built on the match between maximum-likelihood parameter points. The paper defines the match as the noise-weighted inner product between two waveform templates, maximized over time and phase shifts, and uses a chi-square threshold derived from the reference SNR to decide when the disagreement between two segments is too large to be a noise fluctuation. The underlying mechanism is the assumption that environmental effects are stronger at early inspiral (lower frequencies) and weak near the plunge, so the final half-year is a clean vacuum reference; any model error accumulates with observation length.

What would settle it

Simulate an environment whose torque does not decay toward small separations (e.g., a constant-density dark-matter spike extending to the ISCO) and run the same 0.5-year-reference test; if the mismatch threshold is crossed for a pure-vacuum injection, or not crossed for the environmental injection, the test is falsified. Alternatively, replace the reference by a 1-year segment and check whether the two-year result flips.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the vacuum EMRI model can be tested without modeling the environment. It injects a 3-year EMRI signal with a Type-I migration-torque environment into simulated LISA TDI channels, then performs Bayesian parameter estimation with vacuum templates on segments of 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5 and 3 years, all ending at plunge. The MLE from the 0.5-year segment (the most vacuum-like reference) is compared with MLEs from longer segments using a match (maximum-over-time/phase inner product). A mismatch exceeding χ²₁₀,₉₀%/(2ρ²) = 8.3×10⁻⁴ is deemed a significant inconsistency. For the migration-affected signal the mismatch grows from 9×10⁻⁵ at 1 year to 1.4×10⁻³ at

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the final half-year of the EMRI signal is well described by a vacuum waveform; if environmental effects remain dynamically relevant at those small separations, the reference MLE is itself biased, and the mismatch test may flag noise or miss real effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

LISA EMRI analyses can run this test on every event as a model-agnostic check for unmodeled environments or GR deviations.
The test provides a quantitative criterion (mismatch vs χ² threshold) to decide when vacuum templates are inadequate, before investing in more complex models.
It can serve as a sanity check on the LISA global fit: residual power from imperfect source subtraction would also trigger the test.
For the fiducial system, the test becomes decisive after two years of observation, suggesting a practical timescale for identifying environmental contamination in real events.
Because it adds no parameters, the test is computationally cheap and can be included in routine parameter-estimation pipelines.

Reading between the lines

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

The test's reliability hinges on the reference segment being vacuum; if environmental forces persist close to the plunge (e.g., a dense dark-matter spike near the ISCO), the reference MLE is biased and the whole threshold calculation would need recalibration. A natural extension is to test environments whose strength does not decay toward merger.
The threshold 8.3×10⁻⁴ is computed for a 10-parameter model and SNR≈100; for other SNR or parameter counts the threshold changes, so a practical implementation would need a fiducial calibration or a bootstrapped null distribution.
A stronger version of the test could be built by using the full posterior overlap (e.g., a Kullback-Leibler divergence or Jensen-Shannon divergence) instead of only the MLE mismatch, to catch cases where the MLEs agree accidentally but the posteriors differ.
If LISA observes multiple EMRIs, the test could be used to search for environmental trends across mass ratios and accretion rates, hinting at the dominant environmental mechanism without modeling it.

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

Quick take: the paper makes a genuinely useful point—you can flag unmodeled physics in EMRIs by watching vacuum posteriors drift as you extend the observation window—and the noiseless injection shows the effect cleanly. But the significance claim is shakier than the prose suggests, and one noisy control doesn’t justify “irrespective of the noise realization.”

What’s actually new is the duration-scan implementation: taking segments of increasing length all ending at plunge, using the shortest as a vacuum reference, and computing mismatches between the MLEs. The consistency-test idea itself is not new (they cite the relevant GW literature), but the specific application to EMRI environmental detection, with a Type-I migration injection, hasn’t been done. The paper is well-structured, uses public waveform and response codes, and includes a vacuum+noise control. The dephasing and residual-SNR plots are helpful for building intuition about why the test works.

The soft spot is the statistics. Eq. (4) borrows the standard distinguishability threshold, but that criterion applies to the mismatch between an estimated waveform and the true signal, not to the mismatch between two MLEs from nested data segments that share the same noise. Those two estimators are correlated, so 2ρ²(1−M) is not obviously χ²_D. The paper gives no derivation for the nested case and only one vacuum+noise realization, so the claimed 90% threshold and the ≤5×10⁻⁴ tail probability are not well supported. The T_obs=2 yr detection is only 1.7× the assumed threshold, so if the true null has a fatter tail, that headline significance could evaporate. This doesn’t kill the method—the noiseless migration run shows a clear trend and the vacuum control stays flat—but it makes the quantitative claims premature.

