Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 84 references

Analytic Waveforms for Eccentric Gravitational Wave Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs the first analytic waveform models for the gravitational-wave burst from a highly eccentric binary's pericenter passage, and validates them against numerical and numerical-relativity waveforms.

desk verdict First analytic burst waveform family with a faithful EFB-T model in its stated regime; EFB-F is a sketch and the e->1 regime needs more evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02143 v2 pith:24DHG5SC submitted 2019-09-04 gr-qc

Nicholas Loutrel This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitationalwaveseccentricbinarieswaveburstswaveformtemplatesKeplerproblemasymptoticre-summationpost-parabolicapproximationmatchedfiltering
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 seeks to give the first analytic waveform models for the single burst of gravitational waves emitted when a highly eccentric compact binary passes through pericenter. Such systems, formed through dynamical interactions in dense stellar environments, are expected to produce brief, repeated bursts in the ground-based detector band, but their Fourier representations converge poorly at eccentricities near one. The paper tames that divergence with a re-summation that turns the Kepler problem into a post-parabolic approximation, yielding a time-domain model (EFB-T) and a frequency-domain model (EFB-F). It shows the time-domain model is faithful to numerical Newtonian-quadrupole waveforms with match above 0.98 for a $10+10\,M_\odot$ binary, and usefully close to numerical-relativity fly-by waveforms for pericenter distances larger than $8.75M$. It also assembles multi-burst sequences with a timing model, reaching match 0.993 over ten pericenter passages.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the re-summation procedure applied to the Bessel-function Fourier series for $\cos V$ and $\sin V$: replace each $J_k(ke)$ and $J'_k(ke)$ with its uniform asymptotic expansion in modified Bessel functions $K_{1/3}$, $K_{2/3}$, extend the harmonic sum to include $k=0$, convert the sum to an integral, match the constant offset to the exact solution at pericenter, and expand in $\epsilon=1-e^2$ while holding the post-parabolic phase variable $\psi = \ell/[\ln((1+\sqrt{1-e^2})/e)-\sqrt{1-e^2}]$ fixed. This produces the hyperbolic-function expressions (33)-(34) that are non-oscillatory and exactly reduce to the closed-form parabolic solution (Barker's equation) in the limit $e\to 1$. The same machinery, applied after the stationary-phase approximation to the Fourier-domain harmonic sum, yields the EFB-F model in terms of hypergeometric functions. The radiation-reaction side is a Taylor expansion of the quadrupole-order evolution equations in the mean anomaly, integrated to an exponential mapping $\ell(t)$.

What would settle it

Compute the match between the EFB-T model and a numerically integrated Newtonian-quadrupole waveform for a $10+10\,M_\odot$ binary at $e_0=0.999$ and $p_0=20M$; if the match falls below 0.97, the claimed faithfulness at high eccentricity fails. A second check is to evaluate Eqs. (33)-(34) against the numerical Kepler solution at $e_0=0.9999$ and see whether the apocenter phase error exceeds a fraction of a radian.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the slowly convergent Fourier–Bessel series of the Kepler problem can be re-summed into closed-form, non-oscillatory expressions that describe the orbit as a deformation of a parabola, valid over a single pericenter passage. Feeding these expressions into the leading-order quadrupole waveform formula produces the first analytic 'effective fly-by' waveforms for eccentric bursts. The paper reports that the time-domain version achieves match (the standard noise-weighted overlap used in detection searches) above 0.98 against numerical leading-order waveforms for equal $10\,M_\odot$ black holes, and above 0.92 against numerical-relativity fly-by waveforms for $r_p>8.75M$, while the frequency-domain version is analytic but computationally expensive because of hypergeometric functions. A Taylor-series radiation-reaction model plus a recurrence for successive pericenter parameters lets individual EFB-T waveforms be chained into a ten-burst template with match 0.993, although a 1% error in the timing model destroys the match.

