Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 minor 1 cited by

Efficient reanalysis of events from GWTC-3 with RIFT and asimov

T0 review · 0 major / 4 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 Reanalyzing GWTC-3 events with a consistent asimov/RIFT pipeline shows most events are stable across waveform models, while GW200129's disputed spin and mass ratio depend on analysis settings.

desk verdict A useful reproducible reanalysis infrastructure; the GW200129 cross-study claim is confounded by settings differences and should be qualified or rerun. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02999 v1 pith:4LBV4CHK submitted 2024-12-04 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

D. Fernando , R. O'Shaughnessy , D. Williams This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwaveparameterinferencewaveformmodelsystematicsasimovRIFTGWTC-3NRSur7dq4SEOBNRv5PHMreproducibleanalysis
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 demonstrates that gravitational-wave events from the third observing run can be reanalyzed at scale with consistent settings by joining the asimov workflow manager to the RIFT inference engine. It applies this pipeline to fifteen high-mass events using four waveform models, and finds that for most events the models largely agree but for a handful they disagree substantially. Its sharpest result concerns GW200129, where the authors' NRSur7dq4 analysis prefers comparable masses and does not favor large spin, in contrast to a previously published reanalysis with the same waveform model. The paper argues that reproducible, settings-controlled reanalysis is what allows such discrepancies to be traced to analysis choices rather than to astrophysics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of two software systems: asimov, a workflow manager that stores event-specific settings and launches production inference runs, and RIFT, a two-stage inference code that first evaluates marginal likelihoods over many intrinsic parameter samples and then reconstructs the posterior. Around this core, the analysis uses Bayeswave to estimate noise power spectra and the Jensen-Shannon divergence to flag when two one-dimensional posteriors differ by more than a visibly noticeable amount (threshold 0.02). The four waveform families—IMRPhenomPv2, SEOBNRv4PHM, SEOBNRv5PHM, and NRSur7dq4—are the comparison objects whose differences the framework is designed to expose.

What would settle it

Take the GW200129 configuration published with this paper and repeat the NRSur7dq4 analysis after adding calibration marginalization and replacing the Bayeswave PSD with the PSD used in the earlier independent reanalysis. If the posterior then shifts to mass ratio $q\lesssim 0.4$ and near-extremal primary spin, the paper's claim that its less extreme result reflects consistent settings would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a reproducible reanalysis framework can reliably show how waveform model choice changes the interpretation of gravitational-wave events, and that doing so reveals which events are robust. Using asimov-managed settings and RIFT inference on public gravitational-wave data, the authors reanalyze the same set of events previously studied with NRSur7dq4, adding SEOBNRv4PHM, SEOBNRv5PHM, and IMRPhenomPv2. Their Jensen-Shannon divergence comparisons show that almost every event has some parameter in which modern waveform models disagree, and that every pair of models differs at least somewhere. The most consequential finding is for GW200129: their NRSur7dq4 run, with a Bayeswave noise spectrum and no calibration marginalization, does not reproduce the extremely asymmetric mass ratio and high spin of the earlier independent reanalysis, and the underlying marginal likelihood surface shows no high-likelihood support at those extreme parameters. The paper takes this as evidence that the extreme GW200129 conclusions are sensitive to analysis settings, not just to the waveform model.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that omitting calibration marginalization and using a different noise spectrum leaves the inferred source parameters essentially unchanged, so that any remaining differences from earlier analyses are waveform effects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Consistent, reproducible reanalysis of GWTC-3 events is possible with public data and public software, so waveform-systematics studies no longer need bespoke per-event setups.
  • For most high-mass events the older IMRPhenomPv2 model gives results broadly consistent with modern waveforms, but a few events (GW191109, GW200302, GW200129) are strongly affected.
  • Every pair of modern waveform models, including SEOBNRv4PHM and SEOBNRv5PHM, disagrees at least somewhere, so no single model choice is safe without cross-checks.
  • The GW200129 discrepancy between NRSur7dq4 analyses is at least partly attributable to analysis settings such as the noise spectrum and calibration treatment, meaning the waveform model alone does not explain the extreme spin and mass ratio.
  • Future event-level studies should publish full settings through a workflow system so that differences can be separated into waveform effects and analysis effects.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper leaves implicit that population-level inferences which mix results across waveform models and settings may inherit these event-level systematics; the same framework could produce a uniform whole-catalog reanalysis as a robustness test.
  • The authors' GW200129 finding suggests the extreme mass ratio and spin from the earlier NRSur7dq4 study are tied to that study's specific noise spectrum and calibration treatment; re-running that pipeline with Bayeswave PSDs would isolate the cause.
  • The framework should scale to waveform families the paper does not cover, such as eccentric models, because the archived settings can be replayed unchanged with a new model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper describes a framework-based reanalysis of 15 GWTC-3 binary black hole events using RIFT managed by asimov, with consistent settings and four waveform models (IMRPhenomPv2, SEOBNRv4PHM, SEOBNRv5PHM, NRSur7dq4). The authors provide public configuration files, use GWOSC data and the Open Science Grid, and omit calibration marginalization in order to produce dense posterior samples. They compare their posteriors internally and against previous IMRPhenomXPHM and NRSur7dq4 analyses, using JS divergences and selected event figures. The central claim is that asimov/RIFT enables reproducible large-scale reanalyses that can reveal waveform-model systematics, with the caveat that external comparisons are not fully controlled.

