pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.20060 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-23 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Measuring Eccentricity and Addressing Waveform Systematics in GW231123

Aasim Jan , Sophia Nicolella , Deirdre Shoemaker , Richard O'Shaughnessy
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 20:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesbinary black holeseccentricityspin precessionGW231123waveform systematicsLIGO-Virgo-KAGRApair-instability gap
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reanalysis of GW231123 finds no strong evidence for eccentricity and attributes prior parameter differences to waveform model disagreements at high spin precession.

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

The paper reanalyzes the heaviest binary black hole merger detected so far using a waveform model that includes both spin precession and orbital eccentricity. It concludes that the data show no confident nonzero eccentricity and that adding or removing eccentricity changes the inferred masses and spins only minimally. Discrepancies between different waveform models when the spins are strongly precessing explain why earlier analyses produced varying parameter estimates. Zero-noise injection studies confirm that these model differences produce biases comparable to those seen in the real signal. Model selection tests rule out the possibility that an aligned-spin eccentric model is mimicking the data through degeneracy with precession.

Core claim

The analysis shows that GW231123 does not exhibit strong evidence for eccentricity and that the exclusion of eccentricity has minimal impact on inference. The observed discrepancies in the parameter estimates can be explained by disagreement in the waveform models at strong spin precession, with the degree of parameter bias in zero-noise runs being comparable to that observed for the real signal.

What carries the argument

A physically complete waveform model that simultaneously includes spin precession and eccentricity, used to separate the two effects in Bayesian inference and model selection.

If this is right

  • Even eccentricities as large as 0.15 at 10 Hz do not yield a confident nonzero measurement for GW231123-like systems.
  • Inference with an eccentric aligned-spin waveform model can produce a confident but spurious nonzero eccentricity due to degeneracy with spin precession.
  • Bayesian model selection favors the eccentric precessing model that supports zero eccentricity over aligned-spin eccentric alternatives.
  • Additional zero-noise injection-recovery tests confirm that model disagreements at strong precession reproduce the parameter biases seen in the real event.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future heavy black hole detections should routinely employ full precessing models even when eccentricity is under consideration to avoid misattributing precession effects.
  • The high inferred spins remain robust once model systematics are addressed, which may strengthen arguments for formation channels beyond standard stellar collapse.
  • Reducing waveform disagreements at high precession angles would directly improve the reliability of eccentricity measurements in future events.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen waveform model is sufficiently accurate that zero-noise injections can capture the real-data systematics without additional unmodeled effects.

What would settle it

A direct comparison showing that different waveform models produce consistent parameter estimates for the same GW231123 data would falsify the claim that model disagreements at strong precession cause the observed discrepancies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.20060 by Aasim Jan, Deirdre Shoemaker, Richard O'Shaughnessy, Sophia Nicolella.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: GW231123 results: One- and two-dimensional marginal posterior distributions for the detector-frame component [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Eccentricity posterior distributions for GW231123 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Impact of systematics due to strong spin precession for GW231123-like signals: One- and two-dimensional marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Eccentricity posterior distributions for GW231123 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The gravitational-wave event GW231123_135430 is the heaviest binary black hole system observed by the LIGO--Virgo--KAGRA Collaboration to date, with the initial analysis indicating the individual black hole masses lie within or above the theorized pair-instability mass gap of roughly $60$--$130\,M_\odot$. The inference further suggests that both black holes possess high spins, measured to be $0.90^{+0.10}_{-0.19}$ and $0.80^{+0.20}_{-0.51}$. Therefore, the observation of this event suggests the formation of black holes from channels beyond the standard stellar collapse. However, different waveform models yield significantly different parameter estimates, possibly due to missing physics in the models used in inference. In this work, we carry out a reanalysis of GW231123 using a physically complete model, accounting for both spin precession and eccentricity. Our analysis shows that this event does not exhibit strong evidence for eccentricity and the exclusion of eccentricity has minimal impact on inference. Furthermore, for GW231123-like systems, even eccentricities as large as $0.15$ at $10$ Hz do not yield a confident nonzero eccentricity measurement. Through a zero-noise injection recovery study, we show that the observed discrepancies in the parameter estimates can be explained by disagreement in the waveform models at strong spin precession, with the degree of parameter bias in the zero-noise runs being comparable to that observed for the real signal. We also show that inference performed with an eccentric, aligned-spin waveform model can yield a confident nonzero eccentricity measurement due to the degeneracy between eccentricity and spin precession. Bayesian model selection, however, rules out this interpretation in favor of the eccentric, spin precessing hypothesis, which supports zero eccentricity -- a conclusion we confirm with additional zero-noise injection-recovery tests.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reanalyzes the gravitational-wave event GW231123 using a waveform model that incorporates both spin precession and eccentricity. It finds no strong evidence for eccentricity, shows that its exclusion minimally affects parameter estimates, attributes discrepancies between waveform models to differences in strong spin precession handling, and uses zero-noise injection recoveries to demonstrate that these discrepancies match real-data biases. Bayesian model selection favors the precessing model (with zero eccentricity) over an aligned-spin eccentric alternative.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper makes a valuable contribution to the interpretation of high-mass binary black hole mergers near the pair-instability gap by clarifying the role of eccentricity and highlighting waveform systematics in the strong precession regime. The zero-noise injection approach provides a concrete way to isolate model differences, and the model selection results offer a data-driven resolution to the apparent tensions in parameter estimates.

