pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11947 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: 1 theorem link

· Lean Theorem

Inferring host environment properties and gravitational-wave decay time from the eccentricity measurement of dynamically captured binaries

A. Vincent Paul, K. G. Arun, Marc Favata, Parthapratim Mahapatra

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 04:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords gravitational wave astronomyeccentric compact binariesdynamical capturehost environment inferenceGW200105globular clustersnuclear star clustersbinary merger delay
0
0 comments X

The pith

Assuming an eccentric gravitational-wave event arises from dynamical capture, its eccentricity and mass posteriors can identify the host environment and the time from capture to merger.

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

The paper presents a framework that converts the eccentricity posterior of a gravitational-wave event into constraints on the velocity and impact parameter at the moment of capture. These parameters are then compared against the velocity dispersions characteristic of different dense stellar environments to assign probabilities to each possible host. When the method is applied to the neutron-star black-hole merger GW200105, it returns a 29 percent probability for a globular-cluster origin and a 71 percent probability for a nuclear-star-cluster origin. The same calculation yields an estimated gravitational-wave decay time from capture to merger of 11 to 156 days. This diagnostic can be used on future eccentric events to learn where they formed without waiting for a large statistical sample.

Core claim

By assuming an observed eccentric event originates from a dynamical gravitational wave capture, the eccentricity posterior can be mapped to posteriors on key capture parameters such as the relative velocity at infinity and the impact parameter. Comparing these with the expected velocity distributions of different astrophysical environments places constraints on the likely host. For the neutron star-black hole merger GW200105, the probability that it merged in a globular cluster is 29 percent and in a nuclear star cluster is 71 percent. The formalism also infers a gravitational-wave decay time from capture to merger of 11-156 days. The same approach applied to GW190521 provides weaker host约束.

What carries the argument

The conversion of measured eccentricity into the relative velocity at infinity and impact parameter for a gravitational-wave capture event, using the relation for the eccentricity after a single close encounter, followed by comparison to environment-specific velocity distributions.

If this is right

  • For GW200105, a nuclear star cluster is the more probable host than a globular cluster.
  • A decay time between capture and merger of 11-156 days is obtained for GW200105.
  • The method can be applied on a single-event basis to future eccentric mergers to diagnose their hosts.
  • It can be generalized to study a population of eccentric binaries.
  • Application to GW190521 yields less informative constraints on the host environment.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If applied to many eccentric events, the distribution of inferred hosts could indicate the relative importance of different dense environments in producing mergers.
  • The inferred decay times provide a new observable that could be checked against numerical simulations of capture and inspiral.
  • Extending the comparison beyond globular and nuclear star clusters to other environments would broaden the diagnostic power of the method.
  • Combining this host inference with independent measurements of merger rates could help calibrate dynamical formation models.

Load-bearing premise

That the eccentric merger was formed by a dynamical gravitational-wave capture in a dense stellar environment.

