pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.21640 · v1 · pith:IYN3MITZnew · submitted 2026-05-20 · 🌀 gr-qc

Gravitational Wave Hyperbolic Catalog: Reanalyzing High-Mass Gravitational Wave Signals Using Hyperbolic Waveforms

Jacob Lange , Danilo Chiaramello , Peter Lott , Chad Henshaw , Alessandro Nagar , Richard O'Shaughnessy , Laura Cadonati This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 08:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords gravitational waveshyperbolic encountersblack hole mergersGW190521dynamical capturewaveform modelingLIGO-Virgo data
0
0 comments X

The pith

Reanalysis shows GW190521 is better fit by a hyperbolic black hole encounter than a quasi-circular inspiral.

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

The paper reanalyzes high-mass gravitational wave events from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalogs using a waveform model set up for hyperbolic encounters between black holes. These encounters create short, distinct bursts of radiation unlike the gradual frequency sweeps of orbiting binaries. Most events still favor the standard quasi-circular precessing description, but GW190521 shows a clear preference for the hyperbolic dynamical capture model with a Bayes factor of 3.71. This matters because hyperbolic encounters arise in dense environments through close flybys, opening a formation channel not available to isolated binaries. Further tests with alternate model setups and mock signals support the result while noting that some high-mass precessing signals can resemble dynamical captures.

Core claim

The hyperbolic configuration of the DALI waveform model provides a better fit to GW190521 than the quasi-circular precessing configuration, with ln B^hyp_prec = 3.71^{+0.11}_{-0.11}. This preference persists when the data are compared against quasi-circular non-precessing, eccentric non-precessing, eccentric precessing versions of DALI and the NRSur numerical relativity surrogate. For GW231123 the quasi-circular precessing model is strongly preferred instead, with ln B = -15.80. Injections of mock signals based on the best-fit waveforms indicate that high-mass bound precessing signals can be difficult to separate from dynamical captures during parameter estimation.

What carries the argument

Bayes factor comparisons between the hyperbolic and quasi-circular precessing configurations of the DALI waveform model applied to high-mass LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA events.

If this is right

  • GW190521 would represent a dynamical capture event, showing that close hyperbolic flybys contribute to the observed black hole merger population.
  • High-mass events may need joint analysis with both hyperbolic and eccentric models to avoid misidentifying their formation channel.
  • The overlap between precessing bound signals and hyperbolic signals means some catalog entries could be reclassified with improved models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Dynamical interactions in dense clusters may contribute more to the high-mass end of the black hole merger rate than isolated binary evolution alone would predict.
  • Similar reanalyses of other marginal high-mass events could help separate the two formation channels across the full catalog.

Load-bearing premise

The DALI waveform model in its hyperbolic configuration accurately captures the signal morphology for high-mass events without significant systematic bias relative to the quasi-circular precessing configuration.

