Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 2 cited by

Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reanalysis with an eccentric, precessing waveform model keeps GW150914 quasi-circular and slowly spinning.

desk verdict A competent first demonstration of PE with an eccentric+precessing IMR model; the result is the expected quasi-circular picture, but the eccentricity bound needs a systematic-error caveat and the Bayes factors are weaker than the text implies. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.21612 v2 pith:KOEADMF4 submitted 2025-05-27 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Rossella Gamba , Jacob Lange , Danilo Chiaramello , Jacopo Tissino , Snehal Tibrewal This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesGW150914binaryblackholemergereccentricityspinprecessioneffective-one-bodymodelparameterestimationBayesfactor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper revisits GW150914, the first gravitational-wave signal ever detected, using a waveform model that can describe binaries on non-circular, non-planar orbits — including both eccentricity and spin precession together for the first time in an inspiral-merger-ringdown model. The authors run Bayesian parameter estimation under four source hypotheses, from the simplest quasi-circular aligned-spin case to the most general eccentric, precessing case, and compare the recovered parameters and Bayes factors. They find that all scenarios agree on the masses and effective spin, that the eccentricity at 15 Hz is bounded by $e<0.08$ at 90% credibility, and that the effective spin is $\chi_{\rm eff} = -0.03^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$. The conclusion is that GW150914 remains consistent with a quasi-circular, slowly spinning binary black hole merger even when the analysis allows more complex orbital configurations. The result matters because it confirms, with a more complete waveform model, that the standard quasi-circular picture of GW150914 is not an artifact of that simplifying assumption.

What carries the argument

The central object is TEOBResumS-Dalí, a waveform model in the effective-one-body (EOB) framework, a resummation of post-Newtonian dynamics informed by numerical relativity that describes the full inspiral, merger, and ringdown of a binary black hole system. Non-circular orbits are handled by replacing the quasi-circular leading-order terms in the radiation reaction and waveform with exact analytical expressions valid on general orbits, and by adding the radial radiation-reaction force; precession is handled by evolving orbit-averaged post-Newtonian spin equations with the orbital frequency from the EOB dynamics, followed by a quasi-normal-mode-inspired prolongation of the Euler angles after merger. This machinery is what lets the authors generate waveforms for eccentric, precessing binaries and compare them against numerical-relativity simulations, establishing the model's faithfulness in the region of GW150914's parameters.

What would settle it

Re-run the non-circular, precessing-spin analysis on an injected GW150914-like signal with a known eccentricity of $e=0.1$ at 15 Hz; if the recovered $e$ posterior does not separate from the $e=0$ case and the Bayes factor against quasi-circular does not drop, the analysis lacks the sensitivity needed to support the $e<0.08$ bound.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the effective-one-body model TEOBResumS-Dalí, the paper performs the first parameter estimation of GW150914 with a waveform family that covers eccentricity and precession simultaneously through inspiral, merger, and ringdown. Under the most general non-circular, precessing-spin hypothesis, the recovered chirp mass is $30.9^{+1.6}_{-1.6}$ solar masses, the inverse mass ratio $1/q = 0.86^{+0.13}_{-0.21}$, the effective spin $\chi_{\rm eff} = -0.03^{+0.12}_{-0.13}$, and the eccentricity at 15 Hz is $e = 0.04^{+0.06}_{-0.04}$, giving a 90% upper limit $e<0.08$. The mean anomaly and the in-plane spin parameter $\chi_p$ are not measured and span their priors. No hypothesis is strongly favored over the others, but the quasi-circular models are preferred over their eccentric counterparts by a log Bayes factor of about 1, so non-circularity is mildly disfavoured. The paper states that the data are consistent with a quasi-circular binary black hole merger with small effective spin and no strong evidence for precession.

