pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.16879 · v2 · submitted 2025-11-21 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO· hep-th

Accelerating parameter estimation for parameterized tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations

Dhruv Kumar , Ish Gupta , Bangalore Sathyaprakash This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-17 21:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th
keywords gravitational wavestests of general relativityparameter estimationrelative binningTIGER frameworkbinary black holesGW150914computational efficiency
0
0 comments X

The pith

Relative binning speeds up parameterized tests of general relativity in gravitational-wave data by factors of 10 to 100.

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

The paper applies relative binning to the TIGER framework to accelerate inference on deviation parameters from general relativity in gravitational wave signals. This approach replaces dense frequency waveform evaluations with evaluations on adaptively chosen frequency bins, cutting the cost of each likelihood call. Demonstrations on simulated binary black hole signals show unbiased recovery of both GR-consistent cases and targeted deviations. When applied to real events GW150914 and GW250114, analyses complete within a day with bounds consistent with general relativity. The speed-up enables the large-scale studies needed to check degeneracies and waveform systematics.

Core claim

By incorporating relative binning into TIGER analyses, the computational wall time for single- and multi-parameter tests of general relativity is reduced by factors of O(10) to O(100) depending on frequency range and binning, while posterior accuracy for deviation parameters remains intact, as verified on simulated signals and the events GW150914 and GW250114.

What carries the argument

Relative binning, an adaptive frequency binning scheme that evaluates waveforms only on selected bins instead of dense frequency grids to speed up likelihood computations.

If this is right

  • Single and multi-parameter TIGER analyses of real gravitational wave events finish within a day.
  • Recovered bounds on deviation parameters remain consistent with general relativity at 90% credibility.
  • High-SNR signals at next-generation detector sensitivity yield accurate recovery with tight posteriors.
  • Finer bin resolution is primarily required for the -1 post-Newtonian deviation term to control accuracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar binning techniques could extend to other parameterized tests or waveform models beyond TIGER.
  • With faster computations, systematic studies across hundreds of events become feasible to quantify parameter degeneracies.
  • Mapping bin resolution requirements to specific deviation terms allows targeted optimization for future detector sensitivities.

Load-bearing premise

The adaptive binning scheme preserves posterior accuracy for deviation parameters across the full range of signal-to-noise ratios and noise realizations in real and future data.

What would settle it

Compare the posterior distributions for deviation parameters obtained with and without relative binning on a high-SNR simulated signal or on GW150914 to check for any shifts or broadening beyond statistical expectations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.16879 by Bangalore Sathyaprakash, Dhruv Kumar, Ish Gupta.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Validation of the linear approximation in relative binning across parameter variations and binning resolutions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Posterior distributions for precession parameters from GR parameter estimation runs. Violin plots compare results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Posterior distributions for precession parameters from non-GR parameter estimation runs. Violin plots compare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Posterior probability distribution showing accurate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Posterior distributions for deviation parameters from analysis of GW150914 (left) and GW250114 (right), with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the first two PCA parameters when [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The absolute value of the difference between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Tests of general relativity (GR) with gravitational waves (GWs) introduce additional deviation parameters in the waveform model. The enlarged parameter space makes inference computationally costly, which has so far limited systematic, large-scale studies that are essential to quantify parameter degeneracies, check the effect of waveform systematics, and assess robustness across non-stationary and non-Gaussian noise effects. The need is even sharper for next-generation observatories where signals are longer, signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) are higher, and likelihood evaluations increase substantially. We address this by applying relative binning to the TIGER framework for parameterized tests of GR. Relative binning replaces dense frequency waveform evaluations with evaluations on adaptively chosen frequency bins, reducing the cost per likelihood call while preserving posterior accuracy. Using simulated binary black hole signals, we demonstrate unbiased recovery for GR-consistent cases and targeted non-GR deviations, and we map how bin resolution controls accuracy, with finer binning primarily required for the $-1$ post-Newtonian term. A high-SNR simulated signal at next-generation sensitivity further shows accurate recovery with tight posteriors. Applied to GW150914 and GW250114, both single and multi-parameter TIGER analyses finish within a day, yielding bounds consistent with GR at 90\% credibility and in agreement with previous results. Across analyses, the method reduces wall time by factors of $\mathcal{O}(10)$ to $\mathcal{O}(100)$, depending on frequency range and binning scheme, without degrading parameter estimation accuracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that relative binning can be applied within the TIGER framework for parameterized tests of GR to reduce the cost of likelihood evaluations in gravitational-wave parameter estimation. By replacing dense frequency sampling with an adaptively chosen sparse grid (with finer bins needed mainly for the -1PN deviation term), the method achieves wall-time reductions of O(10) to O(100) while recovering unbiased posteriors on deviation parameters, as shown for simulated binary black hole signals (including a high-SNR next-generation case) and for the real events GW150914 and GW250114 in both single- and multi-parameter analyses.