Load-bearing premise

The model's accuracy rests on the assumption that the re-summed asymptotic expressions for $\cos V$ and $\sin V$, fixed to the exact answer only at pericenter, stay uniformly accurate over the whole orbit at high eccentricity; the paper verifies this at $e=0.99$ but does not prove it for all template-bank parameters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A matched-filtering search for eccentric-binary bursts in ground-based detector data becomes practical for low-mass systems, since EFB-T templates are analytic and roughly twice as fast to evaluate as numerical quadrupole waveforms.
  • The EFB-T model reaches match above 0.98 against numerical Newtonian-quadrupole waveforms over the studied parameter ranges, so it can serve as a faithful stand-in for those waveforms in detection and parameter-estimation studies.
  • Chaining individual EFB-T waveforms with a recurrence timing model recovers a ten-burst inspiral sequence with match 0.993, showing that full eccentric inspirals can be assembled from single-burst templates.
  • The sharp drop in match against numerical-relativity fly-by waveforms for pericenter distances below $8.75M$ marks the boundary where higher-order relativistic effects must be added to the model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same re-summation should extend to the 3PN Fourier-series representations of the two-body problem, since the asymptotic Bessel-function machinery is agnostic to the post-Newtonian order; this would give analytic eccentric-burst waveforms that include relativistic precession and higher-order radiation reaction.
  • Because the post-parabolic expressions are non-oscillatory and tied to a single encounter, they could be adapted to model gravitational-wave bursts from unbound or near-unbound encounters, such as hyperbolic black-hole fly-bys, by taking the $\epsilon\to 0$ limit directly.
  • The EFB-F model's hypergeometric functions are the main computational bottleneck; deriving uniform asymptotic approximations for those functions at large $\chi$ and $\chi_{\rm orb}^2/\zeta_0^3$ would likely turn the frequency-domain model into the fastest template, rather than the slowest.
  • Multi-burst detection might be achieved without any timing model by exploiting the correlations among burst parameters (sky location, inclination, masses) that a repeated source must share, a route the paper lists as future work.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper constructs analytic time-domain (EFB-T) and frequency-domain (EFB-F) approximations to the gravitational-wave burst from a highly eccentric binary. Starting from the Fourier-series solution of the Kepler problem, the author replaces Bessel functions with uniform asymptotic expansions, converts harmonic sums to integrals, matches at pericenter, and expands in epsilon = 1 - e^2, yielding closed-form expressions for cos V and sin V. A Taylor-model radiation-reaction prescription is added to evolve p and e through one pericenter passage. The EFB-T polarizations in Eq. (45) are validated against numerical leading-PN quadrupole waveforms via the match statistic and against numerical-relativity fly-by waveforms, and a multi-burst concatenation is tested. The EFB-F model, based on the stationary-phase approximation, is presented but is found computationally impractical.