Load-bearing premise

The reported $e<0.08$ limit assumes the model's quasi-circular waveforms are truly circular; the paper notes in its Fig. 1 caption that those waveforms carry a small residual eccentricity from the adiabatic initial conditions, and that residual is not included as a systematic error in the bound.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The quasi-circular interpretation of GW150914 is robust: adding eccentricity and precession to the model does not shift the recovered masses or effective spin.
  • The 90% upper limit $e<0.08$ on eccentricity at 15 Hz constrains deviations from circular orbits for this event, with the mean anomaly unmeasured as expected for a circular inspiral.
  • The in-plane spin parameter $\chi_p$ is unconstrained, so the data contain no evidence for spin-induced precession in GW150914.
  • Quasi-circular models are preferred over eccentric ones by a log Bayes factor near 1, mild evidence against non-circularity rather than a decisive measurement.
  • This is the first full parameter estimation with an inspiral-merger-ringdown model containing both eccentricity and precession, establishing a template for analyzing other events where such effects may matter.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the residual eccentricity noted in the paper's quasi-circular waveforms is comparable to the measured value, the $e<0.08$ bound could partly reflect a model artifact; including that residual as a systematic error could shift the limit.
  • The same model could be applied to gravitational-wave events where eccentricity or precession is astrophysically expected, such as mergers from dense stellar environments; for GW150914 the null result is consistent with a field-binary formation channel, though the paper does not draw that conclusion.
  • Because the Bayes factor favoring circular orbits is only about 1 in log, a more sensitive detector or a louder event would be needed to turn this mild preference into a strong statement.
  • The computational cost of the full eccentric-precessing analysis (days per run) limits it to single events; surrogate models or faster sampling algorithms would be required before this approach can be applied to large catalogs.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper reanalyzes GW150914 using TEOBResumS-Dali, an effective-one-body waveform model that includes both orbital eccentricity and spin precession, and performs Bayesian parameter estimation under four hypotheses: quasi-circular aligned-spin, quasi-circular precessing-spin, non-circular aligned-spin, and non-circular precessing-spin. The authors find the signal consistent with a quasi-circular, slowly spinning binary black hole merger, reporting an eccentricity upper limit e < 0.08 at 15 Hz and an effective spin chi_eff = -0.03^{+0.12}_{-0.13}. They also report model comparison log Bayes factors of order unity between the quasi-circular and non-circular scenarios.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper provides the first full parameter estimation of GW150914 with an inspiral-merger-ringdown model containing both eccentricity and precession, and it confirms the standard quasi-circular interpretation with a dedicated model. The analysis uses public LIGO data and PSDs, a standard nested-sampling setup implemented in bilby/dynesty, and the waveform model is validated against numerical relativity, with mismatches below 10^{-3} in the GW150914-relevant region. The code is made publicly available. These are concrete strengths that make the analysis reproducible in principle. The quantitative eccentricity bound, however, is not yet fully secure because the systematic error from the model's known residual eccentricity in its quasi-circular waveforms is not assessed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 2, Fig. 1 caption] The caption of Fig. 1 states that the small oscillations in the EOB/NR phase difference are due to a small residual eccentricity in the EOB waveform related to the adiabatic initial conditions, but the size of this residual eccentricity is not quantified. Since the quasi-circular models fix e=0 and the reported bound e<0.08 at 15 Hz (Sec. 4, Fig. 5) is the primary evidence for quasi-circularity, the analysis should either quantify this residual (for example, by fitting the phase oscillations or by injecting NR waveforms into the pipeline) or include a systematic error on the eccentricity posterior. Without this, the bound could be partly contaminated by a template artifact rather than measuring astrophysical eccentricity.
  2. [Sec. 4, Table 1] The log Bayes factors between the quasi-circular and non-circular models are reported as logB_QC^NC ~ 1, i.e., odds ratios of order e, yet the text states that 'non-circularity is disfavoured' and that the data favor the quasi-circular interpretation. A Bayes factor of order e is generally considered weak or inconclusive evidence, so this wording overstates the strength of the model comparison. The conclusion of quasi-circularity should be based primarily on the eccentricity posterior (with the systematic caveat above) rather than on the Bayes factors, or the language should be softened to indicate that the data are consistent with both scenarios.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4] There is a typo: 'distrubution' should be 'distribution' in the paragraph discussing Fig. 4.
  2. [Table 1] The eccentricity entry is written as 'e = 0.04^{+0.06}_{-0.04} at 90% credibility', which is ambiguous about whether this is a two-sided credible interval or a one-sided upper limit. The text later reports e<0.08 at 90% credibility; please clarify the notation in the table and figure.
  3. [Sec. 3] The description of the prior on eccentricity cites previous analyses [34,36,94] for the choice e in [0,0.4], but it would be useful to state explicitly that the prior is uniform in e, since the text says 'uniform priors on e' but does not repeat the word 'uniform' in the bullet list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the eccentricity bound is a measured posterior from public LIGO data with an externally validated waveform model.

