pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.15431 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-16 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Highly eccentric non-spinning binary black hole mergers: quadrupolar post-merger waveforms

Nishkal Rao , Gregorio Carullo
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 10:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords binary black holesgravitational waveseccentric orbitspost-mergerquasinormal modesnumerical relativitywaveform modeling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Polynomial expressions accurately capture the post-merger (2,2) waves from highly eccentric black hole mergers.

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

This paper creates closed-form formulas for the dominant post-merger gravitational wave mode from non-spinning black hole pairs on highly eccentric orbits. These formulas are low-order polynomials in the mass ratio and two quantities measured at the merger time: an effective energy and the angular momentum. The resulting models match numerical simulations well enough to be used for full waveform templates when joined to inspiral models, which matters for analyzing signals from black holes that merge after close encounters in crowded environments.

Core claim

Using data from 233 non-spinning eccentric binary black hole simulations, the authors construct time-dependent complex amplitudes for the dominant (2,2) quasinormal mode via a Bayesian procedure and represent them as multivariate polynomials in the symmetric mass ratio and two merger parameters: the mass-rescaled effective energy and angular momentum. These closed-form expressions achieve mismatches of about 10^{-3} when compared to the numerical waveforms, including for near-extreme eccentricities, and can be combined with inspiral models to produce full inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms.

What carries the argument

Multivariate polynomial models of the complex quasinormal mode amplitudes as functions of symmetric mass ratio ν, effective energy Ê_eff^mrg, and angular momentum j_mrg at merger.

If this is right

  • The models can be directly combined with effective-one-body and phenomenological inspiral waveforms to produce accurate full inspiral-merger-ringdown templates.
  • The expressions remain accurate for near-extreme eccentricities with mismatches around 10^{-3}.
  • Validation against an independent catalog of simulations confirms the robustness of the polynomial fits.
  • These waveforms enable improved parameter estimation for both astrophysical and fundamental physics properties of eccentric binary sources.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Extending this polynomial approach to include black hole spin might yield templates for more realistic astrophysical mergers.
  • These models could reduce computational cost in parameter estimation pipelines for eccentric binary searches.
  • Discrepancies in new simulations could reveal limitations in the assumed low-order polynomial dependence.

Load-bearing premise

The post-merger (2,2) amplitudes are adequately captured by a low-order multivariate polynomial in only three variables and that this form remains accurate across different numerical relativity data sets.

What would settle it

A new numerical simulation of a highly eccentric merger outside the training set that produces a mismatch substantially larger than 10^{-3} with the polynomial model.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15431 by Gregorio Carullo, Nishkal Rao.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Quadrupolar strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Waveform dependency on the effective impact parameter, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mismatches of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the mismatches distributions from the global polynomial fits of amplitudes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Median amplitude and phase coefficients from the Bayesian fits with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Median amplitude and phase coefficients from the Bayesian fits with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. NR strain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Probability-probability (P-P) plots of mismatches from Bayesian and Least Squares distributions using the CDFs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We present numerically-informed closed-form expressions for the dominant $(\ell,m)=(2,2)$ waveform harmonic of the post-merger emission from mergers of non-spinning binary black holes with comparable masses on highly eccentric orbits. Using 233 non-spinning eccentric simulations from the RIT catalog, we construct time-dependent complex quasinormal mode amplitudes via a Bayesian procedure. We build multivariate polynomial models, represented as functions of the symmetric mass ratio $\nu$ and two dynamics parameters evaluated at merger: the mass-rescaled effective energy $\hat{E}_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{mrg}}$ and angular momentum $j_{\mathrm{mrg}}$. We further validate the post-merger non-circular waveform model by comparing it against simulations from the SXS catalog. Our models achieve mismatches around $\sim10^{-3}$, including for near-extreme eccentricities. The model can be directly combined with effective-one-body and phenomenological inspiral waveforms to produce accurate inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms, essential for parameter estimation of both astrophysical and fundamental physics properties of the signals' sources.

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 claims to provide closed-form expressions for the dominant (ℓ,m)=(2,2) post-merger waveform harmonic from non-spinning, comparable-mass binary black hole mergers on highly eccentric orbits. Using 233 RIT NR simulations, complex amplitudes are extracted via a Bayesian procedure and modeled as multivariate polynomials in the symmetric mass ratio ν together with the merger values of the mass-rescaled effective energy Ê_eff^mrg and angular momentum j_mrg. The resulting model is validated against SXS simulations, yielding mismatches of order 10^{-3} even at near-extreme eccentricities, and is intended for direct combination with inspiral waveforms to produce full IMR models.

