- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Misinterpreting spin precession as orbital eccentricity in gravitational-wave signals

Snehal Tibrewal1, Aaron Zimmerman1, Jacob Lange2,1, and Deirdre Shoemaker1

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 064046 – Published 9 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/fh7x-xm5z

Abstract

The increasing scope and breadth of gravitational wave detectors is providing the opportunity to explore new parameters in gravitational-wave astronomy. Eccentricity and spin-precession are two key observables to infer the origin of a gravitational wave (GW) source. The interpretation of GW source parameters can be plagued by degeneracy, such as the well-known degeneracy between mass and spin. As the field has explored new parameters, questions have been raised about possible degeneracies between eccentricity and spin-precession. Although some state-of-the-art models now include these effects individually, models that incorporate spin-precession and eccentricity are only in their infancy. Until models faithfully cover the complete parameter space of compact binary coalescence, our ability to correctly measure the source parameters and infer the formation of the binary is compromised. Here, we present a study of the distinguishability of these two key parameters in heavy binary black hole systems. We study merger-ringdown dominated systems with detector-frame total masses ranging between 200−300M⊙ and mass ratio ranging between 1–3. Our work finds that there is indeed a degeneracy between eccentricity and spin-precession; however, it is a highly localized effect. We find that the misidentified eccentricity estimates get worse as the detector-frame total mass increases from 200M⊙ to 300M⊙, corresponding to progressively shorter signals in the detector band. Additionally, this misidentification is highly sensitive to the inclination angle of the source system. We provide quantifiable estimates of the potency of this degeneracy in addition to identifying some of the regions of parameter space where this degeneracy exists.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (88)

  1. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
  2. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), 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. X 9, 031040 (2019).
  3. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021).
  4. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024).
  5. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023).
  6. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave transient catalog with observations from the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, Astrophys. J. Lett. 1004, L22 (2026).
  7. Charlie Hoy, Stephen Fairhurst, and Ilya Mandel, Rarity of precession and higher-order multipoles in gravitational waves from merging binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023037 (2025).
  8. Emil Julius Gumbel, Statistics of Extremes (Columbia University Press, New York, 1958).
  9. Johan Samsing, Eccentric black hole mergers forming in globular clusters, Phys. Rev. D 97, 103014 (2018).
  10. Carl L. Rodriguez, Michael Zevin, Chris Pankow, Vasilliki Kalogera, and Frederic A. Rasio, Illuminating black hole binary formation channels with spins in Advanced LIGO, Astrophys. J. Lett. 832, L2 (2016).
  11. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GWTC-4.0: Population properties of merging compact binaries, Astrophys. J. Lett. 1005, L51 (2026).
  12. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GW190521: A binary black hole merger with a total mass of 150M⊙, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020).
  13. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Properties and astrophysical implications of the 150M⊙ binary black hole merger GW190521, Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L13 (2020).
  14. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GW231123: A binary black hole merger with total mass 190–265M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett. 993, L25 (2025).
  15. Giulia Fumagalli, Isobel Romero-Shaw, Davide Gerosa, Viola De Renzis, Konstantinos Kritos, and Aleksandra Olejak, Residual eccentricity as a systematic uncertainty on the formation channels of binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063012 (2024).
  16. Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Juan Calderon Bustillo, GW190521: Orbital eccentricity and signatures of dynamical formation in a binary black hole merger signal, Astrophys. J. Lett. 903, L5 (2020).
  17. V. Gayathri, J. Healy, J. Lange, B. O’Brien, M. Szczepańczyk, Imre Bartos, M. Campanelli, S. Klimenko, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Eccentricity estimate for black hole mergers with numerical relativity simulations, Nat. Astron. 6, 344 (2022).
  18. Simona J. Miller, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, Vijay Varma, and Ilya Mandel, GW190521: Tracing imprints of spin-precession on the most massive black hole binary, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024024 (2024).
  19. Juan Calderón Bustillo, Nicolas Sanchis-Gual, Alejandro Torres-Forné, José A. Font, Avi Vajpeyi, Rory Smith, Carlos Herdeiro, Eugen Radu, and Samson H. W. Leong, GW190521 as a merger of proca stars: A potential new vector boson of 8.7×10−13  eV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 081101 (2021).
  20. Iuliu Cuceu, Marie Anne Bizouard, Nelson Christensen, and Mairi Sakellariadou, GW231123: Binary black hole merger or cosmic string?, Phys. Rev. D 113, L021302 (2026).
  21. Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Davide Gerosa, and Nicholas Loutrel, Eccentricity or spin precession? distinguishing subdominant effects in gravitational-wave data, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 519, 5352 (2023).