full rationale

The paper is an observational parameter-estimation study, not a derivation, so the circularity tests apply to whether the reported quantities are independent of the inputs. The central claim (e < 0.08 at 15 Hz, chi_eff consistent with zero) is obtained by sampling the model parameters against public GWOSC data and using the LVK PSD and calibration; the eccentricity is a sampled posterior parameter, not a fitted nuisance later relabeled as a prediction. The waveform model TEOBResumS-Dalì is developed in the authors' prior work, but its accuracy is benchmarked in this paper against external NR simulations (SXS:BBH:0305, SXS:BBH:1389, RIT:BBH:1632) and in Ref. [38] against 1395 SXS/RIT/CoRe/ICC simulations, with the target region stated as more than 99.9% faithful to NR. The residual eccentricity caveat in the Fig. 1 caption is a modeling systematic that could affect the interpretation of the eccentricity bound, but it is not a circular reduction: the e=0 template's small eccentricity is not the quantity being predicted, and no equation in the paper defines the reported bound in terms of that residual. The Bayes-factor comparison (logB ~ 1) is weak, but that is an evidentiary-strength issue, not circularity. No step reduces a claimed prediction to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This analysis introduces no new free parameters of its own except the hand-chosen eccentricity prior bound. The central claim rests on the waveform model's calibration to numerical relativity, the standard noise model, and the assumption that residual model eccentricity is negligible. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Prior upper bound on initial eccentricity = 0.4
    Chosen by hand in Sec. 3, inspired by previous analyses [34,36,94]. It defines the eccentricity search space; the reported 90% upper limit is stated with respect to this prior.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TEOBResumS-Dalí is sufficiently faithful to numerical relativity for parameter estimation in the GW150914 region, including when eccentricity and precession are active.
    The model is used for all four PE runs. The paper quotes more than 99.9% faithfulness in the relevant region from Ref. [38] and shows three NR comparisons in Sec. 2, with phase differences up to about 1 rad for complex systems.
  • domain assumption The detector noise is stationary and Gaussian with the publicly released PSD and calibration envelopes.
    Standard likelihood assumption used in Sec. 3; no noise non-stationarity analysis is performed in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Residual eccentricity in the model's quasi-circular waveforms is small compared with the measured eccentricity bound.
    Fig. 1 caption admits small residual eccentricity from adiabatic initial conditions; the PE does not add a systematic error for it, so this assumption is load-bearing for the e < 0.08 claim.
  • domain assumption The chosen harmonic modes (2,1), (2,2), (3,3), (4,4) are sufficient for unbiased recovery of GW150914 parameters.
    Sec. 3 lists the modes used; the conclusions note higher harmonics and memory effects as future work, so the impact of omitting them is not quantified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KOEADMF4

@misc{pith2026250521612,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KOEADMF4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.21612}
}
abstract

The first direct detection of gravitational waves by the LIGO collaboration, GW150914, marked the start of a new exciting era in astronomy, enabling the study of the Universe through a new messenger. Since then, the field has grown rapidly, with the development of increasingly more sophisticated techniques to detect, analyze and interpret the signals. In this paper we revisit GW150914, presenting updated estimates of its source parameters using a waveform model developed within the EOB formalism, able to describe gravitational-wave emission from generic non-circular, non-planar binaries. We provide a comprehensive analysis of the signal and its properties, considering and contrasting various scenarios for the source: from the simplest, aligned-spin quasi-circular binary black hole merger, to more complex scenarios, including precession, eccentricity or both. Unsurprisingly, we find that the signal is consistent with a quasi-circular ($e < 0.08$ at $15$ Hz), slowly spinning $(\chi_{\rm eff} = -0.03^{+0.12}_{-0.13})$ binary black hole merger, a-posteriori validating a considerable body of works. This is the first analysis performed with an inspiral-merger-ringdown model containing both eccentricity and precession.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.21612 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Comparison of the (2, 2) and (2, 1) modes of the TEOBResumS-Dal´ı model against the SXS:BBH:0305 simulation, which is a GW150914-targeted simulation with mass ratio q = 1.22 and aligned spins χ1 = 0.33, χ2 = −0.44. The (2,2) mode is aligned in the early inspiral, and the time and phase shifts obtained used also to align the (2, 1) mode. The small oscillations observed in the EOB/NR phase difference are due to a smal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the (2, 2) and (2, 1) modes of the TEOBResumS-Dal´ı model against the SXS:BBH:1389 simulation, which is a spin-precessing simulation with mass ratio q = 1.63, and spins χ1 = (−0.29, 0.2, −0.3), = χ2 = (−0.1, 0.42, 0.16) The (2, 2) mode is aligned in the early inspiral, and the time and phase shifts obtained used also to align the (2, 1) mode. Remarkably, the EOB and NR waveforms maintain phase coherenc… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of the (2, 2) and (2, 1) modes of the TEOBResumS-Dal´ı model against the RIT:BBH:1632 simulation, which is an eccentric, precessing simulation with mass ratio q = 1 and aligned spins χ1 = (0.7, 0, 0), χ2 = (0.7, 0, 0). Similarly to the case of SXS:BBH:1389, the (2, 2) mode is only weakly affected by the presence of precession. Eccentricity, on the other hand, induces very recognizable oscillations in the … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Marginalized two- and one- dimensional posterior distributions for the common [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Marginalized two- and one- dimensional posterior distributions for the spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Whitened strain data from the Hanford (top) and Livingston (bottom) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. From the confluent Heun equation to a new factorized and resummed gravitational waveform for circularized, nonspinning, compact binaries

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new resummation absorbs all test-mass logarithms and transcendental numbers into closed-form factors, leaving rational polynomial waveform corrections up to 10PN.

  2. AthenaK simulations of the binary black hole merger GW150914

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new open-source GPU code, AthenaK, reproduces the GW150914 merger: remnant mass within 0.01%, spin within 0.02%, and waveform phase within about 0.35 radians of established simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

149 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [150]

    (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Living Rev

    Abbott B P et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Living Rev. Rel. 19 1 ( Preprint 1304.0670)

    arXiv 2016

  2. [151]

    (LIGO Scientific) 2015 Class

    Aasi J et al. (LIGO Scientific) 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 074001 (Preprint 1411.4547)

    arXiv 2015

  3. [152]

    (VIRGO) 2015 Class

    Acernese F et al. (VIRGO) 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 024001 (Preprint 1408.3978)

    arXiv 2015

  4. [153]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 061102 ( Preprint 1602.03837)

    arXiv 2016

  5. [154]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 241102 ( Preprint 1602.03840)

    arXiv 2016

  6. [155]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott T D et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. X 6 041014 (Preprint 1606.01210)

    arXiv 2016

  7. [156]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 221101 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)] ( Preprint 1602.03841)

    arXiv 2018

  8. [157]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Astrophys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Astrophys. J. Lett. 833 L1 (Preprint 1602.03842)

    arXiv 2016

Show all 149 references
  1. [158]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Astrophys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2016 Astrophys. J. Lett. 818 L22 ( Preprint 1602.03846)

    2016 arXiv

  2. [159]

    2020 Mon

    Romero-Shaw I M et al. 2020 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 3295–3319 (Preprint 2006.00714)

    2020 arXiv

  3. [160]

    Green S R and Gair J 2021 Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 2 03LT01 (Preprint 2008.03312)

    2021 arXiv

  4. [161]

    Breschi M, Gamba R and Bernuzzi S 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 042001 (Preprint 2102.00017)

    2021 arXiv

  5. [162]

    Dax M, Green S R, Gair J, P¨ urrer M, Wildberger J, Macke J H, Buonanno A and Sch¨ olkopf B 2023 Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 171403 (Preprint 2210.05686)

    2023 arXiv

  6. [163]

    Srinivasan R, Crisostomi M, Trotta R, Barausse E and Breschi M 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 123007 (Preprint 2404.12294)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [164]

    Carullo G, Del Pozzo W and Veitch J 2019 Phys. Rev. D 99 123029 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 089903 (2019)] ( Preprint 1902.07527)

    2019 arXiv

  8. [165]

    Carullo G, Laghi D, Veitch J and Del Pozzo W 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 161102 ( Preprint 2103.06167)

    2021 arXiv

  9. [166]

    Cotesta R, Carullo G, Berti E and Cardoso V 2022 Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 111102 ( Preprint 2201.00822)

    2022 arXiv

  10. [167]

    Isi M and Farr W M 2022 ( Preprint 2202.02941)

    2022 arXiv

  11. [168]

    Correia A, Wang Y F, Westerweck J and Capano C D 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 L041501 (Preprint 2312.14118)

    2024 arXiv

  12. [169]

    Gennari V, Carullo G and Del Pozzo W 2024 Eur. Phys. J. C 84 233 (Preprint 2312.12515) Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model 19

    2024 arXiv

  13. [170]

    Maenaut S, Carullo G, Cano P A, Liu A, Cardoso V, Hertog T and Li T G F 2024 ( Preprint 2411.17893)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [171]

    Wang H T, Wang Z, Dong Y, Yim G and Shao L 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 064037 ( Preprint 2411.13333)

    2025 arXiv

  15. [172]

    Pacilio C, Bhagwat S and Cotesta R 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 083010 (Preprint 2404.11373)

    2024 arXiv

  16. [173]

    Carullo G, Riemenschneider G, Tsang K W, Nagar A and Del Pozzo W 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 105009 (Preprint 1811.08744)

    2019 arXiv

  17. [174]

    Isi M, Farr W M, Giesler M, Scheel M A and Teukolsky S A 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 011103 (Preprint 2012.04486)

    2021 arXiv

  18. [175]

    Laghi D, Carullo G, Veitch J and Del Pozzo W 2021 Class. Quant. Grav. 38 095005 ( Preprint 2011.03816)

    2021 arXiv

  19. [176]

    Carullo G, Laghi D, Johnson-McDaniel N K, Del Pozzo W, Dias O J C, Godazgar M and Santos J E 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 062009 (Preprint 2109.13961)

    2022 arXiv

  20. [177]

    Carullo G 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 124043 (Preprint 2102.05939)

    2021 arXiv

  21. [178]

    Silva H O, Ghosh A and Buonanno A 2023 Phys. Rev. D 107 044030 (Preprint 2205.05132)

    2023 arXiv

  22. [179]

    2021 Phys

    Pratten G et al. 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 104056 (Preprint 2004.06503)

    2021 arXiv

  23. [180]

    Riemenschneider G, Rettegno P, Breschi M, Albertini A, Gamba R, Bernuzzi S and Nagar A 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 104045 (Preprint 2104.07533)

    2021 arXiv

  24. [181]

    Gamba R, Ak¸ cay S, Bernuzzi S and Williams J 2022 Phys. Rev. D 106 024020 ( Preprint 2111.03675)

