Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Eccentric gravitational-wave sources are far more sensitive to environmental phase shifts than circular ones, because each higher harmonic samples an earlier, wider-separation phase of the inspiral where environmental effects are stronger.

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

2026-08-03 23:38 UTC pith:W3OPPVBR

load-bearing objection Clean scaling result, plausible population forecasts, but the detectability boost is not yet demonstrated beyond a proxy that ignores parameter degeneracies. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2511.04540 v2 pith:W3OPPVBR submitted 2025-11-06 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Environmental effects in stellar mass gravitational wave sources II: Enhanced detectability of phase shifts in eccentric sub-populations

Lorenz Zwick , Kai Hendriks , Pankaj Saini , J\'anos Tak\'atsy , Connar Rowan , Johan Samsing , Jakob Stegmann This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords gravitational waveseccentric binariesenvironmental effectsdephasingorbital harmonicsdetectabilityphase shiftbinary evolution
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 asks whether the rarity of eccentric gravitational-wave sources is offset by their power as environmental probes, and answers yes. It establishes that in an eccentric binary each harmonic of the gravitational wave is emitted at a successively earlier, wider-separation phase of the inspiral, where environmental effects are relatively stronger. Because environmental dephasing laws typically scale as steep negative powers of frequency, the dephasing in the ℓ-th harmonic is inflated by a factor ℓ^(1−n) relative to the circular case. Summing harmonics, the signal-to-noise ratio of an environmental effect can be boosted by up to ℓ_max^(1−n), translating into factors of 10^2 to 10^5 for typical effects such as line-of-sight acceleration and gas drag. The consequence is that in the eccentric tail of the population, environmental effects should be detectable at amplitudes orders of magnitude smaller than in circular signals, and for next-generation detectors they should be an expected feature of merging binaries.

Core claim

The authors show that for an eccentric binary, a given environmental dephasing imprinted on the quadrupole (ℓ=2) harmonic is multiplied by ℓ^(1−n) in the ℓ-th harmonic, where n is the frequency exponent of the dephasing law (e.g. −13/3 for acceleration-induced time delays). Since the ℓ-th harmonic is generated when the binary orbit had frequency f/ℓ—earlier and at larger separation—steep negative-n dephasing laws explode in high harmonics. Summing these harmonics, the δSNR of the environmental effect can be ℓ_max^(1−n) times the circular-signal δSNR, reaching factors of 10^2 to 10^5 for typical effects with ℓ_max=10. For sources with residual eccentricity ≳0.2 at 10 Hz, phase shifts hundreds

What carries the argument

Eccentric-harmonic dephasing scaling: in a Keplerian eccentric binary, gravitational-wave emission is a sum of harmonics ℓ of the orbital frequency. The ℓ-th harmonic at detector frequency f corresponds to orbital frequency f/ℓ, i.e. an earlier epoch with larger separation. Environmental phase shifts that scale as f^n are multiplied by ℓ and evaluated at f/ℓ, giving an overall enhancement factor ℓ^(1−n) relative to the circular case. This factor, capped by the maximum modeled harmonic ℓ_max and by saturation when a harmonic's phase shift reaches roughly π, is what converts a handful of eccentric sources into powerful environmental probes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the paper's δSNR>3 criterion, which the authors themselves note ignores degeneracies between the phase shift, eccentricity, chirp mass, and detector noise; if those degeneracies are severe in high harmonics, the practical boost could be far smaller than claimed.

What would settle it

A full Bayesian injection-recovery study: inject dephased eccentric waveforms with δSNR just above threshold into real detector noise, run parameter estimation with a vacuum template family, and check whether the injected phase shift is recovered rather than absorbed by eccentricity or chirp mass. If the phase shift is not recovered across many injections, the claimed enhancement is not a measurable one.

