Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Parameterizing eccentric waveform residuals by mean anomaly instead of time compresses the surrogate basis by an order of magnitude and yields a 2.77-million-M inspiral surrogate with median mismatches near 1e-6, evaluated about 20 times fa

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 13:29 UTC pith:VQX3JFKA

load-bearing objection The mean-anomaly parameterization is a real advance for eccentric surrogates, but a missing holdout statement and no release of the fitted surrogate keep me from quoting the mismatch numbers at face value. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2510.00116 v3 pith:VQX3JFKA submitted 2025-09-30 gr-qc astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph

Chase Orbits, not Time: A Scalable Paradigm for Long-Duration Eccentric Gravitational-Wave Surrogates

Akash Maurya , Prayush Kumar , Scott E. Field , Chandra Kant Mishra , Peter James Nee , Kaushik Paul , Harald P. Pfeiffer , Adhrit Ravichandran
show 1 more author
Vijay Varma
This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HEphysics.comp-ph
keywords eccentric binary black holessurrogate modelsmean anomalygravitational wavesreduced-order modelingempirical interpolationGaussian process regressionwaveform compression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Eccentric binary black hole waveforms oscillate on the orbital timescale, and those oscillations chirp—their period shrinks as the binary inspirals—making them difficult to compress into surrogate models. This paper's central idea is to redraw the horizontal axis for the oscillatory pieces of the waveform: instead of plotting eccentric residual amplitude and phase against time, plot them against the mean anomaly, an angle that advances by 2π every radial orbit. With the chirp absorbed into how the mean anomaly advances in time, the residual oscillations become nearly periodic, and the surrogate needs about ten times fewer basis functions. The authors use this to build a surrogate covering 850-1250 orbits (2.77 million M) with median mismatches against the base model of 1.3-3.2e-6, a worst mismatch of 2.1e-4, and an evaluation time near 40 ms, about 20x faster. If this holds, long-duration eccentric template banks—currently a bottleneck for ground-based and future detectors—become computationally practical.

Core claim

The discovery is that eccentric waveform surrogate data-pieces become much more compressible when the horizontal coordinate is the shifted mean anomaly l_s(t) = l(t) - l(0) rather than time. Each radial orbit then occupies an interval of 2π, so the oscillation period of the eccentric residuals ΔA and Δϕ in that coordinate is constant rather than secularly shrinking; greedy basis compression requires an order of magnitude fewer basis functions—for the longest 2.77x10^6 M surrogate, 36 versus 884 for ΔA and 21 versus 795 for Δϕ at the same 1e-5 threshold. A second finding is that fitting across the parameter space becomes simpler when the fits are expressed in terms of instantaneous eccentrici

What carries the argument

The central object is the mean-anomaly coordinate, an angle that increases uniformly with the orbit-averaged radial frequency, so that every periastron-to-periastron orbit advances it by 2π for any eccentricity and mass ratio. Modeling the eccentric residual amplitude and phase against this coordinate (specifically the shifted mean anomaly, which all waveforms share on a common grid and which ends at zero) removes the chirp from the oscillatory data pieces and turns them into nearly periodic functions. The surrogate pipeline then uses greedy basis selection and empirical interpolation to compress these pieces, plus Gaussian-process fits replaced by tensor-product cubic splines for speed, wit

Load-bearing premise

The result depends on the 10,000 waveforms used to measure mismatch being genuinely separate from the 1,404 waveforms used to train the surrogate—the paper never says they were excluded—and on the undisclosed Gaussian-process and spline settings being sufficient to reproduce the fits.

What would settle it

Recompute the median and worst mismatches using 10,000 InspiralESIGMA waveforms that are explicitly disjoint from the training set; if the median mismatch rises above about 1e-5 or the worst above 1e-3, the drop-in replacement claim fails. Separately, rerun surrogate construction with the full kernel and spline hyperparameters documented; if the mismatch statistics change materially, the quoted numbers are not reproducible.

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

If this is right

  • Eccentric template-based searches and parameter estimation, which need O(10^6+) waveform evaluations, become feasible for current ground-based detectors.
  • The gentle growth of basis count with waveform length suggests the same construction can scale to the 6-40x longer waveforms needed for third-generation detectors.
  • The mean-anomaly surrogates are not only smaller but more accurate than time-parameterized surrogates: worst mismatches move from O(10^-2-10^-1) down to O(10^-5-10^-4) for the tested configurations.
  • A long inspiral surrogate can be attached to a quasi-circular merger-ringdown piece to produce full IMR eccentric waveforms, serving as a drop-in replacement for the base model.
  • Surrogate evaluation avoids serial ODE integration and is amenable to parallelization and hardware acceleration, so further speedups are possible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same coordinate change is applied with morphology-based definitions of eccentricity and mean anomaly, the compression factor should transfer to other eccentric waveform models, including those with spins and higher modes.
  • Because the method removes only the secular chirp, not the per-orbit harmonic structure, the basis count should grow with the number of resolved harmonics rather than the number of orbits; this predicts that much longer detector-band waveforms will still need only modestly more basis functions.
  • A natural test is whether the reported order-of-magnitude compression survives when the surrogate is rebuilt with a different training set density or a different greedy error threshold; if the compression factor is robust, it is a property of the parameterization rather than of the specific fit.
  • The mismatch statistics are trustworthy only if the 10,000 validation waveforms were excluded from the 1,404 training waveforms; this should be verified by the authors or by an independent recomputation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper introduces a mean-anomaly parameterization for building surrogate models of long-duration eccentric inspiral waveforms, replacing time as the independent variable for the eccentric residual amplitude and phase. The authors construct nonspinning surrogates of the InspiralESIGMA waveform model for durations up to 2.77e6 M (850–1250 orbits), with mass ratios 1–6 and starting eccentricities up to 0.43. They report an order-of-magnitude reduction in the number of greedy basis functions compared with time-parameterized surrogates, median mismatches of 1.3–3.2e-6 and a worst-case mismatch of 2.1e-4 against the base model, and an evaluation time of about 40 ms (roughly 20x speedup). The paper also parameterizes the parameter-space fits at empirical-interpolation nodes by instantaneous eccentricity and mean anomaly, and demonstrates attachment of the long inspiral surrogate to a quasi-circular merger-ringdown model to form a hybrid IMR waveform.