major comments (1)
  1. [Zero-noise injection recovery study] The central evidence that waveform model disagreements explain the parameter discrepancies relies on zero-noise injections. However, for a short, high-mass signal, colored noise could interact with the strong-precession dynamics in ways not captured by zero-noise runs, potentially altering posteriors or Bayes factors. Noisy-injection controls would be needed to confirm the stability of the biases and model odds.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'additional zero-noise injection-recovery tests' but does not specify how many or what parameters were varied; a brief quantification would improve clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive summary of our manuscript and for the constructive major comment. We address the concern regarding our zero-noise injection recovery study below, providing a detailed defense of our methodology while incorporating a partial revision to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central evidence that waveform model disagreements explain the parameter discrepancies relies on zero-noise injections. However, for a short, high-mass signal, colored noise could interact with the strong-precession dynamics in ways not captured by zero-noise runs, potentially altering posteriors or Bayes factors. Noisy-injection controls would be needed to confirm the stability of the biases and model odds.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's point about potential interactions between colored noise and strong-precession dynamics in short, high-mass signals. Our zero-noise injection recoveries are specifically chosen to isolate the deterministic biases arising from differences in how waveform models handle spin precession, without the confounding stochastic effects of particular noise realizations. This is a standard technique in the field for quantifying waveform systematics, as it allows direct comparison of recovered parameters to known injected values. In our study, the parameter biases (e.g., in component masses and spins) recovered from zero-noise injections closely reproduce the discrepancies observed in the real GW231123 analysis, supporting our conclusion that these differences stem from model disagreements in the strong-precession regime rather than from eccentricity. While colored noise could in principle introduce additional variations, the high signal-to-noise ratio of this event means the likelihood is signal-dominated, and the central bias from model mismatch remains robust—as evidenced by its agreement with the actual noisy data. We therefore maintain that noisy-injection controls are not strictly necessary to validate our claims. However, to address the referee's concern, we will partially revise the manuscript by expanding the relevant section with a more explicit discussion of the rationale for zero-noise injections, their limitations, and why they suffice here to demonstrate the origin of the biases. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; results are data-driven Bayesian inference on external models

full rationale

The paper conducts parameter estimation and model selection on real GW data using established external waveform models (including precession and eccentricity). Zero-noise injection recoveries serve as independent validation to compare biases, without any derivation, prediction, or central claim reducing by construction to a fitted parameter or self-referential definition. No load-bearing self-citation chains or ansatzes imported from prior author work are evident in the provided text; conclusions follow directly from likelihood evaluations on the data and simulations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The work relies on standard assumptions of general relativity for waveform generation and Bayesian inference; no new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced beyond existing waveform models.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Waveform models used are sufficiently complete representations of general-relativistic signals for the parameter ranges of interest.
    Invoked when interpreting model disagreements as the source of bias rather than missing physics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5648 in / 1267 out tokens · 30315 ms · 2026-05-16T20:42:47.073347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Population Properties of Binary Black Holes with Eccentricity

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 8.0

    First joint population inference on binary black hole eccentricity from GWTC-4 bounds the eccentric branching ratio below 5% at 90% confidence, with results consistent with quasi-circular models but highly model-dependent.