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

If this is right

  • Eccentric sources with residual eccentricity above about 0.2 at 10 Hz can reveal environmental phase shifts hundreds to hundreds of thousands of times smaller than circular sources of the same SNR.
  • For next-generation ground-based detectors, environmental dephasing becomes a standard observable in the eccentric tail, not a rare outlier.
  • A targeted search for acceleration-induced dephasing in already identified eccentric candidate events is a plausible near-term test with current catalogs.
  • The range of companion separations or gas densities that produce detectable signatures expands by factors of hundreds, encompassing most of the physically plausible parameter space for dynamical and gas-rich formation channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the enhancement survives full parameter estimation, eccentric binaries effectively become a way to listen to the inspiral at much larger separations than a circular signal of the same frequency band, turning phase-shift measurements into probes of disk structure and cluster density.
  • Because the same ℓ^(1−n) factor applies to any steep frequency-dependent phase perturbation, unmodeled environmental dephasing may bias eccentricity and chirp-mass estimates in eccentric sources; joint inference will likely be needed to separate the effects.
  • The δSNR threshold used here is a detection proxy; a natural extension is to convert the claimed sensitivity gains into expected event counts by folding in merger-rate densities and observation times for specific formation channels.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper argues that eccentric gravitational-wave signals dramatically enhance the detectability of environmental dephasing effects (EEs) compared with circular signals. The central derivation shows that a dephasing prescription scaling as f^n in the circular case acquires an additional factor ℓ^{1-n} in the ℓ-th eccentric harmonic; for typical EEs with n<0, this gives enhancements up to ℓ_max^{1-n}, reaching factors of 10^2–10^5 for Roemer delays and gas drag. The authors evaluate the δSNR statistic (Eq. 13) for a representative 8+8 M_sun binary in LVK A+/A#, CE, and ET, with maximum harmonic numbers ℓ_max=10 and 50. At the population level, they adopt a log-normal eccentricity distribution and compute the fraction of sources in the high-eccentricity tail with δSNR>3, concluding that EEs will be ubiquitous for CE/ET and that joint eccentricity–dephasing detections are plausible in current catalogs for AGN migration traps.