  22. Yumeng Xu and Eleanor Hamilton, Measurability of precession and eccentricity for heavy binary-black-hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103049 (2023).
  23. Divyajyoti et al., Biased parameter inference of eccentric, spin-precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 113, 103022 (2026).
  24. Ish Gupta, Purnima Narayan, Lionel London, Shubhanshu Tiwari, and Bangalore Sathyaprakash, Testing general relativity with amplitudes of subdominant gravitational-wave modes, Phys. Rev. D 114, 044050 (2026).
  25. Eamonn O’Shea and Prayush Kumar, Correlations in gravitational-wave reconstructions from eccentric binaries: A case study with GW151226 and GW170608, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104018 (2023).
  26. Marc Favata, Chunglee Kim, K. G. Arun, JeongCho Kim, and Hyung Won Lee, Constraining the orbital eccentricity of inspiralling compact binary systems with Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. D 105, 023003 (2022).
  27. Divyajyoti, Sumit Kumar, Snehal Tibrewal, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, and Chandra Kant Mishra, Blind spots and biases: The dangers of ignoring eccentricity in gravitational-wave signals from binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043037 (2024).
  28. Pankaj Saini, Marc Favata, and K. G. Arun, Systematic bias on parametrized tests of general relativity due to neglect of orbital eccentricity, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084031 (2022).
  29. Muhammad Zeeshan and Richard O’Shaughnessy, Eccentricity matters: Impact of eccentricity on inferred binary black hole populations, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063009 (2024).
  30. Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, and Eric Thrane, Signs of eccentricity in two gravitational-wave signals may indicate a subpopulation of dynamically assembled binary black holes, Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L31 (2021).
  31. H. L. Iglesias et al., Eccentricity estimation for five binary black hole mergers with higher-order gravitational-wave modes, Astrophys. J. 972, 65 (2024).
  32. Nihar Gupte et al., Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, Phys. Rev. D 112, 104045 (2025).
  33. Maria de Lluc Planas, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Cecilio García-Quirós, Héctor Estellés, Sascha Husa, and Maria Haney, Eccentric or circular? A reanalysis of binary black hole gravitational wave events for orbital eccentricity signatures, Phys. Rev. D 112, 123004 (2025).
  34. Isobel Romero-Shaw, Jakob Stegmann, Hiromichi Tagawa, Davide Gerosa, Johan Samsing, Nihar Gupte, and Stephen R. Green, GW200208_222617 as an eccentric black-hole binary merger: Properties and astrophysical implications, Phys. Rev. D 112, 063052 (2025).
  35. Antoine Klein, Yannick Boetzel, Achamveedu Gopakumar, Philippe Jetzer, and Lorenzo de Vittori, Fourier domain gravitational waveforms for precessing eccentric binaries, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104043 (2018).
  36. Rossella Gamba, Danilo Chiaramello, and Sayan Neogi, Toward efficient effective-one-body models for generic, nonplanar orbits, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024031 (2024).
  37. Gonzalo Morras, Geraint Pratten, and Patricia Schmidt, Orbital eccentricity in a neutron star—black hole binary, Astrophys. J. Lett. 1000, L2 (2026).
  38. Gonzalo Morras, Geraint Pratten, and Patricia Schmidt, Improved post-Newtonian waveform model for inspiralling precessing-eccentric compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084052 (2025).
  39. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GWTC-4.0: An introduction to version 4.0 of the gravitational-wave transient catalog, Astrophys. J. Lett. 995, L18 (2025).
  40. Geraint Pratten, Cecilio García-Quirós, Marta Colleoni, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Héctor Estellés, Maite Mateu-Lucena, Rafel Jaume, Maria Haney, David Keitel, Jonathan E. Thompson, and Sascha Husa, Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021).
  41. Marta Colleoni, Felip A. Ramis Vidal, Cecilio García-Quirós, Sarp Akçay, and Sayantani Bera, Fast frequency-domain gravitational waveforms for precessing binaries with a new twist, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104019 (2025).
  42. Eleanor Hamilton, Lionel London, Jonathan E. Thompson, Edward Fauchon-Jones, Mark Hannam, Chinmay Kalaghatgi, Sebastian Khan, Francesco Pannarale, and Alex Vano-Vinuales, Model of gravitational waves from precessing black-hole binaries through merger and ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124027 (2021).
  43. Jonathan E. Thompson, Eleanor Hamilton, Lionel London, Shrobana Ghosh, Panagiota Kolitsidou, Charlie Hoy, and Mark Hannam, Phenomenological gravitational-wave model for precessing black-hole binaries with higher multipoles and asymmetries, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024).