Significance. The main value of the paper is infrastructural: it demonstrates a concrete, reproducible workflow for multi-event waveform-systematics studies and makes the full settings public. The internal same-settings comparisons are valid and support the claim that waveform model choice changes conclusions for several events (e.g., GW191109, GW200129, GW200216, and GW200220). The cross-study comparison for GW200129 is honestly disclosed as settings-dependent, and I do not read it as controlled evidence isolating waveform-model physics; this weakens the headline comparison but not the framework claim. The work does not introduce a new inference algorithm, and its quantitative summary statistics are illustrative rather than error-budgeted, but as a reproducibility contribution it is solid and timely.

minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III A / Figures 1-2] The JS divergence threshold of 0.02 is introduced as ad hoc, and no sampling uncertainty is attached to the JS values; because these summary statistics are used to identify notable differences, please add a sentence clarifying that the threshold is illustrative and consider showing bootstrap or sample-size sensitivity.
  2. [Section II B / Section III D / Figures 8-9] External comparisons with NRSur7dq4 from reference [14] and IMRPhenomXPHM from reference [12] use different PSDs, calibration treatment, and metadata; although Section II B notes this, the figure captions and the abstract should explicitly state that apparent discrepancies are not controlled waveform-model tests.
  3. [Section I / II A / II B / III B / III D] Please correct typographical errors: 'exmaples' (Section I), 'azimuthl' (Section II A), 'configuraiton' (Section II B), 'sentitively' (Section III B), 'NRSurd7q4' (Section III D), and 'Jenson-Shannon' in the captions of Figures 1 and 2.
  4. [Section II B] The phrase 'we use asimov to get the PSDs by running Bayeswave' is slightly ambiguous; since asimov coordinates workflows, it would help to state explicitly whether the Bayeswave PSD estimates are fixed for all events and how the frequency ranges are selected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: posterior estimates are computed from public data with standard likelihood evaluation and compared against external published results; self-citations are infrastructural.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a standard Bayesian parameter-estimation pipeline. Equations (1) and (2) define the marginal likelihood and posterior from the strain data, waveform models, and priors; no parameter is fit to the claimed conclusions. The event-level inferences (e.g., GW200129) are RIFT posterior/likelihood evaluations with independently generated Bayeswave PSDs, and the comparisons to [14] and [12] are comparisons to externally published posterior sets, not to outputs of the same fit. The paper explicitly concedes that settings (PSD, calibration marginalization) differ and 'some differences are expected' (Sec. II B), which is a stated limitation rather than a circular reduction. Self-citations to RIFT [9,24] and asimov [23] are infrastructural: they describe the software pipeline, not an unverified theorem that forces the scientific conclusions. The GW200129 discrepancy claim is a controlled-within-this-paper waveform comparison plus an external cross-check; even if the cross-check is not fully controlled (a correctness concern), it is not circular because the external results are not constructed from this paper's inputs. No step reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