Significance. If the re-summation is accepted, the EFB-T model is an original and potentially useful contribution: it is the first closed-form time-domain waveform for a single pericenter passage, is about twice as fast as direct numerical Peters-Mathews integration, and achieves match > 0.98 against numerical leading-PN waveforms for low-mass binaries over the tested grid. The author is transparent about limitations, including apocenter errors, the computational cost of EFB-F, degradation of the NR match at small pericenter distances, and the sensitivity of the multi-burst timing model. The re-summation is well grounded in previous work and the numerical checks are honest. However, the central validation gap at eccentricities close to unity must be closed before the template-bank claim is fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III A, Sec. V B, Fig. 5] The faithfulness claim of match > 0.98 against numerical leading-PN waveforms is established only on the grid e = 0.70-0.90 in Fig. 5, whereas the model's design regime is e -> 1. The pointwise check of the underlying re-summation in Fig. 1 is only at e = 0.99, where sin V disagrees with the numerical solution by ~2e-2 near apocenter. Since the polarizations in Eq. (45) build cos(2V), sin(2V), cos(3V), etc. algebraically from these approximants, the apocenter error can contaminate the higher harmonics and the wave phase over the full orbit; the match grid as presented therefore does not support the template-bank claim in the high-eccentricity burst regime. Please extend the faithfulness study to e >= 0.95, or provide a quantitative error bound showing that the apocenter inaccuracy is suppressed by the burst envelope and noise weighting.
  2. [Sec. IV, Sec. V A, Eq. (54)] The EFB-F model is advertised as a second analytic waveform, but Sec. V A reports that sampling it took 3-4 hours and did not cover the full frequency range, and the derivation around Eq. (54) is only sketched. In particular, the neglect of the a < 0 contributions in the resummed integrals in Eq. (51) is stated without supporting analysis. Since the abstract and introduction present EFB-F as part of the paper's contribution, the manuscript should either make EFB-F practically usable (for example, by providing a convergent expansion of the hypergeometric functions) or explicitly present it as a formal expression whose numerical evaluation is left to future work.
  3. [Sec. V C, Figs. 6-8] The NR matches are computed after maximizing over p0 and e0, so the reported values (0.927, 0.945, 0.754) are upper bounds on faithfulness under parameter bias. The text does acknowledge the parameter bias, but it should also state the match at the nominal NR parameters, or quantify the shift in rp and e, so that the reader can judge how much of the mismatch is due to model error and how much is due to parameter adjustment.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (28)] Equation (28) is in fact an identity because J0(0) = 1, so the k = 0 extension is harmless; however, the text should state this explicitly to avoid the appearance of an unjustified manipulation.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. V B] The abstract's statement that the match is 'typically > 0.97' is too strong, since the 10+40 solar-mass case in Fig. 5 has matches well below 0.97 over a large part of the parameter grid; please qualify the statement with the parameter ranges for which it holds.
  3. [Fig. 1 and Fig. 3] The vertical axes of the error panels appear to show absolute differences on a logarithmic scale, but the captions and axis labels are not explicit about whether absolute values are taken; please clarify.
  4. [Sec. V A] The discussion of sampling times for EFB-T at e0 = 0.999 and e0 = 0.9999 is useful, but the statement that the sampled EFB-T waveform has more than 2^20 points for e0 = 0.9999 should be accompanied by the chosen sample window and sampling rate, so the reader can reproduce the timing estimate.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: EFB-T is an analytic approximation to Newtonian quadrupole dynamics, validated against numerical waveforms and external NR benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Section III A starts from the exact Fourier-Bessel series (12)-(13), replaces Bessel functions with their uniform asymptotic expansions (24)-(25), converts the sums to integrals (29)-(32), matches the integration constant at pericenter, and expands in epsilon = 1 - e^2. Every step is exhibited in the paper; the only citations are to standard mathematical expansions (Abramowitz-Stegun), to the original Kepler/Peters-Mathews results, and to prior papers [65],[66] for the general re-summation technique. The prior work is not used as a black-box uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for validation: the approximation is checked against direct numerical integration in Figs. 1-3 and against external NR waveforms in Sec. V C. The match against numerical Peters-Mathews waveforms is a faithfulness test of the analytic approximation against the same underlying equations, and the NR comparison is an independent benchmark; template parameters are varied only to assess the maximum achievable match, not to claim that the true parameters are predicted. No fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no waveform output is fed back into the derivation. The k=0 extension in Eq. (28) is an identity because J_0(0)=1, so it introduces no hidden input. Self-citations ([25],[44],[65]) are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing for the accuracy claims. No circular step can be exhibited from the paper's equations or citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model relies on standard mathematical tools (Bessel asymptotics, SPA, PN theory) plus several domain assumptions specific to the high-eccentricity, single-burst regime. No new physical entities are introduced. The main ad hoc steps are the k=0 extension of the sums, the pericenter matching, and the truncation order, none of which are free parameters fitted to data.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Uniform asymptotic expansion of Bessel functions J_k(ke) and J'_k(ke) is valid for the regime of interest.
    Used in Sec. III A, Eqs. (24)-(25), as the starting point of the re-summation procedure.
  • ad hoc to paper Replacing harmonic sums by integrals with lower limit k=0 and matching at pericenter yields uniformly valid asymptotic series.
    Core approximation of Sec. III A; not rigorously proven, only verified numerically for e=0.99.
  • domain assumption Stationary phase approximation is valid for the Fourier transform of the burst.
    Used in Sec. IV A for the EFB-F model; the SPA may be inaccurate at low frequencies, as acknowledged when reporting 10% error at 10 Hz.
  • domain assumption Leading-order post-Newtonian (Newtonian gravity plus quadrupole radiation) is sufficient to model the burst dynamics.
    The entire model is constructed at leading PN order; the NR comparison shows this breaks down for rp less than about 8.75 M.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation: secular evolution of (p,e) is small over one orbit, so a Taylor expansion in mean anomaly is valid.
    Used in Sec. III B for the radiation reaction model, Eqs. (38)-(39); verified numerically for the chosen parameters.
  • domain assumption Waveform is valid only for one pericenter passage, with mean anomaly in [-pi, pi].
    The re-summed expressions become non-oscillatory and describe a fly-by rather than a closed orbit; stated in Sec. III A.
  • ad hoc to paper High-eccentricity expansion in epsilon = 1 - e^2 is truncated at second order.
    Eqs. (33)-(34) are truncated at O(epsilon^2); higher orders are stated to be possible but are not included in the model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Analytic Waveforms for Eccentric Gravitational Wave Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/24DHG5SC