Significance. If the reported validation is genuinely out-of-sample, this is a significant step toward removing a computational bottleneck for eccentric template-based LVK and third-generation analyses. The paper’s strengths include a systematic basis-count comparison across six waveform durations (Fig. 2, Table I), mismatch checks against the base model InspiralESIGMA—an appropriate external check, not a circular one—and explicit timing benchmarks (Fig. 5). The central claim that mean-anomaly parameterization compresses eccentric residuals far more efficiently than time parameterization is supported by the basis-count data. The remaining risk is empirical: the headline accuracy and speed claims depend on a validation protocol that is not fully described, and on fitting details that are not disclosed. With those clarified, the method would be a useful contribution to eccentric waveform modeling.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results, Table I, Fig. 4] The central accuracy claims (median mismatches 1.3–3.2e-6 and worst mismatch 2.1e-4) rest on 10,000 waveforms 'randomly sampled across the surrogate parameter space,' but the text never states that these evaluation waveforms are disjoint from the N_train=1,404 (and other N_train) training waveforms. If the two sets overlap, the quoted mismatches are partly in-sample and do not establish the 'faithful drop-in replacement' claim. Please state explicitly that the evaluation set was excluded from training, and if that was not done, rerun the validation on a true holdout set. This is the main experimental control needed for the paper's headline.
  2. [Appendix A step 6, Eq. (4)] The detrending of Delta_phi_1 by interpolating its local extrema and taking their mean (Eq. 4) is a heuristic that defines the monotonic trend phi_res, and the zeroed-initial-value choice in Appendix A step 6 is another convention. Since the final surrogate reconstruction depends on these choices, please provide evidence that the decomposition is unambiguous and stable—for example, test sensitivity to the extrema-finding algorithm, sampling density, and interpolation order, and show that the reported mismatches do not change materially. Without this, it is unclear whether the compression gain is robust or sensitive to an ad hoc preprocessing step.
  3. [Results, Appendix B, Table I] The GPR kernel and tensor-product spline hyperparameters are not reported, and no trained surrogate file or data-release URL is given; the listed packages are the base model and interpolation libraries. This makes the quoted evaluation times and mismatch numbers impossible to reproduce independently. Please include the fitted surrogate and a minimal evaluation script, or at minimum the full fitting recipe, as part of the manuscript or a companion release. This is important because the paper promotes the surrogate as a practical drop-in replacement.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Fig. 2] The abstract says 'order of magnitude fewer basis functions'; this is true for the longer surrogates, but for the shortest 23e3 M case the total is 106 time-parameterized vs 16 mean-anomaly-parameterized (about 6.6x). Consider qualifying the claim as 'up to an order of magnitude' or similar.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] It would be helpful to state explicitly how many random waveforms are used per mass (10,000 total, or 10,000 per mass?), and whether the same random parameter draws are reused across masses.
  3. [Table I] The mismatch columns are labelled '@ 10M_sun', while Fig. 4 shows mismatches for a range of masses. Please clarify in the text that Table I reports only the 10-solar-mass case, and that the mass-dependent results appear in Fig. 4.
  4. [Appendix B] The sentence 'We do not proceed beyond basis construction for time-parameterized surrogates longer than 105e3 M' means the comparison of accuracy for longer durations is incomplete. This is understandable, but the text should state this limitation explicitly where the comparison is discussed.
  5. [Fig. 5] Please state whether the reported evaluation time includes any one-time overhead (e.g., loading the surrogate or interpolants) or only the per-waveform generation cost. This would make the speedup figure more reproducible.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the basis-compression claim is an empirical coordinate-change result, and validation against InspiralESIGMA is the appropriate external check.

full rationale

The central claim is that reparameterizing eccentric residuals by mean anomaly instead of time reduces the number of greedy basis functions by an order of magnitude (Fig. 2, Table I). This is an empirical comparison of basis counts on the same training spaces, not a quantity fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The mean-anomaly parameterization is an explicit coordinate transformation built from the base model's orbital dynamics (Appendix A), and the paper reports the resulting basis counts and mismatches against InspiralESIGMA, which is the natural external reference for a surrogate of that model. The same-group citations ([57], [118], [127]) are references to the base model, its code, and a companion framework; they are not invoked as an imported uniqueness theorem or as the justification for the compression result. No equation defines the claimed output in terms of the fitted parameters by construction, and no mismatch is asserted to be out-of-sample by definition. The main caveats are validation/reproducibility gaps rather than circularity: Table I says the 10,000 mismatch waveforms were 'randomly sampled across the surrogate parameter space' but does not explicitly state they are disjoint from the N_train training waveforms, and the GPR/spline hyperparameters are not reported. These affect the strength of the accuracy and speed headline, but they do not make the derivation circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claims rest on standard surrogate mathematics, model-internal orbital quantities, and several heuristic/undisclosed modeling choices (detrending, zeroed starts, sampling, GPR hyperparameters, e_max caps). The absence of a described holdout validation is the most significant unbooked assumption.