  44. Eleanor Hamilton, Marta Colleoni, Jonathan E. Thompson, Charlie Hoy, Anna Heffernan, Meryl Kinnear, Jorge Valencia, Felip A Ramis Vidal, Cecilio García-Quirós, Shrobana Ghosh, Lionel London, Mark Hannam, and Sascha Husa, PhenomXPNR: An improved gravitational wave model linking precessing inspirals and NR-calibrated merger-ringdown, Phys. Rev. D 113, 084055 (2026).
  45. Héctor Estellés, Sascha Husa, Marta Colleoni, David Keitel, Maite Mateu-Lucena, Cecilio García-Quirós, Antoni Ramos-Buades, and Angela Borchers, Time-domain phenomenological model of gravitational-wave subdominant harmonics for quasicircular nonprecessing binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084039 (2022).
  46. Héctor Estellés, Marta Colleoni, Cecilio García-Quirós, Sascha Husa, David Keitel, Maite Mateu-Lucena, Maria de Lluc Planas, and Antoni Ramos-Buades, New twists in compact binary waveform modeling: A fast time-domain model for precession, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084040 (2022).
  47. Alejandro Bohé et al., Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors, Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017).
  48. Roberto Cotesta, Alessandra Buonanno, Alejandro Bohé, Andrea Taracchini, Ian Hinder, and Serguei Ossokine, Enriching the symphony of gravitational waves from binary black holes by tuning higher harmonics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084028 (2018).
  49. Serguei Ossokine, Alessandra Buonanno, Sylvain Marsat, Roberto Cotesta, Stanislav Babak, Tim Dietrich, Roland Haas, Ian Hinder, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Michael Pürrer, Charles J. Woodford, Michael Boyle, Lawrence E. Kidder, Mark A. Scheel, and Béla Szilágyi, Multipolar effective-one-body waveforms for precessing binary black holes: Construction and validation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044055 (2020).
  50. Roberto Cotesta, Sylvain Marsat, and Michael Pürrer, Frequency-domain reduced-order model of aligned-spin effective-one-body waveforms with higher-order modes, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124040 (2020).
  51. Deyan P. Mihaylov, Serguei Ossokine, Alessandra Buonanno, and Abhirup Ghosh, Fast post-adiabatic waveforms in the time domain: Applications to compact binary coalescences in ligo and virgo, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124087 (2021).
  52. Lorenzo Pompili et al., Laying the foundation of the effective-one-body waveform models SEOBNRv5: Improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning nonprecessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124035 (2023).
  53. Alessandro Nagar, Gunnar Riemenschneider, Geraint Pratten, Piero Rettegno, and Francesco Messina, Multipolar effective one body waveform model for spin-aligned black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024077 (2020).
  54. Gunnar Riemenschneider, Piero Rettegno, Matteo Breschi, Angelica Albertini, Rossella Gamba, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, and Alessandro Nagar, Assessment of consistent next-to-quasicircular corrections and postadiabatic approximation in effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for binary black hole coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104045 (2021).
  55. Sarp Akcay, Rossella Gamba, and Sebastiano Bernuzzi, Hybrid post-newtonian effective-one-body scheme for spin-precessing compact-binary waveforms up to merger, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024014 (2021).
  56. Rossella Gamba, Sarp Akçay, Sebastiano Bernuzzi, and Jake Williams, Effective-one-body waveforms for precessing coalescing compact binaries with post-Newtonian twist, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024020 (2022).
  57. Rossella Gamba, Danilo Chiaramello, and Sayan Neogi, Toward efficient effective-one-body models for generic, nonplanar orbits, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024031 (2024).
  58. Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Blackman, Davide Gerosa, Leo C. Stein, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033015 (2019).
  59. Vijay Varma, Scott E. Field, Mark A. Scheel, Jonathan Blackman, Lawrence E. Kidder, and Harald P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate model of hybridized numerical relativity binary black hole waveforms, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064045 (2019).
  60. Maria de Lluc Planas, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Cecilio García-Quirós, Héctor Estellés, Sascha Husa, and Maria Haney, Time-domain phenomenological multipolar waveforms for aligned-spin binary black holes in elliptical orbits, Phys. Rev. D 113, 024006 (2026).
  61. Aldo Gamboa, Alessandra Buonanno, Raffi Enficiaud, Mohammed Khalil, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Lorenzo Pompili, Héctor Estellés, Michael Boyle, Lawrence E. Kidder, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Hannes R. Rüter, and Mark A. Scheel, Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model seobnrv5ehm, Phys. Rev. D 112, 044038 (2025).
