Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 8 cited by

Spin effects in the phasing formula of eccentric compact binary inspirals up to the third post-Newtonian order

T0 review · 3 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper provides the first closed-form gravitational-wave phasing for eccentric, spin-aligned binaries, to 3PN order and eighth power in eccentricity, in both time and frequency domains.

desk verdict Genuinely useful 3PN aligned-spin eccentric phasing, but the headline O(e8) terms live only in a supplement and the only check is against the same equations that produced them; worth refereeing with a demand for independent verification. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10909 v2 pith:WXVEANF2 submitted 2024-12-14 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Omkar Sridhar , Soham Bhattacharyya , Kaushik Paul , Chandra Kant Mishra This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE MSC 83C2583C35 PACS 04.30.-w04.25.Nx04.30.Tv
keywords gravitationalwavephasingeccentriccompactbinariesalignedspinspost-NewtonianapproximationTaylorapproximantsstationaryphasespin-orbitcouplingspin-spin
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper derives analytic, closed-form expressions for the gravitational-wave phase of inspiralling compact binaries that are eccentric and have spins aligned with the orbital angular momentum. These are the first such formulas to include both effects together, reaching the third post-Newtonian order in the spin terms and the eighth power in the initial eccentricity $e_0^8$. The time-domain result (TaylorT2) and its stationary-phase frequency-domain version (TaylorF2) allow fast template evaluation, which matters because numerical evolution of eccentric orbits is slow. Comparing the new TaylorF2 terms with the existing eccentric-only model, the paper reports mismatches above 1% once the initial eccentricity exceeds about 0.15 and spins reach about 0.2, with mismatches up to roughly 15% in parts of the parameter space. The implication is that template banks neglecting the combined spin-eccentricity coupling will lose signal-to-noise ratio and detection efficiency.

What carries the argument

The central object is the closed-form TaylorT2 phase, a post-Newtonian series in the frequency parameter $y = (x/(1-e^2))^{1/2}$, with the eccentricity replaced by its perturbative solution $e^2(y) = e_0^2 (y_0/y)^{19/3}$ times spin-dependent corrections. The machinery has four parts: taking the 3PN energy and energy flux for aligned-spin eccentric binaries as input; re-expanding them in the $y$ parameter; solving the eccentricity evolution equation order by order in $e_0$; then inverting the $dy/dt$ evolution and integrating to get $t(y)$ and the orbital phase. Applying the stationary phase approximation to the TaylorT2 phase produces the TaylorF2 frequency-domain phase, and an empirical resummation of the form $\phi = y^{-5}(1-e_0^2)^3$ times a polynomial in $e_0$ extends the time-domain result to higher eccentricities.

What would settle it

Decisive check: numerically integrate the full 3PN equations of motion for an aligned-spin eccentric binary with initial eccentricity 0.5 without discarding the oscillatory phase pieces, and compare the accumulated number of gravitational-wave cycles with the TaylorT2 formula and its resummed version; if the difference exceeds one cycle inside the claimed validity range, the orbit-averaged approximation underpinning the closed forms is inadequate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gravitational-wave phasing of an inspiralling compact binary with aligned spins and small eccentricity can be written as a fully analytic double series in the post-Newtonian parameter and the initial eccentricity $e_0$, with no numerical integration needed. The paper constructs the TaylorT2 phase and its TaylorF2 Fourier counterpart by perturbatively solving the coupled evolution of the frequency parameter $y$ and the eccentricity $e$, using the 3PN energy and flux of spinning eccentric binaries as input. The spin contributions split into spin-orbit and spin-spin pieces at the expected PN orders (1.5PN, 2PN, 2.5PN and 3PN), and the eccentricity expansion is carried to $O(e_0^8)$. A resummed TaylorT2, built from a $(1-e_0^2)^3$ ansatz, extends the range of validity to initial eccentricities near 0.55. The paper further reports that the newly computed eccentric-spinning terms in TaylorF2 change the match by more than 1% once the initial eccentricity is about 0.15 and spins are about 0.2, so neglecting them degrades searches and parameter estimation.