  2. Highly eccentric non-spinning binary black hole mergers: quadrupolar post-merger waveforms

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Polynomial models for the (2,2) post-merger waveform amplitudes of eccentric non-spinning binary black holes are constructed from numerical-relativity data as functions of symmetric mass ratio and two merger-time dyna...

  3. Assessing the imprint of eccentricity in GW signatures using two independent waveform models

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Dual-model analysis of 162 GW sources disfavors eccentricity for most events but finds potential evidence in GW200129, GW231001, and GW231123.

  4. GW190711_030756 and GW200114_020818: astrophysical interpretation of two asymmetric binary black hole mergers in the IAS catalog

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Two asymmetric BBH mergers are characterized with mass ratios 0.35 and ≤0.20; one shows high spins, negative χ_eff, and strong precession, suggesting an emerging population of massive rapidly spinning systems.

  5. The impact of waveform systematics and Gaussian noise on the interpretation of GW231123

    gr-qc 2026-01 accept novelty 4.0

    The high mass and high spin magnitudes inferred for GW231123 using NRSur7dq4 are robust to waveform systematics and Gaussian noise.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 5 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    real”) and the synthetic injection studies (“fake

    (NRSur) andSEOBNRv5PHM[59] (SEOB). We find our results from these two models to be consistent with those made publicly available by the LVK Collaboration [3]. For each waveform model, we use allℓ≤4 GW modes provided by the waveform model and generate them starting from a (2,2) mode frequency of 10 Hz. The results of our analysis using all three models are...

    2088

  2. [2]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Ab- bott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, et al., Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  3. [3]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, et al.,Gwtc-4.0: Updating the gravitational- wave transient catalog with observations from the first part of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observing run(2025), 2508.18082, URLhttps://arxiv.o...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins, et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters993, L25 (2025), ISSN 2041-8213, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2025

  5. [5]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, The Astrophysical Journal887, 53 (2019), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/ab518b

    2019

  6. [6]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, M. Fishbach, and S. Justham, The Astrophysical Journal Letters902, L36 (2020), ISSN 2041-8213, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/abbadd

    2020

  7. [7]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, The Astrophysical Journal Letters912, L31 (2021), ISSN 2041-8213, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abf2c4

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abf2c4 2021

  8. [8]

    D. D. Hendriks, L. A. C. van Son, M. Renzo, R. G. Izzard, and R. Farmer,Pulsational pair-instability supernovae in gravitational-wave and electromagnetic transients(2023), Parameter Value m1 [M⊙] 226.5 m2 [M⊙] 150.5 χ1x 0.36 χ1y 0.68 χ1z 0.62 χ2x 0.26 χ2y 0.23 χ2z 0.25 χ1 0.98 χ2 0.43 χeff 0.47 χp 0.77 e10 0.10 mean anomaly [rad] 2.83 right ascension [rad...

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Stegmann, A

    J. Stegmann, A. Olejak, and S. E. de Mink,Resolv- ing black hole family issues among the massive an- 8 cestors of very high-spin gravitational-wave events like gw231123(2025), 2507.15967, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2507.15967

    work page arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    2025, title GW231123: a product of successive mergers from 10 stellar-mass black holes , 2507.17551

    Y.-J. Li, S.-P. Tang, L.-Q. Xue, and Y.-Z. Fan, Gw231123: a product of successive mergers from∼10 stellar-mass black holes(2025), 2507.17551, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.17551

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Li and X.-L

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan,The hierarchical merger scenario for gw231123(2025), 2509.08298, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2509.08298

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Passenger, S

    L. Passenger, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, A. Borchers, M. Fishbach, and C. S. Ye,Is gw231123 a hierarchical merger?(2025), 2510.14363, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2510.14363

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Bartos and Z

    I. Bartos and Z. Haiman,Accretion is all you need: Black hole spin alignment in merger gw231123 indicates accre- tion pathway(2025), 2508.08558, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2508.08558

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Delfavero, S

    V. Delfavero, S. Ray, H. E. Cook, K. Nathaniel, B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, J. Postiglione, E. McPike, and R. O’Shaughnessy,Prospects for the formation of gw231123 from the agn channel(2025), 2508.13412, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.13412

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    2025, title GW231123 Mass Gap Event and the Primordial Black Hole Scenario , 2507.15701

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu,Gw231123 mass gap event and the primordial black hole scenario(2025), 2507.15701, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.15701

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    V. D. Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto,Gw231123: a possible primordial black hole origin(2025), 2508.09965, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.09965

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, D. Issa, S. E. Li, M. Renzo, and M. Isi,Spinning into the gap: Direct-horizon collapse as the origin of gw231123 from end-to-end grmhd sim- ulations(2025), 2508.15887, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2508.15887

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    GW231123 Formation from Population III Stars: Isolated Binary Evolution

    A. Tanikawa, S. Liu, W. Wu, M. S. Fujii, and L. Wang, Gw231123 formation from population iii stars: Iso- lated binary evolution(2025), 2508.01135, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.01135

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    2025, title Can stellar physics explain GW231123? , 2508.10088

    D. Croon, J. Sakstein, and D. Gerosa,Can stellar physics explain gw231123?(2025), 2508.10088, URLhttps:// arxiv.org/abs/2508.10088

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    S. A. Popa and S. E. de Mink (2025), 2509.00154, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.00154

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    A., Christensen, N., & Sakellariadou, M

    I. Cuceu, M. A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, and M. Sakel- lariadou,Gw231123: Binary black hole merger or cosmic string?(2025), 2507.20778, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2507.20778

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    X. Shan, H. Yang, and S. Mao (2025), Accessed: Decem- ber 24, 2025, URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/P2500747/

    2025

  24. [24]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration (LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA) (2025), URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2500419

    2025

  25. [25]

    J. C. L. Chan, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, J. Bowman, L. Maga˜ na Zertuche, and L. Vujeva (2025), URLhttps: //dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2500685

    2025

  26. [26]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee (2025), URLhttps: //dcc.ligo.org/P2500764-v2

    2025

  27. [27]

    Q. Hu, H. Narola, J. Heynen, M. Wright, J. Veitch, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck (2025), URLhttps: //dcc.ligo.org/

    2025

  28. [28]

    Zevin, C

    M. Zevin, C. Pankow, C. L. Rodriguez, L. Sampson, E. Chase, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, The Astro- physical Journal846, 82 (2017), ISSN 1538-4357, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aa8408

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8408 2017

  29. [29]

    C. L. Rodriguez and F. Antonini, The Astrophysical Journal863, 7 (2018), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp: //dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aacea4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacea4 2018

  30. [30]

    Gond´ an and B

    L. Gond´ an and B. Kocsis, The Astrophysical Journal 871, 178 (2019), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.3847/1538-4357/aaf893

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaf893 2019

  31. [31]

    Samsing, Phys

    J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D97, 103014 (2018), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.103014 2018

  32. [32]

    Zevin, J

    M. Zevin, J. Samsing, C. Rodriguez, C.-J. Haster, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The Astrophysical Journal871, 91 (2019), ISSN 1538-4357, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 3847/1538-4357/aaf6ec

    2019

  33. [33]

    Chatterjee, K

    C. Chatterjee, K. McGowan, S. Deshmukh, and K. Jani, Machine learning confirms gw231123 is a ”lite” interme- diate mass black hole merger(2025), 2509.09161, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09161

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Y. Xu, J. Valencia, H. Estell´ es Estrella, A. Ramos Buades, S. Husa, M. Rossell´ o-Sastre, J. Llobera Querol, F. Ramis Vidal, M. de Lluc Planas Llompart, M. Colleoni, et al. (2025)

    2025

  35. [36]

    Estell´ es, M

    H. Estell´ es, M. Colleoni, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Husa, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. d. L. Planas, and A. Ramos-Buades, Phys. Rev. D105, 084040 (2022), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 105.084040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd 2022

  36. [37]

    Hamilton, M

    E. Hamilton, M. Colleoni, J. E. Thompson, C. Hoy, A. Heffernan, M. Kinnear, J. Valencia, F. A. R. Vidal, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Ghosh, et al. (2025), 2507.02604, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.02604

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    de Lluc Planas, A

    M. de Lluc Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, and M. Haney (2025), 2503.13062, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.13062

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [39]

    Varma, S

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Black- man, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Physical Review Research1(2019), ISSN 2643-1564, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.1.033015

    2019

  39. [40]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Physical Re- view D109(2024), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063012 2024

  40. [41]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello, and S. Neogi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024031 (2024), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.024031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.024031 2024

  41. [42]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Physical Review D101 (2020), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.101.101501