@misc{pith2026190902143,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Analytic Waveforms for Eccentric Gravitational Wave Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/24DHG5SC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02143}
}
abstract

We here present the first analytic effective fly-by (EFB) waveforms designed to accurately capture the burst of gravitational radiation from the closest approach of highly eccentric compact binaries. The waveforms are constructed by performing a re-summation procedure on the well-known Fourier series representation of the two-body problem at leading post-Newtonian order. This procedure results in two models: one in the time-domain, and one in the Fourier domain, which makes use of the stationary phase approximation. We discuss the computational efficiency of these models, and find that the time-domain model is roughly twice as fast as a numerical quadrupole waveform. We compare the time-domain model to both numerical, leading post-Newtonian order, quadrupole waveforms and numerical relativity fly-by waveforms using the match statistic. While the match is typically $>0.97$ when compared to the quadrupole waveforms, it is much lower when comparing to the numerical relativity fly-by waveforms, due to neglecting relativistic effects within the model. We further show how to use these individual waveforms to detect a repeated burst source.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02143 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of the asymptotic representation of cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (Top) Comparison of the analytic approximations Eqs. (38)-(39) and (44) (dashed lines) to numerical evolutions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (Top) Comparison of the plus polarization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (Top) Comparison of the plus polarization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (Left) Faithfulness (match) of the EFB-T waveform to numerical Peters & Mathews waveforms for binaries with total [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. (Left) Match (color) between the EFB-T waveform model and an NR waveform with input Newtonian values [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The same as Fig. 6, but with an NR waveform with input Newtonian values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The same as Fig. 6, but with an NR waveform with input Newtonian values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Match between a multi-burst EFB-T waveform to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    +e2 0 sin2ι]ζ − 3 4 + 3iχ 2 0 Γ(3− 3iχ 2 ) (1−e2 0)1/4(−8 + 18iχ + 9χ2)Γ(1− iχ 2 ) (C3) A+ 4,8,1/2 = ( 1 2 + i 2)3 3 2−iχ(1 + cos2ι)(1−e2 0)1/4ζ − 9 4 + 3iχ 2 0 Γ( 2 3− iχ 2 )Γ( 4 3− iχ 2 )√ 2π3/2(i + 3χ)(5i + 3χ)χorb { cos(2β)(−1 +e2 0)(5i + 18χ− 9iχ2)χorb + 2 √ 1−e2 0 sin(2β) [ 9(2i +χ)χ2 orb + 2iζ 3 0 ]} (C4) A+ 4,8,−1/2 = ( 1 2 + i 2)3 3 2−iχ(1 + cos2...