free parameters (5)
  • Greedy error threshold = 1e-5
    Chosen tolerance for basis selection; all basis-count comparisons and surrogate accuracy depend on it.
  • Training set size N_train = 504-1404 (e.g., 1404 for the 2.77e6 M surrogate)
    Chosen per surrogate to balance fit accuracy and cost; not derived from a quantitative stopping rule.
  • Sampling grids (time/mean anomaly) = 10M; 2pi/100
    Discretization choices; coarser grids would change basis counts and mismatch estimates.
  • GPR/cubic-spline hyperparameters = not reported
    GPR kernel parameters, noise, and spline tolerances are fitted to training data but undisclosed, blocking exact reproduction.
  • Maximum starting eccentricity e_max = 0.067, 0.11, 0.21, 0.36, 0.43 (per duration)
    Hand-chosen so eccentricity decays to about 0.005 at t=0, allowing quasi-circular plunge-merger-ringdown attachment.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Greedy reduced-basis and empirical interpolation methods (RomPy) converge for the waveform data-piece families.
    Surrogate construction and error control rely on the algorithms of [82]; no proof is given here.
  • domain assumption The mean anomaly from InspiralESIGMA's orbital dynamics solver is a valid, 2-pi-periodic orbital phase for all training parameters.
    Used in Eqs. (5) and Fig. 3 to remove the chirp; if this quantity were not the correct orbital angle, the compression claim fails.
  • ad hoc to paper Detrending Delta-phi-1 by interpolating local extrema identifies the true monotonic residual trend phi_res.
    Eq. (4) and surrounding text; the method is heuristic, with the additional zeroing of Delta-phi and phi_res at the start in the mean-anomaly surrogate (Appendix A step 6).
  • domain assumption The 10,000 random validation waveforms are independent holdouts from the training set.
    Fig. 4 and Table I mismatches assume this; it is not explicitly stated.
  • domain assumption At e(t=0) approximately 0.005, attaching a quasi-circular plunge-merger-ringdown waveform (NRSur7dq4) yields a valid hybrid IMR waveform.
    Appendix B; needed for the claim of drop-in replacement in the ESIGMAHM framework.
  • domain assumption InspiralESIGMA itself accurately represents the physical eccentric inspiral.
    The paper validates the surrogate against the model, not against NR or real data; physical significance inherits the base model's accuracy.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19118 in / 21856 out tokens · 180005 ms · 2026-08-04T13:29:40.477244+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Orbital eccentricity is a key tracer of the astrophysical origins of compact binaries. Yet it remains absent from routine LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA analyses, in part because of the prohibitive computational cost of generating eccentric template waveforms. The complicated morphology of these waveforms due to the eccentric orbital timescale variations makes it difficult to construct their accurate and efficient surrogate models, especially for waveforms long enough to comprehensively cover the sensitivity bands of current ground-based gravitational-wave detectors. We present a novel and scalable surrogate building technique which makes surrogate modeling of long-duration eccentric binary black hole waveforms both feasible and highly efficient. The technique aims to simplify the harmonic content of intermediate eccentric waveform data-pieces by modeling them in terms of an angular orbital element called the mean anomaly, instead of time. We show that this parameterization yields much more compressed surrogates than the standard time-based parameterizations. We also significantly simplify variations in waveform data-pieces across the parameter space by expressing them in terms of the instantaneous orbital eccentricity and mean anomaly to ease their parametric fitting. Building on these developments, we construct InspiralESIGMASur: a $2.77 \times 10^6M$ (850-1250 orbits) long non-spinning surrogate for the inspiral-only eccentric waveform model InspiralESIGMA [K. Paul et al., Phys. Rev. D 111, 084074 (2025)]. The methods presented in this work make it feasible to build long-duration eccentric surrogates for current as well as future third-generation gravitational-wave detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.00116 by Adhrit Ravichandran, Akash Maurya, Chandra Kant Mishra, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Kaushik Paul, Peter James Nee, Prayush Kumar, Scott E. Field, Vijay Varma.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We isolate these oscillations by removing the cor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Variation of time/mean-anomaly period of oscilla [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mismatches of the 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Waveform evaluation time of the base model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Variation of the eccentric residual amplitude ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Including higher-order modes in a quadrupolar eccentric numerical relativity surrogate using universal eccentric modulation functions

    gr-qc 2026-04 conditional novelty 7.0

    The gwNRHME framework constructs a multi-modal non-spinning eccentric gravitational waveform surrogate by modulating quasi-circular models with universal eccentric functions, achieving median mismatches of ~9e-5 again...

  2. Efficient Eccentric Effective-One-Body Dynamics via Near-Identity Averaging Transformations

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Near-identity averaging transformations applied to osculating orbital elements reduce the computational cost of eccentric EOB inspirals by up to two orders of magnitude while maintaining accuracy for moderate to large...

  3. Eccentric and unbound compact binaries in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog: parameter estimation and waveform systematics with SEOBNRv6EHM

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    SEOBNRv6EHM reduces parameter biases for eccentric binaries versus prior models and shows mild support for eccentricity in five catalog events plus comparable unbound fits for three high-mass events.

  4. Fast neural network surrogate for multimodal effective-one-body gravitational waveforms from generically precessing compact binaries

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Neural network surrogate approximates precessing compact binary gravitational waveforms up to 1000x faster than the base EOB model with validated accuracy.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

134 extracted references · 105 linked inside Pith · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC- 1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Tran- sient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run, (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Binary Black Hole Population Properties Inferred from the First and Second Observing Runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Astrophys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO- Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, Astro- phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO- Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, Astro- phys. J. Lett.913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries, (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    K. A. Postnov and L. R. Yungelson, The Evolution of Compact Binary Star Systems, Living Rev. Rel.17, 3 (2014), arXiv:1403.4754 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  10. [10]

    P. C. Peters, Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  11. [11]

    Gultekin, M

    K. Gultekin, M. Coleman Miller, and D. P. Hamilton, Three-body dynamics with gravitational wave emission, Astrophys. J.640, 156 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0509885

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  12. [12]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, The Formation of Eccentric Compact Binary Inspirals and the Role of Gravitational Wave Emission in Binary- Single Stellar Encounters, Astrophys. J.784, 71 (2014), arXiv:1308.2964 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  13. [13]

    Antonini, S

    F. Antonini, S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Black hole mergers and blue stragglers from hierarchical triples formed in globular clus- ters, Astrophys. J.816, 65 (2016), arXiv:1509.05080 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Samsing and E

    J. Samsing and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, On the Assembly Rate of Highly Eccentric Binary Black Hole Mergers, Astro- phys. J. Lett.840, L14 (2017), arXiv:1703.09703 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Post-Newtonian Dynamics in Dense Star Clusters: Highly-Eccentric, Highly-Spinning, and Re- peated Binary Black Hole Mergers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Zevin, J

    M. Zevin, J. Samsing, C. Rodriguez, C.-J. Haster, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Eccentric Black Hole Merg- ers in Dense Star Clusters: The Role of Bi- nary–Binary Encounters, Astrophys. J.871, 91 (2019), arXiv:1810.00901 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Samsing, I

    J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, AGN as potential factories for ec- centric black hole mergers, Nature603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Fabj and J

    G. Fabj and J. Samsing, Eccentric mergers in AGN discs: influence of the supermassive black hole on three- body interactions, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535, 3630 (2024), arXiv:2402.16948 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Samsing, K

    J. Samsing, K. Hendriks, L. Zwick, D. J. D’Orazio, and B. Liu, Gravitational Wave Phase Shifts in Eccentric Black Hole Mergers as a Probe of Dynamical Formation Environments, (2024), arXiv:2403.05625 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Kozai, Secular perturbations of asteroids with high inclination and eccentricity, Astron

    Y. Kozai, Secular perturbations of asteroids with high inclination and eccentricity, Astron. J.67, 591 (1962)

    1962

  21. [21]

    M. L. Lidov, The evolution of orbits of artificial satel- lites of planets under the action of gravitational per- turbations of external bodies, Planet. Space Sci.9, 719 (1962)

    1962

  22. [22]

    Zevin, I

    M. Zevin, I. M. Romero-Shaw, K. Kremer, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Implications of Eccentric Observa- tions on Binary Black Hole Formation Channels, Astro- phys. J. Lett.921, L43 (2021), arXiv:2106.09042 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    S. Wu, Z. Cao, and Z.-H. Zhu, Measuring the eccen- tricity of binary black holes in GWTC-1 by using the inspiral-only waveform, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 466 (2020), arXiv:2002.05528 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Signs of Eccentricity in Two Gravitational-wave Signals May Indicate a Subpopulation of Dynamically Assembled Bi- nary Black Holes, Astrophys. J. Lett.921, L31 (2021), arXiv:2108.01284 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Four Eccentric Mergers Increase the Evidence that LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA’s Binary Black Holes Form Dynamically, Astrophys. J.940, 171 (2022), arXiv:2206.14695 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. C. Bustillo, GW190521: orbital eccentricity and signa- tures of dynamical formation in a binary black hole merger signal, Astrophys. J. Lett.903, L5 (2020), arXiv:2009.04771 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    Gayathri, J