A second, acknowledged caveat is the assumption that the last 0.5 yr is an unbiased vacuum reference. That’s plausible for migration torques (a−8PN effect), but not automatic for other environments. The paper states it in the introduction; it’s a limitation, not an oversight. I’d also like the code and noise seeds, since the central numbers can’t be checked otherwise.

Verdict: worth a serious referee and likely publishable as a Letter after a revision that either derives the null distribution for nested-segment mismatches or replaces the single control with a few noise realizations and an empirical threshold. I’d bring it to the reading group; the statistical subtlety is a good discussion topic.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a model-agnostic consistency test for unmodeled environmental effects or GR deviations in EMRI signals. Using only vacuum EMRI templates, the authors infer source parameters from signal segments of increasing duration (T_obs = 0.5–3 yr), all ending at plunge, and compare the maximum-likelihood estimates via a mismatch metric (Eq. 3) and a relative-bias metric (Eq. 5). The final 0.5 yr segment is treated as a vacuum reference. For an injected Type-I migration torque (Ldot = Ldot_GW A(r/r*)^n with A = 1.92e-5, n = 8, r* = 10M), the mismatch exceeds the Eq. (4) threshold at T_obs ≥ 2 yr (Table I: 1.4e-3 vs 8.3e-4), while a vacuum+noise control remains below threshold at all durations (Table II). The authors conclude that the environmental effect can be robustly identified for observations longer than two years, irrespective of the noise realization.

Significance. If properly calibrated, the test would be a valuable, computationally cheap red flag for missing physics in LISA EMRI analyses, complementing global-fit consistency checks. The paper's strengths are its clean proof-of-principle design, the use of independent vacuum templates with no environmental parameters fitted, and the inclusion of both noiseless and noisy controls. The central idea is plausible and the qualitative trend—posterior inconsistency growing with observation duration—is clearly demonstrated. However, the statistical calibration of the detection threshold and the 'irrespective of the noise realization' claim are not yet supported; these issues are load-bearing for the headline detection time.

major comments (2)

[Inconsistent inference across observation duration, Eq. (4)] The threshold in Eq. (4) is the standard distinguishability criterion for the mismatch between a single MLE and the true signal in a given data realization. Here the test statistic is the mismatch between two MLEs estimated from nested data segments that share the same noise realization (the 0.5-yr reference is a sub-segment of every longer segment). Under the vacuum null these estimators are correlated, so the distribution of 2ρ_ref^2(1−M_net,Tobs) is not simply χ²_D with D=10. No null distribution for the nested-segment statistic is derived, and Table II is a single vacuum+noise realization, which cannot calibrate the 90% threshold or the claimed tail probability ≤5×10^-4. This is quantitatively relevant: at T_obs = 2 yr the mismatch is 1.4×10^-3, only 1.7× the assumed threshold 8.3×10^-4. If the true null distribution has a larger quantile, the headline detection time is not establish
[Introduction, reference-segment premise] The method relies on the premise that the final 0.5-yr segment is a clean vacuum reference. For the injected n=8 migration torque, whose strength scales as (r/10M)^8, this assumption holds because the torque is strongly suppressed near plunge. However, the paper claims the test can reveal astrophysical environments or GR deviations more generally. For environmental models with weak radial suppression (small n, constant torque, or dynamical friction), the reference segment would itself be biased, and the mismatch test could either miss a real effect or misattribute noise. The manuscript should either demonstrate robustness of the reference segment over a broader class of environmental models or explicitly restrict the claim to effects that are negligible near plunge. As written, the general claim is not yet supported.

minor comments (5)