What would settle it

An eccentric merger whose derived capture velocity lies outside the range spanned by all known dense environments, or a measured decay time that is inconsistent with the age or density of its assigned host.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11947 by A. Vincent Paul, K. G. Arun, Marc Favata, Parthapratim Mahapatra.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Inferred posteriors for v∞ and b for GW200105 based on the formalism in Sec. 3. As input we have used eccentricity posteriors for ef from two different analyses on GW200105 by G. Morras et al. (2025b) (blue/solid) and K. Kacanja et al. (2025) (red/dash-dotted). Dotted lines show the assumed prior distributions. Vertical lines show symmetric 90% credible intervals. In practice, Eq. (11) is implemented as fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Probability distribution of σNS for the host environment of GW200105 obtained using the formalism in Sec. 4 with σi = σNS (red and blue curves). Gray histograms show observational con￾straints on σNS based on rescaling stellar velocity dispersions via the equipartition theorem (see text for details). The relative heights of the GC and NSC distributions are also rescaled for better visual￾ization. et al. 20… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Inferred posteriors for v∞ and b for GW190521 using eccentric posteriors from I. M. Romero-Shaw et al. (2020) (orange/solid) and V. Gayathri et al. (2020) (green/dashed-dotted). Quantities are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Probability distribution of σBH for the host environment of GW190521 obtained using the formalism in Sec. 4 with σi = σBH (red and blue curves). Gray histograms show observational constraints on σBH based on rescaling stellar velocity dispersions via the equipartition theorem (see text for details). The relative heights of the GC and NSC distributions are also rescaled for better visualization. the method … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Probability distribution of the binary’s decay time for GW200105, the time from capture until the binary reaches the detector frequency band at f = 20 Hz. The calculation makes use of the eccentric posteriors from either G. Morras et al. (2025b) (blue/solid) or K. Kacanja et al. (2025) (red/dashed). Decay times are 15–156 days in the case of G. Morras et al. (2025b) and 11–75 days in case of K. Kacanja et … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Dynamical capture in dense stellar environments is a promising channel for producing eccentric compact binary mergers. Although there have been no confident detections of eccentric mergers to date, a few candidates show indications of non-negligible in-band eccentricity upon re-analysis of the data. By assuming an observed eccentric event originates from a dynamical gravitational wave (GW) capture, we show that it is possible to identify the host environment using the eccentricity and mass posteriors. In particular, the eccentricity posterior can be mapped to posteriors on key capture parameters, such as the relative velocity at infinity and the impact parameter. By comparing these with the expected velocity distributions of different astrophysical environments, we can place constraints on the likely host. Assuming that it originated from a GW capture, we applied this framework to the neutron star-black hole merger GW200105. By comparing with the velocity dispersion distributions of neutron stars in the cores of globular clusters (GCs) and nuclear star clusters (NSCs), we find the probability that GW200105 merged in a GC (NSC) to be 29% (71%). As we anticipate detecting several eccentric mergers in the future, this method can provide a valuable astrophysical diagnostic of their host environments on a single-event basis; this can be straightforwardly generalized to a population of eccentric binaries. The formalism we develop is also applied to GW190521, but is less constraining for that event. Lastly, we infer a GW decay time from capture to merger of 11-156 days for GW200105.

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 manuscript develops a conditional framework to infer host environments (globular clusters vs. nuclear star clusters) and gravitational-wave decay times for eccentric compact binary mergers by assuming dynamical GW capture origin, mapping eccentricity and mass posteriors to capture parameters (relative velocity at infinity and impact parameter), and comparing the resulting distributions against literature velocity dispersion profiles. It applies the method to GW200105 (yielding 29% GC / 71% NSC probabilities and 11-156 day decay time) and GW190521 (less constraining results).

Significance. If the central mapping holds under the stated assumption, the approach supplies a practical, single-event diagnostic for the astrophysical origins of eccentric mergers that can be extended to populations; it reuses standard capture physics and external velocity-dispersion data without introducing new free parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Application to GW200105] The quantitative results for GW200105 (29%/71% probabilities and 11-156 day decay-time interval) depend on the eccentricity-to-capture-parameter mapping and its propagation through the velocity-dispersion comparison; the manuscript provides only an outline of this procedure without explicit formulas, error-propagation steps, or validation against simulated captures, preventing full assessment of the reported numbers (see abstract and the GW200105 application paragraph).
  2. [Introduction and GW200105 section] The framework is explicitly conditional on the event originating via dynamical capture; while this is stated, the manuscript does not quantify how sensitive the host probabilities and decay-time range are to plausible deviations from the capture assumption or to uncertainties in the input eccentricity posterior (see the opening assumption statement and the final decay-time inference).
minor comments (2)
  1. Add a brief methods subsection or appendix that reproduces the mapping from eccentricity posterior to v_inf and impact-parameter posteriors, including any numerical integration or sampling steps used.
  2. Clarify whether the velocity-dispersion distributions for GCs and NSCs are taken directly from the cited literature or re-binned; state the exact reference and any interpolation method.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough and constructive review. The comments identify areas where additional detail and analysis will strengthen the manuscript, and we address each point below with plans for revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Application to GW200105] The quantitative results for GW200105 (29%/71% probabilities and 11-156 day decay-time interval) depend on the eccentricity-to-capture-parameter mapping and its propagation through the velocity-dispersion comparison; the manuscript provides only an outline of this procedure without explicit formulas, error-propagation steps, or validation against simulated captures, preventing full assessment of the reported numbers (see abstract and the GW200105 application paragraph).

    Authors: We agree that the current presentation provides only an outline of the mapping and propagation procedure. In the revised manuscript we will add the explicit analytic expressions relating the eccentricity posterior to the capture parameters (relative velocity at infinity and impact parameter), describe the Monte-Carlo error-propagation steps used to obtain the host-environment probabilities and decay-time interval, and include a validation subsection that applies the same pipeline to a set of simulated capture events with known input parameters. These additions will enable full reproducibility and assessment of the quoted numbers for GW200105. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Introduction and GW200105 section] The framework is explicitly conditional on the event originating via dynamical capture; while this is stated, the manuscript does not quantify how sensitive the host probabilities and decay-time range are to plausible deviations from the capture assumption or to uncertainties in the input eccentricity posterior (see the opening assumption statement and the final decay-time inference).

    Authors: We acknowledge that a quantitative sensitivity study is currently absent. We will add a dedicated subsection that (i) perturbs the input eccentricity posterior within its reported credible intervals and recomputes the host probabilities and decay-time range, and (ii) explores the effect of small admixtures of non-capture formation channels by varying the fraction of events assumed to follow the capture mapping. The results of these tests will be reported alongside the baseline values for GW200105. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation self-contained under explicit assumption

full rationale

The paper's inference chain begins with an explicit conditional assumption that the event (e.g., GW200105) originated via dynamical GW capture. Under that assumption, the eccentricity posterior is mapped to posteriors on capture parameters (v_inf, impact parameter) using standard capture physics relations, then compared against independent external velocity-dispersion distributions drawn from prior astrophysical literature for GCs and NSCs. The resulting host probabilities (29%/71%) and decay-time range (11-156 days) follow directly from this comparison without any fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction, without self-definitional loops, and without load-bearing self-citations that substitute for external validation. No enumerated circularity pattern is present; the central claim remains logically independent of its inputs once the stated assumption is granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumption of dynamical capture origin and comparison to external velocity models; limited information from abstract prevents exhaustive listing of all parameters.

free parameters (1)
  • velocity dispersion distributions for GCs and NSCs
    Used as benchmarks for probability calculation; treated as inputs from prior literature.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The observed eccentric event originates from dynamical gravitational-wave capture
    Explicitly required for the mapping of eccentricity posterior to capture parameters and host inference to be valid.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5593 in / 1374 out tokens · 103533 ms · 2026-05-13T04:32:02.788345+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 87 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aarseth, S. J. 2012, MNRAS, 422, 841, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20666.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20666.x 2012

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., et al. 2015, CQGra, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 9

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  3. [3]

    Jan, B.-J

    Aasim, M., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12460

    work page arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star.Astrophys

    Abac, A. G., Abbott, R., Abouelfettouh, I., et al. 2024, ApJL, 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  5. [5]

    G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 995, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06 Abbott, et al. 2021, ApJL, , doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06 2025

  6. [6]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B., et al. 2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  7. [7]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, PhRvL, 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  8. [8]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019a, ApJL, 882, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800 2041

  9. [9]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2019b, PhRvX, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040

  10. [10]

    Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020a, PhRvL, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102

  11. [11]

    2020b, ApJL, 900, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020b, ApJL, 900, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 2041

  12. [12]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, PhRvX, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  13. [13]

    2024, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024

  14. [14]

