Eccentricity Effects on Modeling Dynamic Quantities and Their Correlations in Binary Black Hole Mergers

Hao Wang; Qing Wen Wu; Yuan Chuan Zou

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 108 references

Eccentricity Effects on Modeling Dynamic Quantities and Their Correlations in Binary Black Hole Mergers

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the oscillations of radiative quantities in eccentric black-hole mergers come from the initial orbital phase $l_0$, not from eccentricity itself; eccentricity sets the envelope, and interpolating these envelopes…

desk verdict The l0-envelope framing is a real step forward, but the leap from radiative envelopes to robust remnant-quantity domains is asserted rather than demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04495 v1 pith:3MSR4XOL submitted 2025-01-08 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Hao Wang , Yuan Chuan Zou , Qing Wen Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE MSC 83C3583C57 PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx

keywords binaryblackholemergerseccentricityinitialmeananomalypost-Newtonianwaveformsnumericalrelativityremnantmassandspinrecoilvelocitygravitationalwaves

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

This paper re-examines why the radiative quantities of eccentric binary black hole mergers—radiated energy, angular momentum, and linear momentum—oscillate with initial eccentricity. By treating the initial mean anomaly $l_0$ (the starting orbital phase) as a free parameter in 3PN post-Newtonian waveforms fitted to numerical-relativity inspiral data, the authors find that the oscillations track $l_0$, while the genuine eccentricity effect is the envelope bounding those oscillations. For the remnant quantities mass, spin, recoil velocity, and peak luminosity, eccentric systems fill continuous domains around circular-orbit polynomial fits in mass ratio; interpolating the maximum and minimum of these domains yields constraints on their correlations. These domains are far broader than the circular-orbit polynomial spread, and the same mechanism is argued to extend to spin-aligned and spin-precessing binaries. The practical upshot is that eccentricity cannot be neglected when predicting or interpreting remnant properties from gravitational-wave observations.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the 3PN post-Newtonian eccentric waveform with the initial mean anomaly $l_0$ as a free parameter. In this model the mean anomaly evolves as $\dot{l}=n(x,e_t)$ and enters the orbit through the Kepler-type relation $l = u - e_t \sin u + \cdots$, so changing $l_0$ changes the phase of the orbit at a fixed eccentricity. By fitting the PN waveform to the NR inspiral and then scanning $l_0$ in $[0,2\pi]$, the authors generate the full band of radiative quantities; the maximum and minimum of that band form the envelope attributed to eccentricity. The same max/min procedure, applied to $M_{\rm rem}$, $\alpha_{\rm rem}$, $V_{\rm rem}$, and $L_{\rm peak}$ across mass ratios, produces the domains that constrain the correlations.

What would settle it

Run a dedicated set of numerical-relativity simulations with the same mass ratio, initial separation, and initial eccentricity but systematically different initial mean anomaly, and compare the spread of remnant mass, spin, recoil velocity, and peak luminosity with the post-Newtonian envelope; a much narrower or shifted spread would falsify the claim. A cheaper test is to recompute the $l_0$ sweep at higher post-Newtonian order or with an effective-one-body waveform and check whether the envelope boundaries move by more than the stated residuals.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the oscillations of radiative quantities—radiated energy $E_{\rm rad}$, radiated angular momentum $L_{\rm rad}$, and radiated linear momentum $P_{\rm rad}$—previously seen as a function of initial eccentricity are controlled by the initial mean anomaly $l_0$; sweeping $l_0$ over $[0,2\pi]$ at fixed eccentricity fills a band whose envelope is the true eccentricity effect. This reinterpretation is then carried over to the remnant quantities $M_{\rm rem}$, $\alpha_{\rm rem}$, $V_{\rm rem}$, and $L_{\rm peak}$, which in eccentric mergers occupy continuous domains around the circular-orbit polynomial fits instead of single values. Interpolating the maximum and minimum of those domains over mass ratio yields boundaries that constrain the correlations among the dynamical quantities, and because the underlying mechanism is an oscillation of the waveform amplitude, the same envelope behavior is expected to hold for spin-aligned and spin-precessing systems.

