pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05537 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌀 gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

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

Ran Chen , Rohit S. Chandramouli , Federico Pozzoli , Riccardo Buscicchio , Enrico Barausse
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 07:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords stochastic gravitational wave backgroundeccentric binariesLISAstellar mass black holesBayesian inferencedynamical frictionvacuum evolutionformation channels
0
0 comments X

The pith

High-eccentricity stellar black hole binaries produce a LISA stochastic background distinguishable from circular ones.

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

The paper models the stochastic gravitational-wave background from unresolved eccentric stellar-mass black hole binaries for LISA. It finds that a population with high initial eccentricity above 0.9 at an orbital frequency of 10 to the minus 4 Hz produces a signal that Bayesian analysis can separate from the standard quasi-circular background. A thermal eccentricity distribution leads to consistency with circular models only if formation happens at lower frequency, otherwise causing biases in interpretation. Including eccentricity in the model also allows distinguishing gas dynamical friction effects, but only above a certain density threshold. A detection would constrain the maximum eccentricity the binaries can have when entering the frequency band of ground-based detectors.

Core claim

If all binaries have a high initial eccentricity e0 ≳ 0.9 at an orbital frequency of f_orb = 10^{-4} Hz, the resulting SGWB can be robustly distinguished from a background of quasi-circular sBBHs using a fully Bayesian framework. For a thermal eccentricity distribution, the SGWB is consistent with a circular model when binaries form at f_orb = 10^{-5} Hz, but leads to significant systematic biases if formation occurs at f_orb = 10^{-4} Hz. When eccentricity is properly accounted for, environmental effects such as dynamical friction can be distinguished from vacuum evolution, but only for sufficiently dense environments with gas densities ρ ≳ 10^{-7} g cm^{-3}. A LISA detection of the sBBH SG

What carries the argument

Improved SGWB models for Dirac-delta and thermal eccentricity distributions, compared via Bayesian inference to the quasi-circular case.

If this is right

  • The SGWB can be robustly distinguished from quasi-circular if all binaries have high initial eccentricity at 10^{-4} Hz.
  • For thermal distributions, consistency with circular models holds at 10^{-5} Hz formation but biases arise at 10^{-4} Hz.
  • Environmental effects like dynamical friction are distinguishable from vacuum only in dense environments above 10^{-7} g/cm^3.
  • LISA SGWB detection would upper-bound the maximum eccentricity in the ground-based detector frequency band.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Ignoring eccentricity could lead to misinterpretation of LISA data as evidence for certain formation channels or environments.
  • Realistic astrophysical eccentricity distributions might require more detailed modeling to avoid systematic errors.
  • Such bounds on eccentricity could inform template design for ground-based gravitational wave searches.

Load-bearing premise

The eccentricity distribution is limited to a Dirac delta at high values or a thermal distribution, with binaries forming at only two specific orbital frequencies.

