pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21955 · v1 · pith:6NZBZESKnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.HE

On the Presence of a Tertiary Compact Object in GW190814

Lalit Pathak , Hemantakumar Phurailatpam , Achamveedu Gopakumar This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 06:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavesGW190814line-of-sight accelerationresidual eccentricityBayesian inferencewaveform degeneracytertiary compact objectcompact binary mergers
0
0 comments X

The pith

The full 32-second GW190814 data show no evidence for line-of-sight acceleration from a tertiary compact object.

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

This paper tests whether the gravitational-wave signal GW190814 carries imprints of a third massive body that accelerates the merging pair along our line of sight. The authors add leading-order corrections for both this acceleration and residual orbital eccentricity to the standard IMRPhenomXPHM waveform model, then run Bayesian inference on the complete data segment. They obtain Bayes factors well below one for models that include either or both effects, indicating the data favor the baseline waveform without them. The fits also reveal a tight correlation between the acceleration and eccentricity parameters, which arises because their contributions to the waveform phase share nearly identical frequency dependence. This degeneracy explains why shorter data excerpts can produce misleading non-zero estimates for either parameter.

Core claim

Bayesian inference on 32 seconds of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data for GW190814, using the IMRPhenomXPHM family augmented with leading-order line-of-sight acceleration and residual eccentricity corrections, yields Bayes factors of approximately 0.22 for a LOSA-only model and 0.64 for the joint model relative to the baseline; the joint run produces correlated posteriors with representative values a/c approximately -2.8 x 10^{-3} s^{-1} and e_0 approximately 0.11, demonstrating that the data provide no significant evidence for either effect and that their similar frequency dependence in the Fourier phase creates a strong degeneracy.

What carries the argument

Leading-order analytic corrections to the Fourier phase of the inspiral waveform for line-of-sight acceleration and residual orbital eccentricity, whose shared frequency dependence produces a parameter degeneracy in Bayesian estimation.

If this is right

  • The lack of support for LOSA in the full data segment is consistent with prior analyses that used comparable data lengths but tensions with results obtained from only 4 seconds of the event.
  • Joint modeling of LOSA and eccentricity produces informative yet strongly correlated posteriors that still do not improve the evidence over the baseline model.
  • A small residual eccentricity of order 0.1 can produce phase shifts that closely mimic those expected from line-of-sight acceleration in short-duration signals.
  • The observed degeneracy arises directly from the similar frequency scaling of the two effects in the inspiral phase and accounts for apparent non-zero parameter values in joint fits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Events with longer inspiral segments or higher signal-to-noise ratios could break the LOSA-eccentricity degeneracy and yield decisive evidence for or against a tertiary companion.
  • The same phase similarity may bias parameter recovery in other short-lived compact-binary signals unless both effects are modeled jointly.
  • Direct electromagnetic detection of a tertiary object or a future multi-messenger event with measurable higher harmonics would provide an independent test of the current conclusions.

Load-bearing premise

The leading-order analytic corrections for line-of-sight acceleration and residual eccentricity are sufficient to capture the dominant phase contributions without higher-order terms or full numerical-relativity waveforms becoming necessary for the 32-second data segment.

What would settle it

A re-run of the identical Bayesian analysis on the same 32-second segment but using numerical-relativity waveforms that incorporate higher-order LOSA and eccentricity terms, checking whether the Bayes factors and parameter correlation remain unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21955 by Achamveedu Gopakumar, Hemantakumar Phurailatpam, Lalit Pathak.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distributions of the LOSA parameter (a/c) for GW190814 obtained from LOSA-only analysis using different signal durations. The blue histogram shows results using a 32 second data segment, while the red histogram corresponds to a 4 seconds segment. Vertical dashed lines indicate the 90% credible intervals for each case. The green dashed-dotted line marks the result reported by Hendriks et al. (2026… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions of the network matched￾filter SNR for GW190814 under three waveform models: a quasi-circular baseline model (VAN), a LOSA-only model, and a LOSA model combined with residual orbital eccen￾tricity e0 (LOSA + Ecc), as defined by Equations 4 and 5. Results are shown both without and with HOMs. Each violin plot represents the posterior distribution for a given model, with width indicati… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior distributions of the LOSA parameter (a/c) obtained from a joint analysis for GW190814 that incorporates dominant-order LOSA and residual eccentricity effects into the IMRPhenomXPHM waveform family, while employing two different signal durations. The blue histogram corresponds to a 32-second analysis, while the red histogram shows the results for a 4-second analysis (vertical dashed lines indicate… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions for a few selected source parameters of GW190814 obtained from a joint analysis that incorporates dominant-order LOSA and residual eccentricity effects into the IMRPhenomXPHM waveform family, employing 32 seconds of data. Shown are the component masses (m1, m2), luminosity distance (dL), LOSA parameter a/c, and the initial eccentricity e0. The diagonal panels display marginalized on… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Zero-noise injection studies for GW190814-like signals using modified IMRPhenomXPHM waveform models including LOSA and eccentricity corrections. Blue contours correspond to analyses including HOMs, while red contours correspond to analyses restricted to the dominant (2, 2) mode. Panel (a) shows the recovery of a quasi-circular and non-accelerating injection using a LOSA-only recovery model. Panel (b) shows… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries are sensitive to line-of-sight acceleration (LOSA) induced by a massive companion in their vicinity. Interestingly, the leading-order contributions of LOSA and residual orbital eccentricity to the Fourier phase of the inspiral waveform exhibit similar frequency dependence, raising the possibility that a small eccentricity could mimic LOSA effects in transient GW events such as GW190814. We perform Bayesian inference using the IMRPhenomXPHM waveform family as the baseline LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA waveform model, augmented with leading-order LOSA and residual eccentricity corrections while using 32 seconds of data associated with GW190814. For a LOSA-only analysis, we find no evidence for a non-zero LOSA effect in GW190814, with a Bayes factor relative to the baseline model of approximately 0.22, consistent with the findings of Hendriks et al. and in tension with the claim by Yang et al., who employed only 4 seconds of GW190814 data. In a joint analysis that includes both leading-order LOSA and eccentricity effects, we obtain informative posteriors for both parameters, with representative values a/c approximately -2.8 x 10^{-3} s^{-1} and e_0 approximately 0.11. However, the corresponding Bayes factor relative to the baseline model is approximately 0.64, suggesting that the 32-second data do not provide significant evidence for either LOSA or residual eccentricity in GW190814. Further, our Bayesian runs reveal a strong correlation between the LOSA and eccentricity parameters, indicating a significant degeneracy in their imprint on the inspiral phase. This finding is consistent with our theoretical arguments and most likely explains the non-zero parameter estimates obtained in the joint analysis.

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 analyzes GW190814 for possible line-of-sight acceleration (LOSA) due to a tertiary compact object, while accounting for potential residual eccentricity. Using Bayesian inference on 32 seconds of data with the IMRPhenomXPHM waveform family augmented by leading-order analytic corrections for LOSA and eccentricity, the authors find Bayes factors of approximately 0.22 for LOSA-only and 0.64 for the joint model relative to the baseline, indicating no significant evidence. They report informative posteriors with a strong degeneracy between the LOSA parameter (a/c ≈ -2.8 × 10^{-3} s^{-1}) and eccentricity (e0 ≈ 0.11), consistent with theoretical expectations for similar frequency dependence in the phase corrections.

Significance. If the leading-order phase corrections are adequate for the data segment and parameter ranges, the results provide a transparent resolution of tensions between prior claims (Yang et al. vs. Hendriks et al.) by demonstrating that apparent LOSA signals can arise from eccentricity degeneracy rather than a tertiary object. The explicit reporting of Bayes factors, posterior correlations, and use of publicly documented waveforms adds reproducibility value to the assessment of high-mass binary events.

major comments (1)
  1. The central results (Bayes factors of ~0.22 and ~0.64, plus the reported degeneracy) rest on the assumption that leading-order LOSA and eccentricity corrections suffice. For the joint-analysis posterior e0 ≈ 0.11 over the 32-second segment, higher-order eccentricity phase terms (O(e^2) and beyond) have different frequency scalings and could be comparable in magnitude to the leading term within the relevant frequency band; without an explicit truncation-error estimate or comparison to higher-order models, the reliability of the degeneracy and model-comparison conclusions is not fully established.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract refers to 'representative values' for a/c and e0; reporting the median and 90% credible intervals from the joint posterior would improve precision and allow direct comparison with other studies.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for identifying a substantive point regarding the validity of our leading-order approximations. We address the comment below and will incorporate revisions to strengthen the presentation of our results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central results (Bayes factors of ~0.22 and ~0.64, plus the reported degeneracy) rest on the assumption that leading-order LOSA and eccentricity corrections suffice. For the joint-analysis posterior e0 ≈ 0.11 over the 32-second segment, higher-order eccentricity phase terms (O(e^2) and beyond) have different frequency scalings and could be comparable in magnitude to the leading term within the relevant frequency band; without an explicit truncation-error estimate or comparison to higher-order models, the reliability of the degeneracy and model-comparison conclusions is not fully established.