Load-bearing premise

The chain relies on a 3PN post-Newtonian waveform fitted to each numerical-relativity run over only the final $200M$ of inspiral being accurate enough that sweeping the initial mean anomaly in that PN model faithfully bounds the true remnant quantities, even though the PN waveform is never validated against the merger and ringdown phases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

To predict the remnant of an eccentric merger, the initial mean anomaly must be treated as a nuisance parameter; observed waveforms correspond to an unknown $l_0$, so the relevant prediction is an interval, not a point.
Fourth-order polynomial fits in mass ratio adequately capture circular-orbit remnant mass, spin, recoil velocity, and peak luminosity, with residuals at the percent level or below.
For eccentric orbital mergers, the domains of dynamical quantities are broader than the circular-orbit polynomial spread; residuals from the circular fit can reach tens of percent for $V_{\rm rem}$ and $L_{\rm peak}$.
Interpolating the max/min of these domains yields boundary curves that constrain the correlation plots (e.g., $M_{\rm rem}$ vs $\alpha_{\rm rem}$), even where the internal structure of the correlation is spiral-like.
The same envelope/domain behavior is expected in spin-aligned and spin-precessing eccentric binaries, so the effect is not specific to nonspinning systems.

Reading between the lines

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

If the envelope interpretation is right, template banks for eccentric binaries should marginalize over $l_0$; current pipelines that fix the phase may systematically underestimate the parameter uncertainty in $e_0$ and remnant spin.
The claim that the domain widens with initial separation suggests a testable scaling: with fixed $e_0$ and $q$, the range of $M_{\rm rem}$ should grow monotonically with the initial orbital distance, a trend that can be checked with existing or future NR runs at larger separations.
By analogy, the same $l_0$-envelope mechanism should modulate other oscillation-sensitive observables such as eccentric subdominant mode amplitudes or the phase of the ringdown, not just the integrated quantities studied here.
One could use the domain boundaries as a prior for machine-learning emulators of eccentric mergers, converting a sparse NR grid into continuous constraints across mass ratio.

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

Colleague,

The genuinely new thing here is the l0-envelope idea. The authors show that if you sweep the initial mean anomaly in a 3PN inspiral waveform fitted to each RIT eccentric run, the radiative quantities (energy, angular momentum, linear momentum) span a band whose width is set by eccentricity, while the specific value is set by l0. This cleanly explains the oscillations they reported in earlier work, and it is computed directly from the PN model, so it is reproducible. That part is worth taking seriously.

The rest of the paper is more standard. The 4th-order polynomial fits for Mrem, spin, recoil, and peak luminosity as functions of mass ratio in circular orbits, with residuals in the 0.02–5% range, are competent but not new; similar fits are common in the cited literature. The correlations plots are fine.

The soft spot is the step from radiative envelopes to remnant quantities. The paper asserts that the impact on radiative quantities parallels the influence on Mrem, alpha_rem, Vrem, and Lpeak because the latter are derived from the radiative quantities. But the PN waveforms are only matched to the NR data over the last 200M before merger, and the remnant quantities are set by the full waveform including merger and ringdown. There is no NR run with l0 varied at fixed eccentricity and separation, so the broad domains of Figure 7 are essentially bands drawn around whatever l0 values happen to be in the RIT catalog, not a controlled exploration. Calling them 'robust constraints' in the abstract overstates what is demonstrated, even though the body does label them as upper limits of the current simulations. The ad hoc exclusion of the sparse q=0.75 point when combining the two initial distances also sits uneasily: if a point is valid, dropping it just to make the domain cleaner biases the bounds.

I do not think the central envelope claim is wrong; the PN computation is self-consistent and the interpretation fits the data. The problem is the unvalidated extension to remnant-domain bounds, and the overclaim in the abstract.

This paper would benefit from a serious referee: the envelope construction is worth publishing, but only after the authors either validate the link to remnant quantities against available NR data or retract the 'robust constraints' language. I would not cite the domain bounds in my own work until that validation appears.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies eccentric binary black hole mergers using RIT and SXS numerical relativity data together with 3PN post-Newtonian inspiral waveforms fitted to the last 200M before merger. By varying the initial mean anomaly l0 over [0,2π] in the PN waveforms, the authors construct envelopes for radiated energy, angular momentum, and linear momentum, and argue that the previously observed oscillations in these radiative quantities are set by l0 while eccentricity sets the envelope. They then fit 4th-order polynomials to circular-orbit remnant quantities (Mrem, αrem, Vrem, Lpeak) as functions of mass ratio and their correlations, and combine circular and eccentric data to define empirical domains for these quantities for orbital and non-orbital mergers. These domains are presented as robust constraints on the relationships among dynamical quantities, mass ratio, and correlations, with a qualitative extension to spin-aligned and spin-precessing configurations.