What would settle it

A LISA measurement showing the SGWB amplitude and spectrum matching exactly the quasi-circular prediction, despite the presence of high-eccentricity binaries formed at 10^{-4} Hz, would disprove the distinguishability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05537 by Enrico Barausse, Federico Pozzoli, Ran Chen, Riccardo Buscicchio, Rohit S. Chandramouli.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Characteristic strain spectrum view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: The SGWB spectra view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The SGWB spectra view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Marginalized posteriors for the eccentric model across various initial eccentricity view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Posteriors on view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Marginalized posteriors on view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Constraint on view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Recovery of injected stochastic signals undergoing dynamical friction using the eccentric model for three view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Top: SGWB spectra view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Posterior predictives of eccentricity model com view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Posterior predictives of the power law model view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Astrophysical formation channels of stellar-mass binary black holes (sBBHs) can induce significant orbital eccentricities in their early inspiral. We analyze the implications on the stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) from unresolved sBBHs, which can be detected with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). We develop an improved SGWB model for the case of an idealized Dirac-delta eccentricity distribution, and extend it to the more astrophysical case of a thermal distribution. Using a fully Bayesian framework, we find that, if all binaries have a high initial eccentricity $e_0 \gtrsim 0.9$ at an orbital frequency of $f_{\rm orb} = 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{Hz}$, the resulting SGWB can be robustly distinguished from a background of quasi-circular sBBHs. For a thermal eccentricity distribution, the SGWB is consistent with a circular model when binaries form at $f_{\rm orb} = 10^{-5}\,\mathrm{Hz}$, but leads to significant systematic biases if formation occurs at $f_{\rm orb} = 10^{-4}\,\mathrm{Hz}$. We also show that, when eccentricity is properly accounted for, environmental effects such as dynamical friction can be distinguished from vacuum evolution, but only for sufficiently dense environments with gas densities $\rho \gtrsim 10^{-7}\,\mathrm{g\,cm^{-3}}$. Finally, we show that a LISA detection of the sBBH SGWB would place an upper bound on the maximum eccentricity of the sBBH population in the band of ground-based detectors, with direct implications for template modeling and data analysis. Our results highlight the importance of incorporating eccentricity in SGWB modeling to enable accurate astrophysical interpretation of LISA observations.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops improved models for the stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) from stellar-mass binary black holes (sBBHs) with eccentricity, considering both idealized Dirac-delta and thermal eccentricity distributions. Using a fully Bayesian framework, it claims that high initial eccentricities (e0 ≳ 0.9 at f_orb = 10^{-4} Hz) produce an SGWB that can be robustly distinguished from quasi-circular backgrounds with LISA; for thermal distributions the outcome depends on formation frequency, with biases at 10^{-4} Hz but consistency at 10^{-5} Hz. It further examines distinguishability of environmental effects like dynamical friction and derives an upper bound on maximum eccentricity in the ground-based detector band.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the work is significant for LISA astrophysical interpretation because it quantifies how eccentricity affects SGWB modeling and can lead to systematic biases or new constraints. The fully Bayesian framework and explicit quantification of distinctions (via Bayes factors) are clear strengths that support reproducible inference. The results underscore the importance of eccentricity for accurate vacuum vs. environmental separation, though generality is limited by the specific distributions and frequencies adopted.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §4 (Bayesian analysis)] The headline distinction result (abstract and §4) is conditioned on either a Dirac-delta eccentricity distribution with e0 ≳ 0.9 at exactly f_orb = 10^{-4} Hz or a thermal distribution at one of two discrete formation frequencies. Without marginalization over a continuous prior on formation frequency or a mixture of isolated/dynamical channels, the higher-harmonic excess power can be diluted, allowing the composite spectrum to be reabsorbed into a circular model with adjusted amplitude; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported Bayes-factor separation.
  2. [§3, §4] §3 (SGWB model) and §4: the manuscript provides no explicit validation of the eccentric energy spectrum against numerical waveforms, nor error budgets on how the improved model affects parameter degeneracies or fitting freedoms when compared to the circular baseline.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract omits any reference to validation procedures, error budgets, or the precise range of formation frequencies explored.
  2. [§2, §3] Notation for the eccentricity distribution function and the mapping from initial f_orb to observed frequencies should be stated with an explicit equation in the main text to aid reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. Their comments highlight important considerations regarding the scope of our idealized models and the robustness of our conclusions. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating where revisions will be made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract, §4 (Bayesian analysis)] The headline distinction result (abstract and §4) is conditioned on either a Dirac-delta eccentricity distribution with e0 ≳ 0.9 at exactly f_orb = 10^{-4} Hz or a thermal distribution at one of two discrete formation frequencies. Without marginalization over a continuous prior on formation frequency or a mixture of isolated/dynamical channels, the higher-harmonic excess power can be diluted, allowing the composite spectrum to be reabsorbed into a circular model with adjusted amplitude; this assumption is load-bearing for the reported Bayes-factor separation.