What would settle it

An independent numerical relativity simulation of a hyperbolic encounter at the parameters recovered for GW190521 that either reproduces or fails to reproduce the observed LIGO data at the reported Bayes factor level.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.21640 by Alessandro Nagar, Chad Henshaw, Danilo Chiaramello, Jacob Lange, Laura Cadonati, Peter Lott, Richard O'Shaughnessy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Regarding the masses, while there are differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Close hyperbolic encounters between black holes produce distinctive bursts of gravitational radiation with a time-frequency morphology that is qualitatively different from that of quasi-circular inspirals. Expected to arise in dense stellar environments through dynamical interactions, these encounters probe formation channels and mass ranges inaccessible to isolated binary evolution, making them a compelling target for current and next-generation detectors. In this work, we reanalyze \totalevents high-mass events from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalogs using the hyperbolic configuration of the~\dali~waveform model. We compare these with analyses using the quasi-circular, precessing configuration of the same model, computing Bayes factors to evaluate which description is favored by the data. We find that most events strongly to mildly favor the quasi-circular, precessing scenario, except for GW190521. For this event, we find that the signal is best fit by a dynamical capture waveform, with Bayes factor $\ln \mathcal{B}^{\rm hyp}_{\rm prec}=3.71^{+0.11}_{-0.11}$. We confirm this preference via further analyses with~\dali~in different configurations (quasi-circular, non-precessing; eccentric, non-precessing; and eccentric, precessing), as well as one using the quasi-circular, precessing numerical relativity surrogate model \nrsur. We also highlight the results we obtain for GW231123, another high-mass signal linked to evidence of strong precession, for which we find strong preference for the quasi-circular, precessing scenario, with $\ln \mathcal{B}^{\rm hyp}_{\rm prec}=-15.80^{+0.24}_{-0.24}$. The analysis of mock signals generated with the best fitting waveforms for GW190521 and GW231123 suggest that the former might belong to a region of parameter space where high-mass, bound, precessing signals can be hard to distinguish from dynamical captures in parameter estimation.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript reanalyzes high-mass gravitational wave events from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalogs using the hyperbolic configuration of the DALI waveform model. It computes Bayes factors comparing these to analyses with the quasi-circular precessing configuration of the same model. Most events favor the quasi-circular precessing scenario, but GW190521 is found to prefer the dynamical capture (hyperbolic) waveform with ln B^hyp_prec = 3.71^{+0.11}_{-0.11}. This preference is cross-checked with additional DALI configurations (quasi-circular non-precessing, eccentric non-precessing, eccentric precessing) and the NRSur quasi-circular precessing surrogate. For GW231123, the data strongly favor the quasi-circular precessing scenario with ln B^hyp_prec = -15.80^{+0.24}_{-0.24}. Mock-signal injections using the best-fit waveforms indicate a degeneracy region in which high-mass bound precessing signals can be difficult to distinguish from dynamical captures.

Significance. If the central result holds after addressing model systematics, the work would provide evidence that at least one high-mass event arises from a dynamical capture channel in dense environments rather than isolated binary evolution, with implications for black hole formation channels and population studies. The manuscript is credited for using the same waveform family for direct comparisons, performing cross-checks with an independent numerical relativity surrogate, and including mock-signal tests to explore degeneracies.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4 (GW190521 results)] §4 (GW190521 results): The headline claim that the data favor the hyperbolic DALI configuration with ln B^hyp_prec = 3.71^{+0.11}_{-0.11} is load-bearing for the interpretation of dynamical capture. This Bayes factor comparison is only reliable if the hyperbolic and quasi-circular precessing configurations of DALI have comparable fidelity to the brief high-mass burst morphology with no differential systematic bias (e.g., in plunge or ringdown time-frequency content). The abstract already notes a degeneracy region from mock tests, but without explicit quantification of potential model-induced shifts in the evidence ratio, the reported preference may partly reflect differences in how the two configurations approximate the signal rather than an astrophysical distinction. A dedicated validation of relative systematics between the configurations is required to support the central claim.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: Replace the placeholder 'totalevents' with the actual number of high-mass events reanalyzed.
  2. [§5 (mock signals)] Figure captions and §5 (mock signals): Clarify the exact parameter ranges and injection settings used to identify the degeneracy region so that the tests can be reproduced or extended by readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We have carefully considered the major comment regarding the reliability of the Bayes factor for GW190521 and the potential for differential systematics between the DALI configurations. Below we provide a point-by-point response and indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The headline claim that the data favor the hyperbolic DALI configuration with ln B^hyp_prec = 3.71^{+0.11}_{-0.11} is load-bearing for the interpretation of dynamical capture. This Bayes factor comparison is only reliable if the hyperbolic and quasi-circular precessing configurations of DALI have comparable fidelity to the brief high-mass burst morphology with no differential systematic bias (e.g., in plunge or ringdown time-frequency content). The abstract already notes a degeneracy region from mock tests, but without explicit quantification of potential model-induced shifts in the evidence ratio, the reported preference may partly reflect differences in how the two configurations approximate the signal rather than an astrophysical distinction. A dedicated validation of relative systematics between the configurations is required to support the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that ensuring comparable fidelity between the two DALI configurations is crucial for interpreting the Bayes factor as evidence for a dynamical capture origin. The DALI model is constructed such that the hyperbolic and quasi-circular precessing configurations share the same underlying numerical relativity-informed approximations for the merger and ringdown phases, with differences primarily in the pre-merger orbital dynamics. This design choice is intended to minimize differential systematics. Our mock-signal injections, performed using the best-fit waveforms from each configuration and recovered with both, already provide some quantification of the distinguishability and potential biases, as they show that high-mass precessing signals can mimic hyperbolic ones in certain regions of parameter space. However, to more explicitly address the referee's concern about model-induced shifts in the evidence ratio, we have added a new subsection in §4 that reports the results of additional recovery tests where we inject signals generated with one configuration and analyze them with the other, quantifying the resulting shifts in the log-evidence. We believe these additions strengthen the support for our central claim while acknowledging the limitations of current waveform models for high-mass events. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: Bayes factors are direct likelihood ratios on data

full rationale

The paper performs standard Bayesian model selection by computing evidence ratios (Bayes factors) between different configurations of the DALI waveform family (hyperbolic vs. quasi-circular precessing) and an external NRSur surrogate, all applied to the same LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA strain data for events such as GW190521. This process relies on the likelihood function evaluated on the observed data and does not reduce by the paper's own equations to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The reported ln B values are outputs of the sampling algorithm rather than inputs renamed as predictions. No load-bearing uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of known results is present in the derivation chain. The analysis is self-contained against external benchmarks (the data and the waveform models), yielding a normal non-finding of circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions in gravitational-wave Bayesian inference and the accuracy of the DALI waveform family for both hyperbolic and quasi-circular signals in the high-mass regime; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The DALI waveform model accurately represents both hyperbolic encounter and quasi-circular precessing signals without unaccounted systematics in the high-mass regime
    This premise is required for the Bayes factor comparisons to be meaningful and is invoked in the abstract's description of the reanalysis using different DALI configurations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5906 in / 1466 out tokens · 46219 ms · 2026-05-22T08:50:19.922383+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

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · 44 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]. 17

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  3. [3]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), As- trophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), As- trophys. J. Lett.915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    The NANOGrav 15-year Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-Wave Background

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Tests of General Relativity with Binary Black Holes from the second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

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

    work page arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Wette, Publ

    K. Wette, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.40, e035 (2023), arXiv:2305.07106 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    L. S. Finn and D. F. Chernoff, Phys. Rev. D47, 2198 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9301003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  11. [11]

    Capoteet al., Phys

    E. Capoteet al., Phys. Rev. D111, 062002 (2025), arXiv:2411.14607 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), As- trophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    P. C. Peters and J. Matthews, Physical Review131, 435 (1963)

    work page 1963

  15. [15]

    R. O. Hansen, Phys. Rev. D5, 1021 (1972)

    work page 1972

  16. [16]

    Turner, ApJ216, 610 (1977)

    M. Turner, ApJ216, 610 (1977)

    work page 1977

  17. [17]

    Kovacs, S

    J. Kovacs, S. J. and K. S. Thorne, ApJ224, 62 (1978)

    work page 1978

  18. [18]

    Dynamics of Black Hole Pairs I: Periodic Tables

    J. Levin and B. Grossman, Phys. Rev. D79, 043016 (2009), arXiv:0809.3838 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  19. [19]

    Y .-B. Bae, H. M. Lee, G. Kang, and J. Hansen, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084009 (2017), arXiv:1701.01548 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Bae, Y .-H

    Y .-B. Bae, Y .-H. Hyun, and G. Kang, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 261401 (2024), arXiv:2310.18686 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Morr ´as, J

    G. Morr ´as, J. Garc ´ıa-Bellido, and S. Nesseris, Phys. Dark Univ.35, 100932 (2022), arXiv:2110.08000 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    S. Bini, S. Tiwari, Y . Xu, L. Smith, M. Ebersold, G. Principe, M. Haney, P. Jetzer, and G. A. Prodi, Phys. Rev. D109, 042009 (2024), arXiv:2311.06630 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Henshaw, J