  2. [2]

    +e2 0 sin2ι][9(2i +χ)χ2 orb + 2iζ 3 0] } , (C7) A+ 5,7,−1/2 = ( 1 8 + i 8)3 1 2−iχ[cos(2β)(1 + cos2ι)(−2 +e2

  3. [3]

    +e2 0 sin2ι](1− 3iχ)ζ − 9 4 + 3iχ 2 0 (9χ2 orb + 4ζ 3 0)Γ( 1 6− iχ 2 )Γ( 5 6− iχ 2 )√ 2(1−e2 0)1/4π3/2(2i + 3χ)(4i + 3χ)χorb , (C8) A+ 7,11,1/2 = ( 1 4− i 4)3 1 2−iχ cos(2β)(1 + cos2ι)(1−e2 0)5/4(−5 + 18iχ + 9χ2)ζ 3 4 (−5+2iχ)[9(3i +χ)χ2 orb + 2iζ 3 0]√ 2π3/2(4i + 3χ)(8i + 3χ)χorb × Γ (1 6− iχ 2 ) Γ (5 6− iχ 2 ) (C9) A+ 7,11,−1/2 =−( 1 8 + i 8)3 1 2−iχ co...

  4. [4]

    sin(2β)ζ − 3 4 + 3iχ 2 0 Γ(3− 3iχ 2 ) (1−e2 0)1/4(−8 + 18iχ + 9χ2)Γ(1− iχ 2 ) (C13) A× 4,8,1/2 = (1 +i)3 3 2−iχ cosι(1−e2 0)1/4ζ − 9 4 + 3iχ 2 0 Γ( 2 3− iχ 2 )Γ( 4 3− iχ 2 )√ 2π3/2(i + 3χ)(5i + 3χ)χorb { i(−1 +e2

  5. [5]

    sin(2β)(−5 + 18iχ + 9χ2)χorb + 2 cos(2β) √ 1−e2 0[9(2i +χ)χ2 orb + 2iζ 3 0] } (C14) A× 4,8,−1/2 = (1 +i)3 3 2−iχ cos(2β) cosι(1−e2 0)3/4ζ − 9 4 + 3iχ 2 0 (9χ2 orb + 4ζ 3 0)Γ( 2 3− iχ 2 )Γ( 4 3− iχ 2 )√ 2π3/2(−5 + 3iχ)(i + 3χ)χorb (C15) A× 1,5,1/2 = (1 +i)3 1 2−iχ cos(2β) cosι(1−e2 0)3/4ζ − 3 4 + 3iχ 2 0 Γ( 1 6− iχ 2 )Γ( 5 6− iχ 2 )√ 2π3/2 (C16) A× 5,7,1/2...

    work page

  6. [6]

    sin(2β)[9(2−iχ)χ2 orb + 2ζ 3 0] } (C17) A× 5,7,−1/2 =−( 1 4− i 4)3 1 2−iχ cosι(−2 +e2

    work page

  7. [7]

    sin(2β)(i + 3χ)ζ − 9 4 + 3iχ 2 0 (9χ2 orb + 4ζ 3 0)Γ( 1 6− iχ 2 )Γ( 5 6− iχ 2 )√ 2(1−e2 0)1/4π3/2(2i + 3χ)(4i + 3χ)χorb (C18) A× 7,11,1/2 =−( 1 2 + i 2)3 1 2−iχ cosι(1−e2 0)5/4 sin(2β)(−5 + 18iχ + 9χ2)ζ 3 4 (−5+2iχ)[9(3−iχ)χ2 orb + 2ζ 3 0]Γ( 1 6− iχ 2 )Γ( 5 6− iχ 2 )√ 2π3/2(4i + 3χ)(8i + 3χ)χorb (C19) A× 7,11,−1/2 = ( 1 4 + i 4)3 1 2−iχ cosι(1−e2 0)5/4 si...

    work page

  8. [8]

    S. Naoz, B. Kocsis, A. Loeb, and N. Yunes, The Astro- physical Journal 773, 187 (2013), arXiv:1206.4316 [astro- ph.SR]. 21

    arXiv 2013

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Kocsis and J

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

    2012 arXiv

  2. [10]

    R. M. O’Leary, B. Kocsis, and A. Loeb, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395, 2127 (2009), arXiv:0807.2638

    2009 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Samsing, (2017), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

    J. Samsing, (2017), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, (2013), arXiv:1308.2964 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Samsing, D

    J. Samsing, D. J. D’Orazio, K. Kremer, C. L. Rodriguez, and A. Askar, (2019), arXiv:1907.11231 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kremer et al

    K. Kremer et al. , Phys. Rev. D99, 063003 (2019), arXiv:1811.11812 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    Samsing, D

    J. Samsing, D. J. D’Orazio, A. Askar, and M. Giersz, (2018), arXiv:1802.08654 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Samsing, A

    J. Samsing, A. Askar, and M. Giersz, Astrophys. J. 855, 124 (2018), arXiv:1712.06186 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    N. W. C. Leigh et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474, 5672 (2018), arXiv:1711.10494 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Antonini, S

    F. Antonini, S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. 816, 65 (2016), arXiv:1509.05080 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Samsing and D

    J. Samsing and D. J. D’Orazio, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 481, 5445 (2018), arXiv:1804.06519 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. J. D’Orazio and J. Samsing, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 481, 4775 (2018), arXiv:1805.06194 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Samsing and D

    J. Samsing and D. J. D’Orazio, Phys. Rev. D99, 063006 (2019), arXiv:1807.08864 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Prince, American Astronomical Society Meeting 202, 3701 (2003)

    T. Prince, American Astronomical Society Meeting 202, 3701 (2003)

    2003

  17. [25]

    Kawamura et al., Laser interferometer space antenna

    S. Kawamura et al., Laser interferometer space antenna. Proceedings, 8th International LISA Symposium, Stan- ford, USA, June 28-July 2, 2010 , Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094011 (2011)

    2011

  18. [26]

    Abramovici, W

    A. Abramovici, W. E. Althouse, R. W. Drever, Y. Gursel, S. Kawamura, et al., Science 256, 325 (1992)

    1992

  19. [27]

    G. M. Harry (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Class.Quant.Grav. 27, 084006 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

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

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys.Rev. D80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  23. [31]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Loutrel, N

    N. Loutrel, N. Yunes, and F. Pretorius, Phys.Rev. D90, 104010 (2014), arXiv:1404.0092 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Yang, (2019), arXiv:1904.11089 [gr-qc]

    H. Yang, (2019), arXiv:1904.11089 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    H. Yang, W. E. East, V. Paschalidis, F. Pretorius, and R. F. P. Mendes, Phys. Rev. D98, 044007 (2018), arXiv:1806.00158 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B. C. Stephens, W. E. East, and F. Pretorius, Astrophys. J. 737, L5 (2011), arXiv:1105.3175 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  28. [36]

    S. V. Chaurasia, T. Dietrich, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, M. Ujevic, W. Tichy, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D98, 104005 (2018), arXiv:1807.06857 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    L. J. Papenfort, R. Gold, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D98, 104028 (2018), arXiv:1807.03795 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Chirenti, R

    C. Chirenti, R. Gold, and M. C. Miller, Astrophys. J. 837, 67 (2017), arXiv:1612.07097 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    W. E. East, V. Paschalidis, F. Pretorius, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D93, 024011 (2016), arXiv:1511.01093 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    M. W. Choptuik, L. Lehner, and F. Pretorius, (2015), arXiv:1502.06853 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Rosofsky, R

    S. Rosofsky, R. Gold, C. Chirenti, E. A. Huerta, and M. C. Miller, Phys. Rev. D99, 084024 (2019), arXiv:1812.06126 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    C. M. Poisson, E. and Will, Gravity: Newtonian, Post- Newtonian, Relativistic (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

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

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    W. E. East, F. Pretorius, and B. C. Stephens, Phys. Rev. D. 85, 124009 (2012), arXiv:1111.3055 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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

  38. [46]

    Salemi (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), (2019), arXiv:1907.09384 [astro-ph.HE]

    F. Salemi (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), (2019), arXiv:1907.09384 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    K. S. Tai, S. T. McWilliams, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D90, 103001 (2014), arXiv:1403.7754 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Cabero et al., Class

    M. Cabero et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 155010 (2019), arXiv:1901.05093 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [49]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 134001 (2016), arXiv:1602.03844 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), (2018), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Loutrel and N

    N. Loutrel and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 135011 (2017), arXiv:1702.01818 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Wei and E

    W. Wei and E. A. Huerta, (2019), arXiv:1901.00869 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Rebei, E

    A. Rebei, E. A. Huerta, S. Wang, S. Habib, R. Haas, D. Johnson, and D. George, Phys. Rev. D100, 044025 (2019), arXiv:1807.09787 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    George and E