    Authors: We agree that the reported Bayes-factor separations are demonstrated for the specific eccentricity distributions and discrete formation frequencies considered in the paper. These cases are explicitly chosen as illustrative examples motivated by possible astrophysical formation scenarios, as stated in the abstract and §4. We acknowledge that a full marginalization over a continuous prior on formation frequency or a mixture of channels could dilute the higher-harmonic features, potentially reducing the distinguishability. In the revised manuscript we will add an expanded discussion in §4 and the conclusions section that (i) explicitly flags this limitation, (ii) provides a qualitative estimate of how the Bayes factors could change under broader priors, and (iii) frames our results as demonstrating the conditions under which eccentricity-induced features can become detectable rather than claiming universal applicability. We do not perform the full marginalization here, as it would require a substantially expanded parameter space and computational effort beyond the scope of the present work, but the added discussion will make the load-bearing assumptions transparent. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§3, §4] §3 (SGWB model) and §4: the manuscript provides no explicit validation of the eccentric energy spectrum against numerical waveforms, nor error budgets on how the improved model affects parameter degeneracies or fitting freedoms when compared to the circular baseline.

    Authors: The eccentric SGWB model in §3 is constructed from the analytic Peters-Mathews harmonic decomposition of the radiated energy, which is the standard approach for population-level stochastic-background calculations at LISA frequencies. While we did not include a direct side-by-side comparison to numerical-relativity waveforms in the original submission, the underlying single-binary expressions have been validated in the literature for the eccentricity and frequency range we consider. In the revised manuscript we will (i) add a dedicated paragraph in §3 that cites existing numerical validations of the eccentric energy spectrum for individual binaries and discusses the regime of validity of the analytic approximation, and (ii) include a brief error-budget subsection that quantifies the expected fractional uncertainty in the SGWB amplitude and its effect on the parameter degeneracies between the eccentric and circular models. This will clarify how the additional fitting freedom in the eccentric model influences the Bayes-factor comparisons reported in §4. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper constructs its SGWB model by integrating standard vacuum binary evolution equations (with eccentricity as an explicit input parameter) over redshift, mass, and frequency distributions. The reported distinctions and Bayes factors are conditional on the chosen Dirac-delta or thermal eccentricity distributions and the two discrete formation frequencies; these are not derived from the model but supplied as test cases. No equations reduce by construction to fitted quantities inside the paper, no load-bearing self-citations close a loop, and no ansatz is smuggled via prior work. The derivation remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard binary-evolution equations plus two specific eccentricity distributions and two discrete formation frequencies chosen to bracket astrophysical scenarios; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • initial eccentricity e0
    Set to values ≳0.9 to demonstrate distinguishability; acts as a threshold parameter in the model.
  • formation orbital frequency
    Fixed at 10^{-4} Hz or 10^{-5} Hz to test formation-channel dependence.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Stellar-mass black hole binaries evolve according to vacuum general-relativity inspiral with optional environmental drag
    Invoked throughout the SGWB calculation as the baseline dynamical model.
  • domain assumption Eccentricity at formation follows either a Dirac-delta or thermal distribution
    Used to generate the two families of SGWB spectra.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5638 in / 1468 out tokens · 29805 ms · 2026-05-08T07:44:38.665165+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Rational Power Law

    TheblackdottedcurveshowstheBayesianpower-law sensitivity (BPLS), adopting a Bayes-factor threshold of 10 with a 10% noise level uncertainty. The grey shaded region marks the frequency range outside the LISA sen- sitivity band. In the remainder of this paper, we adoptlog 10Avac = −10.3036(corresponding toAvac = 4.97×10−11), as specified by the “Rational Po...

  2. [2]

    How well can we measure the initial eccentricity from a LISA detection of the stochastic signal if sBBHs fol- lowed a Dirac-delta distribution fore0? What is the impact of the Galactic foreground in inferring such signals?

  3. [3]

    If sBBHs eccentricity follows a thermal distribution, are there significant biases when performing param- eter estimation with a circular model? Further, can we recover informative posteriors inferring on a model that assumes a Dirac-delta distribution for the eccen- tricity?

  4. [4]

    resid- ual

    How does including eccentricity in the vacuum SGWB model affect the detection of environmental effects, such as dynamical friction? In Sec. IIIA, we provide an overview of the Bayesian methods used. We then address each of the above ques- tions in Secs. IIIB, IIIC, and IIID respectively. A. Bayesian inference of LISA stochastic signals We employ the codeb...

    2000

  5. [5]

    3 of Ref

    Alternative derivation of eccentric SGWB For a single eccentric binary, there can be interfer- ence between Fourier harmonics due to radiation reac- tion, which for example is clearly shown in the Fourier spectrum of the waveform in Fig. 3 of Ref. [68]. Qualita- tively, such interference effects happens when the evo- lution of a given harmonic exceeds the...

  6. [6]

    = 3/128(2πMforb(t∗ 2))−5/3, which is found in textbooks, such as Ref. [45]. From Phinney’s theorem [27], we have that dEGW dfr = 2π2 D2 L (1 +z) 2f2 × ( ⟨ ⏐⏐˜h+(fr) ⏐⏐2 ⟩+⟨ ⏐⏐˜h×(fr) ⏐⏐2 ⟩ )⏐⏐⏐ fr=f(1+z) ,(A4) where⟨X⟩represents an average over the binary’s orbital orientation: ⟨X⟩=1 8π2 ∫ π 0 dιsinι ∫ 2π 0 dβ ∫ 2π 0 dℓc.(A5) 15 We first compute ⏐⏐˜h+,×(f...

  7. [7]

    From Ref

    Validity of neglecting higher PN contributions In this work, we have neglected PN corrections to the modelingoftheSGWB.Typically, thePNcorrectionsget enhanced as eccentricity increases, and thus one needs to determine at what eccentricity the leading PN approxi- mation breaks down or is inaccurate. From Ref. [71], the ratio of the instantaneous orbit-aver...

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019

  11. [11]

    R.Abbottet al.(KAGRA,LIGOScientific, Virgo),Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro- 18 ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    The first gravitational-wave source from the isolated evolution of two 40-100 Msun stars

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  16. [16]

    Mandel and A

    I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Phys. Rept.955, 1 (2022), arXiv:1806.05820 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. D93, 084029 (2016), arXiv:1602.02444 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Eccentric Black Hole Mergers Forming in Globular Clusters

    J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D97, 103014 (2018), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Eccentric Black Hole Mergers in Dense Star Clusters: The Role of Binary-Binary Encounters

    M. Zevin, J. Samsing, C. Rodriguez, C.-J. Haster, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astrophys. J.871, 91 (2019), arXiv:1810.00901 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    S. Naoz, W. M. Farr, Y. Lithwick, F. A. Rasio, and J. Teyssandier, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.431, 2155 (2013), arXiv:1210.2155 [astro-ph.EP]

    work page arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    Antonini, S

    F. Antonini, S. Toonen, and A. S. Hamers, Astrophys. J. 841, 77 (2017), arXiv:1703.06614 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Levin, Mon

    Y. Levin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.374, 515 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0307084

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    Bartos, B

    I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, and S. Márka, As- trophys. J.835, 165 (2017), arXiv:1602.03831 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  24. [24]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and B. Kocsis, Astrophys. J.898, 25 (2020), arXiv:1912.08218 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Zevin, S

    M. Zevinet al., Astrophys. J.910, 152 (2021), arXiv:2011.10057 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    The promise of multi-band gravitational wave astronomy

    A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 231102 (2016), arXiv:1602.06951 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  28. [28]

    Barausse and L

    E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  29. [29]

    Can environmental effects spoil precision gravitational-wave astrophysics?

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  30. [30]

    Toubianaet al., Phys

    A. Toubianaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 101105 (2021), arXiv:2010.06056 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Caputo, L

    A. Caputo, L. Sberna, A. Toubiana, S. Babak, E. Ba- rausse, S. Marsat, and P. Pani, Astrophys. J.892, 90 (2020), arXiv:2001.03620 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    Sberna et al., Phys

    L. Sbernaet al., Phys. Rev. D106, 064056 (2022), arXiv:2205.08550 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal processing strategies and sensitivities

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 1999

  34. [34]

    E. S. Phinney, arXiv preprint (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0108028

    work page arXiv 2001

  35. [35]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  36. [36]

    Babaket al., JCAP08, 034, arXiv:2304.06368 [astro- ph.CO]

    S. Babaket al., JCAP08, 034, arXiv:2304.06368 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv

  37. [37]

    Lehoucq, I

    G. Lehoucq, I. Dvorkin, O. S. Salafia, and S. Grimm, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 4378 (2024), arXiv:2302.02665 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Pieroni and E

    M. Pieroni and E. Barausse, JCAP07, 021, [Erratum: JCAP 09, E01 (2020)], arXiv:2004.01135 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    R. Chen, R. S. Chandramouli, F. Pozzoli, R. Buscic- chio, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D112, 084053 (2025), arXiv:2507.00694 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Bonetti, F

    M. Bonetti, F. Haardt, A. Sesana, and E. Ba- rausse, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.477, 3910 (2018), arXiv:1709.06088 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2018

  41. [41]

    Bonetti, A

    M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, and F. Haardt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.477, 2599 (2018), arXiv:1709.06095 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Post-Newtonian Evolution of Massive Black Hole Triplets in Galactic Nuclei: IV. Implications for LISA

    M. Bonetti, A. Sesana, F. Haardt, E. Barausse, and M. Colpi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 4044 (2019), arXiv:1812.01011 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev.131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  44. [44]

    Enoki and M

    M. Enoki and M. Nagashima, Prog. Theor. Phys.117, 241 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609377

    work page arXiv 2007

  45. [45]

    S. Chen, A. Sesana, and W. Del Pozzo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470, 1738 (2017), arXiv:1612.00455 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Bonetti and A

    M. Bonetti and A. Sesana, Phys. Rev. D102, 103023 (2020), arXiv:2007.14403 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Liang, Z.-Y

    Z.-C. Liang, Z.-Y. Li, and Y.-M. Hu, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2510.25353 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    J. H. Jeans, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.79, 408 (1919)

    1919

  49. [49]

    V. A. Ambartsumian, Astron. Zh.14, 207 (1937)

    1937

  50. [50]

    D. C. Heggie, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.173, 729 (1975)

    1975

  51. [51]

    E. A. Huerta, S. T. McWilliams, J. R. Gair, and S. R. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D92, 063010 (2015), arXiv:1504.00928 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2015

  52. [52]

    Maggiore, Phys

    M. Maggiore, Phys. Rept.331, 283 (2000), arXiv:gr- qc/9909001

    work page arXiv 2000

  53. [53]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology(Oxford University Press, 2018)

    2018

  54. [54]

    Post-Circular Expansion of Eccentric Binary Inspirals: Fourier-Domain Waveforms in the Stationary Phase Approximation

    N. Yunes, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D80, 084001 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 109901 (2014)], arXiv:0906.0313 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  55. [55]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  56. [56]

    Pozzoli, J

    F. Pozzoli, J. Gair, R. Buscicchio, and L. Speri, Phys. Rev. D112, 064035 (2025), arXiv:2412.10468 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Kocsis, A

    B. Kocsis, A. Ray, and S. Portegies Zwart, Astrophys. J. 752, 67 (2012), arXiv:1110.6172 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2012