Load-bearing premise

The formulas rest on the 3PN energy and flux expressions for spinning eccentric binaries supplied by Ref. [73], together with the assumption that orbit-averaged evolution, with the small oscillatory phase ignored, stays accurate up to initial eccentricities of about 0.5; if either gives way, the closed-form phases inherit the error.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With these closed forms, an eccentric spinning inspiral template can be evaluated without numerical integration of the orbital evolution, making template-bank searches feasible.
  • The mismatch study implies that eccentricity and spin must be modelled jointly: for initial eccentricity about 0.15 and spins about 0.2, neglecting the new terms already exceeds a 1% mismatch, and in high-spin, low-chirp-mass regions the mismatch reaches about 15%.
  • The resummed TaylorT2 extends the usable eccentricity range from about 0.45 (for the $O(e_0^8)$ series) to about 0.55 (for the resummed version), covering many residual eccentricities expected from dynamical formation.
  • The full $O(e_0^8)$ coefficients, supplied in the supplemental material, let users truncate at any desired eccentricity order, and the oscillatory part of the phase is shown to contribute less than about a tenth of a GW cycle for $e_0 = 0.2$, so the secular formulas dominate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same perturbative eccentricity-expansion strategy could be applied to waveform amplitudes rather than only the phase, yielding a fully analytic eccentric spinning waveform family; this paper stops at phasing.
  • Because mismatches grow with effective spin and chirp mass, third-generation and space-based detectors, which accumulate more cycles, will likely need these spin-eccentricity terms even for initial eccentricities below 0.15.
  • The resummation ansatz was chosen empirically, so a more systematic resummation scheme might extend validity beyond about 0.55, but that is a conjecture beyond the paper.
  • A direct cross-check of these formulas against independent numerical waveforms for initial eccentricities near 0.3 to 0.5 would test whether the orbit-averaged approximation remains adequate at the upper edge of the claimed validity range.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper derives post-Newtonian phasing formulas for eccentric, spin-aligned compact binary inspirals up to 3PN order and to O(e0^8) in the initial eccentricity. The authors use the energy and flux inputs of Ref. [73], construct TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 approximants, and also provide a resummed TaylorT2 phase intended to remain accurate up to e0 ~ 0.5. They quantify the importance of the new eccentric spin-orbit and spin-spin terms through cycle-count estimates and mismatch studies against TaylorF2Ecc, reporting mismatches above 1% for eccentricities ≳0.15 and moderate spins. Only the O(e0^2) eccentric spin terms are printed in the main text; the full O(e0^8) expressions are relegated to a supplemental Mathematica file.