    D. George and E. A. Huerta, Phys. Lett. B778, 64 (2018), arXiv:1711.03121 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    George and E

    D. George and E. A. Huerta, in NiPS Summer School 2017 Gubbio, Perugia, Italy, June 30-July 3, 2017 (2017) arXiv:1711.07966 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    H. Shen, D. George, E. A. Huerta, and Z. Zhao, (2019), 10.1109/ICASSP.2019.8683061, arXiv:1903.03105 [astro- ph.CO]

    2019

  49. [57]

    H.-M. Luo, W. Lin, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Front. Phys.(Beijing) 15, 14601 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    K. Kim, T. G. F. Li, R. K. L. Lo, S. Sachdev, and R. S. H. Yuen, (2019), arXiv:1912.07740 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    George and E

    D. George and E. A. Huerta, Phys. Rev. D97, 044039 (2018), arXiv:1701.00008 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Gabbard, M

    H. Gabbard, M. Williams, F. Hayes, and C. Messenger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141103 (2018), arXiv:1712.06041 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    H. Shen, E. A. Huerta, and Z. Zhao, (2019), arXiv:1903.01998 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Chang et al., (2019), arXiv:1903.04590 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Chang et al., (2019), arXiv:1903.04590 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Allen et al

    G. Allen et al. (2019) arXiv:1902.00522 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    T. D. Gebhard, N. Kilbertus, I. Harry, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063015 (2019) , Phys. Rev. D100, 063015 (2019), arXiv:1904.08693 [astro-ph.IM]. 22

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Huerta, H

    E. Huerta, H. Shen, N. Loutrel, F. Pretorius, and J. Sam- sing, In preparation (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    Krolak, J

    A. Krolak, J. A. Lobo, and B. J. Meers, Phys. Rev. D 43, 2470 (1991)

    1991

  59. [67]

    D. G. Blair, The Detection of Gravitational Waves, by Edited by David G. Blair, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005 (2005)

    2005

  60. [68]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D60, 124008 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9907006 [gr-qc]

    1999 arXiv

  61. [69]

    S. A. Usman et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 215004 (2016), arXiv:1508.02357 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Sachdev et al., (2019), arXiv:1901.08580 [gr-qc]

    S. Sachdev et al., (2019), arXiv:1901.08580 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Taracchini et al

    A. Taracchini et al. , Phys. Rev. D89, 061502 (2014), arXiv:1311.2544 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Loutrel and N

    N. Loutrel and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044003 (2017), arXiv:1607.05409 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Forseth, C

    E. Forseth, C. R. Evans, and S. Hopper, Phys. Rev. D93, 064058 (2016), arXiv:1512.03051 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084001 (2009)

    2009

  67. [75]

    Moreno-Garrido, E

    C. Moreno-Garrido, E. Mediavilla, and J. Buitrago, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 274, 115 (1995), http://oup.prod.sis.lan/mnras/article- pdf/274/1/115/18539844/mnras274-0115.pdf

    1995

  68. [76]

    Moore, T

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

    2018 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathe- matical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathe- matical Tables (Dover Publications, Mineola, New York, 1972)

    1972

  70. [78]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Physical Review 131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  71. [79]

    J. P. Boyd, Acta Applicandae Mathematica 56, 1

  72. [80]

    Johansson et al

    F. Johansson et al. , mpmath: a Python library for arbitrary-precision floating-point arithmetic (version 0.19) (2013), http://mpmath.org/

    2013

  73. [81]

    Barsotti, P

    L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. Evans, and S. Gras, LIGO Document T1800044-v5 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Buonanno, B

    A. Buonanno, B. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D80, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0907.0700 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Boetzel, A

    Y. Boetzel, A. Susobhanan, A. Gopakumar, A. Klein, and P. Jetzer, Phys. Rev. D96, 044011 (2017), arXiv:1707.02088 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Kremer, S

    K. Kremer, S. Chatterjee, K. Breivik, C. L. Rodriguez, S. L. Larson, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 191103 (2018), arXiv:1802.05661 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.