  58. [58]

    Pozzoli, R

    F. Pozzoli, R. Buscicchio, A. Klein, and D. Chirico, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2506.22542 (2025), arXiv:2506.22542 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

    Buscicchio, Federicopoz- zoli/bahamas: Zenodo release (2025)

    FedericoPozzoli and R. Buscicchio, Federicopoz- zoli/bahamas: Zenodo release (2025)

    2025

  60. [60]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, Living Reviews in Rel- ativity24, 1 (2021), arXiv:gr-qc/0409034 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    Quang Nam, Y

    D. Quang Nam, Y. Lemière, A. Petiteau, J.-B. Bayle, O. Hartwig, J. Martino, and M. Staab, Phys. Rev. D 108, 082004 (2023), arXiv:2211.02539 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    Karnesis, S

    N. Karnesis, S. Babak, M. Pieroni, N. Cornish, and T. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D104, 043019 (2021), arXiv:2103.14598 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    M. J. Williams, nessai: Nested sampling with artificial intelligence (2021)

    2021

  64. [64]

    M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Phys. Rev. D103, 103006 (2021), arXiv:2102.11056 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.4, 035011 (2023), arXiv:2302.08526 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    M. A. Shaikh, V. Varma, H. P. Pfeiffer, A. Ramos- Buades, and M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. D108, 104007 (2023), arXiv:2302.11257 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    M. A. S. Martinez, G. Fragione, K. Kremer, S. Chatter- jee, C. L. Rodriguez, J. Samsing, C. S. Ye, N. C. Weath- 19 erford, M. Zevin, S. Naoz, and F. A. Rasio, ApJ903, 67 (2020), arXiv:2009.08468 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  68. [68]

    Z. Xuan, S. Naoz, B. Kocsis, and E. Michaely, Phys. Rev. D110, 023020 (2024), arXiv:2403.04832 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Gupte, M

    N. Gupte, M. C. Miller, R. Udall, S. Bini, A. Buo- nanno, J. Gair, A. Gamboa, L. Pompili, A. Ramos- Buades, M. Dax, S. R. Green, A. Kofler, J. Macke, and B. Schölkopf, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2603.29019 (2026), arXiv:2603.29019 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    R. S. Chandramouli and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D105, 064009 (2022), arXiv:2107.00741 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Roedig, M

    C. Roedig, M. Dotti, A. Sesana, J. Cuadra, and M. Colpi, MNRAS415, 3033 (2011), arXiv:1104.3868 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2011

  72. [72]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, S. Goorachurn, M. Siwek, and C. J. Moore, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.534, L58 (2024), arXiv:2407.03869 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    O’Neill, D

    D. O’Neill, D. J. D’Orazio, J. Samsing, and M. E. Pessah, Astrophys. J.974, 216 (2024), arXiv:2401.16166 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Rozner, T

    M. Rozner, T. A. Clarke, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and J. Samsing, arXiv (2026), arXiv:2602.20110 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  75. [75]

    A Fourier Domain Waveform for Non-Spinning Binaries with Arbitrary Eccentricity

    B. Moore, T. Robson, N. Loutrel, and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 235006 (2018), arXiv:1807.07163 [gr- qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    Abramowitz and I

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

    1972

  77. [77]

    G. N. Watson,A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Func- tions(Cambridge University Press, 1944)

    1944

  78. [78]

    K. G. Arun, L. Blanchet, B. R. Iyer, and M. S. S. Qu- sailah, Phys. Rev. D77, 064035 (2008), arXiv:0711.0302 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2008

  79. [79]

    Damour and N

    T. Damour and N. Deruelle, Annales de L’Institut Henri Poincare Section (A) Physique Theorique43, 107 (1985)

    1985

  80. [80]

    Gamboa, M

    A. Gamboa, M. Khalil, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 112, 044037 (2025), arXiv:2412.12831 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.