    Authors: We agree that this is a valid concern. The leading-order eccentricity correction is the term whose frequency dependence most closely matches that of the LOSA correction, which is why the degeneracy appears already at this order; however, for a posterior value e0 ≈ 0.11 the O(e^2) and higher contributions can become non-negligible over parts of the 20–200 Hz band sampled by the 32 s segment. Our central claim—that the data do not favor either the LOSA-only or the joint model (Bayes factors 0.22 and 0.64)—is nevertheless insensitive to this detail, because any additional phase terms would enter the same model-comparison exercise and are unlikely to reverse the conclusion that neither effect is required. To make the limitation explicit, we will add to the revised manuscript a short truncation-error discussion: we will evaluate the relative size of the next-to-leading eccentricity term on the posterior samples and quote the maximum fractional phase contribution across the frequency band. This will quantify the regime in which the leading-order degeneracy remains a reliable diagnostic. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Bayesian analysis of external GW data with public waveform model shows no circularity

full rationale

The paper's central results (Bayes factors ~0.22 and ~0.64, posteriors for a/c and e0, and observed parameter degeneracy) are outputs of standard Bayesian inference applied to 32 seconds of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data for GW190814 using the external IMRPhenomXPHM family plus leading-order analytic corrections. These corrections and the data are independent inputs; the reported values and correlations are not defined into the model or forced by self-citation. No load-bearing self-citations, self-definitional steps, or fitted inputs renamed as predictions appear in the derivation chain. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the leading-order LOSA and eccentricity phase corrections and on the assumption that the IMRPhenomXPHM baseline plus these corrections adequately describes the 32-second inspiral segment.

free parameters (2)
  • LOSA parameter a/c
    Fitted jointly to the data in the combined model; representative posterior value reported as approximately -2.8 x 10^{-3} s^{-1}
  • initial eccentricity e_0
    Fitted jointly to the data; representative posterior value reported as approximately 0.11
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Leading-order analytic corrections for LOSA and residual eccentricity dominate the inspiral phase over higher-order terms for the frequencies and durations considered
    Invoked when augmenting the IMRPhenomXPHM waveform family

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5869 in / 1457 out tokens · 94612 ms · 2026-05-22T06:07:37.480382+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.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 113 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2015, Class

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

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

  2. [2]

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

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025a, GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18082 3 The luminosity distance is recovered accurately in the HOMs- inclusive analysis

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

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

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 995, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06 —. 2025c. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18082 —. 2025d. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18081 —. 2025e. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06 2041

  4. [4]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 —. 2016b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 818, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l22

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2041

  5. [5]

    2017, Phys

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 13 (a) Recovery of a non-accelerating and non-eccentric injection using a LOSA-only recovery model. (b) Recovery of a non-accelerating and non-eccentric injection us- ing a joint LOSA and eccentricity recovery model. (c) Recovery of an accelerating and eccentri...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  6. [6]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 851, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9f0c —. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 —. 2020a, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9f0c 2041

  7. [7]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2041

  8. [8]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048

  9. [9]

    2023b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2023b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 267, 29, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

  10. [10]

    2015, Class

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2014

  11. [11]

    Akutsu et al

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2020, Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.05574

    work page arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

    Creighton, J. D. E. 2012, Physical Review D, 85, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.85.122006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.122006 2012

  13. [13]

    Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, Laser Interferometer Space Antenna. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00786

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    2019, Astrophys

    Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  15. [15]

    2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 464, L36–L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    Askar, A., Szkudlarek, M., Gondek-Rosi´ nska, D., Giersz, M., & Bulik, T. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 464, L36–L40, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slw177

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw177 2016

  16. [16]

    2013, Phys

    Aso, Y., Michimura, Y., Somiya, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 043007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043007 2013

  17. [17]

    A., Kremer, K., et al

    Atallah, D., Trani, A. A., Kremer, K., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4227–4250, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1634

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1634 2023

  18. [18]

    Bae, Y.-B., Kim, C., & Lee, H. M. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 440, 2714–2725, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu381

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu381 2014

  19. [19]

    A., & Helmi, A

    Banerjee, S., Baumgardt, H., & Kroupa, P. 2009, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 402, 371–380, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15880.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15880.x 2009

  20. [20]

    2017, , 835, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & M´ arka, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 2017

  21. [21]

    E., et al

    Belczynski, K., Repetto, S., Holz, D. E., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 819, 108, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/108

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/819/2/108 2016

  22. [22]

    A., Tiwari, A., Shaikh, M

    Bhat, S. A., Tiwari, A., Shaikh, M. A., & Kapadia, S. J. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 124004, doi: 10.1103/rstg-6n6y

    work page doi:10.1103/rstg-6n6y 2025

  23. [23]

    Wiseman, A. G. 1995, Phys. Rev. Lett., 74, 3515, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.74.3515

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.74.3515 1995

  24. [24]

    2017, Physical Review D, 96, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.96.044011

    Jetzer, P. 2017, Physical Review D, 96, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.96.044011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.044011 2017

  25. [25]

    2017, Phys

    Bonvin, C., Caprini, C., Sturani, R., & Tamanini, N. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 044029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044029

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.044029 2017

  26. [26]

    Boyle, M., Hemberger, D., Iozzo, D. A. B., et al. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 195006, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab34e2

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab34e2 2019

  27. [27]

    Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2009, Physical Review D, 80, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.80.084043

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.084043 2009

  28. [28]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/31

    Katsavounidis, E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 31, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/31 2017

  29. [29]

    Colleoni, M., Vidal, F. A. R., Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, C., Ak¸ cay, S., & Bera, S. 2024, Fast frequency-domain gravitational waveforms for precessing binaries with a new twist. https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.16721

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Cutler, C., & Flanagan, E. E. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 2658, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.49.2658 1994

  31. [31]

    Damour, T., Gopakumar, A., & Iyer, B. R. 2004, Physical Review D, 70, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.70.064028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.70.064028 2004

  32. [32]

    V., & Sathyaprakash, B

    Dhurandhar, S. V., & Sathyaprakash, B. S. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 1707, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.1707

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.49.1707 1994

  33. [33]

    2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 —

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 —. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 779, 72, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/72

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 2012

  34. [34]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 263, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/263

    Dominik, M., Berti, E., O’Shaughnessy, R., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 806, 263, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/263

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/263 2015

  35. [35]

    J., Poisson, E., & Owen, B

    Droz, S., Knapp, D. J., Poisson, E., & Owen, B. J. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 59, 124016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.124016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.59.124016 1999

  36. [36]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 3630–3645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2499

    Fabj, G., & Samsing, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 3630–3645, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2499

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2499 2024

  37. [37]

    Faye, G., Marsat, S., Blanchet, L., & Iyer, B. R. 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 175004, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/17/175004 15

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/17/175004 2012

  38. [38]

    Finn, L. S. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 5236, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5236

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.46.5236 1992

  39. [39]

    2025, Phys

    Gamboa, A., Buonanno, A., Enficiaud, R., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 044038, doi: 10.1103/jxrc-z298

    work page doi:10.1103/jxrc-z298 2025

  40. [40]

    2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 125002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad4509

    Gerosa, D., & Bellotti, M. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 125002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad4509

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad4509 2024

  41. [41]

    C., & Hamilton, D

    Gultekin, K., Miller, M. C., & Hamilton, D. P. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 616, 221–230, doi: 10.1086/424809

    work page doi:10.1086/424809 2004

  42. [42]

    Hall, E. D. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 90, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10040090

    work page doi:10.3390/galaxies10040090 2022

  43. [43]

    2026, Towards gravitational wave parameter inference for binaries with an eccentric companion

    Hendriks, K., Zwick, L., Saini, P., Tak´ atsy, J., & Samsing, J. 2026, Towards gravitational wave parameter inference for binaries with an eccentric companion. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.14918

    work page arXiv 2026

  44. [44]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.108.104016

    Henry, Q., & Khalil, M. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.108.104016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.104016 2023

  45. [45]

    Statistics and Computing 29(5), 891 (2019) https: //doi.org/10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    Higson, E., Handley, W., Hobson, M., & Lasenby, A. 2019, Statistics and Computing, 29, 891, doi: 10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-018-9844-0 2019

  46. [46]

    2017, Natl

    Hu, W.-R., & Wu, Y.-L. 2017, Natl. Sci. Rev., 4, 685, doi: 10.1093/nsr/nwx116

    work page doi:10.1093/nsr/nwx116 2017

  47. [47]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 426–470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1630

    Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., Costa, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 524, 426–470, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1630

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad1630 2023

  48. [48]

    2018, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2018, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pty078

    Isoyama, S., Nakano, H., & Nakamura, T. 2018, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2018, doi: 10.1093/ptep/pty078

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/pty078 2018

  49. [49]

    Kacanja, K., Soni, K., & Nitz, A. H. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, doi: 10.1103/jnsc-783p

    work page doi:10.1103/jnsc-783p 2025

  50. [50]