    V. Gayathri, J. Healy, J. Lange, B. O’Brien, M. Szczep- anczyk, I. Bartos, M. Campanelli, S. Klimenko, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Eccentricity estimate for black hole mergers with numerical relativity simula- tions, Nature Astron.6, 344 (2022), arXiv:2009.05461 7 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Gupteet al., Evidence for eccentricity in the pop- ulation of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA, (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    N. Gupteet al., Evidence for eccentricity in the pop- ulation of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA, (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    M. d. L. Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, and M. Haney, Eccentric or cir- cular? A reanalysis of binary black hole gravitational wave events for orbital eccentricity signatures, (2025), arXiv:2504.15833 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Orbital eccen- tricity in a neutron star - black hole binary, (2025), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    M. d. L. Planas, S. Husa, A. Ramos-Buades, and J. Valencia, First eccentric inspiral-merger-ringdown analysis of neutron star-black hole mergers, (2025), arXiv:2506.01760 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Kacanja, K

    K. Kacanja, K. Soni, and A. H. Nitz, Eccentricity sig- natures in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s BNS and NSBH bi- naries, (2025), arXiv:2508.00179 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Jan, B.-J

    A. Jan, B.-J. Tsao, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. Shoemaker, and P. Laguna, GW200105: A detailed study of eccen- tricity in the neutron star-black hole binary, (2025), arXiv:2508.12460 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  35. [35]

    Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  36. [36]

    Hild, Beyond the Second Generation of Laser- Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class

    S. Hild, Beyond the Second Generation of Laser- Interferometric Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class. Quant. Grav.29, 124006 (2012), arXiv:1111.6277 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  37. [37]

    Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribu- tion to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific), Exploring the Sensitivity of Next Generation Gravitational Wave Detectors, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    Saini, Resolving the eccentricity of stellar mass binary black holes with next generation ground-based gravita- tional wave detectors, Mon

    P. Saini, Resolving the eccentricity of stellar mass binary black holes with next generation ground-based gravita- tional wave detectors, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 833 (2024), arXiv:2308.07565 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Post-Circular Expansion of Eccentric Binary Inspirals: Fourier-Domain Waveforms in the Stationary Phase Ap- proximation, Phys. Rev. D80, 084001 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 109901 (2014)], arXiv:0906.0313 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  41. [41]

    N. J. Cornish and J. Shapiro Key, Computing waveforms for spinning compact binaries in quasi-eccentric orbits, Phys. Rev. D82, 044028 (2010), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 84, 029901 (2011)], arXiv:1004.5322 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  42. [42]

    Shapiro Key and N

    J. Shapiro Key and N. J. Cornish, Characterizing Spin- ning Black Hole Binaries in Eccentric Orbits with LISA, Phys. Rev. D83, 083001 (2011), arXiv:1006.3759 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  43. [43]

    E. A. Huerta, P. Kumar, S. T. McWilliams, R. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Yunes, Accurate and effi- cient waveforms for compact binaries on eccentric or- bits, Phys. Rev. D90, 084016 (2014), arXiv:1408.3406 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    Tanay, M

    S. Tanay, M. Haney, and A. Gopakumar, Frequency and time domain inspiral templates for comparable mass compact binaries in eccentric orbits, Phys. Rev. D93, 064031 (2016), arXiv:1602.03081 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  45. [45]

    Loutrel and N

    N. Loutrel and N. Yunes, Eccentric Gravitational Wave Bursts in the Post-Newtonian Formalism, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 135011 (2017), arXiv:1702.01818 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Tiwari, G