    L., et al

    Antonini, F., Chatterjee, S., Rodriguez, C. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 816, 65, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/65

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/816/2/65 2016

  15. [15]

    Antonini, F., Toonen, S., & Hamers, A. S. 2017, ApJ, 841, 77, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e 2017

  16. [16]

    2025, A&A, 700, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555165

    Attia, M., & Sibony, Y . 2025, A&A, 700, A35, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555165

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555165 2025

  17. [17]

    M., Kang, G., & Hansen, J

    Bae, Y .-B., Lee, H. M., Kang, G., & Hansen, J. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 084009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.084009 2017

  18. [18]

    F., Stone, N

    Baldassare, V . F., Stone, N. C., Foord, A., Gallo, E., & Ostriker, J. P. 2022, ApJ, 929, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f51

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f51 2022

  19. [19]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    Banerjee, S. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 524, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw3392

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw3392 2017

  20. [20]

    1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, PhRvL, 18, 379, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.18.379 1967

  21. [21]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , author =

    Baumgardt, H., & Hilker, M. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 1520, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1057

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1057 2018

  22. [22]

    Benacquista, M. J. 2002, LRR, 5, 2

    work page 2002

  23. [23]

    A., Tiwari, A., Shaikh, M

    Bhat, S. A., Tiwari, A., Shaikh, M. A., & Kapadia, S. J. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 124004, doi: 10.1103/rstg-6n6y

    work page doi:10.1103/rstg-6n6y 2025

  24. [24]

    A., & Zimmerman, P

    Brown, D. A., & Zimmerman, P. J. 2010, PhRvD, 81, 024007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.024007 2010

  25. [25]

    Carlo, U. N. D., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2286

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2286 2020

  26. [26]

    Romero-Shaw, I. M. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 4908, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3048

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3048 2023

  27. [27]

    Q., Zevin, M., & Vitale, S

    Cheng, A. Q., Zevin, M., & Vitale, S. 2023, ApJ, 955, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced98

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced98 2023

  28. [28]

    Cho, G., Gopakumar, A., Haney, M., & Lee, H. M. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 024039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.024039 2018

  29. [29]

    G., Kim, J., & Lee, H

    Favata, M., Kim, C., Arun, K. G., Kim, J., & Lee, H. W. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 023003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.023003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.023003 2022

  30. [30]

    Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific , author =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  31. [31]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 063012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063012

    Fumagalli, G., Romero-Shaw, I., Gerosa, D., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 063012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.063012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.063012 2024

  32. [32]

    2023, NatAs, 7, 11, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01813-w

    Gamba, R., Breschi, M., Carullo, G., & et al. 2023, NatAs, 7, 11, doi: 10.1038/s41550-022-01813-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-022-01813-w 2023

  33. [33]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 044037, doi: 10.1103/rb1c-nx5f

    Gamboa, A., Khalil, M., & Buonanno, A. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 044037, doi: 10.1103/rb1c-nx5f

    work page doi:10.1103/rb1c-nx5f 2025

  34. [34]

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

    Gayathri, V ., Healy, J., Lange, J., et al. 2020, NatAs, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.05461 Gond´an, L., & Kocsis, B. 2021, MNRAS, 506, 1665, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1722 Gond´an, L., Kocsis, B., Raffai, P., & Frei, Z. 2018, ApJ, 860, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfee

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.05461 2020

  35. [35]

    2010, CAMCS, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    Goodman, J., & Weare, J. 2010, CAMCS, 5, 65, doi: 10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65

    work page doi:10.2140/camcos.2010.5.65 2010

  36. [36]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 104053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104053

    Gupta, P., Suzuki, H., Okawa, H., & Maeda, K.-i. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 104053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104053

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.104053 2020

  37. [38]

    2025b, PhRvD, 112, 104045, doi: 10.1103/vpyp-nvfp

    Gupte, N., Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., et al. 2025b, PhRvD, 112, 104045, doi: 10.1103/vpyp-nvfp

    work page doi:10.1103/vpyp-nvfp

  38. [39]

    Gupte, M

    Gupte, N., Miller, M. C., Udall, R., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.29019

    work page arXiv 2026

  39. [40]

    Hansen, R. O. 1972, PhRvD, 5, 1021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.5.1021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.5.1021 1972

  40. [41]

    Hansen, R. O. 1974, JMP, 15, 46, doi: 10.1063/1.1666501

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1666501 1974

  41. [42]

    G., & Fullerton, L

    Hills, J. G., & Fullerton, L. W. 1980, AJ, 85, 1281, doi: 10.1086/112798

    work page doi:10.1086/112798 1980

  42. [43]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb66a

    Hoang, B.-M., Naoz, S., & Kremer, K. 2020, ApJ, 903, 8, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb66a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb66a 2020

  43. [44]

    R., Sippel, A

    Hurley, J. R., Sippel, A. C., Tout, C. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2016, PASA, 33, e036, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2016.30

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2016.30 2016

  44. [45]

    Kacanja, K., Soni, K., & Nitz, A. H. 2025, PhRvD, , doi: 10.1103/jnsc-783p

    work page doi:10.1103/jnsc-783p 2025

  45. [46]

    O., Spera, M., Mapelli, M., & Ziosi, B

    Kimpson, T. O., Spera, M., Mapelli, M., & Ziosi, B. M. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2443, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2085

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2085 2016

  46. [47]

    2024, PhRvD, 110, 043023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043023

    Kritos, K., Strokov, V ., Baibhav, V ., & Berti, E. 2024, PhRvD, 110, 043023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.043023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.043023 2024

  47. [48]

    Leigh, N. W. C., Geller, A. M., McKernan, B., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 5672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3134

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3134 2018

  48. [49]

    E., Thrane, E., Lasky, P

    Lower, M. E., Thrane, E., Lasky, P. D., & Smith, R. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 083028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083028 10 L¨utzgendorf, N., Gualandris, A., Kissler-Patig, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219062

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083028 2018

  49. [50]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, doi: 10.1103/c9l3-gw6w

    Mahapatra, P., Chattopadhyay, D., Gupta, A., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, doi: 10.1103/c9l3-gw6w

    work page doi:10.1103/c9l3-gw6w 2025

  50. [51]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad781b

    Mahapatra, P., Chattopadhyay, D., Gupta, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad781b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad781b 2024

  51. [52]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, LRR, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  52. [53]

    C., & Lauburg, V

    Miller, M. C., & Lauburg, V . M. 2009, Astrophys. J., 692, 917, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/692/1/917

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/692/1/917 2009

  53. [54]

    2025a, PhRvD, 111, 084052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084052

    Morras, G., Pratten, G., & Schmidt, P. 2025a, PhRvD, 111, 084052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084052

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.084052

  54. [55]

    2026, arXiv e-prints

    Morras, G., Pratten, G., & Schmidt, P. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.22461

    work page arXiv 2026

  55. [56]

    Morras, G

    Morras, G., et al. 2025b, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.15393

    work page arXiv

  56. [57]

    A., & Umbreit, S

    Umbreit, S. 2015, ApJ, 800, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/9

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/9 2015

  57. [58]

    M., Lithwick, Y ., Rasio, F

    Naoz, S., Farr, W. M., Lithwick, Y ., Rasio, F. A., & Teyssandier, J. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 2155, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt302

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt302 2013

  58. [59]

    C., & Sisto, R

    Naoz, S., Li, G., Zanardi, M., de El´ıa, G. C., & Sisto, R. P. D. 2017, AJ, 154, 18, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa6fb0 O’Leary, R. M., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2127, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14653.x O’Leary, R. M., Meiron, Y ., & Kocsis, B. 2016, ApJL, 824, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L12

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6fb0 2017

  59. [60]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, PhRvL, 136, B1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    work page doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  60. [61]