    2022 arXiv

  25. [182]

    Estell´ es H, Husa S, Colleoni M, Keitel D, Mateu-Lucena M, Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os C, Ramos-Buades A and Borchers A 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 084039 (Preprint 2012.11923)

    2022 arXiv

  26. [183]

    Bonino A, Gamba R, Schmidt P, Nagar A, Pratten G, Breschi M, Rettegno P and Bernuzzi S 2023 Phys. Rev. D 107 064024 (Preprint 2207.10474)

    2023 arXiv

  27. [184]

    Ramos-Buades A, Buonanno A, Estell´ es H, Khalil M, Mihaylov D P, Ossokine S, Pompili L and Shiferaw M 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 124037 (Preprint 2303.18046)

    2023 arXiv

  28. [185]

    2024 (Preprint 2412.12823)

    Gamboa A et al. 2024 (Preprint 2412.12823)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [186]

    Gamba R, Chiaramello D and Neogi S 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 024031 (Preprint 2404.15408)

    2024 arXiv

  30. [187]

    Albanesi S, Gamba R, Bernuzzi S, Fontbut´ e J, Gonzalez A and Nagar A 2025 ( Preprint 2503.14580)

    2025 arXiv

  31. [188]

    Schmidt P, Ohme F and Hannam M 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 024043 (Preprint 1408.1810)

    2015 arXiv

  32. [189]

    Thorne K S and Hartle J B 1984 Phys. Rev. D 31 1815–1837

    1984

  33. [190]

    Apostolatos T A, Cutler C, Sussman G J and Thorne K S 1994 Phys. Rev. D 49 6274–6297

    1994

  34. [191]

    Apostolatos T A 1996 Phys. Rev. D 54 2421–2437

    1996

  35. [192]

    Schmidt P, Hannam M, Husa S and Ajith P 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 024046 (Preprint 1012.2879)

    2011 arXiv

  36. [193]

    Schmidt P, Hannam M and Husa S 2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 104063 (Preprint 1207.3088)

    2012 arXiv

  37. [194]

    Boyle M, Owen R and Pfeiffer H P 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 124011 (Preprint 1110.2965)

    2011 arXiv

  38. [195]

    O’Shaughnessy R, Vaishnav B, Healy J, Meeks Z and Shoemaker D 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 124002 (Preprint 1109.5224)

    2011 arXiv

  39. [196]

    Buonanno A, Chen Y b and Vallisneri M 2003 Phys. Rev. D 67 104025 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 74, 029904 (2006)] ( Preprint gr-qc/0211087)

    2006 arXiv

  40. [197]

    Morras G, Pratten G and Schmidt P 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 084052 (Preprint 2502.03929)

    2025 arXiv

  41. [198]

    Peters P C and Mathews J 1963 Phys. Rev. 131 435–439

    1963

  42. [199]

    Arun K G, Blanchet L, Iyer B R and Qusailah M S S 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 064034 ( Preprint 0711.0250)

    2008 arXiv

  43. [200]

    Loutrel N and Yunes N 2017 Class. Quant. Grav. 34 044003 (Preprint 1607.05409)

    2017 arXiv

  44. [201]

    Placidi A, Grignani G, Harmark T, Orselli M, Gliorio S and Nagar A 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 024068 (Preprint 2305.14440)

    2023 arXiv

  45. [202]

    Gamboa A, Khalil M and Buonanno A 2024 ( Preprint 2412.12831)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [203]

    Albanesi S, Nagar A and Bernuzzi S 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 024067 (Preprint 2104.10559)

    2021 arXiv

  47. [204]

    Albanesi S, Nagar A, Bernuzzi S, Placidi A and Orselli M 2022Phys. Rev. D 105 104031 (Preprint Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model 20 2202.10063)

    arXiv

  48. [205]

    Faggioli G, van de Meent M, Buonanno A, Gamboa A, Khalil M and Khanna G 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 044036 (Preprint 2405.19006)

    2025 arXiv

  49. [206]

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

    1999 arXiv

  50. [207]

    Buonanno A and Damour T 2000 Phys. Rev. D 62 064015 (Preprint gr-qc/0001013)

    2000 arXiv

  51. [208]

    Damour T, Jaranowski P and Schaefer G 2000 Phys. Rev. D 62 084011 (Preprint gr-qc/0005034)

    2000 arXiv

  52. [209]

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

    2001 arXiv

  53. [210]

    Damour T, Iyer B R and Nagar A 2009 Phys. Rev. D 79 064004 (Preprint 0811.2069)

    2009 arXiv

  54. [211]

    Damour T, Jaranowski P and Schaefer G 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 024009 (Preprint 0803.0915)

    2008 arXiv

  55. [212]

    Barausse E and Buonanno A 2010 Phys. Rev. D 81 084024 (Preprint 0912.3517)

    2010 arXiv

  56. [213]