    S. Tiwari, G. Achamveedu, M. Haney, and P. He- mantakumar, Ready-to-use Fourier domain templates for compact binaries inspiraling along moderately ec- centric orbits, Phys. Rev. D99, 124008 (2019), arXiv:1905.07956 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Tiwari and A

    S. Tiwari and A. Gopakumar, Combining post-circular and Pad´ e approximations to compute Fourier domain templates for eccentric inspirals, Phys. Rev. D102, 084042 (2020), arXiv:2009.11333 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Moore, T

    B. Moore, T. Robson, N. Loutrel, and N. Yunes, To- wards a Fourier domain waveform for non-spinning bi- naries with arbitrary eccentricity, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 235006 (2018), arXiv:1807.07163 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Moore and N

    B. Moore and N. Yunes, A 3PN Fourier Domain Waveform for Non-Spinning Binaries with Moderate Eccentricity, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 185003 (2019), arXiv:1903.05203 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Sridhar, S

    O. Sridhar, S. Bhattacharyya, K. Paul, and C. K. Mishra, Spin effects in the phasing formula of eccen- tric compact binary inspirals up to the third post- Newtonian order, Phys. Rev. D112, 024026 (2025), arXiv:2412.10909 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Klein, Y

    A. Klein, Y. Boetzel, A. Gopakumar, P. Jetzer, and L. de Vittori, Fourier domain gravitational waveforms for precessing eccentric binaries, Phys. Rev. D98, 104043 (2018), arXiv:1801.08542 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Klein, EFPE: Efficient fully precessing eccentric gravitational waveforms for binaries with long inspirals, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    A. Klein, EFPE: Efficient fully precessing eccentric gravitational waveforms for binaries with long inspirals, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Improved post- Newtonian waveform model for inspiralling precessing- eccentric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D111, 084052 (2025), arXiv:2502.03929 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    E. A. Huertaet al., Complete waveform model for com- pact binaries on eccentric orbits, Phys. Rev. D95, 024038 (2017), arXiv:1609.05933 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  55. [55]

    E. A. Huertaet al., Eccentric, nonspinning, inspi- ral, Gaussian-process merger approximant for the de- tection and characterization of eccentric binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D97, 024031 (2018), arXiv:1711.06276 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  56. [56]

    Z. Chen, E. A. Huerta, J. Adamo, R. Haas, E. O’Shea, P. Kumar, and C. Moore, Observation of eccentric bi- nary black hole mergers with second and third gener- ation gravitational wave detector networks, Phys. Rev. D103, 084018 (2021), arXiv:2008.03313 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  57. [57]

    K. Paul, A. Maurya, Q. Henry, K. Sharma, P. Satheesh, Divyajyoti, P. Kumar, and C. K. Mishra, Eccentric, spinning, inspiral-merger-ringdown waveform model with higher modes for the detection and characteriza- tion of binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D111, 084074 (2025), arXiv:2409.13866 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Hinder, L

    I. Hinder, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Eccentric bi- nary black hole inspiral-merger-ringdown gravitational waveform model from numerical relativity and post- Newtonian theory, Phys. Rev. D98, 044015 (2018), arXiv:1709.02007 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Chattaraj, T

    A. Chattaraj, T. RoyChowdhury, Divyajyoti, C. K. 8 Mishra, and A. Gupta, High accuracy post-Newtonian and numerical relativity comparisons involving higher modes for eccentric binary black holes and a dominant mode eccentric inspiral-merger-ringdown model, Phys. Rev. D106, 124008 (2022), arXiv:2204.02377 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Manna, T

    P. Manna, T. RoyChowdhury, and C. K. Mishra, Im- proved inspiral-merger-ringdown model for BBHs on elliptical orbits, Phys. Rev. D111, 124026 (2025), arXiv:2409.10672 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Cao and W.-B

    Z. Cao and W.-B. Han, Waveform model for an eccen- tric binary black hole based on the effective-one-body- numerical-relativity formalism, Phys. Rev. D96, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1708.00166 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Validating the Effective- One-Body Numerical-Relativity Waveform Models for Spin-aligned Binary Black Holes along Eccentric Orbits, Phys. Rev. D101, 044049 (2020), arXiv:1910.00784 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and Z.-H. Zhu, A higher-multipole gravitational waveform model for an eccentric binary black holes based on the effective-one-body-numerical- relativity formalism, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 035009 (2022), arXiv:2102.08614 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  64. [64]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Upgraded waveform model of eccentric binary black hole based on effective- one-body-numerical-relativity for spin-aligned binary black holes, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D32, 2350015 (2023), arXiv:2306.15277 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Faithful analytical effective-one-body waveform model for spin-aligned, moderately eccentric, coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    Nagar, A

    A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Effective one- body multipolar waveform model for spin-aligned, qua- sicircular, eccentric, hyperbolic black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Gamba, D

    R. Gamba, D. Chiaramello, and S. Neogi, Toward efficient effective-one-body models for generic, non- planar orbits, Phys. Rev. D110, 024031 (2024), arXiv:2404.15408 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Nagar, R

    A. Nagar, R. Gamba, P. Rettegno, V. Fantini, and S. Bernuzzi, Effective-one-body waveform model for noncircularized, planar, coalescing black hole binaries: The importance of radiation reaction, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084001 (2024), arXiv:2404.05288 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Os- sokine, Effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for ec- centric binary black holes with nonprecessing spins, Phys. Rev. D105, 044035 (2022), arXiv:2112.06952 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  70. [70]

    Gamboaet al., Accurate waveforms for eccen- tric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body modelSEOBNRv5EHM, Phys

    A. Gamboaet al., Accurate waveforms for eccen- tric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body modelSEOBNRv5EHM, Phys. Rev. D 112, 044038 (2025), arXiv:2412.12823 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    M. d. L. Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, and M. Haney, Time-domain phenomenological multipolar waveforms for aligned- spin binary black holes in elliptical orbits, (2025), arXiv:2503.13062 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Setyawati and F

    Y. Setyawati and F. Ohme, Adding eccentricity to quasi- circular binary-black-hole waveform models, Phys. Rev. D103, 124011 (2021), arXiv:2101.11033 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  73. [73]

    Wang, Y.-C

    H. Wang, Y.-C. Zou, and Y. Liu, Phenomenological re- lationship between eccentric and quasicircular orbital binary black hole waveform, Phys. Rev. D107, 124061 (2023), arXiv:2302.11227 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    Islam, Study of eccentric binary black hole merg- ers using numerical relativity and an inspiral-merger- ringdown model, (2024), arXiv:2403.03487 [gr-qc]

    T. Islam, Study of eccentric binary black hole merg- ers using numerical relativity and an inspiral-merger- ringdown model, (2024), arXiv:2403.03487 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Islam and T

    T. Islam and T. Venumadhav, Universal phenomeno- logical relations between spherical harmonic modes in nonprecessing eccentric binary black hole merger waveforms, Phys. Rev. D111, L081503 (2025), arXiv:2408.14654 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  76. [76]

    Islam, G

    T. Islam, G. Khanna, and S. E. Field, Adding higher- order spherical harmonics in nonspinning eccentric bi- nary black hole merger waveform models, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124023 (2025), arXiv:2408.02762 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    J. L. Lumley, The Structure of Inhomogeneous Turbu- lent Flows, inAtmospheric Turbulence and Radio Wave Propagation, edited by A. M. Yaglom and V. I. Tatarski ˘ ı (Nauka, Moscow, 1967) pp. 166–178

    1967

  78. [78]

    Sacks, W

    J. Sacks, W. J. Welch, T. J. Mitchell, and H. P. Wynn, Design and analysis of computer experiments, Statisti- cal Science4, 409 (1989)

    1989

  79. [79]

    G. E. P. Box and K. B. Wilson, On the experimen- tal attainment of optimum conditions, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)13, 1 (1951)

    1951

  80. [80]

    T. W. Simpson, J. D. Poplinski, P. N. Koch, and J. K. Allen, Metamodels for computer-based engineering de- sign: Survey and recommendations, Eng. with Comput. 17, 129–150 (2001)

    2001

Showing first 80 references.