Significance. If the central claim survives full parameter-estimation scrutiny, this is a valuable and potentially important result. The analytic scaling in Eq. (25) is simple and clean, and the numerical implementation is standard. The paper explicitly anchors its main claims to the conservative ℓ_max=10, and the population distributions are taken from external literature rather than fitted to the model's output. The work makes falsifiable predictions: eccentric sources with moderate e_10Hz should show phase shifts from EEs at amplitudes orders of magnitude below what circular searches would require. The paper also correctly identifies that higher harmonics probe earlier, wider-separation phases of the inspiral, where environmental effects are stronger. These strengths make the paper worth serious consideration. However, the leap from δSNR to 'detectability' and the strong population-level 'ubiquitous' claim require additional support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Eq. (13), footnote 1] The δSNR criterion is a residual matched-filter SNR for a known dephased waveform with vacuum parameters fixed. It is not a detection statistic for an unknown EE amplitude, and it does not account for degeneracies among the phase shift, eccentricity, chirp mass, and coalescence phase. Footnote 1 explicitly acknowledges this, but the paper's central conclusion—that EE detectability is enhanced by up to ℓ^{1−n} and that EEs are ubiquitous for CE/ET—uses δSNR>3 as a proxy for measurability. The Fig. 4 note that n=−5/3 is essentially a chirp-mass effect is a concrete example of this degeneracy. Without a parameter-estimation injection study (even for a few representative eccentric sources) showing that A_2^{10Hz} is actually recoverable when e, chirp mass, and phase are marginalized, the claimed enhancement in detectability is not established. This is load-bearing rather than a cosmetic cave
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (29), Fig. 5] The population-level conclusion that EEs will be an 'ubiquitous feature' for CE/ET rests on a single log-normal eccentricity distribution with e_p=0.03, σ_e=1, and an efficiency factor E=1. The text acknowledges that any single choice may not describe the full population, but no robustness study is presented. The tail fraction above e=0.2 is ~3% for this choice; other plausible distributions, including power-law tails or the AGN-disk distributions cited in §3.2, could shift this fraction by orders of magnitude. Similarly, the calculation uses fixed representative sources (8+8 M_sun at z=0.2 for LVK and z=3 for CE/ET) and asserts that other choices only shift the contours vertically; this assertion is not demonstrated. The 'ubiquitous' claim should be conditioned on a sensitivity analysis over e_p, σ_e, source distances, and masses, or explicitly softened to 'for the adopted distribution.
  3. [§2.3–§2.4, Eqs. (21)–(22)] The mapping from time-domain dephasing prescriptions to Fourier-domain harmonic dephasing is central to the ℓ^{1−n} scaling. The paper assumes δψ = δφ, citing the companion paper and Takátsy et al. 2025, but no derivation or validation is shown for ℓ up to 50. For non-polynomial dephasing or for high harmonics, the stationary-phase mapping may acquire ℓ-dependent prefactors or break down, which would alter the claimed enhancement. Since the largest boosts come from high ℓ, the paper should either provide the explicit Fourier-domain derivation for the relevant dephasing prescriptions or demonstrate numerically that the δψ_ℓ = (ℓ/2) δψ_2(2f/ℓ) prescription is accurate for the eccentricities and harmonic numbers used here.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Title/abstract] The abstract title says 'Enhanced detectability of phase shifts in eccentric sub-populations' while the full-text title says 'Joint detections of eccentricity and phase shifts in binary sub-populations.' The inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [§3.1] Text says 'using the waveforms detailed in section 1' but the waveform model is in §2.1; also 'according to Eq. 4' for SNR should refer to Eq. (12). Several similar cross-reference errors should be corrected.
  3. [§3.1] Typo: 'The strength og the EE' should be 'of'.
  4. [§3.1] Typo: 'ET looses out' should be 'loses'.
  5. [Table 1] The physical parameters ξ_i are introduced without explicit units or definitions of all symbols (e.g., whether ρ is the local gas density and c_s is the sound speed). A short defining sentence would help.
  6. [§4.1] The footnote about GW190814 and unpublished work is speculative and not necessary for the paper's argument; consider removing or moving to a later work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central scaling is a transparent consequence of the stated dephasing-harmonic mapping, and the population results rest on external inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim, the lmax^{1-n} SNR boost, is derived in Sec. 2.4 from an explicit Fourier-domain dephasing mapping (Eq. 22: δψ_l(f) = (l/2) δψ_2(2f/l)). This mapping is physically argued (time-delay of a bursty waveform and sampling of lower orbital frequencies) and, for specific cases, is stated to be exact or correct up to a prefactor, with a derivation cited to Takátsy et al. (2025). The scaling l^{1-n} follows algebraically from substituting the power-law dephasing into Eq. 22; it is not a fitted result and is explicitly labeled as the expected scaling. The numerical δSNR computations in Sec. 3.1 then check this scaling against realistic detector noise and harmonic amplitudes, which is a consistency test rather than a fit. The population inputs (eccentricity distributions from the literature) and detector sensitivity curves are external to the paper's own results. The dephasing prescriptions are lifted from companion paper PI, but those are physically derived models, not ad hoc fits to the target claim. The acknowledged limitation in footnote 1 (degeneracies not accounted for by δSNR) is a correctness caveat about the proxy, not circularity. No load-bearing step reduces the claimed result to its own input, and the self-citations are standard companion-paper references rather than circular support.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are invented. The central claims rest on a handful of hand-chosen parameters (ℓ_max, eccentricity distribution, detector thresholds) and on physical/environmental dephasing prescriptions inherited from the authors' prior work (PI, Takátsy et al. 2025). The scaling result itself is a direct corollary of those prescriptions.