  62. Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, Mohammed Khalil, and Serguei Ossokine, Effective-one-body multipolar waveforms for eccentric binary black holes with nonprecessing spins, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044035 (2022).
  63. Danilo Chiaramello and Alessandro Nagar, Faithful analytical effective-one-body waveform model for spin-aligned, moderately eccentric, coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 101, 101501 (2020).
  64. Tousif Islam, Vijay Varma, Jackie Lodman, Scott E. Field, Gaurav Khanna, Mark A. Scheel, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Davide Gerosa, and Lawrence E. Kidder, Eccentric binary black hole surrogate models for the gravitational waveform and remnant properties: Comparable mass, nonspinning case, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064022 (2021).
  65. Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, Héctor Estellés, Mohammed Khalil, Deyan P. Mihaylov, Serguei Ossokine, Lorenzo Pompili, and Mahlet Shiferaw, Next generation of accurate and efficient multipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023).
  66. Benjamin J. Owen and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Matched filtering of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Computational cost and template placement, Phys. Rev. D 60, 022002 (1999).
  67. Michael Boyle, Duncan A. Brown, Lawrence E. Kidder, Abdul H. Mroue, Harald P. Pfeiffer, Mark A. Scheel, Gregory B. Cook, and Saul A. Teukolsky, High-accuracy comparison of numerical relativity simulations with post-Newtonian expansions, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124038 (2007).
  68. Mark Hannam, Sascha Husa, Ulrich Sperhake, Bernd Bruegmann, and Jose A. Gonzalez, Where post-Newtonian and numerical-relativity waveforms meet, Phys. Rev. D 77, 044020 (2008).
  69. Alessandra Buonanno, Bala Iyer, Evan Ochsner, Yi Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084043 (2009).
  70. Parameswaran Ajith et al., Phenomenological template family for black-hole coalescence waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S689–S700 (2007).
  71. Bernard F. Schutz, Networks of gravitational wave detectors and three figures of merit, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 125023 (2011).
  72. Curt Cutler and Eanna E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994).
  73. C. Pankow, P. Brady, E. Ochsner, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Novel scheme for rapid parallel parameter estimation of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023002 (2015).
  74. Jacob Lange, Richard O’Shaughnessy, and Monica Rizzo, Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact binaries, arXiv:1805.10457.
  75. J. Wofford et al., Expanding RIFT: Improving performance for GW parameter inference, arXiv:2210.07912.
  76. Katelyn J. Wagner, R. O’Shaughnessy, A. Yelikar, N. Manning, D. Fernando, J. Lange, V. Tiwari, A. Fernando, and D. Williams, Narrowing RIFT: Focused simulation-based-inference for interpreting exceptional GW sources, arXiv:2505.11655.
  77. J. Lange et al., Parameter estimation method that directly compares gravitational wave observations to numerical relativity, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104041 (2017).
  78. Noise curves for use in simulations pre-O4, Technical Report LIGO-T2200043-v3, LIGO, 2022.
  79. James M. Dickey, The weighted likelihood ratio, linear hypotheses on normal location parameters, Ann. Math. Stat. 42, 204 (1971).
  80. Isabella Verdinelli and Larry Wasserman, Bayes factors, nuisance parameters, and imprecise tests, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 90, 614 (1995).
  81. Tibrewal et al., Posteriors for PE runs: Misinterpreting spin precession as orbital eccentricity in gravitational-wave signals, Zenodo (2025), 10.5281/zenodo.17886746.
  82. P. Ajith et al., Inspiral-merger-ringdown waveforms for black-hole binaries with non-precessing spins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011).
  83. L. Santamaria et al., Matching post-Newtonian and numerical relativity waveforms: Systematic errors and a new phenomenological model for non-precessing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064016 (2010).
  84. Davide Gerosa, Michael Kesden, Ulrich Sperhake, Emanuele Berti, and Richard O’Shaughnessy, Multi-timescale analysis of phase transitions in precessing black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D 92, 064016 (2015).
  85. Patricia Schmidt, Frank Ohme, and Mark Hannam, Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015).
  86. J. Veitch et al., Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library, Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015).
  87. Eric Thrane and Colm Talbot, An introduction to Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 36, e010 (2019); 37, e036(E) (2020).
  88. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GWTC-4.0: Methods for identifying and characterizing gravitational-wave transients, Astrophys. J. Lett. 1004, L21 (2026).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 064046– Published 9 September, 2026
  • Received 25 January 2026
  • Accepted 25 August 2026
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2026 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation