Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Spaceborne detectors can distinguish a stochastic gravitational-wave background from eccentric black holes born in active galactic nuclei, because its spectrum turns over where a pure power law would not.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 07:30 UTC pith:W7H3GP6C

load-bearing objection Useful forecast with a solid power-law-degeneracy result, but the AGN-turnover claim rests on one unvalidated eccentricity model and the Bayes factors are flattered by a narrow prior. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.25353 v2 pith:W7H3GP6C submitted 2025-10-29 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Inferring the stochastic gravitational-wave background from eccentric stellar-mass binary black holes with spaceborne detectors

Zheng-Cheng Liang , Zhi-Yuan Li , Yi-Ming Hu This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords stochastic gravitational-wave backgroundeccentric stellar-mass binary black holesspaceborne gravitational-wave detectorsTianQinLISATaijiBayesian inferenceGalactic foreground
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that the stochastic gravitational-wave background from stellar-mass binary black holes carries an imprint of how those binaries formed, and that spaceborne detectors can read it. For binaries formed in isolation or in globular clusters, the predicted background is loud enough for TianQin, LISA, and Taiji to detect after four years, but it is spectrally identical to a plain power-law background and therefore reveals nothing about eccentricity. For binaries assembled in active galactic nuclei, the paper predicts a background with a spectral turnover and sharp decline caused by high orbital eccentricity; although this feature cuts the signal-to-noise ratio by roughly a factor of ten, LISA and Taiji can still distinguish it from a power law, with log Bayes factors above 30. The paper also provides a Bayesian framework, including a simplified likelihood that cuts the number of frequency points by four orders of magnitude, that separates the astrophysical background from the bright Galactic foreground.

Core claim

The central claim is that eccentricity leaves a measurable spectral scar on the background: AGN-formed SBBHs, which retain eccentricities between about 10^-3 and 0.1 at frequencies near 10 Hz, produce an SGWB that deviates from the f^(2/3) power law, turning over and declining sharply below roughly 0.1 Hz. The paper models this with a modified power law characterized by a drop-off frequency f_d and a tilt beta, and shows with Bayesian model selection on simulated 4-year data that LISA and Taiji prefer this model over a pure power law with log Bayes factors of 30.1 and 82.2, respectively. For field and globular-cluster binaries, the background is detectable (SNRs of about 10, 60, and 170 for

What carries the argument

The central object is the modified power-law energy spectral density, Omega_gw(f) = Omega_ast (f/f_ref)^(2/3) / ((f/f_d)^beta + 1), which adds a drop-off frequency f_d and a tilt beta to the standard f^(2/3) inspiral spectrum. This correction term is what lets the Bayesian analysis distinguish an eccentric AGN background from a plain power law. The other load-bearing pieces are the eccentricity distributions for the three formation channels, the harmonic summation up to n_max = 1000 in the single-source energy spectrum, and a simplified likelihood that replaces the full multi-year data stream with 11,680 three-hour segments while preserving the statistical content.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's headline distinction rests entirely on the assumed eccentricity distribution of AGN binaries: if real AGN binaries are less eccentric than the adopted population model, or if the observed background blends several formation channels, the spectral turnover washes out and the 'clear distinction' claim collapses.