free parameters (7)
  • Maximum harmonic number ℓ_max = 10 (conservative), 50 (speculative)
    Chosen to represent current template limits and speculative burst-timing models; the SNR enhancement scales as ℓ_max^{1-n}, so this choice directly controls the claimed boost.
  • Log-normal eccentricity distribution peak e_p = 0.03
    Peak of log-normal eccentricity at 10 Hz, chosen to match GW capture and AGN channel estimates from cited literature.
  • Log-normal eccentricity distribution scatter σ_e = 1 (dex)
    Width of log-normal, chosen to give ~10% of sources with e_10Hz > 0.1, matching cited population studies.
  • Dephasing amplitude A2^{10Hz} = scanned over orders of magnitude
    Amplitude of dephasing at 10 Hz in the ℓ=2 harmonic; scanned, not fitted.
  • δSNR detection threshold C = 3
    Threshold for 'significant dephasing', adopted from PI and prior literature.
  • Circumbinary disc fudge factor f_CBD = 1
    Fudge factor for CBD torque prescription set to unity.
  • Viscosity parameter α = 0.1
    Assumed viscosity for CBD torque prescription unless stated otherwise.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Peters (1964) orbit-averaged evolution for eccentric binaries (Eqs. 8-10)
    Unproved background used for the frequency chirp and time/phase integrals.
  • standard math Klein et al. (2018) exact special-function solution for t(F) and Φ(F)
    Used to evaluate eccentric inspiral integrals without numerical issues at high eccentricity.
  • domain assumption Dephasing prescriptions for Roemer, BHL drag, and CBD torques (Eqs. 18-20) from PI correctly capture the physical phase shifts
    The paper lifts these prescriptions directly from the companion paper PI, treating them as established physical models.
  • domain assumption Time-domain dephasing maps identically to Fourier-domain dephasing (up to O(1) prefactor)
    Stated in §2.3: 'we will make the simplification that the dephasing prescription here reported map identically to the corresponding Fourier domain dephasing δψ.'
  • domain assumption Log-normal eccentricity distribution (Eq. 29) is representative of realistic sub-populations
    Adopted as a phenomenological parametrization; the authors acknowledge that any single choice may not describe the overall distribution.
  • domain assumption δSNR > C with C=3 is a sufficient condition for detectable dephasing
    The δSNR criterion ignores degeneracies; the authors flag this in footnote 1 but rely on it for all detectability claims.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20542 in / 15599 out tokens · 143183 ms · 2026-08-03T23:38:16.162422+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that the properties of eccentric gravitational wave (GW) signals enhance the detectability of GW phase shifts caused by environmental effects (EEs): The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of EEs can be boosted by up to $\ell_{\rm max}^{1 - n}$ with respect to corresponding circular signals, where $\ell_{\rm max}$ is the highest modeled eccentric GW harmonic and $n$ is the frequency scaling of the GW dephasing prescription associated to the EE. We investigate the impact on a population level, adopting plausible eccentricity distributions for binary sources observed by LIGO/Virgo/Kagra (A+ and A\# sensitivities), as well as Cosmic Explorer (CE) and the Einstein Telescope (ET). For sources in the high eccentricity tail of a distribution ($e \gtrsim 0.2$ at 10 Hz), phase shifts can systematically be up to $\ell_{\rm max}^{1 - n}$ times smaller than in a corresponding circular signal and still be detectable. For typical EEs, such as Roemer delays and gas drag, this effect amounts to SNR enhancements that range from $10^2$ up to $10^5$. For CE and ET, our analysis shows that EEs will be an ubiquitous feature in the eccentric tail of merging binaries, regardless of the specific details of the formation channel. Additionally, we find that the joint analysis of eccentricity and phase shift is already plausible in current catalogs if a fraction of binaries merge in AGN migration traps.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.04540 by Connar Rowan, Jakob Stegmann, J\'anos Tak\'atsy, Johan Samsing, Kai Hendriks, Lorenz Zwick, Pankaj Saini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Top panel: Characteristic strain tracks (given by ℎ˜( 𝑓 ) × 𝑓 ) of a 8 M⊙ + 8 M⊙ binary at 𝑧 = 0.5 compared to various detector sensitivity curves (dashed lines), for some sample eccentricities at 10 Hz (here meaning when the GW ℓ = 2 harmonic reaches 10 Hz). The solid lines represent the GW envelope, while the thin lines show the interference of the various harmonics. The tracks are truncated at the binar… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Contour plots for the 𝛿SNR for a binary source of GW with 𝑚1 = 𝑚2 = 8 M⊙ located at a typical redshift for the given detector configuration. The contours are computed for a dephasing prescription with 𝑛 = −13/3, and show the dependance of the 𝛿SNR on the magnitude of the dephasing and the eccentricity at 10 Hz. The top row is computed for ℓmax = 10, while the bottom row is for ℓmax = 50. Note how the detec… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Increases in the 𝛿SNR as a function of the residual eccentricity at 10 Hz with respect to a circular signal. The results are computed for different detectors (coloured lines), dephasing power laws (panels, see Eq. 16) and for two representative choices for ℓmax (solid and dashed lines). The curves are computed for a dephasing amplitude of 𝐴 10Hz 2 = 10−15, ensuring that no eccentric harmonic is ever satura… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Contours for the fraction 𝜖 of GW signals within the tail of a realistic eccentricity distribution (see text), that have a phase shift with 𝛿SNR>3, here for an example dephasing with 𝑛 = −13/3. The high eccentricity tail is defined by a cut–off value 𝑒cut and the results are computed as a function of the dephasing amplitude 𝐴 10Hz 2 , here for a representative LVK and CE/ET source consisting of a 8 M⊙ + 8 … 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 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Joint inference of line-of-sight acceleration and orbital eccentricity in neutron-star--black-hole binaries

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    All five NSBH events are consistent with zero line-of-sight acceleration; the joint posterior for GW200105_162426 disfavors both zero LOSA and zero eccentricity at 90% credibility.

  2. Dynamics of Relativistic Binaries in Structured and Stochastic Environments: A Lagrange-Fourier-Hansen Framework

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A new framework projects perturbations onto resonant frequencies via Hansen coefficients to produce efficient coupled ODEs for orbital elements in GW-driven relativistic binaries, demonstrated on tidal fields and accr...

  3. Environmental effects vs. modified gravity in the LISA massive black hole binary population

    gr-qc 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Population-level hierarchical analysis shows environmental effects from circumbinary disks are unlikely to bias LISA tests of general relativity for massive black hole binaries in realistic scenarios.

  4. On the Presence of a Tertiary Compact Object in GW190814

    gr-qc 2026-05 accept novelty 3.0

    Extended-data Bayesian reanalysis of GW190814 finds no evidence for tertiary-induced line-of-sight acceleration or residual eccentricity due to strong degeneracy between the two effects.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025, ApJL, 993, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d54

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d54 2025

  2. [2]

    Antognini, J. M. O., & Thompson, T. A. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 4219, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2938

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2938 2016

  3. [3]

    2014, ApJ, 781, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/45

    Antonini, F., Murray, N., & Mikkola, S. 2014, ApJ, 781, 45, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/781/1/45

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/1/45 2014

  4. [4]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187 2016

  5. [5]

    2014, PhRvD, 89, 104059, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059

    Barausse, E., Cardoso, V., & Pani, P. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 104059, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.104059

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.104059 2014

  6. [6]

    2008, PhRvD, 77, 104027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104027

    Barausse, E., & Rezzolla, L. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 104027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.104027 2008

  7. [7]

    2024, MNRAS, 531, 1506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1239 Bellovary,J.M.,MacLow,M.-M.,McKernan,B.,&Ford,K.E.S

    Basu, P., Chatterjee, S., & Mondal, S. 2024, MNRAS, 531, 1506, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1239 Bellovary,J.M.,MacLow,M.-M.,McKernan,B.,&Ford,K.E.S. 2016, ApJL, 819, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1239 2024

  8. [8]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 215004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa8da5

    Bonetti, M., Barausse, E., Faye, G., Haardt, F., & Sesana, A. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 215004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa8da5

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa8da5 2017

  9. [9]

    2022, Galaxies, 10, 36, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010036

    Cahillane, C., & Mansell, G. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 36, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010036

    doi:10.3390/galaxies10010036 2022

  10. [10]

    M., Dittmann, A

    Calcino, J., Dempsey, A. M., Dittmann, A. J., & Li, H. 2024, ApJ, 970, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a53 Caneva Santoro, G., Roy, S., Vicente, R., et al. 2024, PhRvL, 132, 251401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.251401

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a53 2024

  11. [11]

    2025, PhRvD, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002

    Capote, E., Jia, W., Aritomi, N., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.062002 2025

  12. [12]

    2020, ApJ, 892, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b66

    Caputo, A., Sberna, L., Toubiana, A., et al. 2020, ApJ, 892, 90, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b66

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b66 2020

  13. [13]

    P., & Maselli, A

    Cardoso, V., Destounis, K., Duque, F., Macedo, R. P., & Maselli, A. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 241103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.241103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.241103 2022

  14. [14]

    2020, A&A, 644, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037654

    Cardoso, V., & Maselli, A. 2020, A&A, 644, A147, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202037654

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202037654 2020

  15. [15]

    Chakrabarti, S. K. 1993, ApJ, 411, 610, doi: 10.1086/172863

    doi:10.1086/172863 1993

  16. [16]

    S., & Yunes, N

    Chandramouli, R. S., & Yunes, N. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 064009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064009

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.064009 2022

  17. [17]

    S., Bertone, G., Coogan, A., et al

    Cole, P. S., Bertone, G., Coogan, A., et al. 2023, Nature Astronomy, 7, 943, doi: 10.1038/s41550-023-01990-2 Cole,P.S.,Coogan,A.,Kavanagh,B.J.,&Bertone,G.2022,arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2207.07576. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.07576

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.10087, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.10087

    Copparoni, L., Speri, L., Sberna, L., Derdzinski, A., & Barausse, E. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.10087, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2502.10087

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.10087 2025

  19. [19]

    Cutler, C., & Flanagan, É. E. 1994, PhRvD, 49, 2658, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658 Dall’Amico, M., Mapelli, M., Torniamenti, S., & Arca Sedda, M. 2024, A&A, 683, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348745 de Lluc Planas, M., Ramos-Buades, A., García-Quirós, C., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2504.15833, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.15833

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15833 1994

  20. [20]

    2021a, MNRAS, 501, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3976 —

    MacFadyen, A. 2021a, MNRAS, 501, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3976 —. 2021b, MNRAS, 501, 3540, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3976

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3976

  21. [21]

    2023, MNRAS, 521, 4522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad749

    Derdzinski, A., & Mayer, L. 2023, MNRAS, 521, 4522, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad749

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad749 2023

  22. [22]

    Destounis, K., & Fernandes, P. G. S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.20191, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.20191

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.20191 2025

  23. [23]

    D., & Papadopoulos, G

    Destounis, K., Kulathingal, A., Kokkotas, K. D., & Papadopoulos, G. O. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2210.09357, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2210.09357

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2210.09357 2022

  24. [24]

    J., Dempsey, A

    Dittmann, A. J., Dempsey, A. M., & Li, H. 2025, ApJ, 990, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adea72 D’Orazio, D. J., & Loeb, A. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 083031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.083031

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adea72 2025

  25. [25]

    2024, PhRvD, 109, 104038, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.104038

    Dyson, C., Redondo-Yuste, J., van de Meent, M., & Cardoso, V. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 104038, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.104038

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.104038 2024

  26. [26]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09806, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09806 Eccentric GW populations and Environmental effects13

    Dolan, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09806, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09806 Eccentric GW populations and Environmental effects13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09806 2025

  27. [27]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.13745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.13745

    Evans, M., Corsi, A., Afle, C., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.13745, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2306.13745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.13745 2023

  28. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948

    Fabj, G., & Samsing, J. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.16948. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2402.16948

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

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

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

    doi:10.1103/rb1c-nx5f 2025

  30. [30]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14058

    Garg, M., Derdzinski, A., Tiwari, S., Gair, J., & Mayer, L. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2402.14058, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2402.14058

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.14058 2024

  31. [31]

    R., & Mayer, L

    Garg, M., Derdzinski, A., Zwick, L., Capelo, P. R., & Mayer, L. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 1339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2711

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2711 2022

  32. [32]

    E., & Ho, L

    Greene, J. E., & Ho, L. C. 2007, ApJ, 667, 131 Gültekin, K., Miller, M. C., & Hamilton, D. P. 2006, ApJ, 640, 156