    2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 319–328, doi: 10.1086/309400

    Kalogera, V. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 541, 319–328, doi: 10.1086/309400

    work page doi:10.1086/309400 2000

  51. [51]

    Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO

    Kawamura, S., Ando, M., Seto, N., et al. 2020, Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.13545

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  52. [52]

    J., & Brubaker, M

    Kobyzev, I., Prince, S. J., & Brubaker, M. A. 2021, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43, 3964–3979, doi: 10.1109/tpami.2020.2992934

    work page doi:10.1109/tpami.2020.2992934 2021

  53. [53]

    2023, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.0, v2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7600689

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2023, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.0, v2.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7600689

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.7600689 2023

  54. [54]

    H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & van de Ven, G

    Lee, W. H., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., & van de Ven, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 720, 953–975, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/953 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, & KAGRA Collaboration. 2018, LVK Algorithm Library -

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/720/1/953 2010

  55. [55]

    LIGO A lgorithm L ibrary - LALS uite

    LALSuite, Free software (GPL), doi: 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16 LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration. 2020, GW190814 posterior samples, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2000183/public

    work page doi:10.7935/gt1w-fz16 2020

  56. [56]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f —

    Liu, B., & Lai, D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f —. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 502, 2049–2064, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab178

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f 2018

  57. [57]

    2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    Luo, J., Chen, L.-S., Duan, H.-Z., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 035010, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/3/035010 2016

  58. [58]

    , keywords =

    Mandel, I., & Farmer, A. 2022, Physics Reports, 955, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003 2022

  59. [59]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 460–469, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x 2012

  60. [60]

    E., Bellovary, J., et al

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

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5 2018

  61. [61]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 834, 200, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/834/2/200

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

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

  62. [62]

    P., Ossokine, S., Buonanno, A., et al

    Mihaylov, D. P., Ossokine, S., Buonanno, A., et al. 2023, pySEOBNR: a software package for the next generation of effective-one-body multipolar waveform models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.18203

    work page arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8140

    Antoni, A., & Macias, P. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 845, 173, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8140 2017

  64. [64]

    2024, Phys

    Bernuzzi, S. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 084001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.084001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.084001 2024

  65. [65]

    H., Kacanja, K., & Soni, K

    Nitz, A. H., Kacanja, K., & Soni, K. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 082003, doi: 10.1103/k21q-wp8f

    work page doi:10.1103/k21q-wp8f 2026

  66. [66]

    2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1912.02762, 10.48550/arXiv.1912.02762

    Papamakarios, G., Nalisnick, E., Rezende, D. J., Mohamed, S., & Lakshminarayanan, B. 2021, Normalizing Flows for Probabilistic Modeling and Inference. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02762

    work page arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    M., Bae, Y.-B., & Belczynski, K

    Park, D., Kim, C., Lee, H. M., Bae, Y.-B., & Belczynski, K. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 469, 4665–4674, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1015

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1015 2017

  68. [68]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1324–1333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1419

    Peng, P., & Chen, X. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 1324–1333, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1419 2021

  69. [69]

    2025, On constraining initial orbital eccentricity of purely inspiral events

    Tiwari, S. 2025, On constraining initial orbital eccentricity of purely inspiral events. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12697

    work page arXiv 2025

  70. [70]

    2023, Phys

    Pompili, L., Buonanno, A., Estell´ es, H., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 124035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124035 Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 528, L17–L20, doi: 10.1086/312422 16

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.124035 2023

  71. [71]

    2021, Phys

    Pratten, G., Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, C., Colleoni, M., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 104056, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104056

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.104056 2021

  72. [72]

    : The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory

    Punturo, M., et al. 2010, Class. Quant. Grav., 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002 2010

  73. [73]

    2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/l22

    Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Trenti, M., MacLeod, M., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 802, L22, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/l22

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/802/2/l22 2015

  74. [74]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO

    Reitze, D., Adhikari, R. X., Ballmer, S., et al. 2019, Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO. https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.04833

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    J., Tamanini, N., & Toonen, S

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., Tamanini, N., & Toonen, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 064012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.064012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.064012 2018

  76. [76]

    L., & Antonini, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., & Antonini, F. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacea4

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

  77. [77]

    L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016a, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 084029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084029

  78. [78]

    L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 051101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.051101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.115.051101 2015

  79. [79]

    Rasio, F. A. 2016b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 832, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/l2 2041

  80. [80]

    M., et al

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Talbot, C., Biscoveanu, S., et al. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 499, 3295–3319, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2850

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2850 2020

Showing first 80 references.