    Damour T 2010 Phys. Rev. D 81 024017 (Preprint 0910.5533)

    2010 arXiv

  57. [214]

    Damour T and Nagar A 2010 Phys. Rev. D 81 084016 (Preprint 0911.5041)

    2010 arXiv

  58. [215]

    Damour T 2016 Phys. Rev. D 94 104015 (Preprint 1609.00354)

    2016 arXiv

  59. [216]

    Vines J 2018 Class. Quant. Grav. 35 084002 (Preprint 1709.06016)

    2018 arXiv

  60. [217]

    Damour T 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 044038 (Preprint 1710.10599)

    2018 arXiv

  61. [218]

    Bini D, Damour T and Geralico A 2019 Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 231104 (Preprint 1909.02375)

    2019 arXiv

  62. [219]

    Nagar A and Rettegno P 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 104004 (Preprint 2108.02043)

    2021 arXiv

  63. [220]

    Damour T and Nagar A 2014 Phys. Rev. D 90 044018 (Preprint 1406.6913)

    2014 arXiv

  64. [221]

    2018 Phys

    Nagar A et al. 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 104052 (Preprint 1806.01772)

    2018 arXiv

  65. [222]

    Nagar A, Chiaramello D, Gamba R, Albanesi S, Bernuzzi S, Fantini V, Panzeri M and Rettegno P 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 064050 (Preprint 2407.04762)

    2025 arXiv

  66. [223]

    Broucke R and Cefola P 1973 Celestial Mechanics 7 388–389

    1973

  67. [224]

    Chiaramello D and Nagar A 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 101501 (Preprint 2001.11736)

    2020 arXiv

  68. [225]

    Bini D and Damour T 2012 Phys. Rev. D 86 124012 (Preprint 1210.2834)

    2012 arXiv

  69. [226]

    Akcay S, Gamba R and Bernuzzi S 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 024014 (Preprint 2005.05338)

    2021 arXiv

  70. [227]

    Pratten G, Husa S, Garcia-Quiros C, Colleoni M, Ramos-Buades A, Estelles H and Jaume R 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 064001 (Preprint 2001.11412)

    2020 arXiv

  71. [228]

    2016 Class

    Lovelace G et al. 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 244002 (Preprint 1607.05377)

    2016 arXiv

  72. [229]

    Varma V, Field S E, Scheel M A, Blackman J, Kidder L E and Pfeiffer H P 2019 Phys. Rev. D 99 064045 (Preprint 1812.07865)

    2019 arXiv

  73. [230]

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

    2006 arXiv

  74. [231]

    Nakano H, Healy J, Lousto C O and Zlochower Y 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 104022 ( Preprint 1503.00718)

    2015 arXiv

  75. [232]

    2019 Class

    Boyle M et al. 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 195006 (Preprint 1904.04831)

    2019 arXiv

  76. [233]

    Healy J and Lousto C O 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 104018 (Preprint 2007.07910)

    2020 arXiv

  77. [234]

    Healy J and Lousto C O 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 124010 (Preprint 2202.00018)

    2022 arXiv

  78. [235]

    Dietrich T, Radice D, Bernuzzi S, Zappa F, Perego A, Br¨ ugmann B, Chaurasia S V, Dudi R, Tichy W and Ujevic M 2018 Class. Quant. Grav. 35 24LT01 (Preprint 1806.01625)

    2018 arXiv

  79. [236]

    2023 Class

    Gonzalez A et al. 2023 Class. Quant. Grav. 40 085011 (Preprint 2210.16366)

    2023 arXiv

  80. [237]

    2024 Phys

    Andrade T et al. 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 084025 (Preprint 2307.08697)

    2024 arXiv

  81. [238]

    2025 Phys

    Bhaumik S et al. 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 123032 (Preprint 2410.15192)

    2025 arXiv

  82. [239]

    Harry I, Calder´ on Bustillo J and Nitz A 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 023004 (Preprint 1709.09181)

    2018 arXiv

  83. [240]

    2015 Phys

    Veitch J et al. 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 042003 (Preprint 1409.7215)

    2015 arXiv

  84. [241]

    2019 Astrophys

    Ashton G et al. 2019 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241 27 (Preprint 1811.02042)

    2019 arXiv

  85. [242]

    Albanesi S, Rashti A, Zappa F, Gamba R, Cook W, Daszuta B, Bernuzzi S, Nagar A and Radice D 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 024069 (Preprint 2405.20398)

    2025 arXiv

  86. [243]

    Ramos-Buades A, Buonanno A and Gair J 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 124063 (Preprint 2309.15528)

    2023 arXiv

  87. [244]

    Speagle J S 2020 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493 3132–3158 ISSN 1365- 2966 URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/staa278

    2020 doi

  88. [245]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Phys. Rev. X 9 031040 (Preprint 1811.12907) Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model 21

    2019 arXiv

  89. [246]

    (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2024 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2024 Phys. Rev. D 109 022001 (Preprint 2108.01045)