The paper's central claims rest on standard Bayesian inference assumptions plus domain-specific choices: negligible effect of calibration marginalization, adequacy of Bayeswave PSDs, and fidelity of the four waveform models. The only paper-specific ad hoc number is the JS divergence threshold of 0.02. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • JS divergence threshold 0.02 = 0.02
    Ad hoc threshold chosen to define when one-dimensional posterior differences are 'easily identified by eye'; affects which events are highlighted in Figures 1 and 2.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Calibration marginalization has negligible impact on astrophysical source properties
    Stated in Section I; used to justify omitting calibration marginalization, which may affect sky localization but not intrinsic parameters.
  • domain assumption Bayeswave PSD estimates are appropriate representations of the noise
    Section II B; PSD choice affects likelihood and thus posteriors; differences from prior analyses are acknowledged.
  • domain assumption Waveform models approximate the true gravitational radiation well enough for parameter inference
    Standard assumption in GW parameter estimation; the paper compares models to probe this.
  • domain assumption Data are publicly released GWOSC deglitched data and are analyzed with a standard Gaussian likelihood
    Section II; standard LIGO analysis assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Efficient reanalysis of events from GWTC-3 with RIFT and asimov." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4LBV4CHK

@misc{pith2026241202999,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Efficient reanalysis of events from GWTC-3 with RIFT and asimov},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4LBV4CHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02999}
}
read the original abstract

Different waveform models can yield notably different conclusions about the properties of individual gravitational wave events. For instance, previous analyses using the SEOBNRv4PHM, IMRPhenomXPHM models, and NRSur7dq4 have led to varying results regarding event properties. This variability complicates the interpretation of the data and understanding of the astrophysical phenomena involved. There is an ongoing need to reassess candidate events with the best available interpretations and models. Current approaches lack efficiency or consistency, making it challenging to perform large-scale reanalyses with updated models or improved techniques. It is imperative that investigations into waveform systematics be reproducible. Frameworks like asimov can facilitate large-scale reanalyses with consistent settings and high-quality results, and can reliably show how different waveform models affect the interpretation of gravitational wave events. This, in combination with other provided tools, allow for reanalysis of several events from the GWTC-3 catalog. We include access to full analysis settings that facilitate public use of GWOSC data on the Open Science Grid, particularly those conducted with the IMRPhenomPv2, SEOBNRv4PHM, SEOBNRv5PHM, and NRSur7dq4 waveform models. Our parameter inference results find similar conclusions to previously published work: for several events, all models largely agree, but for a few exceptional events these models disagree substantially on the nature of the merging binary.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02999 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Jenson-Shannon (JS) divergence between the one-dimensional marginalized posteriors of the source-frame total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The Jenson-Shannon (JS) divergence between the one-dimensional marginalized posteriors of the effective inspiral spin parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison of waveform models for GW200129_065458 where the colored data points in the top left panel are from IMRPhenomPv2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Comparison of waveform models for GW200220_061928 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of waveform models for GW200220_124850 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Comparison of waveform models for GW191109_010717 where the colored data points in the top left panel are from IMRPhenomPv2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Posteriors for the source-frame total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Posteriors for the source-frame total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Assessing the waveform systematics from parameter estimation to population inference with eccentricity

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric waveform-model differences, small per event, accumulate across the GWTC-4 catalog and alter inferred redshift evolution and effective-spin population distributions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, and et al., Advanced LIGO, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    NRSur7dq4-Islam