Significance. If the supplemental algebraic results are correct, this is a useful and timely contribution: it would provide the first closed-form, eccentric, spinning 3PN TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 phasing expressions, enabling fast template generation for eccentric spinning binaries. The derivation follows standard PN and stationary-phase techniques, uses published inputs from Ref. [73], and the displayed O(e0^2) coefficients appear structurally consistent with the non-spinning limit of Moore et al. The paper also gives a concrete, phase-based assessment of when spin-eccentricity coupling matters for detection. The main caveats are verification-related: the headline O(e0^8) expressions are not inspectable from the manuscript, and the numerical validation uses the same underlying orbit-averaged equations from which the analytic expansion was built, so it cannot independently certify the input PN coefficients or the orbit-averaging approximation.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.B, Eqs. (20)-(23) and Supplemental Material [78]] The central claim of the paper, namely closed-form 3PN, O(e0^8) TaylorT2 and TaylorF2 phasing, is not checkable from the manuscript because Eqs. (20) and (22) display only the leading O(e0^2) eccentric spin-orbit and spin-spin terms. The paper states that the full O(e0^8) expressions appear in a GitHub supplement, and Tables II and IV, Fig. 1, and the conclusions all depend on those unprinted coefficients. A single algebraic error in the supplement would invalidate the quantitative conclusions. The authors should make the supplement a permanent, versioned part of the manuscript and provide at least one explicit O(e0^4) or O(e0^6) coefficient in an appendix, together with a symbolic verification (for example, recomputation with an independent expansion/integration code, or a check that the χ→0 limit exactly reproduces Eq. (6.26) of Ref. [77]).
  2. [Section III.B, Fig. 1 and Eq. (29)] The numerical reference in Fig. 1 is obtained by integrating the same orbit-averaged PN equations (4a)-(4b) that are the starting point of the analytic expansion. This comparison can detect errors in the perturbative solution of de^2/dy and in the subsequent integrations, but it cannot certify the underlying 3PN energy and flux inputs of Ref. [73], nor the neglect of oscillatory phase contributions. The text should state this limitation explicitly and add an independent check, for example a comparison with direct numerical integration of the unexpanded equations of Ref. [73] or with an independent non-spinning eccentric phasing code in the χ→0 limit, so that Fig. 1 is not the sole evidence for the new terms.
  3. [Section II.B.3, Eqs. (24)-(26)] The exponent '3' in the resummation ansatz (1-e0^2)^3 is chosen by trial and error against the same numerical solution used for validation, and the claimed extension of validity to e0 ≈ 0.55 is therefore a heuristic result rather than a derived property. The abstract and conclusions should present it as such. Moreover, Fig. 1 demonstrates the resummation for only one system (1.4 + 1.4 M⊙, χ1 = 0.7, χ2 = 0.8); the validity claims for the mass and spin configurations used in Tables II and IV should be checked explicitly rather than assumed to carry over.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section II.A, first paragraph] There is a typo in 'the the orbital phase (ϕ) includes oscillatory contributions'; delete the duplicated 'the'.
  2. [Equations (21d), (23b), (C10e)] The notation is inconsistent in several displayed formulas: χS and χs, κS and κs, and χA and χa are used interchangeably. Please unify the notation throughout.
  3. [Eq. (25)] The construction of Eq. (25) is opaque: the explicit factor 3e0^2 in front of ϕ(resum)_SO,ecc and ϕ(resum)_SS,ecc changes the relation between these coefficients and those in Eq. (21), and it appears to introduce O(e0^2) corrections to circular spin terms. Please clarify how Eq. (25) follows from the matching ansatz Eq. (24).
  4. [Table III] Entries below 10^-3 are omitted without explicit zeros, leaving apparent gaps in the table; fill those entries with 0.000 or explain the omission in the caption.
  5. [Section I.A and Sec. II.B.3] The phrase 'trail and error method' should read 'trial and error method'.
  6. [Reference [78]] The supplemental file is a GitHub URL without a version or commit hash. Since the central result of the paper resides in that file, please provide a persistent archived version, such as a DOI or a journal-hosted supplement, and include a commit identifier.
  7. [Section III.C, Figs. 2-3] The mismatch study does not specify which amplitude model is used in the SPA waveforms, nor whether higher harmonics are included. Since the conclusions concerning detection efficiency depend on the full waveform, please state explicitly that only the phasing is varied and the amplitude is taken from TaylorF2Ecc.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spin-eccentric phasing is derived by direct integration of external 3PN inputs, with only a minor self-citation and an openly fitted resummation ansatz.

full rationale

The central phasing results are obtained by a transparent derivation: the paper takes the 3PN flux and energy evolution equations for spinning eccentric binaries from the external calculation of Ref. [73] (Eqs. (4a)-(4b)), expands the eccentricity evolution equation (6) in e0, solves it perturbatively to obtain Eq. (8), and then integrates dt/dy (Eq. (10)) and dphi/dy (Eq. (12a)) to obtain TaylorT2 (Eq. (20)) and, via SPA, TaylorF2 (Eq. (22)). No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted: the coefficients of the O(e0^8) expansion are determined by algebra from the input equations, and the full expressions are relegated to a supplemental Mathematica file [78] rather than printed. The comparison in Fig. 1 is a self-consistency check of the e0-expansion against numerical integration of the same orbit-averaged Eq. (4); it validates truncation error but does not validate the input physics, and the paper does not claim otherwise. The resummed ansatz (24) chooses the exponent (1-e0^2)^3 by trial and error to minimize cycle error against that same numerical solution; this is an openly acknowledged convergence-acceleration fit, not a hidden prediction, and it does not feed back into the TaylorT2/TaylorF2 coefficients. Ref. [77] is cited for the non-spinning baseline and TaylorF2Ecc; although one coauthor is shared, those are published PN expressions and the new spin-eccentricity terms are not derived from them. The main caveat is verification, not circularity: the O(e0^8) spin-eccentric coefficients exist only in the supplement, so the headline claims cannot be audited from the printed equations alone.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only hand-picked quantity is the resummation exponent; all PN inputs come from prior literature, and no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Resummation exponent in (1-e0^2)^n = 3
    Chosen by trial and error to minimize cycle error in the resummed TaylorT2; affects only the resummed model, not the base PN phase.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 3PN energy and flux for spinning eccentric binaries from Ref. [73] are correct.
    All subsequent integration and expansion inherits these inputs; any error propagates to the phasing.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic approximation: orbital timescale is much shorter than radiation-reaction timescale.
    Assumed in Eq. (2) and throughout the paper; standard for inspiral phasing.
  • domain assumption Oscillatory terms in the orbital phase can be neglected for the secular phasing.
    Checked in Appendix B for e0 up to 0.2; not independently validated for e0 up to 0.5.
  • standard math Stationary phase approximation is valid for the Fourier-domain TaylorF2.
    Standard method used in Ref. [77] and assumed without further justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin effects in the phasing formula of eccentric compact binary inspirals up to the third post-Newtonian order." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WXVEANF2

@misc{pith2026241210909,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin effects in the phasing formula of eccentric compact binary inspirals up to the third post-Newtonian order},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WXVEANF2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10909}
}
abstract

Compact binary sources that emit gravitational waves (GW) are expected to be both spinning and on eccentric orbits. No closed-form expression for the phasing of GWs are available to date that contain information from both spin and eccentricity. The introduction of eccentricity can slow waveform generation, often requiring slower numerical methods governing its evolution. However, closed-form expressions for the waveform phase can be obtained when eccentricity is treated as a small parameter, enabling quick waveform generation. In this paper, closed-form expressions for the GW phasing in the form of Taylor approximants up to the eighth power in initial eccentricity $(e_0)$ are obtained while also including aligned spins up to the third post-Newtonian order. The phasing is obtained in both time and frequency domains. The fully analytical approximant (TaylorT2) is also resummed for usage in scenarios where initial eccentricities are as high as 0.5. The frequency domain approximant (TaylorF2) based on Stationary Phase approximation is compared with an existing model (TaylorF2Ecc) to assess the importance of the newly computed eccentric/spinning terms. The findings indicate that for eccentricities $\gtrsim 0.15$ (defined at 10 Hz) and small spins $(\sim 0.2)$, the mismatches can be higher than 1%. This leads to an overall loss in signal-to-noise ratio and lower detection efficiency of GWs coming from eccentric spinning compact binary inspirals if the combined effects of eccentricity and aligned spins are neglected in the waveforms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10909 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Absolute value of the difference in the num￾ber of GW cycles between a numerical evolution of ϕ (valid for any initial eccentricity e0) and the analytical ϕ derived above, plotted using Eq. (29). The 1-cycle line roughly represents where the phase error between the exact eccentricity solution and the analytical low ec￾centricity solution becomes significant and our approxi￾mation breaks down. Further, the analytical… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The comparison of TaylorF2Ecc [77] with the spinning eccentric corrections in TaylorF2 up to 3PN order, expanded in eccentricity up to second power in eccentricity added in TaylorF2Ecc is shown here. We compute mismatch (1 − M)% between the two waveforms in various parameter planes, such as (a) eccentricity at 10Hz (e10) - mass-ratio (q) (left), (b) e10 - chirp mass (Mchirp) (middle), (c) e10 - effective spin parame… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The oscillatory part of the phase W(f) has been plotted as a function of the GW frequency f. We have limited the masses of the components to be m1 = m2 = 1.4 M⊙ in this figure and have varied the spins while keeping the initial eccentricity e0 fixed at 0.1 at 10 Hz. We…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Third post-Newtonian dynamics for eccentric orbits and aligned spins in the effective-one-body waveform model SEOBNRv5EHM

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The authors obtain, for the first time, 3PN-accurate eccentric-orbit fluxes, radiation-reaction force, and waveform modes in the effective-one-body formalism, and use them to build the SEOBNRv5EHM inspiral model.

  2. Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    SEOBNRv5EHM, a new effective-one-body waveform model with third-post-Newtonian eccentricity corrections, reaches a median 0.02% mismatch against eccentric numerical-relativity simulations, about an order of magnitude ...

  3. A geometric template bank for the detection of spinning low-mass compact binaries with moderate orbital eccentricity

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A geometric template bank including eccentricity recovers moderately eccentric BNS/NSBH signals with less than 6% loss, while quasi-circular banks miss up to 40%.

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

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric inspiral waveforms are modeled against mean anomaly rather than time, yielding an order-of-magnitude compression and a 2.77e6 M surrogate that is ~20x faster to evaluate.

  5. Improved post-Newtonian waveform model for inspiralling precessing-eccentric compact binaries

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The paper presents pyEFPE, a validated and publicly available frequency-domain post-Newtonian waveform model for inspiralling precessing-eccentric compact binaries, with up to about a fifteen-fold speedup.

  6. Constraining initial orbital eccentricity of inspiral-dominated gravitational-wave events with an analytic approximant

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using the new TaylorF2Ecck waveform, the authors constrain the 20 Hz orbital eccentricity of GW170817 and GW190425 to be below 0.011 and 0.028 at 90% credibility.

  7. Post-Newtonian theory-inspired framework for characterizing eccentricity in gravitational waveforms

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A PN-anchored waveform-based eccentricity estimator using envelope fits to the universal eccentric modulation, with an empirically added half-PN term.

  8. Spin-induced Quadrupole Moment (SIQM) Test for Eccentric Compact Binaries

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A Fisher-matrix forecast for Cosmic Explorer finds that orbital eccentricity improves the measurable precision of the spin-induced quadrupole parameter kappa_s from ~18% (circular) to ~8% at e0=0.2 and ~4% at e0=0.4 f...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [50]

    Fragione and B

    G. Fragione and B. Kocsis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 4781 (2019), arXiv:1903.03112 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [73]

    Hinder, L

    I. Hinder, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044015 (2018), arXiv:1709.02007 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  3. [77]

    Manna, T

    P. Manna, T. RoyChowdhury, and C. K. Mishra, (2024), arXiv:2409.10672 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [1]

    till 3PN, which we compute here as additional material

  5. [2]

    (C8e) This solution is now used on Eq

    TaylorT3 The TaylorT3 phase (ignoring all higher order circular and non-spinning, eccentric corrections) is as follows, F = θ3 8M π 1 − 471 344 e2 0 θ0 θ 19/3 1 + FSO,ecc + FSS,ecc , (C7) where, F 1.5PN SO,ecc = θ3 0 4871δχA 4320 + 4871 4320 1 − 3232ν 4871 χs + θ3 − 1893215δχa 2306016 − 1893215 2306016 1 − 739666ν 1893215 χs , (C8a) F 2PN SS,ecc = θ4 0 7 ...

  6. [3]

    [77] both in terms of an increase in eccentricity or- der and spins, it is natural to ask about the validity (in terms of the eccentricity) of the current model

    Resummed TaylorT2 Phase Since the current study deals with an extension of Ref. [77] both in terms of an increase in eccentricity or- der and spins, it is natural to ask about the validity (in terms of the eccentricity) of the current model. Since Ref. [77] deals with O(e2

  7. [4]

    in eccentricity, and the cur- rent model deals with O(e8

  8. [5]

    To quantify that, we compare the O(e2 0), O(e4 0), O(e6 0), O(e8 0), and a resummed ver- sion of the O(e4

    the extent in eccentricity to which the current model is applicable is naturally higher than the previous works. To quantify that, we compare the O(e2 0), O(e4 0), O(e6 0), O(e8 0), and a resummed ver- sion of the O(e4

Show all 106 references
  1. [6]

    We use only the secularly increasing parts of the phase, ignoring the os- cillatory pieces (which will be discussed in Appendix B)

    TaylorT2 phase with the numerically calculated TaylorT2 that is valid for arbi- trary initial eccentricities ( e0 < 1). We use only the secularly increasing parts of the phase, ignoring the os- cillatory pieces (which will be discussed in Appendix B). Since an eccentricity exp...

  2. [7]

    This resummation ansatz is then expanded once again in e0 and compared with the PN version of the phase to determine the ansatz coefficients d, f , g, h and l

    segment was arrived at by experimenting with various powers, and we finally settled with the cubic power since it proved to accumulate the smallest error in the number of cycles vis-a-vis the numerical solution. This resummation ansatz is then expanded once again in e0 and com...

  3. [8]

    (26k) III

    , (26a) ϕ(resum)1.5PN SO = y3 565δχa 24 + 565 24 1 − 76ν 113 χs , (26b) 15 ϕ(resum)1.5PN SO,ecc = y3 565δχa 24 + 565 24 1 − 76ν 113 χs − 35 272 y0 y 19/3 y3 0 − 157δχa 54 − 157 54 1 − 110ν 157 χs + y3 − 6086δχa 945 − 6086 945 1 + 1393ν 895 χs , (26c) ϕ(resum)2PN SS = y4 − 5 16...

    2016

  4. [9]

    solution is valid only for initial eccentricities around 0.07, whereas for the O(e8

  5. [10]

    The validity is further improved up to close to 0.55 for the O(e8

    solution, the validity increases to about 0.45. The validity is further improved up to close to 0.55 for the O(e8

  6. [11]

    resummed version. 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Initial eccentricity (e0) 10 4 10 2 100 102 104 Cycles mismatch ( N) e2 e4 e6 e8 e4 (Resummed) e8 (Resummed) 1 cycle line Figure 1: Absolute value of the difference in the num- ber of GW cycles between a numerical evolution of ϕ (valid for...

  7. [12]

    We estimate the importance of the newly computed spinning eccentric expressions reported in the TaylorF2 phase

    solution in a supplementary file [78]. We estimate the importance of the newly computed spinning eccentric expressions reported in the TaylorF2 phase. To do so, we compute mismatch (defined in Eq. (31)) between TaylorF2Ecc [77] and spinning eccen- tric corrections in TaylorF2 ...

  8. [13]

    But, our low-eccentricity approximation has been compared in Sec

    to the phasing approximants, we do not consider eccen- tricity corrections to the waveform amplitude. But, our low-eccentricity approximation has been compared in Sec. II B 3 with a numerically calculated solution to the evolution equations (Eq. (4)), which is exact in ec- cen...

    2022

  9. [14]

    We have limited the masses of the components to be m1 = m2 = 1.4 M⊙ in this figure and have varied the spins while keeping the initial eccentricity e0 fixed at 0.1 at 10 Hz

    TaylorT1 The orbital binding energy for a spin-aligned system in an eccentric orbit has the following structure in the y parametrization 26 Figure 4: The oscillatory part of the phase W (f ) has been plotted as a function of the GW frequency f . We have limited the masses of t...

    1944

  10. [15]

    TaylorT4 The TaylorT4 phase (ignoring all higher order circular and non-spinning, eccentric corrections) is as follows, 35 dy dt = 32y9ν 5M 1 − 5 8 e2 0 y0 y 19/3 1 + ρSO,ecc + ρSS,ecc + · · ·+ O(e8 0) , (C11) where, ρ1.5PN SO,ecc = y3 4691δχA 270 + 4691 270 1 + 782ν 4691 χs +...

    1985

  11. [16]

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

    2016 arXiv

  12. [17]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  13. [18]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [19]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  15. [20]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [21]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [22]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [23]

    Abbott et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  19. [24]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [25]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [26]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

    1994 arXiv

  22. [27]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 52, 848 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9502040. 37

    1995 arXiv

  23. [28]

    Krolak, K

    A. Krolak, K. D. Kokkotas, and G. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2089 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9503013

    1995 arXiv

  24. [29]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 93, 122003 (2016), arXiv:1602.03839 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [30]

    Blanchet, Living Rev.Rel

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev.Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  26. [31]

    http://www.black-holes.org/waveforms

  27. [32]

    Healy and C

    J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 105, 124010 (2022), arXiv:2202.00018 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [33]

    Ferguson et al., (2023), arXiv:2309.00262 [gr-qc]

    D. Ferguson et al., (2023), arXiv:2309.00262 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [34]

    Pound and B

    A. Pound and B. Wardell, (2021), 10.1007/978-981-15- 4702-7 38-1, arXiv:2101.04592 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  30. [35]

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

    1963

  31. [36]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev. 136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  32. [37]

    Kozai, Astron

    Y. Kozai, Astron. J. 67, 591 (1962)

    1962

  33. [38]

    Lidov, Planetary and Space Science 9, 719 (1962)

    M. Lidov, Planetary and Space Science 9, 719 (1962)

    1962

  34. [39]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astro- phys. J. 784, 71 (2014), arXiv:1308.2964 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  35. [40]

    C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084029 (2016), arXiv:1602.02444 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  36. [41]

    Antonini, S

    F. Antonini, S. Chatterjee, C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. 816, 65 (2016), arXiv:1509.05080 [astro-ph.GA]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [42]

    Chomiuk, J

    L. Chomiuk, J. Strader, T. J. Maccarone, J. C. A. Miller- Jones, C. Heinke, E. Noyola, A. C. Seth, and S. Ransom, Astrophys. J. 777, 69 (2013), arXiv:1306.6624 [astro- ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  38. [43]

    Strader, L

    J. Strader, L. Chomiuk, T. Maccarone, J. Miller-Jones, and A. Seth, Nature 490, 71 (2012), arXiv:1210.0901 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  39. [44]

    Osburn, N

    T. Osburn, N. Warburton, and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064024 (2016), arXiv:1511.01498 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [45]

    J. H. VanLandingham, M. C. Miller, D. P. Hamilton, and D. C. Richardson, Astrophys. J. 828, 77 (2016), arXiv:1604.04948 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [46]

    Hoang, S

    B.-M. Hoang, S. Naoz, B. Kocsis, F. A. Rasio, and F. Dosopoulou, Astrophys. J. 856, 140 (2018), arXiv:1706.09896 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [47]

    Gond´ an, B

    L. Gond´ an, B. Kocsis, P. Raffai, and Z. Frei, Astrophys. J. 855, 34 (2018), arXiv:1705.10781 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  43. [48]

    Gond´ an and B

    L. Gond´ an and B. Kocsis, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506, 1665 (2021), arXiv:2011.02507 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [49]

    Kumamoto, M

    J. Kumamoto, M. S. Fujii, and A. Tanikawa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 486, 3942 (2019), arXiv:1811.06726 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [51]

    R. M. O’Leary, F. A. Rasio, J. M. Fregeau, N. Ivanova, and R. W. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J.637, 937 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508224

    2006 arXiv

  46. [52]

    Allen, W

    B. Allen, W. G. Anderson, P. R. Brady, D. A. Brown, and J. D. E. Creighton, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012), arXiv:gr-qc/0509116

    2012 arXiv

  47. [53]

    S. A. Bhat, P. Saini, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024009 (2023), arXiv:2207.13761 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [54]

    Chattaraj, T

    A. Chattaraj, T. RoyChowdhury, Divyajyoti, C. K. Mishra, and A. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124008 (2022), arXiv:2204.02377 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [55]

    Favata, Phys

    M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1310.8288 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  50. [56]

    Kumar, S

    Divyajyoti, S. Kumar, S. Tibrewal, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043037 (2024), arXiv:2309.16638 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [57]

    K. S. Phukon, P. Schmidt, and G. Pratten, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043040 (2025), arXiv:2412.06433 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Cui et al., Nature 621, 711 (2023), arXiv:2310.09015 [astro-ph.HE]

    Y. Cui et al., Nature 621, 711 (2023), arXiv:2310.09015 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [59]

    Taracchini, Y

    A. Taracchini, Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, E. Barausse, M. Boyle, T. Chu, G. Lovelace, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 86, 024011 (2012), arXiv:1202.0790 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  54. [60]

    Ramos-Buades, S

    A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, G. Pratten, H. Estell´ es, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. Colleoni, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083015 (2020), arXiv:1909.11011 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [61]

    O’Shea and P

    E. O’Shea and P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104018 (2023), arXiv:2107.07981 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [62]

    Klein, N

    A. Klein, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 88, 124015 (2013), arXiv:1305.1932 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  57. [63]

    E. A. Huerta, P. Kumar, S. T. McWilliams, R. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 90, 084016 (2014), arXiv:1408.3406 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Moore, T

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

    2018 arXiv

  59. [65]

    Klein, Y

    A. Klein, Y. Boetzel, A. Gopakumar, P. Jetzer, and L. de Vittori, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104043 (2018), arXiv:1801.08542 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  60. [66]

    Tanay, A

    S. Tanay, A. Klein, E. Berti, and A. Nishizawa, Phys. Rev. D 100, 064006 (2019), arXiv:1905.08811 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  61. [67]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044049 (2020), arXiv:1910.00784 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Tiwari and A

    S. Tiwari and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084042 (2020), arXiv:2009.11333 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  63. [69]

    Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    A. Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Paul and C

    K. Paul and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024023 (2023), arXiv:2211.04155 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [71]

    E. A. Huerta et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 024038 (2017), arXiv:1609.05933 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [72]

    Hinderer and S

    T. Hinderer and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104048 (2017), arXiv:1707.08426 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  67. [74]

    E. A. Huerta et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 024031 (2018), arXiv:1711.06276 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Z. Chen, E. A. Huerta, J. Adamo, R. Haas, E. O’Shea, P. Kumar, and C. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 103, 084018 (2021), arXiv:2008.03313 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Chiaramello and A

    D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    K. Paul, A. Maurya, Q. Henry, K. Sharma, P. Satheesh, Divyajyoti, P. Kumar, and C. K. Mishra, (2024), arXiv:2409.13866 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [79]

    C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084040 (2015), arXiv:1501.07096 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  72. [80]

    K. G. Arun, A. Buonanno, G. Faye, and E. Ochsner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104023 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 84, 049901 (2011)], arXiv:0810.5336 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Buonanno, G

    A. Buonanno, G. Faye, and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044009 (2013), arXiv:1209.6349 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Henry, S

    Q. Henry, S. Marsat, and M. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124018 (2022), arXiv:2209.00374 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  75. [83]

    L. E. Kidder, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. D 47, R4183 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9211025. 38

    1993 arXiv

  76. [84]

    L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D 52, 821 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9506022

    1995

  77. [85]

    Vasuth and J

    M. Vasuth and J. Majar, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 22, 2405 (2007), arXiv:0705.3481 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Majar and M

    J. Majar and M. Vasuth, Phys. Rev. D77, 104005 (2008), arXiv:0806.2273 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024046 (2021), arXiv:2104.11705 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Henry and M

    Q. Henry and M. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104016 (2023), arXiv:2308.13606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Blanchet, T

    L. Blanchet, T. Damour, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5360 (1995), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 54, 1860 (1996)], arXiv:gr-qc/9501029

    1995 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Blanchet, T

    L. Blanchet, T. Damour, G. Esposito-Farese, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 091101 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0406012

    2004

  83. [91]

    Blanchet, G

    L. Blanchet, G. Faye, Q. Henry, F. Larrouturou, and D. Trestini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 121402 (2023), arXiv:2304.11185 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Moore, M

    B. Moore, M. Favata, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124061 (2016), arXiv:1605.00304 [gr- qc]

    2016 arXiv

  85. [93]

    See Supplemental Material at https://github.com/ kaushikush/Spinning-eccentric-phasing/blob/ main/Suppl_SBPM.m for spin effects in the phasing formula of eccentric compact binary inspirals till the third post-Newtonian order

  86. [94]

    D. L. C. Shoemaker, (2010)

    2010

  87. [95]

    Dwyer, D

    S. Dwyer, D. Sigg, S. W. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, N. Maval- vala, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 91, 082001 (2015), arXiv:arXiv:1410.0612 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  89. [97]

    Sato et al., Journal of Physics: Conference Series 840, 012010 (2017)

    S. Sato et al., Journal of Physics: Conference Series 840, 012010 (2017)

    2017

  90. [98]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Ba- rausse, P. Bender, E. Berti, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bor- toluzzi, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.00786 (2017)

    2017 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Van Den Broeck and A

    C. Van Den Broeck and A. S. Sengupta, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 155 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0607092

    2007 arXiv

  92. [100]

    Van Den Broeck and A

    C. Van Den Broeck and A. S. Sengupta, Class. Quantum Grav. 24, 1089 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0610126

    2007 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Buonanno, B

    A. Buonanno, B. R. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0907.0700 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Boetzel, A

    Y. Boetzel, A. Susobhanan, A. Gopakumar, A. Klein, and P. Jetzer, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044011 (2017), arXiv:1707.02088 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  95. [103]

    N. V. Krishnendu, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 091101 (2017), arXiv:1701.06318 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Divyajyoti, N. V. Krishnendu, M. Saleem, M. Colleoni, A. Vijaykumar, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023016 (2024), arXiv:2311.05506 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  97. [105]

    P¨ urrer, Class

    M. P¨ urrer, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 195010 (2014), arXiv:1402.4146 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Boh´ e, G

    A. Boh´ e, G. Faye, S. Marsat, and E. K. Porter, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 195010 (2015), arXiv:1501.01529 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.