    2007

  33. [33]

    G., et al

    Gupta, I., Afle, C., Arun, K. G., et al. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 245001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad7b99

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad7b99 2024

  34. [34]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14286

    Gupte, N., Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.14286, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14286

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.14286 2024

  35. [35]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01743, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.01743

    Han, W.-B., Yang, S.-C., Tagawa, H., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.01743, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.01743

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2401.01743 2024

  36. [36]

    2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04603

    Hendriks, K., Zwick, L., & Samsing, J. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.04603, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.04603

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.04603

  37. [37]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08572, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08572

    Hendriks, K., Atallah, D., Martinez, M., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08572, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08572

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.08572

  38. [38]

    A., Kumar, P., Agarwal, B., et al

    Huerta, E. A., Kumar, P., Agarwal, B., et al. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 024038, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024038

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.024038 2017

  39. [39]

    A., Moore, C

    Huerta, E. A., Moore, C. J., Kumar, P., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 024031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.024031

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.024031 2018

  40. [40]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 5020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx757

    Inayoshi, K., Hirai, R., Kinugawa, T., & Hotokezaka, K. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 5020, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx757

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx757 2017

  41. [41]

    Islam, T., Khanna, G., & Field, S. E. 2025a, PhRvD, 111, 124023, doi: 10.1103/63d1-hh8k

    work page doi:10.1103/63d1-hh8k

  42. [42]

    K., et al

    Islam, T., Venumadhav, T., Mehta, A. K., et al. 2025b, PhRvD, 112, 044070, doi: 10.1103/pk8n-fxvw

    work page doi:10.1103/pk8n-fxvw

  43. [43]

    2018, PhRvD, 98, 104043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104043

    Klein, A., Boetzel, Y., Gopakumar, A., Jetzer, P., & de Vittori, L. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 104043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104043

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.104043 2018

  44. [44]

    2022, ApJ, 936, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b02

    Thrane, E. 2022, ApJ, 936, 172, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b02

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8b02 2022

  45. [45]

    2011, PhRvD, 84, 024032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024032

    Kocsis, B., Yunes, N., & Loeb, A. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 024032, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.024032

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.024032 2011

  46. [46]

    1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    Kozai, Y. 1962, AJ, 67, 591, doi: 10.1086/108790

    doi:10.1086/108790 1962

  47. [47]

    L., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Kremer, K., Rodriguez, C. L., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 99, 063003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.063003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.063003 2019

  48. [48]

    2007, MNRAS, 374, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    Levin, Y. 2007, MNRAS, 374, 515, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

    arXiv 2007

  49. [49]

    Lidov, M. L. 1962, Planet. Space Sci., 9, 719, doi: 10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0

    doi:10.1016/0032-0633(62)90129-0 1962

  50. [50]

    J., Vigna-Gómez, A., & Samsing, J

    Liu, B., D’Orazio, D. J., Vigna-Gómez, A., & Samsing, J. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 123010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.123010

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123010 2022

  51. [51]

    2019, ApJ, 881, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfb

    Liu, B., Lai, D., & Wang, Y.-H. 2019, ApJ, 881, 41, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfb

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2dfb 2019

  52. [52]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 135011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7449

    Loutrel, N., & Yunes, N. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 135011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7449

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa7449 2017

  53. [53]

    2018, Gravitational Waves: Volume 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology, doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198570899.001.0001

    Maggiore, M. 2018, Gravitational Waves: Volume 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology, doi: 10.1093/oso/9780198570899.001.0001

    arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    Maggiore, M., Van Den Broeck, C., Bartolo, N., et al. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050 2020

  55. [55]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bellovary, J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 66, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5 2018

  56. [56]

    2017, ApJ, 834, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/200

    Meiron, Y., Kocsis, B., & Loeb, A. 2017, ApJ, 834, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/200

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/200 2017

  57. [57]

    2004, PhRvD, 70, 104011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.104011

    Memmesheimer, R.-M., Gopakumar, A., & Schäfer, G. 2004, PhRvD, 70, 104011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.104011