    To investigate this numerical incongruity, in Figures 8 and 9 we illustrate the posteriors derived using all models, includ- ing IMRPhenomPv2. For many events and parameters, all one-dimensional posteriors are in good agreement, modulo truncation effects associated with the finite mass ratio range required for NRSur7dq4. However, more frequently than for ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Accadia and et al, Virgo: a laser interferometer to detect grav- itational waves, Journal of Instrumentation 7 (03), P03012

    T. Accadia and et al, Virgo: a laser interferometer to detect grav- itational waves, Journal of Instrumentation 7 (03), P03012

    work page

  4. [4]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alleman- dou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, and et al., Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferomet- ric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Akutsu, M

    T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, Y . Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, Y . Aso, S. Bae, Y . Bae, L. Baiotti, R. Bajpai, M. A. Barton, K. Cannon, E. Capocasa, M. Chan, C. Chen, K. Chen, Y . Chen, H. Chu, Y . K. Chu, S. Eguchi, Y . Enomoto, R. Flaminio, Y . Fujii, M. Fukunaga, M. Fukushima, G. Ge, A. Hagiwara, S. Haino, K. Hasegawa, H. Hayakawa, K. Hayama, ...

    arXiv 2021

  6. [7]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y .-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Schäfer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, 4-OGC: Catalog of Gravita- tional Waves from Compact Binary Mergers, Astrophys. J.946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [8]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldar- riaga, New binary black hole mergers in the second observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Phys. Rev. D101, 083030 (2020), arXiv:1904.07214 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [9]

    Wadekar, J

    D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Za- ckay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2312.06631 (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 38 references
  1. [10]

    Wofford, A

    J. Wofford, A. B. Yelikar, H. Gallagher, E. Champion, D. Wysocki, V . Delfavero, J. Lange, C. Rose, V . Valsan, S. Morisaki, J. Read, C. Henshaw, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Im- proving performance for gravitational-wave parameter infer- ence with an efficient and highly-parallelize...

    2023

  2. [11]

    Cotesta, A

    R. Cotesta, A. Buonanno, A. Bohé, A. Taracchini, I. Hinder, and S. Ossokine, Enriching the symphony of gravitational waves from binary black holes by tuning higher harmonics, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084028 (2018), arXiv:1803.10701 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [12]

    Ossokine, A

    S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, S. Marsat, R. Cotesta, S. Babak, T. Dietrich, R. Haas, I. Hinder, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. Pürrer, C. J. Woodford, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilá- gyi, Multipolar effective-one-body waveforms for precessing binary black holes: Constructi...

    2020 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Pratten, C

    G. Pratten, C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estellés, M. Mateu-Lucena, R. Jaume, M. Haney, D. Keitel, J. E. Thompson, and S. Husa, Computationally efficient mod- els for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of pre- cessing binary black holes, Phys. Re...

    2021 arXiv

  5. [14]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. Pürrer, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Schölkopf, Neural Importance Sampling for Rapid and Reliable Gravitational-Wave Inference, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171403 (2023), arXiv:2210.05686 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Islam, A

    T. Islam, A. Vajpeyi, F. H. Shaik, C.-J. Haster, V . Varma, S. E. Field, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and R. Smith, Anal- ysis of GWTC-3 with fully precessing numerical relativity surrogate models, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2309.14473 (2023), arXiv:2309.14473 [gr-qc]

    2023

  7. [16]

    Varma, S

    V . Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Surrogate mod- els for precessing binary black hole simulations with un- equal masses, Physical Review Research 1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [17]

    Abbott, T

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, and et al., GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First Hal...

    2021 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Williamson, J

    A. Williamson, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Clark, P. Ku- mar, J. Bustillo, and J. Veitch, Inferring parameters of poten- tially rapidly precessing binary black holes: Systematic chal- lenges for future graviational wave measurements, Phys. Rev. D 96, 124041 (2017). 12

    2017

  10. [19]

    Shaik, J

    F. Shaik, J. Lange, S. Field, R. O’Shaughnessy, V . Varma, and et al, Impact of subdominant modes on the interpretation of gravitational-wave signals from heavy binary black hole sys- tems, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124054 (2020)

    2020

  11. [20]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, D. Agar- wal, and et al., GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Ob- served by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Physical Review X 13, ...