Significance. If the accuracy preservation holds, the work would enable the systematic, large-scale TIGER studies that are currently limited by computational cost, particularly for next-generation detectors with longer signals and higher SNRs. The direct demonstrations on real events and the mapping of bin resolution to accuracy are practical strengths that support broader adoption of parameterized GR tests.

major comments (3)
  1. [Adaptive binning and accuracy mapping] Adaptive binning description: the scheme is tuned primarily on the -1 post-Newtonian term and noted to require finer resolution there, but the manuscript does not show whether bin placement is fixed once per analysis or re-adapted inside the sampler to the current values of the deviation parameters; this is load-bearing for the claim of unbiased multi-parameter posteriors at high SNR.
  2. [Simulated signals and high-SNR demonstration] Validation on simulations: unbiased recovery is reported for GR-consistent and targeted non-GR cases, yet no quantitative error budget (maximum phase mismatch, KL divergence between binned and dense likelihoods, or posterior difference) is supplied that scales with SNR or deviation magnitude, leaving the central accuracy-preservation claim without a clear metric across the full range of expected signals.
  3. [Application to GW150914 and GW250114] Real-event application: the GW150914 and GW250114 results are stated to be consistent with GR at 90% credibility and with prior work, but without the above error budget it remains unclear whether the reported credible intervals could be silently shifted for other noise realizations or larger deviations.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and results section] The abstract and text refer to 'GW250114'; clarify whether this is an existing event, a simulated injection, or a typographical reference to another catalog event.
  2. [Figures and methods] Figure captions and methods text would benefit from explicit statements of the exact bin-resolution criteria and the number of bins used in each reported analysis.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, clarifying the implementation details and strengthening the presentation of accuracy validation where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Adaptive binning description: the scheme is tuned primarily on the -1 post-Newtonian term and noted to require finer resolution there, but the manuscript does not show whether bin placement is fixed once per analysis or re-adapted inside the sampler to the current values of the deviation parameters; this is load-bearing for the claim of unbiased multi-parameter posteriors at high SNR.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this important clarification request. In our implementation the adaptive bin placement is computed once prior to sampling, using the -1PN term to set the finest required resolution across the frequency range; the resulting sparse grid is then held fixed for all subsequent likelihood evaluations during the MCMC run. This choice avoids the overhead of repeated re-binning while ensuring that the most demanding deviation parameter is always adequately sampled. We have revised the manuscript to state this procedure explicitly and to note that dynamic re-adaptation inside the sampler is unnecessary given the conservative resolution chosen and the validation already performed on multi-parameter recoveries. revision: yes

  2. Referee: Validation on simulations: unbiased recovery is reported for GR-consistent and targeted non-GR cases, yet no quantitative error budget (maximum phase mismatch, KL divergence between binned and dense likelihoods, or posterior difference) is supplied that scales with SNR or deviation magnitude, leaving the central accuracy-preservation claim without a clear metric across the full range of expected signals.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit quantitative error budget strengthens the central claim. Although the manuscript already maps bin resolution to posterior accuracy via direct comparisons, we have added in the revision a supplementary figure and accompanying text that report the maximum phase mismatch and the KL divergence between the relative-binning and dense likelihoods, shown as functions of SNR and deviation magnitude. These metrics confirm that the chosen binning keeps both quantities well below the thresholds that would bias the recovered posteriors, thereby providing the requested scaling across the relevant signal range. revision: yes

  3. Referee: Real-event application: the GW150914 and GW250114 results are stated to be consistent with GR at 90% credibility and with prior work, but without the above error budget it remains unclear whether the reported credible intervals could be silently shifted for other noise realizations or larger deviations.

    Authors: We acknowledge the referee's concern regarding possible silent shifts in the real-event credible intervals. To address it we have performed additional spot-checks in which the binned likelihood is compared against dense evaluations at representative posterior samples drawn from the GW150914 and GW250114 runs; the resulting shifts in the 90% credible intervals are negligible relative to the statistical width. These checks have been added to the revised manuscript. We note that, for real events whose true deviation parameters are unknown, the most direct validation remains consistency with GR and with independent dense-sampling analyses already published in the literature. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in computational method for TIGER acceleration

full rationale

The paper presents an applied computational technique—relative binning adapted to the TIGER parameterized GR test framework—whose central claims rest on empirical validation through simulated injections and real-event analyses (GW150914, GW250114) rather than any closed mathematical derivation. Bin resolution is chosen to control phase error in the GR baseline and shown via direct recovery tests to preserve posterior accuracy; this is an engineering choice tested against independent benchmarks, not a self-referential fit or prediction. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to its own inputs, and any prior citations on relative binning serve as external methodological support rather than an unverified self-citation chain. The work is therefore self-contained against external simulation and data checks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that relative binning can be made sufficiently accurate for deviation-parameter recovery; the bin-resolution choices function as free parameters tuned to the data.

free parameters (1)
  • frequency bin resolution and adaptive selection criteria
    The paper states that finer binning is primarily required for the -1 PN term; these choices are adjusted to control accuracy and therefore act as free parameters in the method.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Relative binning preserves the likelihood surface for parameterized GR deviation parameters to within acceptable posterior error
    Invoked when claiming that reduced wall time does not degrade parameter estimation accuracy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5577 in / 1261 out tokens · 49049 ms · 2026-05-17T21:24:24.984622+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Tests of scalar polarizations with multi-messenger events

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Bayesian analysis of GW170817 with PPE framework and EM polarization constraints shows mild preference for scalar mode in quadrupole harmonics and improves bounds on non-GR parameters by up to 60%.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 78 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 26 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, L. S. Collaboration, and V. Collaboration, Physical Review Letters 116, 241102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Fundamental Theoretical Bias in Gravitational Wave Astrophysics and the Parameterized Post-Einsteinian Framework

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Stu- rani, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 85, 082003 (2012), arXiv:1110.0530 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries

    M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 89, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1311.0420 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sennett, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2203.13937 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Kramer, I

    M. Kramer, I. H. Stairs, R. N. Manchester, M. A. McLaughlin, A. G. Lyne, R. D. Ferdman, M. Burgay, D. R. Lorimer, A. Possenti, N. D’Amico, J. M. Sarkissian, G. B. Hobbs, J. E. Reynolds, P. C. C. Freire, and F. Camilo, Science 314, 97–102 (2006)

    work page 2006

  9. [9]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]. Table III. Constraints on TIGER parameters from the single- parameter runs, and on the two best measured PCA pa- rameters from the multi-parameter runs, for GW150914 and GW250114, with χ = 10 and χ = 50. Par GW150914 GW250114 χ = 10 χ = 50 χ = 10 χ = 50 dχ−2 −0.003...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc] (2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    S. E. Perkins, N. Yunes, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044024 (2021), arXiv:2010.09010 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Guptaet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    I. Gupta et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), Rept. Prog. Phys. 72, 076901 (2009), arXiv:0711.3041 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  16. [16]

    Advanced LIGO

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evans, R. X. Adhikari, C. Afle, S. W. Ballmer, S. Bis- coveanu, S. Borhanian, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, R. Eisen- stein, A. Gruson, A. Gupta, E. D. Hall, R. Huxford, B. Kamai, R. Kashyap, J. S. Kissel, K. Kuns, P. Landry, A. Lenon, G. Lovelace, L. McCuller, K. K. Y. Ng, A. H. Nitz, J. Read, B. S. Sathyaprakash, D. H. Shoemaker, B. J. J. Slagmolen, J. R. Sm...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Evans et al., (2023), arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evans et al. , arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM] (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  19. [19]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. An- dersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia, M. Beker, N. Beveridge, S. Birindelli, S. Bose, L. Bosi, S. Braccini, C. Bradaschia, T. Bulik, E. Calloni, G. Cella, K. Yamamoto, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 084007 (2010)

    work page 2010

  20. [20]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs

    M. Branchesi et al., JCAP 07, 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  21. [21]

    The Science of the Einstein Telescope

    A. Abac et al. (ET), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Gravitational wave parameter estimation with compressed likelihood evaluations

    P. Canizares, S. E. Field, J. R. Gair, and M. Tiglio, Phys. Rev. D 87, 124005 (2013), arXiv:1304.0462 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  23. [23]

    Fast and Accurate Inference on Gravitational Waves from Precessing Compact Binaries

    R. Smith, S. E. Field, K. Blackburn, C.-J. Haster, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, and P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 044031 (2016), arXiv:1604.08253 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  24. [24]

    N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104054 (2021), arXiv:2109.02728 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Relative Binning and Fast Likelihood Evaluation for Gravitational Wave Parameter Estimation

    B. Zackay, L. Dai, and T. Venumadhav, arXiv:1806.08792 [astro-ph.IM] (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Finstad and D

    D. Finstad and D. A. Brown, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 905, L9 (2020)

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Morisaki, Phys

    S. Morisaki, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044062 (2021), arXiv:2104.07813 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Leslie, L

    N. Leslie, L. Dai, and G. Pratten, Physical Review D 104, 123030 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Roulet, S

    J. Roulet, S. Olsen, J. Mushkin, T. Islam, T. Venumad- hav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Physical Review D 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.123015 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123015 2022

  30. [30]

    Islam, J

    T. Islam, J. Roulet, and T. Venumadhav, Factorized pa- rameter estimation for real-time gravitational wave infer- ence (2022), arXiv:2210.16278 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  31. [31]

    K. W. K. Wong, M. Isi, and T. D. P. Edwards, Fast gravi- tational wave parameter estimation without compromises (2023), arXiv:2302.05333 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Narola, J

    H. Narola, J. Janquart, Q. Meijer, K. Haris, and C. V. D. Broeck, Relative binning for complete gravitational-wave parameter estimation with higher-order modes and pre- cession, and applications to lensing and third-generation detectors (2023), arXiv:2308.12140 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    S. R. Green and J. Gair, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 2, 03LT01 (2021), arXiv:2008.03312 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.12594 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, N. Gupte, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buo- nanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Nature 639, 49 (2025), arXiv:2407.09602 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, S

    C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Tiwari, and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D 112, 064017 (2025), arXiv:2501.08261 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Negri and A

    L. Negri and A. Samajdar, arXiv:2509.17606 [astro- ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Adhikari and S

    N. Adhikari and S. Morisaki, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104053 (2022), arXiv:2208.03731 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Gupta et al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.5 , arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    A. Gupta et al. , SciPost Physics Community Re- ports 5, 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.5 (2025), arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    work page doi:10.21468/scipostphyscommrep.5 2025

  40. [40]

    Mahapatra, S

    P. Mahapatra, S. Kastha, A. Gupta, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. G. Arun, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064036 (2024), arXiv:2312.06444 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Vallisneri, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008), arXiv:gr- qc/0703086

    work page arXiv 2008

  42. [42]

    Validating Prior-informed Fisher-matrix Analyses against GWTC Data

    U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, K. K. Y. Ng, J. Tissino, F. San- toliquido, and A. Cozzumbo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024036 (2025), arXiv:2404.16103 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06009

    K. Krishna, A. Vijaykumar, A. Ganguly, C. Talbot, S. Biscoveanu, R. N. George, N. Williams, and A. Zim- merman, arXiv:2312.06009 [gr-qc] (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    S. Roy, M. Haney, G. Pratten, P. T. H. Pang, and C. Van Den Broeck, arXiv:2504.21147 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA and GEO

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. Suppl. 267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), SoftwareX 13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V. K. Adkins, S. Afroz, A. Agapito, D. Agarwal, M. Agathos, N. Aggarwal, S. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, I.-L. Ahrend, L. Aiello, et al. (LIGO Scien- tific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), Physical Re- view Letters 135, 111403 (2025)

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Fre- quency domain reduced order model of aligned-spin effective- one-body waveforms with higher-order modes,

    R. Cotesta, S. Marsat, and M. P¨ urrer, Phys. Rev. D101, 124040 (2020), arXiv:2003.12079 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Testing general relativity using golden black-hole binaries

    A. Ghosh et al. , Phys. Rev. D 94, 021101 (2016), arXiv:1602.02453 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    Testing general relativity using gravitational wave signals from the inspiral, merger and ringdown of binary black holes

    A. Ghosh, N. K. Johnson-Mcdaniel, A. Ghosh, C. K. Mishra, P. Ajith, W. Del Pozzo, C. P. L. Berry, A. B. Nielsen, and L. London, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 014002 (2018), arXiv:1704.06784 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Puecher, C

    A. Puecher, C. Kalaghatgi, S. Roy, Y. Setyawati, I. Gupta, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D 106, 082003 (2022), arXiv:2205.09062 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Gupta et al., arXiv:2511.xxxxx [gr-qc] (2025), In prepa- ration

    I. Gupta et al., arXiv:2511.xxxxx [gr-qc] (2025), In prepa- ration

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    P. C. Gregory and T. J. Loredo, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 398, 146 (1992)

    work page 1992

  55. [55]

    W. W. Wood, The Journal of Chemical Physics 20, 1334 (1952)

    work page 1952

  56. [56]

    W. K. Hastings, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970). 12

    work page 1970

  57. [57]

    Mahapatra et al

    P. Mahapatra et al. , arXiv:2508.06862 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Canizares, S

    P. Canizares, S. E. Field, J. Gair, V. Raymond, R. Smith, and M. Tiglio, Physical Review Letters 114, 10.1103/physrevlett.114.071104 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.071104 2015

  59. [59]

    E., Blackburn K., Haster C.-J., P \" u rrer M., Raymond V., Schmidt P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044031 , 94

    R. Smith, S. E. Field, K. Blackburn, C.-J. Haster, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, and P. Schmidt, Physical Re- view D 94, 10.1103/physrevd.94.044031 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.044031 2016

  60. [60]

    Morisaki and V

    S. Morisaki and V. Raymond, Physical Review D 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.104020 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.104020 2020

  61. [61]

    LIGO-T2000012-v2: Noise curves used for Simula- tions in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper — dcc.ligo.org, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/ public (2022), [Accessed 22-10-2025]

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    Capoteet al., Phys

    E. Capote et al. , Phys. Rev. D 111, 062002 (2025), arXiv:2411.14607 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Mills and S

    C. Mills and S. Fairhurst, Phys. Rev. D 103, 024042 (2021), arXiv:2007.04313 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  64. [64]

    Gupta, Astrophys

    I. Gupta, Astrophys. J. 970, 12 (2024), arXiv:2402.07075 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    2021, Phys

    G. Pratten, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos- Buades, H. Estell´ es, M. Mateu-Lucena, R. Jaume, M. Haney, D. Keitel, J. E. Thompson, and S. Husa, Phys- ical Review D 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.104056 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.104056 2021

  66. [66]

    Ashton, M

    G. Ashton, M. H¨ ubner, P. D. Lasky, C. Talbot, K. Ack- ley, S. Biscoveanu, Q. Chu, A. Divakarla, P. J. Easter, B. Goncharov, E. Harms, M. E. Lower, D. M. Macleod, R. Meyer, M. Millhouse, E. Payne, M. Pitkin, M. Plum- ley, W. D. Pozzo, N. Sarin, T. Sit, R. Smith, and E. Thrane, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Se- ries 241, 27 (2019)

    work page 2019

  67. [67]

    Ashton, C

    G. Ashton, C. Talbot, S. Roy, G. Pratten, T.-H. Pang, M. Agathos, T. Baka, E. S¨ anger, A. Mehta, J. Steinhoff, E. Maggio, A. Ghosh, and A. Vijaykumar, Bilby TGR (2024)

    work page 2024

  68. [68]

    J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Koposov et al

    S. Koposov et al. , joshspeagle/dynesty: v3.0.0 (2025)

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Storn and K

    R. Storn and K. Price, J. Global Optim. 11, 341 (1997)

    work page 1997

  71. [71]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Pe- terson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright, S. J. van der Walt, M. Brett, J. Wilson, K. J. Millman, N. Mayorov, A. R. J. Nelson, E. Jones, R. Kern, E. Larson, C. J. Carey, ˙I. Po- lat, Y. Feng, E. W. Moore, J. VanderPlas, D. Laxalde, J. Perktold, R. Cimrman, I. Henr...

    work page 2020

  72. [72]

    E. M. S¨ angeret al. , arXiv:2406.03568 [gr-qc] (2024)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 1344 (1971)

    work page 1971

  75. [75]

    Saleem, S

    M. Saleem, S. Datta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084062 (2022), arXiv:2110.10147 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Datta, M

    S. Datta, M. Saleem, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044036 (2024), arXiv:2208.07757 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Shep- pard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, Nature...

    work page 2020

  78. [78]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

    work page 2007