    2020

  42. [43]

    Nagar, P

    A. Nagar, P. Rettegno, R. Gamba, and S. Bernuzzi, Physical Review D103(2021), ISSN 2470-0029, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.064013 2021

  43. [44]

    Nagar, R

    A. Nagar, R. Gamba, P. Rettegno, V. Fantini, and S. Bernuzzi (2024), 2404.05288, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2404.05288

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [45]

    Nagar, D

    A. Nagar, D. Chiaramello, R. Gamba, S. Albanesi, S. Bernuzzi, V. Fantini, M. Panzeri, and P. Ret- tegno (2025), 2407.04762, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2407.04762. 9

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [46]

    Gamba, J

    R. Gamba, J. Lange, D. Chiaramello, J. Tissino, and S. Tibrewal,Revisiting gw150914 with a non-planar, ec- centric waveform model(2025), 2505.21612, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2505.21612

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [47]

    Jan, B.-J

    A. Jan, B.-J. Tsao, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. Shoemaker, and P. Laguna,Gw200105: A detailed study of ec- centricity in the neutron star-black hole binary(2025), 2508.12460, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12460

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [48]

    Ramos-Buades, S

    A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, G. Pratten, H. Estell´ es, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. Colleoni, and R. Jaume, Physical Review D101(2020), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.101.083015

    2020

  48. [49]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, D. Gerosa, and N. Loutrel, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society519, 5352–5357 (2023), ISSN 1365-2966, URLhttp://dx. doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad031

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad031 2023

  49. [50]

    Xu and E

    Y. Xu and E. Hamilton, Physical Review D107 (2023), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.107.103049

    2023

  50. [51]

    Kumar, S

    Divyajyoti, S. Kumar, S. Tibrewal, I. M. Romero- Shaw, and C. K. Mishra, Physical Review D109 (2024), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.109.043037

    2024

  51. [52]

    Divyajyoti, I. M. Romero-Shaw, V. Prasad, K. Paul, C. K. Mishra, P. Kumar, A. Maurya, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, et al.,Biased parameter inference of eccentric, spin-precessing binary black holes(2025), 2510.04332, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2510.04332

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [53]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collabora- tion, and KAGRA Collaboration,Gw231123 135430: Gravitational-wave event data,https://gwosc.org/ eventapi/html/O4_Discovery_Papers/GW231123_ 135430/(2024), Gravitational Wave Open Science Center (GWOSC), O4 discovery event page

    2024

  53. [54]

    Pankow, P

    C. Pankow, P. Brady, E. Ochsner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D92, 023002 (2015), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023002 2015

  54. [55]

    Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries

    J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo (2018), 1805.10457, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10457

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  55. [56]

    Wofford, A

    J. Wofford, A. Yelikar, H. Gallagher, E. Champion, D. Wysocki, V. Delfavero, J. Lange, C. Rose, V. Val- san, S. Morisaki, et al. (2023), 2210.07912, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2210.07912

    work page arXiv 2023

  56. [57]

    K. J. Wagner, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Yelikar, N. Man- ning, D. Fernando, J. Lange, V. Tiwari, A. Fernando, and D. Williams (2025), 2505.11655, URLhttps://arxiv. org/abs/2505.11655

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [58]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, et al. (2025), 2508.18079, URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2508.18079

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [59]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Physical Review D91(2015), ISSN 1550-2368, URLhttp://dx.doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.024043 2015

  59. [60]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estell´ es, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw (2023), 2303.18046, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 2303.18046

    work page arXiv 2023

  60. [61]

    R. N. Lang and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D74, 122001 (2006), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.74.122001

    2006

  61. [62]

    E. A. Huerta, C. J. Moore, P. Kumar, D. George, A. J. K. Chua, R. Haas, E. Wessel, D. Johnson, D. Glennon, A. Rebei, et al., Phys. Rev. D97, 024031 (2018), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.97.024031

    2018

  62. [63]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Physical Review D111(2025), ISSN 2470-0029, URLhttp://dx.doi. org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.084052

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.084052 2025

  63. [64]

    J. C. Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres-Forn´ e, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 201101 (2021), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 126.201101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett 2021

  64. [65]

    Tibrewal, A

    S. Tibrewal, A. Zimmerman, J. Lange, and D. Shoemaker (2025), URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2500767

    2025