Paper detail

Systematic Biases in Gravitational-Wave Parameter Estimation from Neglecting Orbital Eccentricity in Space-Based Detectors

Accurate modeling of gravitational-wave signals is essential for reliable inference of compact-binary source parameters, particularly for future space-based detectors operating in the milli- and deci-Hertz bands. In this work, we systematically investigate the parameter-estimation biases induced by neglecting orbital eccentricity when analyzing eccentric compact-binary coalescences with quasi-circular waveform templates. Focusing on the deci-Hertz detector B-DECIGO and the milli-Hertz detector LISA, we model eccentric inspiral signals using a frequency-domain waveform that incorporates eccentricity-induced higher harmonics and the time-dependent response of spaceborne detectors. We quantify systematic biases in the chirp mass, symmetric mass ratio, and luminosity distance using both Bayesian inference and the Fisher-Cutler-Vallisneri (FCV) formalism, and assess their significance relative to statistical uncertainties. By constructing mock gravitational-wave catalogs spanning stellar-mass and massive black-hole binaries, we identify critical initial eccentricities at which systematic errors become comparable to statistical errors. We find that for B-DECIGO, even very small eccentricities, $e_0\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}$ at 0.1 Hz, can lead to significant biases, whereas for LISA such effects typically arise at larger eccentricities, $e_0\sim 10^{-2}-10^{-1}$ at $10^{-4}$ Hz, due to the smaller number of in-band cycles. Comparisons between FCV predictions and full Bayesian analyses demonstrate good agreement within the regime where waveform mismatches remain small, especially when extrinsic parameters are pre-aligned to minimize mismatches. Our results highlight the necessity of incorporating eccentricity in waveform models for future space-based gravitational-wave observations.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.