Significance. If the polynomial representation proves robust, the work supplies a practical, low-cost post-merger module for eccentric mergers, a regime relevant to certain formation channels and to tests of general relativity. The use of two independent NR catalogs, Bayesian amplitude extraction, and explicit mismatch quantification on held-out data are constructive features that support reproducibility and uncertainty handling.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and model-construction paragraph: the central claim that a low-order multivariate polynomial in only the three variables ν, Ê_eff^mrg and j_mrg suffices for the (2,2) amplitudes is load-bearing. For highly eccentric orbits the ringdown excitation can retain sensitivity to radial momentum at merger or orbital phase, quantities that are not functions of the chosen three variables alone; the reported agreement between RIT training and SXS validation sets does not yet demonstrate that the functional form is complete rather than adequate for the particular correlations present in both catalogs.
  2. [Validation] Validation discussion: the mismatches ∼10^{-3} are encouraging, but the manuscript does not report explicit tests that vary initial eccentricity, radial velocity, or numerical resolution while holding the three fitting variables fixed. Without such checks it remains unclear whether the polynomial degree and variable choice generalize when the underlying NR data change.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notation Ê_eff^mrg and j_mrg should be defined at first use in the abstract and again in the main text for readers who encounter the paper in isolation.
  2. A brief statement of the polynomial degree(s) retained and the criterion used to select them would improve reproducibility of the fitting procedure.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work and the constructive major comments. We address each point below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and model-construction paragraph: the central claim that a low-order multivariate polynomial in only the three variables ν, Ê_eff^mrg and j_mrg suffices for the (2,2) amplitudes is load-bearing. For highly eccentric orbits the ringdown excitation can retain sensitivity to radial momentum at merger or orbital phase, quantities that are not functions of the chosen three variables alone; the reported agreement between RIT training and SXS validation sets does not yet demonstrate that the functional form is complete rather than adequate for the particular correlations present in both catalogs.

    Authors: We agree that the variable choice is central to the claim. The post-merger (2,2) amplitudes are modeled using the symmetric mass ratio together with the effective energy and angular momentum evaluated at merger because these quantities determine the remnant black-hole mass and spin (via the final-state relations) and provide the dominant information about the plunge and merger dynamics that excite the ringdown. While radial momentum and orbital phase at merger are not explicit functions of these three variables, the Bayesian amplitude extraction performed on the full RIT catalog (spanning a broad range of eccentricities and initial conditions) yields polynomials that reproduce the data to high accuracy. The independent validation against SXS simulations, which employ different initial-data constructions, numerical resolutions, and thus different correlations between merger parameters and phase/radial velocity, provides evidence that the model is not merely fitting catalog-specific artifacts. In the revised manuscript we will expand the model-construction section with a physical motivation for the variable selection (drawing on EOB expectations for the merger state) and add an explicit discussion of possible residual sensitivities to unmodeled quantities together with the empirical evidence that they remain sub-dominant at the reported mismatch level. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Validation] Validation discussion: the mismatches ∼10^{-3} are encouraging, but the manuscript does not report explicit tests that vary initial eccentricity, radial velocity, or numerical resolution while holding the three fitting variables fixed. Without such checks it remains unclear whether the polynomial degree and variable choice generalize when the underlying NR data change.

    Authors: We concur that controlled tests holding Ê_eff^mrg, j_mrg and ν fixed while varying initial eccentricity, radial velocity or resolution would constitute the most direct check of generalization. Generating such targeted NR data sets is, however, computationally expensive because it requires iterative fine-tuning of initial conditions to reach identical merger-state values from different trajectories. Within the present study we instead relied on the cross-catalog validation: the SXS simulations use independent initial-data methods, different grid resolutions, and distinct numerical evolutions, yet produce mismatches of order 10^{-3} when evaluated with the RIT-trained polynomials. This already constitutes a non-trivial robustness test. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph in the validation section acknowledging the absence of fixed-merger-parameter scans, explaining the practical difficulties, and reiterating that the existing cross-catalog agreement supports the claimed applicability of the model. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical polynomial fits to external NR data

full rationale

The paper extracts complex QNM amplitudes from 233 RIT NR simulations via a Bayesian procedure, then fits explicit low-order multivariate polynomials in three external variables (ν, Ê_eff^mrg, j_mrg) evaluated at merger. These fitted expressions are validated by direct comparison to independent SXS simulations, yielding reported mismatches of ~10^{-3}. No step reduces the target waveform to a self-definition, a fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation; the derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model rests on fitting polynomial coefficients to numerical data and on the assumption that post-merger emission is dominated by quasinormal modes whose amplitudes depend only on the three chosen variables. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • polynomial coefficients for complex amplitudes
    Coefficients of the multivariate polynomials in ν, Ê_eff^mrg and j_mrg are determined by fitting to the 233 RIT simulations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Post-merger gravitational-wave emission is dominated by quasinormal modes whose time-dependent amplitudes can be extracted from numerical-relativity waveforms via a Bayesian procedure.
    Invoked when the authors construct time-dependent complex quasinormal-mode amplitudes from the simulation data.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5484 in / 1519 out tokens · 40808 ms · 2026-05-10T10:13:41.456910+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

220 extracted references · 189 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  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 arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    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 arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Nature Astron.3, 35 (2019), arXiv:1811.08079 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    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

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2509.04348 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19021 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    C. V. Vishveshwara, Phys. Rev. D1, 2870 (1970)

    1970

  11. [11]

    W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. Lett.170, L105 (1971)

    1971

  12. [12]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  13. [13]

    W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185, 649 (1973)

    1973

  14. [14]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A344, 441 (1975)

    1975

  15. [15]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A345, 145 (1975)

    1975

  16. [16]

    Chandrasekhar and S

    S. Chandrasekhar and S. L. Detweiler, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A350, 165 (1976)

    1976

  17. [17]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev.108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  18. [18]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. D2, 2141 (1970)

    1970

  19. [19]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  20. [20]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett.29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  21. [21]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  22. [22]

    Nollert, Class

    H.-P. Nollert, Class. Quant. Grav.16, R159 (1999)

    1999

  23. [23]

    Ferrari and L

    V. Ferrari and L. Gualtieri, Gen. Rel. Grav.40, 945 (2008), arXiv:0709.0657 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  24. [24]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2009

  25. [25]

    Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment

    E. Bertiet al., (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Carullo, D

    G. Carullo, D. Laghi, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, W. Del Pozzo, O. J. C. Dias, M. Godazgar, and J. E. San- tos, Phys. Rev. D105, 062009 (2022), arXiv:2109.13961 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Gu, H.-T

    H.-P. Gu, H.-T. Wang, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D109, 024058 (2024), arXiv:2310.10447 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Echeverria, Phys

    F. Echeverria, Phys. Rev. D40, 3194 (1989)

    1989

  29. [29]

    Black Hole Spectroscopy: Testing General Relativity through Gravitational Wave Observations

    O. Dreyer, B. J. Kelly, B. Krishnan, L. S. Finn, D. Gar- rison, and R. Lopez-Aleman, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 787 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0309007

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  30. [30]

    On gravitational-wave spectroscopy of massive black holes with the space interferometer LISA

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D73, 064030 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0512160

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  31. [31]

    Bayesian model selection for testing the no-hair theorem with black hole ringdowns

    S. Gossan, J. Veitch, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D85, 124056 (2012), arXiv:1111.5819 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2012

  32. [32]

    Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations

    E. Bertiet al., Class. Quant. Grav.32, 243001 (2015), arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  33. [33]

    Spectroscopy of Kerr black holes with Earth- and space-based interferometers

    E. Berti, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and K. Belczynski, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 101102 (2016), arXiv:1605.09286 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Baibhav, E

    V. Baibhav, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and G. Khanna, Phys. Rev. D97, 044048 (2018), arXiv:1710.02156 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Baibhav and E

    V. Baibhav and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D99, 024005 (2019), arXiv:1809.03500 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Carullo,Black Hole Spectroscopy: from a mathemati- cal problem to an observational reality, Ph.D

    G. Carullo,Black Hole Spectroscopy: from a mathemati- cal problem to an observational reality, Ph.D. thesis, U. Pisa (main) (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Carullo, Gen

    G. Carullo, Gen. Rel. Grav.57, 76 (2025)

    2025

  38. [38]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev.131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  40. [40]

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

    1964

  41. [41]

    Mandel and A

    I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Phys. Rept.955, 1 (2022), arXiv:1806.05820 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Mapelli, Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes (2021) arXiv:2106.00699 [astro- ph.HE]

    M. Mapelli, Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes (2021) arXiv:2106.00699 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Stevenson, A

    S. Stevenson, A. Vigna-G´ omez, I. Mandel, J. W. Bar- rett, C. J. Neijssel, D. Perkins, and S. E. de Mink, Na- ture Commun.8, 14906 (2017), arXiv:1704.01352 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astro- phys. J.784, 71 (2014), arXiv:1308.2964 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  45. [45]

    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

  46. [46]

    Chattopadhyay, J

    D. Chattopadhyay, J. Stegmann, F. Antonini, J. Barber, and I. M. Romero-Shaw, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 4908 (2023), arXiv:2308.10884 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Antonini, N

    F. Antonini, N. Murray, and S. Mikkola, Astrophys. J. 781, 45 (2014), arXiv:1308.3674 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2014

  48. [48]

    Eccentric Black Hole Mergers Forming in Globular Clusters

    J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D97, 103014 (2018), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, K. Kre- mer, F. A. Rasio, J. Samsing, C. S. Ye, and M. Zevin, Phys. Rev. D98, 123005 (2018), arXiv:1811.04926 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Eccentric Black Hole Mergers in Dense Star Clusters: The Role of Binary-Binary Encounters

    M. Zevin, J. Samsing, C. Rodriguez, C.-J. Haster, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astrophys. J.871, 91 (2019), arXiv:1810.00901 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  54. [54]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.13820, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2511.13820

    B. Liu and D. Lai, (2025), arXiv:2511.13820 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Kick matters: The impact of a new recoil model on the retention of hierarchical black-hole remnants in globular clusters.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.10170, 2026

    T. Islam, D. Wadekar, and K. Kritos, (2026), arXiv:2603.10170 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  57. [57]

    Lai, Q.-Y

    Q. Lai, Q.-Y. Lan, Z.-H. Wang, and Y.-S. Piao, (2026), arXiv:2602.01615 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Tenorio and D

    R. Tenorio and D. Gerosa, (2026), arXiv:2601.02467 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Croon, D

    D. Croon, D. Gerosa, and J. Sakstein, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.546, stag073 (2026), arXiv:2508.10088 [astro- ph.HE]. 22

    work page arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    GW231123: Binary black hole merger or cosmic string?

    I. Cuceu, M. A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D113, L021302 (2026), arXiv:2507.20778 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    X. Shan, H. Yang, and S. Mao, (2025), arXiv:2512.19118 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    The First Model-Independent Upper Bound on Micro-lensing Signature of the Highest Mass Binary Black Hole Event GW231123

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, (2025), arXiv:2512.19077 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    GW231123: A Possible Primordial Black Hole Origin

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, (2025), arXiv:2508.09965 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Resolving Black Hole Family Issues among the Massive Ancestors of Very High-spin Gravitational-wave Events like GW231123,

    J. Stegmann, A. Olejak, and S. E. de Mink, Astrophys. J. Lett.992, L26 (2025), arXiv:2507.15967 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Q. Hu, H. Narola, J. Heynen, M. Wright, J. Veitch, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, (2025), arXiv:2512.17550 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, (2025), arXiv:2512.17631 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    J. C. L. Chan, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, J. Bow- man, L. Maga˜ na Zertuche, and L. Vujeva, (2025), arXiv:2512.16916 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2512.16347 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    E., et al

    V. Delfavero, S. Ray, H. E. Cook, K. Nathaniel, B. McK- ernan, K. E. S. Ford, J. Postiglione, E. McPike, and R. O’Shaughnessy, (2025), arXiv:2508.13412 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    A. Ray, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, (2025), arXiv:2510.07228 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.14363, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2510.14363

    L. Passenger, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, A. Borchers, M. Fishbach, and C. S. Ye, Astrophys. J.999, 236 (2026), arXiv:2510.14363 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  72. [72]

    Chatterjee, K

    C. Chatterjee, K. McGowan, S. Deshmukh, N. Tyler- Howard, and K. Jani, Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L6 (2025), arXiv:2509.09161 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.08298, doi:10.48550/arXiv.2509.08298

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2509.08298 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 191401 (2025), arXiv:2509.04574 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    S. A. Popa and S. E. de Mink, Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L76 (2025), arXiv:2509.00154 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Calder´ on Bustillo, N

    J. Calder´ on Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres-Forn´ e, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 201101 (2021), arXiv:2009.01066 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    2020, NatAs, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.05461 Gond´an, L., & Kocsis, B

    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

  78. [78]

    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

  79. [79]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Astro- phys. J. Lett.921, L31 (2021), arXiv:2108.01284 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  80. [80]

    Favata, C

    M. Favata, C. Kim, K. G. Arun, J. Kim, and H. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D105, 023003 (2022), arXiv:2108.05861 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.