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.104011 2004

  58. [58]

    2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJ/810/61 Moore,B.,Robson,T.,Loutrel,N.,&Yunes,N.2018,Classicaland Quantum Gravity, 35, 235006, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aaea00

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, VizieR Online Data Catalog, J/ApJ/810/61 Moore,B.,Robson,T.,Loutrel,N.,&Yunes,N.2018,Classicaland Quantum Gravity, 35, 235006, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aaea00

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaea00 2017

  59. [59]

    2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 185003, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab3778 —

    Moore, B., & Yunes, N. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 185003, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab3778 —. 2020, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37, 225015, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab7963

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab3778 2019

  60. [60]

    J., Cole, R

    Moore, C. J., Cole, R. H., & Berry, C. P. L. 2015, Class. Quantum Gravity, 32, 015014, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/1/015014 2015

  61. [61]

    2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15393, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15393 —

    Morras, G., Pratten, G., & Schmidt, P. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.15393, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.15393 —. 2025b, PhRvD, 111, 084052, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084052 O’Shea, E., & Kumar, P. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 104018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.104018

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.15393 2023

  62. [62]

    B., Haster, C.-J., Perkins, S., Cornish, N

    Owen, C. B., Haster, C.-J., Perkins, S., Cornish, N. J., & Yunes, N. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2301.11941. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.11941

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    2023, A&A, 678, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245324

    Pauwels, T., Reggiani, M., Sana, H., Rainot, A., & Kratter, K. 2023, A&A, 678, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245324

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245324 2023

  64. [64]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224

    doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  65. [65]

    C., & Mathews, J

    Peters, P. C., & Mathews, J. 1963, Phys. Rev., 131, 435, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.435

    doi:10.1103/physrev.131.435 1963

  66. [66]

    2022, PhRvD, 105, 044035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.044035

    Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., Khalil, M., & Ossokine, S. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 044035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.044035

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.044035 2022

  67. [67]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.08604, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.08604

    Randall, L., & Xianyu, Z.-Z. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1902.08604, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1902.08604

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1902.08604 2019

  68. [68]

    J., & Liu, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liu, C. 2019, Class. Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101 2019

  69. [69]

    L., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chatterjee, S., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Amaro-Seoane, P., Chatterjee, S., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 123005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123005

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.123005 2018

  70. [70]

    D., & Thrane, E

    Romero-Shaw, I., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2021, ApJL, 921, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac3138

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac3138 2021

  71. [71]

    D., Thrane, E., & Calderón Bustillo, J

    Romero-Shaw, I., Lasky, P. D., Thrane, E., & Calderón Bustillo, J. 2020, ApJL, 903, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe26 14Zwick et al

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abbe26 2020

  72. [72]

    2023, PhRvD, 107, 122001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.122001

    Romero-Shaw, I., Loutrel, N., & Zevin, M. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 122001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.122001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.122001 2023

  73. [73]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    Rowan, C., Boekholt, T., Kocsis, B., & Haiman, Z. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 2770, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1926

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1926 2023

  74. [74]

    Prompt gravitational-wave mergers aided by gas in Active Galactic Nuclei: The hydrodynamics of binary-single black hole scatterings

    Rowan, C., Whitehead, H., Fabj, G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2501.09017, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09017

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.09017 2025

  75. [75]

    Ryan, F. D. 1995, PhRvD, 52, 5707, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5707

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.52.5707 1995

  76. [76]

    2024, Mon

    Saini, P. 2024, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 528, 833, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae037

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stae037 2024

  77. [77]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.17348, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.17348

    Saini, P., Zwick, L., Takátsy, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.17348, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.17348

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.17348 2025

  78. [78]

    2018, ApJ, 855, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52

    Samsing, J., Askar, A., & Giersz, M. 2018, ApJ, 855, 124, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaab52 2018

  79. [79]

    Samsing, J., & D’Orazio, D. J. 2018, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2334

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2334 2018

  80. [80]

    2019a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.11231

    Askar, A. 2019a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.11231. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.11231

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

Showing first 80 references.