[Tables I and II, Fig. 2] Please state explicitly whether Table I reports noiseless or noisy migration-injection results. The main text is ambiguous, and this distinction is important for interpreting the probability statement attached to Table I.
[Abstract] The phrase 'statistically significant inconsistencies from vacuum signals' is awkward; 'in vacuum signals' or 'relative to vacuum signals' would be clearer.
[Fig. 1 caption] 'Two dimensional' should be 'Two-dimensional'. Also, define the meaning of the 50% and 90% contours in the caption.
[Eq. (5)] Calling δθα a 'relative systematic bias' is slightly misleading when a noise realization contributes to the shift; 'normalized bias relative to the 90% reference interval' would be more precise.
[Fig. 3, bottom panel] Define the residual SNR ρ_res and its units in the caption or text; currently the axis label alone is insufficient.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: mismatches are computed from independent vacuum fits and an a priori threshold; the environment enters only as an injected model, not as an input to the test.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: (i) inject an EMRI waveform with disk-migration torque using the external power-law model ẏL = ẏL_GW A (r/r*)^n, with n=8 and A=1.92e-5 taken from ref. [24]; (ii) fit vacuum EMRI templates to segments ending at plunge with T_obs in {0.5,...,3} yr; (iii) form M_net,T_obs between the 0.5-yr reference MLE and each longer-segment MLE; (iv) flag inconsistency when 1 - M_net > chi^2_{D,90%}/(2 rho_ref^2), with D=10 and rho_ref=99, giving threshold 8.3e-4. No step equates an output to an input: A and n appear only in the injection, not in the vacuum template, the likelihood, or the threshold; the threshold is fixed before examining the migration-injected mismatches; and the comparison is checked against a vacuum+noise control (Table II), an external null benchmark. The conclusion is therefore not forced by construction. The self-citations [24,26] justify the adopted environmental model and its robustness, but the central content---that an unmodeled early-inspiral effect shifts long-segment MLEs relative to a short, plausibly vacuum segment---is demonstrated by the simulation, not imported from those references. Two concerns lie outside circularity: the reference 0.5-yr segment is assumed to be nearly vacuum, and the null distribution of Eq. (4) is imported from single-template distinguishability rather than derived for two MLEs sharing a noise realization; these affect statistical significance, not self-referentiality.

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

The environmental injection is specified by three hand-picked model parameters (A, n, r*) taken from prior disk-migration literature; the threshold in Eq. (4) is a chosen 90% chi-square quantile. The fiducial θ_inj values are simulation inputs defining the example, not degrees of freedom fitted to the conclusion. No new entities beyond the accretion-disk flux prescription are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Type-I migration torque amplitude A = 1.92×10^-5
Chosen from Speri et al. 2023 [24] as the environmental effect strength for the injected disk-migration signal; the demonstration that T_obs ≥ 2 yr triggers the test depends on this amplitude. Not fitted to the test output, but a hand-chosen simulation input.
Migration torque power-law index n = 8
Type-I migration index in L_dot = L_dot_GW A(r/r*)^n; selected to match a Shakura-Sunyaev α-disk model; not independently measured in this paper.
Characteristic radius r* = 10M
Scale used in the torque prescription, taken from prior work; choice affects the dephasing and hence the inferred inconsistency.
Mismatch-threshold chi-square quantile = χ²_{10,90%} = 16
The mismatch threshold in Eq. (4) is set by the 90% quantile of a chi-square with D = 10 degrees of freedom; this is a chosen confidence level, not derived from the data.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption EMRI waveforms are modeled in the adiabatic, quasi-circular, equatorial Kerr self-force framework (few package).
Section 'Waveforms and data analysis methods'; used for both injection and templates; neglects eccentricity, inclination, and transient effects.
ad hoc to paper Environmental effect is modeled only as an extra Newtonian angular-momentum flux L_dot = L_dot_GW A(r/r*)^n with A=1.92e-5, n=8, r*=10M.
This specific model is adopted for the injection; the claim that the test detects 'environmental effects' generally is not established for other environments (dark matter, third bodies, relativistic disks).
domain assumption The last ~0.5 yr of the inspiral is well described by vacuum templates, so it can serve as reference; environmental effects are relatively suppressed at small separations.
Introduction; used to justify T_obs = 0.5 yr as reference. Invalid if environment acts strongly near plunge.
domain assumption The mismatch threshold from Eq. (4), χ²_{D,90%}/(2ρ_ref²), correctly identifies Bayesian-inconsistent inferences under the high-SNR Gaussian-noise likelihood.
Eq. (4); relies on the high-SNR Gaussian approximation for the likelihood; not re-derived in the paper.
domain assumption LISA data are simulated as stationary Gaussian noise with scirdv1 PSD plus Galactic confusion, in TDI A/E channels only.
Eqs. (1)-(2), data analysis section; ignores non-stationarity and the T channel.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When vacuum breaks: a self-consistency test for astrophysical environments in extreme mass ratio inspirals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BEFFPL67

@misc{pith2026251006948,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When vacuum breaks: a self-consistency test for astrophysical environments in extreme mass ratio inspirals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BEFFPL67}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.06948}
}

read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave signals are typically interpreted under the vacuum hypothesis, i.e. assuming negligible influence from the astrophysical environment. This assumption is expected to break down for low-frequency sources such as extreme mass ratio inspirals (EMRIs), which are prime targets for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and are expected to form, at least in part, in dense environments such as Active Galactic Nuclei or dark-matter spikes and cores. Modeling environmental effects parametrically is challenging due to the large uncertainties in their underlying physics. We propose a non-parametric test for environmental effects in EMRIs, based on assessing the self-consistency of vacuum parameter posteriors inferred from different portions of the signal. Our results demonstrate that this test can reveal statistically significant inconsistencies from vacuum signals -- arising from e.g. incomplete modeling, environmental effects or deviations from General Relativity -- without introducing additional parameters or assumptions about the underlying physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.06948 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: One dimensional marginalized posteriors of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Top panel shows the orbital dephasing (as func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Posteriors for the migration + noise injection, for all the observation times considered. We omit the posteriors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Quadrupolar tidal effects destroy the integrability of black hole geodesics: analytic proof and numerical evidence of chaos
gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

Leading-order tidally induced quadrupoles destroy Kerr geodesic integrability: no polynomial deformation of the Carter constant is conserved for generic Love couplings and Kerr spin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 59 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

A.G.Abacet al.,arXivpreprint (2025),lIGO-P2400386, 2508.18082

arXiv 2025
[2]

A.G.Abacet al.,arXivpreprint (2025),dCC:P2500026- v6, 2507.08219

arXiv 2025
[3]

Amaro-Seoane, H

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P.Bender, E.Berti, P.Binetruy, M.Born, D.Bor- toluzzi, J. Camp, C. Caprini, V. Cardoso, M. Colpi, J. Conklin, N. Cornish, C. Cutler, K. Danzmann, R. Dolesi, L. Ferraioli, V. Ferroni, E. Fitzsimons, J. Gair, L. G. Bote, D. Giardini, F. Gibert, C. Grimani, H. Hal- loin, G. Heinzel, T. Hertog, M....

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017
[4]

Colpiet al., arXiv preprint (2024), lISA-PD-2024-01, 2402.07571

M. Colpiet al., arXiv preprint (2024), lISA-PD-2024-01, 2402.07571

arXiv 2024
[5]

L.BarackandC.Cutler,Phys.Rev.D69,082005(2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310125

arXiv 2004
[6]

Drasco and S

S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D73, 024027 (2006)

2006
[7]

Babak, J

S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2017
[8]

Afshordiet al.(LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

N. Afshordiet al.(LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023

Show all 73 references

[9]

Khalvati, A

H. Khalvati, A. Santini, F. Duque, L. Speri, J. Gair, H. Yang, and R. Brito, Phys. Rev. D111, 082010 (2025), arXiv:2410.17310 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[10]

Derdzinski and L

A. Derdzinski and L. Mayer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society521, 4522 (2023), arXiv:2205.10382 [astro-ph]

2023 arXiv
[11]

Bertone, D

G. Bertone, D. Hooper, and J. Silk, Phys. Rept.405, 279 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0404175

2005 arXiv
[12]

Barausse, V

E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[13]

Coogan, G

A. Coogan, G. Bertone, D. Gaggero, B. J. Kavanagh, and D. A. Nichols, Phys. Rev. D105, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2108.04154 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[14]

Baumann, H

D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044001 (2019), arXiv:1804.03208 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[15]

Berti, R

E. Berti, R. Brito, C. F. B. Macedo, G. Raposo, and J. L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D99, 104039 (2019), arXiv:1904.03131 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Barausse and L

E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[17]

Yunes, M

N. Yunes, M. Coleman Miller, and J. Thornburg, Phys. Rev. D83, 044030 (2011), arXiv:1010.1721 [astro- ph.GA]

2011 arXiv
[18]

J. R. Gair, E. E. Flanagan, S. Drasco, T. Hin- derer, and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D83, 044037 (2011), arXiv:1012.5111 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[19]

Kocsis, N

B. Kocsis, N. Yunes, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D84, 024032 (2011), arXiv:1104.2322 [astro-ph.GA]

2011 arXiv
[20]

A. M. Derdzinski, D. D’Orazio, P. Duffell, Z. Haiman, and A. MacFadyen, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society486, 2754 (2019)

2019
[21]

Deme, B.-M

B. Deme, B.-M. Hoang, S. Naoz, and B. Kocsis, As- trophys. J.901, 125 (2020), arXiv:2005.03677 [astro- ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[22]

Caputo, L

A. Caputo, L. Sberna, A. Toubiana, S. Babak, E. Ba- rausse, S. Marsat, and P. Pani, Astrophys. J.892, 90 (2020), arXiv:2001.03620 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[23]

R. S. Chandramouli and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D105, 064009 (2022), arXiv:2107.00741 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[24]

Speri, A

L. Speri, A. Antonelli, L. Sberna, S. Babak, E. Barausse, J. R. Gair, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. X13, 021035 (2023), arXiv:2207.10086 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Duque, S

F. Duque, S. Kejriwal, L. Sberna, L. Speri, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D111, 084006 (2025), arXiv:2411.03436 [gr- qc]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Copparoni, E

L. Copparoni, E. Barausse, L. Speri, L. Sberna, and A. Derdzinski, Phys. Rev. D111, 104079 (2025), arXiv:2502.10087 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[27]

S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton, G. Khanna, A. J. K. Chua, and M. L. Katz, Phys. Rev. D103, 104014 (2021), [Erra- tum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 089901 (2023)], arXiv:2102.02713 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[28]

L. V. Drummond, P. Lynch, A. G. Hanselman, D. R. 6 Becker, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D109, 064030 (2024), arXiv:2310.08438 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[29]

C. E. A. Chapman-Birdet al., arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2506.09470 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[30]

Speri, M

L. Speri, M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, S. A. Hughes, N. Warburton, J. E. Thompson, C. E. A. Chapman- Bird, and J. R. Gair, Frontiers in Applied Mathemat- ics and Statistics9, 10.3389/fams.2023.1266739 (2024), publisher: Frontiers

2023
[31]

Nouri and A

H. Nouri and A. Janiuk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 10.1093/mnras/stad2842 (2023), arXiv:2309.06028 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Barausse, Mon

E. Barausse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.382, 826 (2007), arXiv:0709.0211 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[33]

Vicente, T

R. Vicente, T. K. Karydas, and G. Bertone, arXiv e- prints (2025), arXiv:2505.09715 [gr-qc]

2025
[34]

Hegade K

A. Hegade K. R., C. F. Gammie, and N. Yunes, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2509.20457 [gr-qc]

2025
[35]

Hegade K

A. Hegade K. R., C. F. Gammie, and N. Yunes, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.03564 [gr-qc]

2025
[36]

Duque, L

F. Duque, L. Sberna, A. Spiers, and R. Vicente, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2510.02433 [gr-qc]

2025
[37]

Kejriwal, L

S. Kejriwal, L. Speri, and A. J. Chua, Physical Review D110, 084060 (2024)

2024
[38]

M. L. Katz, A. J. K. Chua, L. Speri, N. Warburton, and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D104, 064047 (2021), arXiv:2104.04582 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[39]

T.HindererandE.E.Flanagan,Phys.Rev.D78,064028 (2008), arXiv:0805.3337 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[40]

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

1964
[41]

Yunes, B

N. Yunes, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 171103 (2011), arXiv:1103.4609 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[42]

Tanaka and K

H. Tanaka and K. Okada, Astrophys. J.968, 28 (2024), arXiv:2404.12521 [astro-ph.EP]

2024 arXiv
[43]

N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys.24, 337 (1973)

1973
[44]

Tinto, F

M. Tinto, F. B. Estabrook, and J. W. Armstrong, Phys. Rev. D69, 082001 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310017

2004 arXiv
[45]

M. L. Katz, J.-B. Bayle, A. J. K. Chua, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D106, 103001 (2022), arXiv:2204.06633 [gr- qc]

2022 arXiv
[46]

Marsat, J

S. Marsat, J. G. Baker, and T. Dal Canton, Phys. Rev. D103, 083011 (2021), arXiv:2003.00357 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[47]

Karnesis, M

N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 4814 (2023), arXiv:2303.02164 [astro-ph.IM]

2023 arXiv
[48]

Tinto, S

M. Tinto, S. Dhurandhar, and D. Malakar, Phys. Rev. D 107, 082001 (2023), arXiv:2212.05967 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[49]

Cornish and T

N. Cornish and T. Robson, Journal of Physics: Confer- ence Series840, 012024 (2017)

2017
[50]

Nissanke, D

S. Nissanke, D. E. Holz, S. A. Hughes, N. Dalal, and J. L. Sievers, Astrophys. J.725, 496 (2010), arXiv:0904.1017 [astro-ph.CO]

2010 arXiv
[51]

Vallisneri, Phys

M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 191104 (2011), arXiv:1108.1158 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[52]

Moore, T

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

2018 arXiv
[53]

Cutler and E

C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

1994 arXiv
[54]

E.Baird, S.Fairhurst, M.Hannam,andP.Murphy,Phys. Rev. D87, 024035 (2013), arXiv:1211.0546 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[55]

Toubiana and J

A. Toubiana and J. R. Gair, arXiv preprint (2024), arXiv:2401.06845 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[56]

E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4566 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710129

1998 arXiv
[57]

Lindblom, B

L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[58]

Chatziioannou, A

K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D95, 104004 (2017), arXiv:1703.03967 [gr- qc]

2017 arXiv
[59]

R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D111, 044026 (2025), arXiv:2410.06254 [gr- qc]

2025 arXiv
[60]

Littenberg, N

T. Littenberg, N. Cornish, K. Lackeos, and T. Robson, Phys. Rev. D101, 123021 (2020), arXiv:2004.08464 [gr- qc]

2020 arXiv
[61]

Lackeos, T

K. Lackeos, T. B. Littenberg, N. J. Cornish, and J. I. Thorpe, Astron. Astrophys.678, A123 (2023), arXiv:2308.12827 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[62]

T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D107, 063004 (2023), arXiv:2301.03673 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[63]

S. Deng, S. Babak, M. Le Jeune, S. Marsat, É. Plagnol, and A. Sartirana, Phys. Rev. D111, 103014 (2025), arXiv:2501.10277 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[64]

S. H. Strub, L. Ferraioli, C. Schmelzbach, S. C. Stäh- ler, and D. Giardini, Phys. Rev. D110, 024005 (2024), arXiv:2403.15318 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[65]

M. L. Katz, N. Karnesis, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Phys. Rev. D111, 024060 (2025), arXiv:2405.04690 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[66]

Khukhlaev and S

S. Khukhlaev and S. Babak, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2509.20062 [gr-qc]

2025
[67]

J. S. Read, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 135002 (2023), arXiv:2301.06630 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[68]

C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cor- nish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D108, 044018 (2023), arXiv:2301.11941 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[69]

Kumar, M

S. Kumar, M. Melching, and F. Ohme, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2502.17400 [gr-qc]

2025
[70]

R.Das, V.Gayathri, Divyajyoti, S.Jose, I.Bartos, S.Kli- menko, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D112, 023011 (2025), arXiv:2412.11749 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[71]

E. Seo, X. Shan, J. Janquart, O. A. Hannuksela, M. A. Hendry, and B. Hu, Astrophys. J.988, 159 (2025), arXiv:2503.02186 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[72]

Vallisneri, Phys

M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D86, 082001 (2012), arXiv:1207.4759 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[73]

Antonelli, O

A. Antonelli, O. Burke, and J. R. Gair, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society507, 5069 (2021). 7 Appendix When performing Bayesian parameter estimation, we used the tempered samplereryn. For all the analyses shown in the main text, we used a mixture of ‘stretch mov...

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A.G.Abacet al.,arXivpreprint (2025),lIGO-P2400386, 2508.18082

arXiv 2025

[2] [2]

A.G.Abacet al.,arXivpreprint (2025),dCC:P2500026- v6, 2507.08219

arXiv 2025

[3] [3]

Amaro-Seoane, H

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P.Bender, E.Berti, P.Binetruy, M.Born, D.Bor- toluzzi, J. Camp, C. Caprini, V. Cardoso, M. Colpi, J. Conklin, N. Cornish, C. Cutler, K. Danzmann, R. Dolesi, L. Ferraioli, V. Ferroni, E. Fitzsimons, J. Gair, L. G. Bote, D. Giardini, F. Gibert, C. Grimani, H. Hal- loin, G. Heinzel, T. Hertog, M....

arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

[4] [4]

Colpiet al., arXiv preprint (2024), lISA-PD-2024-01, 2402.07571

M. Colpiet al., arXiv preprint (2024), lISA-PD-2024-01, 2402.07571

arXiv 2024

[5] [5]

L.BarackandC.Cutler,Phys.Rev.D69,082005(2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0310125

arXiv 2004

[6] [6]

Drasco and S

S. Drasco and S. A. Hughes, Physical Review D73, 024027 (2006)

2006

[7] [7]

Babak, J

S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. Sop- uerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, A. Pe- titeau, and A. Klein, Phys. Rev. D95, 103012 (2017), arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2017

[8] [8]

Afshordiet al.(LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

N. Afshordiet al.(LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), arXiv e-prints (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023