What would settle it

Inject a simulated AGN population with eccentricities uniformly capped at 10^-3 at 10 Hz and re-run the LISA and Taiji model selection; if the log Bayes factor ln(B21) no longer exceeds 5, the turnover-based distinguishability is an artifact of the assumed distribution. A future resolved mHz detection of even a handful of AGN-disk binaries with measured eccentricities would directly test whether the assumed eccentricity distribution is realistic.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • LISA and Taiji, with four years of data, would confidently detect the background from field and globular-cluster SBBHs even with the Galactic foreground present, reaching SNRs around 64 and 171 for LISA and Taiji in the field case.
  • The background from field and globular-cluster binaries, if detected, will look exactly like a power law, so no eccentricity information can be extracted from its spectrum alone.
  • The AGN background, despite being fainter, is clearly distinguishable: log Bayes factors above 30 for LISA and Taiji mean a measured turnover would be direct evidence of eccentric binaries in AGN disks.
  • TianQin's sensitivity below 0.01 Hz is too low to see the turnover, so it can detect the loud backgrounds but cannot tell eccentric from circular.
  • The simplified likelihood developed here makes full Bayesian model selection and parameter estimation computationally feasible for future mHz-band SGWB searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the real background is a superposition of field, globular-cluster, and AGN populations, the composite eccentricity distribution may be diluted enough to erase the turnover, so the separate-channel results may overstate the AGN diagnostic.
  • Beyond the paper: because the null-channel analysis assumes perfect knowledge of detector noise, the reported Bayes factors are upper bounds; a LISA-plus-Taiji cross-correlation search, which the paper points to, would test whether the turnover survives realistic noise uncertainties.
  • Beyond the paper: the turnover frequency f_d, if measured, could be inverted to constrain the typical eccentricity of AGN binaries at formation, turning the background into a population-level eccentricity probe.
  • Beyond the paper: the same modified-power-law template could be applied to other hypothesized eccentric populations, such as hierarchical mergers in star clusters, to search for analogous turnover features.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes the stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) from eccentric stellar-mass binary black holes (SBBHs) formed via three channels—isolated field evolution, globular clusters (GCs), and active galactic nuclei (AGNs)—and assesses detectability with the spaceborne detectors TianQin, LISA, and Taiji. Using a Bayesian framework with a simplified null-channel likelihood and a modeled Galactic foreground, the authors compute SNRs, Bayes factors for model selection, and posterior reconstructions. They report that the field and GC backgrounds are detectable but spectrally degenerate with a power-law SGWB, while the AGN background, having a spectral turnover from high eccentricity, can be clearly distinguished from a power-law by LISA and Taiji (ln B21 = 30.1 and 82.2 in Table III). Limitations acknowledged in Sec. V include the neglect of a superposition of multiple populations and the assumption of perfect noise knowledge.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper is a useful contribution to SGWB science with spaceborne detectors: it demonstrates a computationally efficient likelihood for null-channel analyses and provides a quantitative comparison of three detectors under a common foreground model. The SNR calculation is transparent and follows from standard inputs, and the inclusion of the Galactic foreground is an important practical step. However, the headline result—that the AGN eccentric-SBBH background can be clearly distinguished from a power-law—is not yet robust. It depends on the specific Tagawa et al. (2021) AGN eccentricity distribution, on a narrow Gaussian prior for log10 Omega_ast centered on the injected value, and on the absence of mixed-population backgrounds. The paper explicitly acknowledges these dependencies in Sec. V but does not test their impact. The technical machinery is sound, but the astrophysical conclusion requires additional robustness work before it can be considered established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Table III] The decisive Bayes factors ln B21 = 30.1 (LISA) and 82.2 (Taiji) are computed with a Gaussian prior on log10 Omega_ast whose 90% interval [-12.2,-12.0] is centered on the injected value (footnote 5). Since both H1 and H2 share this prior, the evidence ratio is essentially an in-sample comparison conditioned on the population model used to generate the data. This can substantially inflate the evidence for H2. The authors should repeat the model selection with a wider, less informative prior (e.g., log-uniform over several decades) or marginalize over population-model parameters, and report how ln B21 changes. Without this, the 'clear distinction' claim is overstated.
  2. [Sec. IV.A, Fig. 2, Sec. V] The AGN spectral turnover is inherited entirely from the eccentricity distribution of Tagawa et al. (2021), not from a generic property of eccentric SBBHs. The paper itself states in Sec. V that the observed background will likely be a superposition of multiple populations, which would 'modify the spectral transition features.' However, no robustness test is performed against alternative AGN eccentricity distributions (e.g., stronger gas damping producing lower eccentricities) or against mixed field+GC+AGN injections. Because the central distinguishability claim rests on this single unvalidated assumption, the authors should add such tests and show whether the turnover and the large ln B21 values survive. If they do not, the conclusions must be softened.
  3. [Table I and footnote 4] The SNR values in Table I appear to use a 4-year observation time for TianQin, despite footnote 4 noting that TianQin has a half-time duty cycle, effectively halving its data-collection period. For the field case the quoted SNR of 12.9 would become about 9.1 if the effective observation time is 2 years; the GC case 11.2 would become about 7.9. This directly affects the abstract's claim that TianQin can detect the isolated and GC backgrounds after four years. Please clarify whether the effective observation time was used, and correct Table I and the abstract if necessary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table II caption] The caption appears to reverse the hypotheses: it says 'comparing hypothesis H0 (presence of SGWB) against H1 (absence of SGWB)', but the text defines H0 as foreground-only and H1 as foreground plus power-law SGWB. The caption should read H0 (absence) vs H1 (presence).
  2. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (27)] The sentence 'without compromising statistical information' is too strong: segmenting the data and treating the response as stationary within each segment does discard some information relative to a fully time-varying analysis. The statement should be qualified.
  3. [Sec. IV.B] The priors on detector-noise and foreground parameters are stated as spanning 'two units above and below their true values.' This is a strong, injection-informed prior; the model-selection results may be sensitive to this choice. A brief sensitivity study or a justification would be helpful.
  4. [Abstract / Introduction] The phrase 'For the first time, we employ a Bayesian framework' is an overclaim. There are prior Bayesian SGWB studies with spaceborne detectors; the novelty should be stated more precisely as the first application to eccentric SBBH populations from all three channels.
  5. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided. Given the reproducibility interest of this kind of projection study, a public implementation of the likelihood and spectrum calculation would be valuable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the SGWB spectra and Bayes factors are forward-model outputs from external population inputs, not re-derivations of those inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard forward-model forecast. The SGWB spectrum is computed from Eqs. (29)-(33) using merger rates and eccentricity distributions taken from external population models (Kremer+ 2019 for field, Rodriguez+ 2018 for GC, Tagawa+ 2021 for AGN); it does not define those inputs in terms of its outputs. The SNR values (Table I) and Bayes factors (Tables II-III) are evaluated on simulated data whose injections use the same model spectra; this injection-recovery protocol is standard and does not make the detection claim circular. The Gaussian prior on log Omega_ast matching the predicted amplitude (footnote 5) is an informed prior in a sensitivity study, not a parameter fitted to the data being analyzed; it may inflate absolute evidence values but is not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The 'modified power-law' template (Eq. 34) is an ad hoc fitting form, but it is not the generating function of the injection, and the model comparison H2 vs H1 is a legitimate fit comparison. The paper explicitly flags the main model-dependence in Sec. V: 'the observed background will likely comprise a superposition of multiple populations. This integration would alter the effective eccentricity distribution of the binaries and consequently modify the spectral transition features of the composite SGWB.' This is a robustness limitation, not a circular step. Self-citations to prior null-channel/foreground papers are methodological references, not load-bearing derivations of the present claims. No step reduces by construction to its own input; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative claims rest on externally supplied population models (eccentricity distributions, merger rate, foreground parameters) and on a phenomenological spectral template introduced in this work. The only ad hoc ingredient is the modified power-law used in model selection; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • Local merger rate Rm(0) = 19 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 (90% CI +7/-5)
    Sec. IV.A: normalizes the SGWB amplitude in Eq. (29); all SNR and Bayes factors scale with it.
  • Galactic foreground parameters {A1, A2, alpha1, alpha2} = {3.98e-16, 4.79e-7, -5.7, -6.2}
    Eq. (35) adopted from Chen et al.; the foreground dominates below 1 mHz, so detectability depends on its assumed amplitude and shape.
  • Gaussian prior center log10 Omega_ast = 90% CI [-12.2, -12.0] at 1 mHz
    Sec. IV.B: prior is centered on the injected amplitude (8.1e-13), inflating reported Bayes factors in Tables II-III.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption SGWB is Gaussian, stationary, unpolarized, and isotropic
    Invoked at start of Sec. II.A to define the statistical properties of the background (Eqs. 2-3); no physical mechanism for anisotropy or non-Gaussianity is considered.
  • domain assumption The A/E/T TDI channels have diagonal covariance: no cross-channel signal or noise correlations
    Eq. (24) assumes the covariance matrix is diagonal; standard for noise-orthogonal TDI, but signal cross-correlations are neglected.
  • domain assumption Detector noise is perfectly known in the null-channel analysis
    The simplified likelihood in Sec. III.B and all forecasts assume noise PSDs are known exactly; the paper acknowledges in Sec. V citing Muratore et al. that noise uncertainty can require ~50x larger amplitude.
  • domain assumption Baseline SGWB spectral index is fixed to 2/3
    In the H1 and H2 models, the spectral index of the SGWB component is fixed to the circular-inspiral value 2/3, which is the theoretically expected value; deviations are absorbed into fd and beta.
  • domain assumption The eccentricity distributions of field, GC, and AGN SBBHs are correctly given by Refs. [79], [87], and [101]
    Fig. 2 and the AGN turnover — the paper's headline distinguishing feature — entirely inherit these population-synthesis models; they are not validated in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The modified power-law Omega_gw(f)=Omega_ast (f/f_ref)^{2/3} / ((f/f_d)^beta + 1) captures the eccentric SGWB shape
    Eq. (34) is introduced as a phenomenological model of the deviation; its adequacy is the basis for the H2 model in model selection, and the authors note it is imperfect below 0.1 Hz.
  • domain assumption The cosmic merger rate follows the Madau-Dickinson star formation rate with z_max=10 and local normalization Rm(0)=19 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Sec. IV.A, used in Eq. (29); the local rate is an external measurement, the redshift dependence is an assumption.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 18972 in / 18200 out tokens · 167655 ms · 2026-08-04T07:30:44.222066+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) from eccentric stellar-mass binary black holes (SBBHs) holds crucial clues to their origins. For the first time, we employ a Bayesian framework to assess the detectability and distinguishing features of such an SGWB with spaceborne detectors, while accounting for contamination from the Galactic foreground. Our analysis covers eccentric SBBHs from three formation channels: isolated binary evolution, dynamical assembly in globular clusters (GCs), and in active galactic nuclei (AGNs). We find that TianQin, Laser Interferometry Space Antenna (LISA), and Taiji can detect the SGWBs from both isolated and GC-formed SBBHs after four years of operation, with the corresponding SNRs of around 10, 60, and 170. However, these backgrounds are spectrally degenerate with a strictly power-law SGWB. Furthermore, highly eccentric SBBHs formed in AGNs yield an SGWB marked by a spectral turnover and sharp decline. While this feature lowers the SNR by approximately an order of magnitude, it can enable a clear distinction from the strictly power-law background using LISA and Taiji.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.25353 by Yi-Ming Hu, Zheng-Cheng Liang, Zhi-Yuan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Transfer functions for the TDI channels as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Probability distribution of orbital eccentricity for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Energy spectral density Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Reconstructed energy spectral density Ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Implications of the LISA stochastic signal from eccentric stellar mass black hole binaries in vacuum

    gr-qc 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

    High initial eccentricities in stellar-mass black hole binaries produce a stochastic gravitational wave background distinguishable by LISA from quasi-circular models, enabling upper bounds on eccentricity and separati...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

156 extracted references · 138 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Christensen, Rept

    N. Christensen, Rept. Prog. Phys.82, 016903 (2019), arXiv:1811.08797 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    A. I. Renzini, B. Goncharov, A. C. Jenkins, and P. M. Meyers, Galaxies10, 34 (2022), arXiv:2202.00178 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Regimbau, Res

    T. Regimbau, Res. Astron. Astrophys.11, 369 (2011), arXiv:1101.2762 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  4. [4]

    Bellomo, D

    N. Bellomo, D. Bertacca, A. C. Jenkins, S. Matar- rese, A. Raccanelli, T. Regimbau, A. Ricciar- done, and M. Sakellariadou, JCAP06, 030 (2022), arXiv:2110.15059 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Torres-Orjuela, S.-J

    A. Torres-Orjuela, S.-J. Huang, Z.-C. Liang, S. Liu, H.-T. Wang, C.-Q. Ye, Y.-M. Hu, and J. Mei, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 259511 (2024), arXiv:2307.16628 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Liet al., Rept

    E.-K. Liet al., Rept. Prog. Phys.88, 056901 (2025), arXiv:2409.19665 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Nakayama, S

    K. Nakayama, S. Saito, Y. Suwa, and J. Yokoyama, JCAP06, 020 (2008), arXiv:0804.1827 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  8. [8]

    Caldwellet al., Gen

    R. Caldwellet al., Gen. Rel. Grav.54, 156 (2022), arXiv:2203.07972 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    Schulze, L

    F. Schulze, L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, J. Lesgourgues, A. Ricciardone, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, C. Fidler, and S. Matarrese, JCAP10, 025 (2023), arXiv:2305.01602 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    Hellings and G

    R. Hellings and G. Downs, Astrophys. J. Lett.265, L39 (1983)

    1983

  11. [11]

    P. F. Michelson, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society227, 933 (1987)

    1987

  12. [12]

    Christensen, Phys

    N. Christensen, Phys. Rev.D46, 5250 (1992)

    1992

  13. [13]

    E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev.D48, 2389 (1993), arXiv:astro-ph/9305029 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  14. [14]

    Allen and J

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    Tinto, J

    M. Tinto, J. W. Armstrong, and F. B. Estabrook, Phys. Rev. D63, 021101 (2001)

    2001

  16. [16]

    C. J. Hogan and P. L. Bender, Phys. Rev. D64, 062002 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0104266

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  17. [17]

    T. L. Smith and R. Caldwell, Phys. Rev. D100, 104055 (2019), arXiv:1908.00546 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Muratore, D

    M. Muratore, D. Vetrugno, S. Vitale, and O. Hartwig, Phys. Rev. D105, 023009 (2022), arXiv:2108.02738 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Nature 460, 990 (2009), arXiv:0910.5772 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  20. [20]

    Abadieet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys

    J. Abadieet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D85, 122001 (2012), arXiv:1112.5004 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 231101 (2014), arXiv:1406.4556 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  22. [22]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 121101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 029901 (2017)], arXiv:1612.02029 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 091101 (2018), arXiv:1710.05837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 061101 (2019), arXiv:1903.02886 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  25. [25]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022005 (2021), arXiv:2103.08520 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), arXiv:2101.12130 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.20721 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys

    G. Agazieet al.(NANOGrav), Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L8 (2023), arXiv:2306.16213 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Xuet al., Res

    H. Xuet al., Res. Astron. Astrophys.23, 075024 (2023), arXiv:2306.16216 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron

    J. Antoniadiset al.(EPTA, InPTA:), Astron. Astro- phys.678, A50 (2023), arXiv:2306.16214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    D. J. Reardonet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.951, L6 (2023), arXiv:2306.16215 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  33. [33]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D82, 022002 (2010), arXiv:1002.1291 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  36. [36]

    M. R. Adams and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D89, 022001 (2014), arXiv:1307.4116 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  37. [37]

    Caprini, D

    C. Caprini, D. G. Figueroa, R. Flauger, G. Nardini, M. Peloso, M. Pieroni, A. Ricciardone, and G. Tasinato, JCAP11, 017 (2019), arXiv:1906.09244 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, R. Meyer, and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D103, 103529 (2021), 11 arXiv:2011.05055 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Flauger, N

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, and J. Torrado, JCAP01, 059 (2021), arXiv:2009.11845 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    Banagiri, A

    S. Banagiri, A. Criswell, T. Kuan, V. Mandic, J. D. Romano, and S. R. Taylor, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 5451 (2021), arXiv:2103.00826 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  41. [41]

    Cheng, E.-K

    J. Cheng, E.-K. Li, Y.-M. Hu, Z.-C. Liang, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D106, 124027 (2022), arXiv:2208.11615 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Boileau, N

    G. Boileau, N. Christensen, C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, and R. Meyer, JCAP02, 056 (2023), arXiv:2209.13277 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Gowling, M

    C. Gowling, M. Hindmarsh, D. C. Hooper, and J. Tor- rado, JCAP04, 061 (2023), arXiv:2209.13551 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Karnesis, J.-B. Bayle, M. Besan¸ con, and H. Inchausp´ e, JCAP04, 066 (2023), arXiv:2302.12573 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    G. Wang, B. Li, P. Xu, and X. Fan, Phys. Rev. D106, 044054 (2022), arXiv:2201.10902 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Hartwig, M

    O. Hartwig, M. Lilley, M. Muratore, and M. Pieroni, Phys. Rev. D107, 123531 (2023), arXiv:2303.15929 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Muratore, J

    M. Muratore, J. Gair, and L. Speri, Phys. Rev. D109, 042001 (2024), arXiv:2308.01056 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  48. [48]

    Alvey, U

    J. Alvey, U. Bhardwaj, V. Domcke, M. Pieroni, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D109, 083008 (2024), arXiv:2309.07954 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [49]

    Pozzoli, R

    F. Pozzoli, R. Buscicchio, C. J. Moore, F. Haardt, and A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. D109, 083029 (2024), arXiv:2311.12111 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Li, Z.-C

    Z.-Y. Li, Z.-C. Liang, E.-K. Li, J.-d. Zhang, and Y.-M. Hu, Phys. Rev. D111, 102007 (2025), arXiv:2409.11245 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Huang, Z.-C

    F. Huang, Z.-C. Chen, and Q.-G. Huang, Chin. Phys. C49, 10 (2025), arXiv:2504.16712 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    P. L. Bender and D. Hils, Class. Quant. Grav.14, 1439 (1997)

    1997

  53. [53]

    Nelemans, L

    G. Nelemans, L. R. Yungelson, and S. F. Porte- gies Zwart, Astron. Astrophys.375, 890 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0105221

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  54. [54]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D70, 122002 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0409010

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  55. [55]

    J. A. Edlund, M. Tinto, A. Krolak, and G. Nelemans, Phys. Rev. D71, 122003 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0504112

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  56. [56]

    A. J. Ruiter, K. Belczynski, M. Benacquista, S. L. Lar- son, and G. Williams, Astrophys. J.717, 1006 (2010), arXiv:0705.3272 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  57. [57]

    Nelemans, Class

    G. Nelemans, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 094030 (2009), arXiv:0901.1778 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  58. [58]

    Cornish and T

    N. Cornish and T. Robson, J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840, 012024 (2017), arXiv:1703.09858 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    Huang, Y.-M

    S.-J. Huang, Y.-M. Hu, V. Korol, P.-C. Li, Z.-C. Liang, Y. Lu, H.-T. Wang, S. Yu, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063021 (2020), arXiv:2005.07889 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    Liang, Y.-M

    Z.-C. Liang, Y.-M. Hu, Y. Jiang, J. Cheng, J.-d. Zhang, and J. Mei, Phys. Rev. D105, 022001 (2022), arXiv:2107.08643 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Liu, W.-H

    C. Liu, W.-H. Ruan, and Z.-K. Guo, Phys. Rev. D107, 064021 (2023), arXiv:2301.02821 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    G. Wang, Z. Yan, B. Hu, and W.-T. Ni, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124022 (2023), arXiv:2302.07625 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Staelens and G

    S. Staelens and G. Nelemans, Astron. Astrophys.683, A139 (2024), arXiv:2310.19448 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    Hofman and G

    S. Hofman and G. Nelemans, Astron. Astrophys.691, A261 (2024), arXiv:2407.10642 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    X.-J. Zhu, E. Howell, T. Regimbau, D. Blair, and Z.- H. Zhu, Astrophys. J.739, 86 (2011), arXiv:1104.3565 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  66. [66]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 131102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03847 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Inayoshi, K

    K. Inayoshi, K. Kashiyama, E. Visbal, and Z. Haiman, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.461, 2722 (2016), arXiv:1603.06921 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  68. [68]

    Yagi and H

    K. Yagi and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D97, 104018 (2018), arXiv:1712.00682 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Z.-C. Chen, F. Huang, and Q.-G. Huang, Astrophys. J. 871, 97 (2019), arXiv:1809.10360 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  70. [70]

    Belczynski, V

    K. Belczynski, V. Kalogera, and T. Bulik, Astrophys. J.572, 407 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0111452

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  71. [71]

    Podsiadlowski, S

    P. Podsiadlowski, S. Rappaport, and Z. Han, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.341, 385 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0207153

    arXiv 2003

  72. [72]

    Sadowski, K

    A. Sadowski, K. Belczynski, T. Bulik, N. Ivanova, F. A. Rasio, and R. W. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J.676, 1162 (2008), arXiv:0710.0878 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  73. [73]

    Kowalska, T

    I. Kowalska, T. Bulik, K. Belczynski, M. Dominik, and D. Gondek-Rosinska, Astron. Astrophys.527, A70 (2011), arXiv:1010.0511 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  74. [74]

    Dominik, K

    M. Dominik, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D. Holz, E. Berti, T. Bulik, I. Mandel, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J.759, 52 (2012), arXiv:1202.4901 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  75. [75]

    Dominik, K

    M. Dominik, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D. E. Holz, E. Berti, T. Bulik, I. Mandel, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J.779, 72 (2013), arXiv:1308.1546 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  76. [76]

    Belczynski, D

    K. Belczynski, D. E. Holz, T. Bulik, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Nature534, 512 (2016), arXiv:1602.04531 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    Breivik, C

    K. Breivik, C. L. Rodriguez, S. L. Larson, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.830, L18 (2016), arXiv:1606.09558 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  78. [78]

    Spera, M

    M. Spera, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, A. A. Trani, A. Bressan, and G. Costa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 485, 889 (2019), arXiv:1809.04605 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    Kremeret al., Phys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    Banerjee, H

    S. Banerjee, H. Baumgardt, and P. Kroupa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402, 371 (2010), arXiv:0910.3954 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.