    C. Henshaw, J. Lange, P. Lott, R. O’Shaughnessy, and L. Cadonati, Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 24LT01 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    P. Lott, H. Amedi, J. Graves, Y .-B. Bae, M. Millhouse, and L. Cadonati, (2025), arXiv:2512.01476 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Detection Rate Estimates of Gravity-waves Emitted During Parabolic Encounters of Stellar Black Holes in Globular Clusters

    B. Kocsis, M. E. Gaspar, and S. Marka, Astrophys. J.648, 411 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603441

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  26. [26]

    Gravitational waves from stellar encounters

    S. Capozziello and M. De Laurentis, Astropart. Phys.30, 105 (2008), arXiv:0806.4117 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  27. [27]

    Mukherjee, S

    S. Mukherjee, S. Mitra, and S. Chatterjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.508, 5064 (2021), arXiv:2010.00916 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Garc ´ıa-Bellido, S

    J. Garc ´ıa-Bellido, S. Jaraba, and S. Kuroyanagi, Phys. Dark Univ.36, 101009 (2022), arXiv:2109.11376 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Kerachian, S

    M. Kerachian, S. Mukherjee, G. Lukes-Gerakopoulos, and S. Mitra, Astron. Astrophys.684, A17 (2024), arXiv:2311.16634 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel.19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

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

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Science Case for the Einstein Telescope

    M. Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    M. E. Lower, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D98, 083028 (2018), arXiv:1806.05350 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Eccentric Black Hole Mergers Forming in Globular Clusters

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Nature Astron.5, 749 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    The Nucleosynthetic Signature of Population III

    A. Heger and S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.567, 532 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107037

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  38. [38]

    S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.836, 244 (2017), arXiv:1608.08939 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    J. Li, D. Lai, and L. Rodet, Astrophys. J.934, 154 (2022), arXiv:2203.05584 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    P. Lott, C. Faulhaber, J. Brandt, G. Li, H. Bhaskar, and L. Cadonati, ApJ990, 210 (2025), arXiv:2504.16457 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Gravitational wave bursts from Primordial Black Hole hyperbolic encounters

    J. Garcia-Bellido and S. Nesseris, Phys. Dark Univ.18, 123 (2017), arXiv:1706.02111 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  42. [42]

    Gravitational wave energy emission and detection rates of Primordial Black Hole hyperbolic encounters

    J. Garc ´ıa-Bellido and S. Nesseris, Phys. Dark Univ.21, 61 (2018), arXiv:1711.09702 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  43. [43]

    Gamba, M

    R. Gamba, M. Breschi, G. Carullo, S. Albanesi, P. Rettegno, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Nature Astron.7, 11 (2023), arXiv:2106.05575 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Fontbut ´e, T

    J. Fontbut ´e, T. Andrade, R. Luna, J. Calder ´on Bustillo, G. Morr´as, S. Jaraba, J. Garc´ıa-Bellido, and G. L. Izquierdo, Phys. Rev. D111, 044024 (2025), arXiv:2409.16742 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    C.-H. To, R. M. Reddick, E. Rozo, E. Rykoff, and R. H. Wech- sler, Astrophys. J.897, 15 (2020), arXiv:1910.01656 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    Wysocki, R

    D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Lange, and Y .-L. L. Fang, Phys. Rev. D99, 084026 (2019)

    work page 2019

  47. [47]

    Wofford, A

    J. Wofford, A. B. Yelikar, H. Gallagher, E. Champion, D. Wysocki, V . Delfavero, J. Lange, C. Rose, V . Valsan, S. Morisaki, J. Read, C. Henshaw, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D107, 024040 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    K. J. Wagner, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Yelikar, N. Man- ning, D. Fernando, J. Lange, V . Tiwari, A. Fernando, and D. Williams, (2025), arXiv:2505.11655 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Nagar, P

    A. Nagar, P. Rettegno, R. Gamba, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D103, 064013 (2021), arXiv:2009.12857 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  51. [51]

    Nagar, A

    A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Nagar and P

    A. Nagar and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D104, 104004 (2021), arXiv:2108.02043 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Nagar, R

    A. Nagar, R. Gamba, P. Rettegno, V . Fantini, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D110, 084001 (2024), arXiv:2404.05288 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Nagar, D

    A. Nagar, D. Chiaramello, R. Gamba, S. Albanesi, S. Bernuzzi, V . Fantini, M. Panzeri, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D111, 064050 (2025), arXiv:2407.04762 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello, and S. Neogi, Phys. Rev. D110, 024031 (2024), arXiv:2404.15408 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Albanesi, R

    S. Albanesi, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, J. Fontbut ´e, A. Gon- zalez, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D112, L121503 (2025), arXiv:2503.14580 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses

    V . Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Physical Review Research1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Analysis of spin precession in binary black hole systems including quadrupole-monopole interaction

    E. Racine, Phys. Rev. D78, 044021 (2008), arXiv:0803.1820 [gr-qc]. 18

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  59. [59]

    Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins

    P. Ajithet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 241101 (2011), arXiv:0909.2867 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D91, 024043 (2015)

    work page 2015

  61. [61]

    Effective one-body approach to general relativistic two-body dynamics

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  62. [62]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D64, 124013 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0103018

    work page arXiv 2001

  63. [63]

    Improved resummation of post-Newtonian multipolar waveforms from circularized compact binaries

    T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D79, 064004 (2009), arXiv:0811.2069 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  64. [64]

    Nagar, G

    A. Nagar, G. Pratten, G. Riemenschneider, and R. Gamba, Phys. Rev. D101, 024041 (2020), arXiv:1904.09550 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    Nagar, G

    A. Nagar, G. Riemenschneider, G. Pratten, P. Rettegno, and F. Messina, Phys. Rev. D102, 024077 (2020), arXiv:2001.09082 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    A new analytic representation of the ringdown waveform of coalescing spinning black hole binaries

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D90, 024054 (2014), arXiv:1406.0401 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    Faithful Effective-One-Body waveforms of small-mass-ratio coalescing black-hole binaries

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D76, 064028 (2007), arXiv:0705.2519 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  68. [68]

    An improved analytical description of inspiralling and coalescing black-hole binaries

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D79, 081503 (2009), arXiv:0902.0136 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  69. [69]

    Time-domain effective-one-body gravitational waveforms for coalescing compact binaries with nonprecessing spins, tides and self-spin effects

    A. Nagaret al., Phys. Rev. D98, 104052 (2018), arXiv:1806.01772 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Akcay, R

    S. Akcay, R. Gamba, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D103, 024014 (2021), arXiv:2005.05338 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Gamba, S

    R. Gamba, S. Akc ¸ay, S. Bernuzzi, and J. Williams, Phys. Rev. D106, 024020 (2022), arXiv:2111.03675 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  72. [72]

    Strong-Field Scattering of Two Black Holes: Numerics Versus Analytics

    T. Damour, F. Guercilena, I. Hinder, S. Hopper, A. Na- gar, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D89, 081503 (2014), arXiv:1402.7307 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  73. [73]

    Albanesi, A

    S. Albanesi, A. Rashti, F. Zappa, R. Gamba, W. Cook, B. Daszuta, S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, and D. Radice, Phys. Rev. D111, 024069 (2025), arXiv:2405.20398 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    O. Long, H. P. Pfeiffer, A. Buonanno, G. U. Jakobsen, G. Mogull, A. Ramos-Buades, H. R. R ¨uter, L. E. Kid- der, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D112, 124039 (2025), arXiv:2507.08071 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Albanesi, A

    S. Albanesi, A. Nagar, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D104, 024067 (2021), arXiv:2104.10559 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    Andradeet al., Phys

    T. Andradeet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 084025 (2024), arXiv:2307.08697 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Unveiling the Merger Structure of Black Hole Binaries in Generic Planar Orbits,

    G. Carullo, S. Albanesi, A. Nagar, R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, T. Andrade, and J. Trenado, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 101401 (2024), arXiv:2309.07228 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

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

    N. Rao and G. Carullo, (2026), arXiv:2604.15431 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [79]

    GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of 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. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.