    Detection of GW200105 with a targeted eccentric search

    Phukon, K. S., Schmidt, P., Morras, G., & Pratten, G. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10803

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [62]

    Planas, M. d. L., Husa, S., Ramos-Buades, A., & Valencia, J. 2025a, ApJ, 995, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1d7d

  62. [63]

    Planas, M. d. L., Ramos-Buades, A., Garc´ıa-Quir´os, C., et al. 2025b, PhRvD, 112, 123004, doi: 10.1103/cv75-y8dr

    work page doi:10.1103/cv75-y8dr

  63. [64]

    Planas, M. d. L., Ramos-Buades, A., Garc´ıa-Quir´os, C., et al. 2026, PhRvD, 113, doi: 10.1103/wz3v-b151

    work page doi:10.1103/wz3v-b151 2026

  64. [65]

    D., & Shapiro, S

    Quinlan, G. D., & Shapiro, S. L. 1987, ApJ, 321, 199, doi: 10.1086/165624

    work page doi:10.1086/165624 1987

  65. [66]

    D., & Shapiro, S

    Quinlan, G. D., & Shapiro, S. L. 1989, ApJ, 343, 725, doi: 10.1086/167745

    work page doi:10.1086/167745 1989

  66. [67]

    2023a, PhRvD, 108, 124037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124037

    Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., Estell´es, H., et al. 2023a, PhRvD, 108, 124037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124037

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.124037

  67. [68]

    2023b, PhRvD, 108, 124063, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124063 Rando Forastier, Bruno, Mar´ın Pina, Daniel, Gieles, Mark, Portegies Zwart, Simon, & Antonini, Fabio

    Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., & Gair, J. 2023b, PhRvD, 108, 124063, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124063 Rando Forastier, Bruno, Mar´ın Pina, Daniel, Gieles, Mark, Portegies Zwart, Simon, & Antonini, Fabio. 2025, A&A, 697, A118, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202450890

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.124063 2025

  68. [69]

    2025, PhRvD, 112, 063052, doi: 10.1103/jj7m-x66y

    Romero-Shaw, I., Stegmann, J., Tagawa, H., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 063052, doi: 10.1103/jj7m-x66y

    work page doi:10.1103/jj7m-x66y 2025

  69. [70]

    M., Lasky, P

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5210, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2996

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2996 2019

  70. [71]

    2020a, ApJL, 903, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe26

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Lasky, P. D., Thrane, E., & Calder´on Bustillo, J. 2020, ApJL, 903, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe26

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abbe26 2020

  71. [72]

    Rozner, T

    Rozner, M., Clarke, T. A., Romero-Shaw, I. M., & Samsing, J. 2026, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.20110

    work page arXiv 2026

  72. [73]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    Saini, P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae037 2024

  73. [75]

    2018b, PhRvD, 97, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    Samsing, J. 2018b, PhRvD, 97, 103014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.103014

  74. [76]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123010

    Askar, A. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.123010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.123010 2020

  75. [77]

    2014, ApJ, 784, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/71

    Samsing, J., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2014, ApJ, 784, 71, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/784/1/71

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/784/1/71 2014

  76. [78]

    2017, ApJL, 840, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0b

    Samsing, J., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2017, ApJL, 840, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f0b 2017

  77. [79]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Shariat, C., Naoz, S., El-Badry, K., et al. 2024, ApJ, 978, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad944a 2024

  78. [80]

    2017, ApJ, 836, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729

    Silsbee, K., & Tremaine, S. 2017, ApJ, 836, 39, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5729 2017

  79. [81]

    A., & Mencagli, M

    Spera, M., Trani, A. A., & Mencagli, M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10040076

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10040076 2022

  80. [82]

    2025, ApJL, 991, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae055b

    Stegmann, J., & Klencki, J. 2025, ApJL, 991, L54, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae055b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae055b 2025

Showing first 80 references.