    2024 arXiv

  90. [247]

    Blanchet L and Damour T 1992 Phys. Rev. D 46 4304–4319

    1992

  91. [248]

    Christodoulou D 1991 Phyis. Rev. Lett. 67 1486–1489

    1991

  92. [249]

    Favata M 2010 Class. Quant. Grav. 27 084036 (Preprint 1003.3486)

    2010 arXiv

  93. [250]

    Rossell´ o-Sastre M, Husa S and Bera S 2024 Phys. Rev. D 110 084074 (Preprint 2405.17302)

    2024 arXiv

  94. [251]

    Albanesi S 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 L121501 (Preprint 2411.04024)

    2025 arXiv

  95. [252]

    Rossell´ o-Sastre M, Husa S, Bera S and Xu Y 2025 (Preprint 2506.05859)

    2025

  96. [253]

    Rossell´ o-Sastre M and Husa S 2025 (Preprint 2506.08888)

    2025

  97. [254]

    Mukherjee S, Datta S, Tiwari S, Phukon K S and Bose S 2022 Phys. Rev. D 106 104032 (Preprint 2202.08661)

    2022 arXiv

  98. [255]

    Munna C, Evans C R and Forseth E 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 044039 (Preprint 2306.12481)

    2023 arXiv

  99. [256]

    Chiaramello D and Gamba R 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 024024 (Preprint 2408.15322)

    2025 arXiv

  100. [257]

    Barausse E, Cardoso V and Pani P 2015 J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610 012044 (Preprint 1404.7140)

    2015 arXiv

  101. [258]

    Barausse E, Cardoso V and Pani P 2014 Phys. Rev. D 89 104059 (Preprint 1404.7149)

    2014 arXiv

  102. [259]

    Kavanagh B J, Nichols D A, Bertone G and Gaggero D 2020 Phys. Rev. D 102 083006 (Preprint 2002.12811)

    2020 arXiv

  103. [260]

    Caneva Santoro G, Roy S, Vicente R, Haney M, Piccinni O J, Del Pozzo W and Martinez M 2024 Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 251401 (Preprint 2309.05061)

    2024 arXiv

  104. [261]

    2021 Phys

    Toubiana A et al. 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 101105 (Preprint 2010.06056)

    2021 arXiv

  105. [262]

    Speri L, Antonelli A, Sberna L, Babak S, Barausse E, Gair J R and Katz M L 2023 Phys. Rev. X 13 021035 (Preprint 2207.10086)

    2023 arXiv

  106. [263]

    Roy S and Vicente R 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 084037 (Preprint 2410.16388)

    2025 arXiv

  107. [264]

    Garg M, Sberna L, Speri L, Duque F and Gair J 2024 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 535 3283–3292 (Preprint 2410.02910)

    2024 arXiv

  108. [265]

    Romero-Shaw I M, Goorachurn S, Siwek M and Moore C J 2024 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 534 L58–L64 (Preprint 2407.03869)

    2024 arXiv

  109. [266]

    De Luca V, Del Grosso L, Iacovelli F, Maselli A and Berti E 2025 Phys. Rev. D 111 124046 (Preprint 2503.10746)

    2025 arXiv

  110. [267]

    Field S E, Galley C R, Hesthaven J S, Kaye J and Tiglio M 2014 Phys. Rev. X 4 031006 (Preprint 1308.3565)

    2014 arXiv

  111. [268]

    Blackman J, Field S E, Galley C R, Szil´ agyi B, Scheel M A, Tiglio M and Hemberger D A 2015 Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 121102 (Preprint 1502.07758)

    2015 arXiv

  112. [269]

    Varma V, Field S E, Scheel M A, Blackman J, Gerosa D, Stein L C, Kidder L E and Pfeiffer H P 2019 Phys. Rev. Research. 1 033015 (Preprint 1905.09300)

    2019 arXiv

  113. [270]

    Schmidt S, Breschi M, Gamba R, Pagano G, Rettegno P, Riemenschneider G, Bernuzzi S, Nagar A and Del Pozzo W 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 043020 (Preprint 2011.01958)

    2021 arXiv

  114. [271]

    Tissino J, Carullo G, Breschi M, Gamba R, Schmidt S and Bernuzzi S 2023 Phys. Rev. D 107 084037 (Preprint 2210.15684)

    2023 arXiv

  115. [272]

    Islam T, Venumadhav T, Mehta A K, Anantpurkar I, Wadekar D, Roulet J, Mushkin J, Zackay B and Zaldarriaga M 2025 ( Preprint 2504.12420)

    2025 arXiv

  116. [273]

    Barta D and Vas´ uth M 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97(12) 124011 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124011

    2018 doi

  117. [274]

    Islam T, Varma V, Lodman J, Field S E, Khanna G, Scheel M A, Pfeiffer H P, Gerosa D and Kidder L E 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103(6) 064022 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevD.103.064022

    2021

  118. [275]

    Yun Q, Han W B, Zhong X and Benavides-Gallego C A 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103(12) 124053 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.124053

    2021 doi

  119. [276]

    org/abs/2411.14893

    Shi R, Zhou Y, Zhao T, Ren Z and Cao Z 2024 Rapid eccentric spin-aligned binary black hole waveform generation based on deep learning ( Preprint 2411.14893) URL https://arxiv. org/abs/2411.14893

    2024 arXiv

  120. [277]

    Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model 22 Rev

    Smith R, Field S E, Blackburn K, Haster C J, P¨ urrer M, Raymond V and Schmidt P 2016 Phys. Revisiting GW150914 with a non-planar, eccentric waveform model 22 Rev. D 94 044031 (Preprint 1604.08253)

    2016 arXiv

  121. [278]

    Qi H and Raymond V 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 063031 (Preprint 2009.13812)

    2021 arXiv

  122. [279]

    Gadre B, P¨ urrer M, Field S E, Ossokine S and Varma V 2024Phys. Rev. D 110 124038 (Preprint 2203.00381)

    arXiv

  123. [280]

    Damour T, Gopakumar A and Iyer B R 2004 Phys. Rev. D 70 064028 (Preprint gr-qc/0404128)

    2004 arXiv

  124. [281]

    Cho G, Tanay S, Gopakumar A and Lee H M 2022 Phys. Rev. D 105 064010 ( Preprint 2110.09608)

    2022 arXiv

  125. [282]

    Klein A, Boetzel Y, Gopakumar A, Jetzer P and de Vittori L 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 104043 (Preprint 1801.08542)

    2018 arXiv

  126. [283]

    Williams M J, Veitch J and Messenger C 2021 Phys. Rev. D 103 103006 (Preprint 2102.11056)

    2021 arXiv

  127. [284]

    com/mnras/article-pdf/516/2/1644/45727106/stac2272.pdf) URL https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stac2272

    Karamanis M, Beutler F, Peacock J A, Nabergoj D and Seljak U 2022 Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 516 1644–1653 ISSN 0035-8711 (Preprint https://academic.oup. com/mnras/article-pdf/516/2/1644/45727106/stac2272.pdf) URL https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnras/stac2272

    2022 doi

  128. [285]

    Dax M, Green S R, Gair J, Macke J H, Buonanno A and Sch¨ olkopf B 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 241103 (Preprint 2106.12594)

    2021 arXiv

  129. [286]

    Pankow C, Brady P, Ochsner E and O’Shaughnessy R 2015 Phys. Rev. D 92 023002 ( Preprint 1502.04370)

    2015 arXiv

  130. [287]

    Lange J, O’Shaughnessy R and Rizzo M 2018 ( Preprint 1805.10457)

    2018 arXiv

  131. [288]

    Roulet J, Olsen S, Mushkin J, Islam T, Venumadhav T, Zackay B and Zaldarriaga M 2022 Phys. Rev. D 106 123015 (Preprint 2207.03508)

    2022 arXiv

  132. [289]

    Roulet J and Venumadhav T 2024 Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science 74 207– 332 ISSN 1545-4134 URL https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/ annurev-nucl-121423-100725

    2024

  133. [290]

    Kalogera V 2000 Astrophys. J. 541 319–328 (Preprint astro-ph/9911417)

    2000 arXiv

  134. [291]

    2020 Astron

    Belczynski K et al. 2020 Astron. Astrophys. 636 A104 (Preprint 1706.07053)

    2020 arXiv

  135. [292]

    8 14906 (Preprint 1704.01352)

    Stevenson S, Vigna-G´ omez A, Mandel I, Barrett J W, Neijssel C J, Perkins D and de Mink S E 2017 Nature Commun. 8 14906 (Preprint 1704.01352)

    2017 arXiv

  136. [293]

    Zaldarriaga M, Kushnir D and Kollmeier J A 2018 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 473 4174–4178 (Preprint 1702.00885)

    2018 arXiv

  137. [294]

    Gerosa D, Berti E, O’Shaughnessy R, Belczynski K, Kesden M, Wysocki D and Gladysz W 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 084036 (Preprint 1808.02491)

    2018 arXiv

  138. [295]

    Portegies Zwart S F and McMillan S L W 2002 Astrophys. J. 576 899–907 (Preprint astro-ph/ 0201055)

    2002

  139. [296]

    Antonini F and Rasio F A 2016 Astrophys. J. 831 187 (Preprint 1606.04889)

    2016 arXiv

  140. [297]

    Rodriguez C L, Zevin M, Amaro-Seoane P, Chatterjee S, Kremer K, Rasio F A and Ye C S 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 043027 (Preprint 1906.10260)

    2019 arXiv

  141. [298]

    5 749–760 (Preprint 2105.03439)

    Gerosa D and Fishbach M 2021 Nature Astron. 5 749–760 (Preprint 2105.03439)

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.