Significance. The paper addresses a timely and under-modeled regime: eccentric BBH mergers are now observed or suspected, and systematic modeling of their remnant properties is sparse. The authors use a large public NR catalog and present a concrete, reproducible PN-based construction of l0 envelopes for radiative quantities, which is a useful diagnostic for interpreting oscillations seen in eccentric NR data. The circular-orbit polynomial fits are standard but clearly documented with residual percentages. However, the central significance claimed by the paper—that these radiative envelopes carry over to remnant dynamical quantities and yield robust domains—rests on an inference that is not validated. The empirical domains in Figs. 7-11 may be useful as upper limits of current NR coverage, but the abstract's and conclusion's wording that they 'provide robust constraints' is stronger than what the analysis supports.

major comments (4)

[Sec. II C and Sec. III, first paragraph] The load-bearing step is the identification of the PN radiative-quantity envelope with the range of remnant dynamical quantities. The PN waveforms are fitted only to the inspiral phase (last 200M before merger), and the radiative quantities in Fig. 2 are computed from those truncated waveforms. Remnant mass, spin, recoil velocity, and peak luminosity are properties of the full merger including merger and ringdown, which the 3PN model does not describe. The statement in Sec. III that 'the dynamical quantities can be derived from the radiative quantities' does not by itself transfer an inspiral-only envelope to final remnant quantities. The authors need a direct validation: for example, compare the PN-computed radiated energy (with the fitted l0) to the NR radiated energy for the same runs, and show that the l0-sweep envelope brackets the observed NR remnant scatter in Mrem, αrem, Vrem, and Lpeak. Without such a test, the claim that the oscillations in remnant quantities are 'special cases' of the radiative envelope is an assertion, not a demonstrated result.
[Sec. III A and Figs. 7-11] The 'domains' are constructed by interpolating maximum and minimum values of remnant quantities across a very sparse mass-ratio grid (only four or five mass ratios for each initial distance), with ad-hoc decisions such as excluding the q=0.75, Dini=11.3M point and imposing q=0 endpoints. The text itself concedes in Sec. III A that the domains represent 'the upper limit of the current NR simulation' and are expected to expand with larger initial separations. This is incompatible with the abstract's claim of 'robust constraints.' The paper should either provide a quantitative uncertainty estimate for the interpolated boundaries (e.g., showing sensitivity to the excluded points and to the interpolation scheme) or explicitly reframe the domains as provisional empirical upper limits rather than robust constraints.
[Sec. II C, Fig. 2] The causal decomposition of the oscillation into an l0 effect and an eccentricity envelope is not demonstrated for dynamical quantities. In the NR data, l0 is not varied for fixed e0 and fixed initial separation; the RIT runs have whatever initial phase the initial-data construction produced. The PN l0 sweep therefore shows what the PN model predicts, but it does not prove that the observed scatter in NR remnant quantities is caused by l0 rather than by other initial-data correlations (such as the precise eccentricity definition or the initial radial momentum). To support the claim that the oscillations 'arise from the specific initial condition l0,' the authors should compare the width of the PN radiative envelope with the actual NR scatter in the corresponding radiative quantities for the five cases highlighted in Fig. 3, and show that varying l0 in the PN model reproduces the observed oscillation pattern in the remnant quantities.
[Sec. IV] The extension to spin-aligned and spin-precessing configurations is presented as an established conclusion ('The answer is affirmative') while the text simultaneously states that 'comprehensive validation necessitates more extensive BBH simulations.' This section is speculative and should be labeled as a conjecture or outlook. The concluding sentence of Sec. V repeats the claim as if it were a finding. Since no spin-aligned or spin-precessing eccentric data are analyzed, the paper should not present this as a result.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. II heading] The section heading reads 'METHONS' and should be corrected to 'METHODS'.
[Sec. III B] In the text near Fig. 11, 'The intersection of the maximum and minimum of penal (b)' should read 'panel (b)'.
[Fig. 10 legends] The legend label 'effect of non-orbit $11.3M$ or $24.6M' contains unrendered LaTeX and should be cleaned up, and the capitalization should be consistent with the orbital panels.
[Eq. (20)] The residual definition divides by A; for quantities such as Vrem and Lpeak near zero (for example at q=1 or head-on limits) this can produce large or undefined residuals. The paper should clarify how such points are handled.
[Sec. II A / Figs. 1-11] The notation for initial separation is inconsistent: the text uses both Dini and D_ini. Please standardize.
[Sec. II E] The distinction between orbital and non-orbital mergers is introduced only in words ('the orbital cycle exceeds 1' vs 'less than 1'). A precise definition in terms of the PN or NR orbital phase would make the analysis more reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the l0-envelope is a forward PN-model study and the eccentric/remnant domains are descriptive envelopes of NR data, not predictions fitted to the same targets.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain in Sec. II C (PN l0-envelope), Sec. II D (circular-orbit polynomial fits), Sec. III A/B (orbital and non-orbital domains), and the conclusions. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own input. The l0 envelope in Fig. 2 is generated by varying l0 in a 3PN waveform model with et0 and x0 taken from the authors' earlier inspiral fits, but the envelope itself is a forward model property: it is the range of Erad, Lrad, and Prad over l0 in [0,2π] at fixed e0, not a fit to the envelope boundaries. The observed NR oscillations in radiative/dynamical quantities are interpreted as special cases of this envelope, but that interpretation is supported by an explicit PN-vs-NR comparison and by the orbital-averaging argument, not by defining the oscillation to be the envelope. The circular-orbit polynomials are fitted to NR data and then used only as a comparison baseline; the eccentric domains in Figs. 7 and 10 are obtained by interpolating maximum and minimum values of the NR dynamical quantities themselves, and the paper explicitly labels these domains as upper limits of current NR data rather than independent predictions. The self-citations (Refs. 79–81, 103) document continuity and supply fitted PN parameters, but the central envelope computation is presented in this paper, and the remnant domains are empirical envelopes of the RIT/SXS data, not outputs of the cited work. The caveat that the domains will expand with larger initial separations is an acknowledged limitation, not a hidden circular dependence. I therefore find no instance where a claimed prediction is equivalent to a fitted input, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors to force a choice, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. Concerns about the PN model's validity through merger/ringdown are correctness risks, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The load-bearing inputs are the NR catalogs, the 3PN waveform of Refs. [96-101], the PN-to-NR fits of Ref. [80], and the choice of only five dense-eccentricity series. There are no invented physical entities. The main free parameters are the per-simulation PN initial conditions and the polynomial coefficients used for the circular baseline, neither of which is used to force the eccentric-domain result.

free parameters (2)

et0, x0, l0 (PN initial conditions per NR run) = not listed in this paper; from Ref. [80]
These initial parameters are fitted to each RIT/SXS waveform in prior work and are used to generate the l0 envelopes. If they are off, the envelope shifts.
4th-order polynomial coefficients for Mrem(q), alpha_rem(q), Vrem(q), Lpeak(q) = not tabulated
Fit to circular-orbit NR data in Sec. II D; used as the baseline against which eccentric domains and residuals are defined.

assumptions (5)

standard math 3PN post-Newtonian equations for eccentric nonspinning binaries (Refs. [96-101]) are correct and adequate for the inspiral.
Used throughout Sec. II B to compute r, phi-dot, l, and the waveform modes.
domain assumption The PN waveforms fitted to RIT NR runs in Ref. [80] faithfully represent the inspiral phase.
Fitted parameters et0, x0, l0 from Ref. [80] are reused in Sec. II C.
domain assumption Varying l0 in [0,2pi] while holding et0, x0 fixed spans all physically realizable initial phases of the eccentric binary at that eccentricity and distance.
Sec. II C uses this to define the envelope; if the PN dynamics do not capture the phase dependence correctly, the envelope is not meaningful.
ad hoc to paper Remnant mass, spin, recoil velocity, and peak luminosity inherit the envelope of the radiative quantities.
Sec. III states the dynamical quantities 'can be derived from the radiative quantities' without derivation; this link underlies the domain plots.
ad hoc to paper Interpolating the maximum and minimum dynamical quantities across the sparse mass-ratio grid, with q=0 endpoints and exclusion of sparse points, yields the true domain boundaries.
Sec. III A combines 11.3M and 24.6M data and excludes q=0.75 11.3M; this interpolation assumption is load-bearing for the domain claims.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Eccentricity Effects on Modeling Dynamic Quantities and Their Correlations in Binary Black Hole Mergers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3MSR4XOL

@misc{pith2026250104495,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Eccentricity Effects on Modeling Dynamic Quantities and Their Correlations in Binary Black Hole Mergers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3MSR4XOL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04495}
}

abstract

In this study, we begin by revisiting the oscillatory behavior of radiative quantities-energy, angular momentum, and linear momentum-linked with initial eccentricities in binary black hole (BBH) mergers. By varying the mean anomaly $l_0$ across the parameter range $[0,2\pi]$ from a post-Newtonian perspective, we establish an envelope that encapsulates the oscillations of these radiative quantities. Our analysis reveals that while the oscillations are influenced by the specific initial condition $l_0$, the effect of eccentricity contributes to the formation of this envelope. Subsequently, we model dynamical quantities such as peak luminosity $L_{\text{peak}}$, remnant mass $M_{\text{rem}}$, spin $\alpha_{\text{rem}}$, and recoil velocity $V_{\text{rem}}$ in circular orbits. Through polynomial modeling, we explore their relationships with mass ratios and correlations. Our results demonstrate the effectiveness of these polynomials in capturing the intricate relationships and correlations among these quantities in circular orbits. Furthermore, we synthesize and analyze dynamical quantities for both circular and eccentric orbits, revealing continuous variations within specific ranges corresponding to distinct mass ratios. These variations are influenced by continuous changes in initial eccentricity and the associated envelope, which can be extrapolated to encompass other mass ratios. By interpolating the maximum and minimum values of these dynamical quantities, we unveil considerably broad domains relative to circular orbits in both orbital and non-orbital BBH mergers. These domains provide robust constraints on the relationships between dynamical quantities, mass ratios, and their correlations. Finally, we discuss the extension of this eccentricity effect to spin alignment and spin precession configurations of BBHs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04495 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Values and ranges of radiative quantities—radiated energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Envelopes of radiative quantities delineated by these five cases ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Polynomial modeling and residuals for the dynamical quantities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Polynomial modeling for the six correlations between dynamic quantities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Summary of the relationships between the dynamical quantities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Domains shaped by the influence of eccentricity beyond the circular orbit on the dynamical quantities. In the left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Residuals of the dynamic quantities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9. The maximum (max) and minimum (min) values from the relationships between the dynamic quantities and mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10. Domains of the dynamical quantities influenced by non-orbital eccentricity effects relative to circular orbits. We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11. The maximum (max) and minimum (min) values from the relationships between the dynamic quantities and mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

108 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

[1]

1, there are 80 sets of SXS circular orbit simulations, 21 sets of RIT circular orbit simulations, and 3 492 sets of eccentric orbit simulations

Within FIG. 1, there are 80 sets of SXS circular orbit simulations, 21 sets of RIT circular orbit simulations, and 3 492 sets of eccentric orbit simulations. The mass ratio q for the circular orbit simulations ranges from 1/10 to 1, while for the eccentric orbit simulations, it spans from 1/7 to 1. The initial eccentricity e0 varies from 0 to 1. Notably, ...
[2]

Notably, the continuous variation of l0 is primarily aimed at maximizing the exploration of the parameter space [0, 2π] and does not carry a specific significance

represent merely a subset of l0 values within the out- lined range, and the oscillation of radiated energy with eccentricity is a particular manifestation of this inter- play. Notably, the continuous variation of l0 is primarily aimed at maximizing the exploration of the parameter space [0, 2π] and does not carry a specific significance. Contrary to a sce...
[3]

Acernese et al

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

arXiv 2015
[4]

Akutsu et al

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

arXiv 2019
[5]

collaboration, Gravitational wave open science center, https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/ html/GWTC/

L. collaboration, Gravitational wave open science center, https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/ html/GWTC/
[6]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016
[7]

Aasi et al

J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 115012 (2015), arXiv:1410.7764 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015
[8]

M. C. Miller and D. P. Hamilton, Astrophys. J. 576, 894 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0202298

arXiv 2002

Show all 108 references

[9]

Gultekin, M

K. Gultekin, M. Coleman Miller, and D. P. Hamilton, Astrophys. J. 640, 156 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509885

2006 arXiv
[10]

R. M. O’Leary, F. A. Rasio, J. M. Fregeau, N. Ivanova, and R. W. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J. 637, 937 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508224

2006 arXiv
[11]

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

1963
[12]

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

1964
[13]

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

2018 arXiv
[14]

C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, K. Kremer, F. A. Rasio, J. Samsing, C. S. Ye, and M. Zevin, Phys. Rev. D 98, 123005 (2018), arXiv:1811.04926 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[15]

D. Park, C. Kim, H. M. Lee, Y.-B. Bae, and K. Bel- czynski, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469, 4665 (2017), arXiv:1703.01568 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[16]

C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, S. Chatterjee, C.-J. Haster, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 051101 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 029901 (2016)], arXiv:1505.00792 [astro-ph.HE]

2015 arXiv
[17]

Samsing, Phys

J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D 97, 103014 (2018), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[18]

Kocsis and J

B. Kocsis and J. Levin, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123005 (2012), arXiv:1109.4170 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[19]

Hoang, S

B.-M. Hoang, S. Naoz, B. Kocsis, F. A. Rasio, and F. Dosopoulou, Astrophys. J. 856, 140 (2018), arXiv:1706.09896 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[20]

Gond´ an, B

L. Gond´ an, B. Kocsis, P. Raffai, and Z. Frei, Astrophys. J. 860, 5 (2018), arXiv:1711.09989 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Gond´ an and B

L. Gond´ an and B. Kocsis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506, 1665 (2021), arXiv:2011.02507 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[22]

Antonini and H

F. Antonini and H. B. Perets, Astrophys. J. 757, 27 (2012), arXiv:1203.2938 [astro-ph.GA]

2012 arXiv
[23]

W. E. East, S. T. McWilliams, J. Levin, and F. Preto- rius, Phys. Rev. D 87, 043004 (2013), arXiv:1212.0837 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[24]

S. Naoz, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and N. Yunes, Astrophys. J. 773, 187 (2013), arXiv:1206.4316 [astro-ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[25]

J. H. VanLandingham, M. C. Miller, D. P. Hamilton, and D. C. Richardson, Astrophys. J. 828, 77 (2016), arXiv:1604.04948 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[26]

Samsing, I

J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, Nature 603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[27]

Tagawa, B

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

2021 arXiv
[28]

J. M. Antognini, B. J. Shappee, T. A. Thompson, and P. Amaro-Seoane, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 439, 1079 (2014), arXiv:1308.5682 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[29]

A. P. Stephan, S. Naoz, A. M. Ghez, G. Witzel, B. N. Sitarski, T. Do, and B. Kocsis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 3494 (2016), arXiv:1603.02709 [astro-ph.SR]

2016 arXiv
[30]

B. Katz, S. Dong, and R. Malhotra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 181101 (2011), arXiv:1106.3340 [astro-ph.EP]

2011 arXiv
[31]

Silsbee and S

K. Silsbee and S. Tremaine, Astrophys. J. 836, 39 17 (2017), arXiv:1608.07642 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[32]

Blaes, M

O. Blaes, M. H. Lee, and A. Socrates, Astrophys. J.578, 775 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0203370

2002 arXiv
[33]

Abbott et al

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

2020
[34]

Gayathri, J

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

2022 arXiv
[35]

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

2020 arXiv
[36]

Seto, Phys

N. Seto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 061106 (2013), arXiv:1304.5151 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[37]

Zevin, J

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

2019 arXiv
[38]

Blanchet, Living Rev

L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[39]

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

1973
[40]

Pretorius, Phys

F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507014

2005 arXiv
[41]

Buonanno and T

A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

1999 arXiv
[42]

Damour, Phys

T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0103018

2001
[43]

J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511103

2006 arXiv
[44]

A. H. Mroue et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 241104 (2013), arXiv:1304.6077 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[45]

Boyle et al., Class

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

2019 arXiv
[46]

M. D. Duez and Y. Zlochower, Rept. Prog. Phys. 82, 016902 (2019), arXiv:1808.06011 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[47]

Campanelli, C

M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlo- chower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006), arXiv:gr- qc/0511048

2006
[48]

Healy and C

J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104018 (2020), arXiv:2007.07910 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[49]

Healy and C

J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124010 (2022), arXiv:2202.00018 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[50]

Hamilton et al., Phys

E. Hamilton et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 044032 (2024), arXiv:2303.05419 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Healy, C

J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and M. Cam- panelli, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 224001 (2017), arXiv:1703.03423 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[52]

Healy, C

J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, Y. Zlochower, and M. Campanelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024021 (2019), arXiv:1901.02553 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[53]

K. Jani, J. Healy, J. A. Clark, L. London, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 204001 (2016), arXiv:1605.03204 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[54]

Ferguson et al., (2023), arXiv:2309.00262 [gr-qc]

D. Ferguson et al., (2023), arXiv:2309.00262 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[55]

Hofmann, E

F. Hofmann, E. Barausse, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 825, L19 (2016), arXiv:1605.01938 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Bruegmann, J

B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024027 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0610128

2008 arXiv
[57]

S. Husa, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, B. Brueg- mann, and U. Sperhake, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 105006 (2008), arXiv:0706.0740 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[58]

C. O. Lousto, H. Nakano, Y. Zlochower, and M. Cam- panelli, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084023 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 82, 129902 (2010)], arXiv:0910.3197 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[59]

Rezzolla, E

L. Rezzolla, E. Barausse, E. N. Dorband, D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, J. Seiler, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044002 (2008), arXiv:0712.3541 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[60]

Blanchet, M

L. Blanchet, M. S. S. Qusailah, and C. M. Will, Astro- phys. J. 635, 508 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0507692

2005 arXiv
[61]

C. O. Lousto, M. Campanelli, Y. Zlochower, and H. Nakano, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 114006 (2010), arXiv:0904.3541 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[62]

Buonanno, L

A. Buonanno, L. E. Kidder, and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D 77, 026004 (2008), arXiv:0709.3839 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[63]

Taylor and V

A. Taylor and V. Varma, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104047 (2020), arXiv:2010.00120 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[64]

Healy and C

J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024037 (2017), arXiv:1610.09713 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[65]

Healy, C

J. Healy, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D 90, 104004 (2014), arXiv:1406.7295 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[66]

Damour and A

T. Damour and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D 73, 124006 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602117

2006 arXiv
[67]

C. F. Sopuerta, N. Yunes, and P. Laguna, Phys. Rev. D 74, 124010 (2006), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 75, 069903 (2007), Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 78, 049901 (2008)], arXiv:astro-ph/0608600

2006 arXiv
[68]

Jim´ enez-Forteza, D

X. Jim´ enez-Forteza, D. Keitel, S. Husa, M. Hannam, S. Khan, and M. P¨ urrer, Phys. Rev. D 95, 064024 (2017), arXiv:1611.00332 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[69]

Rezzolla, E

L. Rezzolla, E. N. Dorband, C. Reisswig, P. Diener, D. Pollney, E. Schnetter, and B. Szilagyi, Astrophys. J. 679, 1422 (2008), arXiv:0708.3999 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[70]

Ferguson, S

D. Ferguson, S. Ghonge, J. A. Clark, J. Calderon Bustillo, P. Laguna, D. Shoemaker, and J. Calderon Bustillo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 151101 (2019), arXiv:1905.03756 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[71]

C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104052 (2014), arXiv:1312.5775 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[72]

Zlochower and C

Y. Zlochower and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 92, 024022 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 94, 029901 (2016)], arXiv:1503.07536 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[73]

J. A. Gonzalez, U. Sperhake, B. Bruegmann, M. Han- nam, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 091101 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610154

2007 arXiv
[74]

D. A. Hemberger, G. Lovelace, T. J. Loredo, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, B. Szil´ agyi, N. W. Taylor, and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064014 (2013), arXiv:1305.5991 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[75]

Carullo, S

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

2024 arXiv
[76]

There has been a notable absence of modeling efforts focused on dynamical quantities in BBH mergers with eccentric orbits

have utilized non-analytical methods like Gaussian process regression to model the remnant mass, spin, and recoil velocity. There has been a notable absence of modeling efforts focused on dynamical quantities in BBH mergers with eccentric orbits. This scarcity primarily stems ...
[77]

Koppitz, D

M. Koppitz, D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, L. Rezzolla, J. Thornburg, P. Diener, and E. Schnetter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 041102 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701163

2007 arXiv
[78]

Campanelli, C

M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 231102 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0702133

2007 arXiv
[79]

Wang, Y.-C

H. Wang, Y.-C. Zou, Q.-W. Wu, Y. Liu, and X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084063 (2024), arXiv:2310.04777 [gr- qc]

2024 arXiv
[80]

Wang, Y.-C

H. Wang, Y.-C. Zou, Q.-W. Wu, X. Liu, and Z. Li, (2024), arXiv:2409.17636 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[81]

Varma, D

V. Varma, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, F. H´ ebert, and H. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 011101 (2019), 18 arXiv:1809.09125 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[82]

Islam, V

T. Islam, V. Varma, J. Lodman, S. E. Field, G. Khanna, M. A. Scheel, H. P. Pfeiffer, D. Gerosa, and L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064022 (2021), arXiv:2101.11798 [gr- qc]

2021 arXiv
[83]

Caltech-Cornell-CITA, Rit binary black hole simulation results, https://ccrg.rit.edu/ numerical-simulations ()
[84]

L. E. Kidder and L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084026 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9911014

2000 arXiv
[85]

D. A. Hemberger, M. A. Scheel, L. E. Kidder, B. Szil´ agyi, G. Lovelace, N. W. Taylor, and S. A. Teukolsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 115001 (2013), arXiv:1211.6079 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[86]

Wang, Y.-C

H. Wang, Y.-C. Zou, and Q. W. Wu, (2024), arXiv:2411.13801 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[87]

Caltech-Cornell-CITA, binary black hole simulation re- sults, http://www.black-holes.org/waveforms ()
[88]

The LazEv code interfaces with the Cactus /Carpet /EinsteinToolkit infrastructure [90–92]

implementing the moving puncture approach [42], in conjunction with the BSSNOK (Baumgarte-Shapiro- Shibata-Nakamura-Oohara-Kojima) formalism for evolu- tion systems [89]. The LazEv code interfaces with the Cactus /Carpet /EinsteinToolkit infrastructure [90–92]. While SXS prima...
[89]

Szilagyi, L

B. Szilagyi, L. Lindblom, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124010 (2009), arXiv:0909.3557 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[90]

C. O. Lousto and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024034 (2008), arXiv:0711.1165 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[91]

Pretorius, Class

F. Pretorius, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 425 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0407110

2005 arXiv
[92]

Garfinkle, Phys

D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. D 65, 044029 (2002), arXiv:gr- qc/0110013

2002
[93]

to pinpoint apparent horizons and determines the horizon spins SH as the remnant spin αrem through the isolated horizon algorithm. Subsequently, they calculate the horizon mass mH as the remnant mass Mrem using the Christodoulou formula: mH = p m2 irr + S2 H/ (4m2 irr), where ...
[94]

Zlochower, J

Y. Zlochower, J. G. Baker, M. Campanelli, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 72, 024021 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0505055

2005
[95]

Marronetti, W

P. Marronetti, W. Tichy, B. Bruegmann, J. Gonza- lez, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064010 (2008), arXiv:0709.2160 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[96]

Zlochower, M

Y. Zlochower, M. Ponce, and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 86, 104056 (2012), arXiv:1208.5494 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[97]

Loffler et al., Class

F. Loffler et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 115001 (2012), arXiv:1111.3344 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[98]

Thornburg, Class

J. Thornburg, Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 743 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0306056

2004 arXiv
[99]

Campanelli, C

M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, Y. Zlochower, B. Krish- nan, and D. Merritt, Phys. Rev. D 75, 064030 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0612076

2007 arXiv
[100]

M. Ruiz, R. Takahashi, M. Alcubierre, and D. Nunez, Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 2467 (2008), arXiv:0707.4654 [gr- qc]

2008 arXiv
[101]

Hinder, F

I. Hinder, F. Herrmann, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024033 (2010), arXiv:0806.1037 [gr- qc]

2010 arXiv
[102]

Memmesheimer, A

R.-M. Memmesheimer, A. Gopakumar, and G. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 70, 104011 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407049

2004 arXiv
[103]

K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and S. Sinha, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124018 (2009), arXiv:0908.3854 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[104]

K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- sailah, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064034 (2008), arXiv:0711.0250 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[105]

K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- sailah, Phys. Rev. D 77, 064035 (2008), arXiv:0711.0302 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[106]

C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084040 (2015), arXiv:1501.07096 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[107]

Radia, U

M. Radia, U. Sperhake, E. Berti, and R. Croft, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104006 (2021), arXiv:2101.11015 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[108]

Wang, Y.-C

H. Wang, Y.-C. Zou, Q.-W. Wu, and Y. Liu, (2023), arXiv:2311.08822 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

1, there are 80 sets of SXS circular orbit simulations, 21 sets of RIT circular orbit simulations, and 3 492 sets of eccentric orbit simulations

Within FIG. 1, there are 80 sets of SXS circular orbit simulations, 21 sets of RIT circular orbit simulations, and 3 492 sets of eccentric orbit simulations. The mass ratio q for the circular orbit simulations ranges from 1/10 to 1, while for the eccentric orbit simulations, it spans from 1/7 to 1. The initial eccentricity e0 varies from 0 to 1. Notably, ...

[2] [2]

Notably, the continuous variation of l0 is primarily aimed at maximizing the exploration of the parameter space [0, 2π] and does not carry a specific significance

represent merely a subset of l0 values within the out- lined range, and the oscillation of radiated energy with eccentricity is a particular manifestation of this inter- play. Notably, the continuous variation of l0 is primarily aimed at maximizing the exploration of the parameter space [0, 2π] and does not carry a specific significance. Contrary to a sce...

[3] [3]

Acernese et al

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

arXiv 2015

[4] [4]

Akutsu et al

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

arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

collaboration, Gravitational wave open science center, https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/ html/GWTC/

L. collaboration, Gravitational wave open science center, https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/ html/GWTC/

[6] [6]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

[7] [7]

Aasi et al

J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 115012 (2015), arXiv:1410.7764 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2015

[8] [8]

M. C. Miller and D. P. Hamilton, Astrophys. J. 576, 894 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0202298

arXiv 2002