    2023 arXiv

  12. [21]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V . B. Adya, and et al., GW190412: Observation of a Binary-Black-Hole Coalescence with Asym- metric Masses, Phys. Rev. D 102, 0430...

    2020

  13. [22]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acer- nese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V . B. Adya, and et al., Properties and Astrophysical Implications of the 150 M ⊙ Binary Black Hole Merger GW190521, Astrophys. J....

    2020

  14. [23]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, SEOB- NRv5PHM: Next generation of accurate and efficient mul- tipolar precessing-spin effective-one-body waveforms for bi- nary black holes, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2...

    2023 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Williams, J

    D. Williams, J. Veitch, M. Chiofalo, P. Schmidt, R. Udall, A. Vajpeyi, and C. Hoy, Asimov: A framework for coordinating parameter estimation workflows, The Journal of Open Source Software 8, 4170 (2023), arXiv:2207.01468 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    Lange, R

    J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, Rapid and accurate parameter inference for coalescing, precessing compact bina- ries, Submitted to PRD; available at arxiv:1805.10457 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Fernando, Repository for settings is available at https://git.ligo.org/deanna.fernando/settings.git, (2024)

    D. Fernando, Repository for settings is available at https://git.ligo.org/deanna.fernando/settings.git, (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    Hannam, P

    M. Hannam, P. Schmidt, A. Bohé, L. Haegel, S. Husa, F. Ohme, G. Pratten, and M. Pürrer, Simple Model of Complete Precess- ing Black-Hole-Binary Gravitational Waveforms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151101 (2014), arXiv:1308.3271 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [28]

    D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, L. Pom- pili, M. Pürrer, and A. Ramos-Buades, pySEOBNR: a software package for the next generation of effective-one-body mul- tipolar waveform models, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2303.18203 (2023), arXiv:2303.18203 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Pankow, P

    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), arXiv:1502.04370 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [30]

    O’Shaughnessy, J

    R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Blackman, and S. Field, An architecture for efficient multimodal parameter estimation with linear surro- gate models, Class. Quantum Grav. 10.1088/1361-6382/aa7649 (2017)

    2017 doi

  22. [31]

    Wysocki, R

    D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, J. Lange, and Y .-L. L. Fang, Accelerating parameter inference with graphics processing units, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084026 (2019), arXiv:1902.04934 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V . B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, and et al., Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, SoftwareX 13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [33]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Bayeswave: Bayesian inference for gravitational wave bursts and instrument glitches, Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 135012 (2015), arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  25. [34]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Bayesian inference for spec- tral estimation of gravitational wave detector noise, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084034 (2015), arXiv:1410.3852 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Chatziioannou, C.-J

    K. Chatziioannou, C.-J. Haster, T. B. Littenberg, W. M. Farr, S. Ghonge, M. Millhouse, J. A. Clark, and N. Cornish, Noise spectral estimation methods and their impact on gravitational wave measurement of compact binary mergers, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104004 (2019), arXiv:1907.06540 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Hannam, C

    M. Hannam, C. Hoy, J. E. Thompson, S. Fairhurst, V . Ray- mond, M. Colleoni, D. Davis, H. Estellés, C.-J. Haster, A. Helmling-Cornell, S. Husa, D. Keitel, T. J. Massinger, A. Menéndez-Vázquez, K. Mogushi, S. Ossokine, E. Payne, G. Pratten, I. Romero-Shaw, J. Sadiq, P. Schmidt,...

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Gupte, A

    N. Gupte, A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, J. Gair, M. C. Miller, M. Dax, S. R. Green, M. Pürrer, J. Wildberger, J. Macke, and B. Schölkopf, Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2404.14286 (2024), ...

    2024 arXiv

  29. [38]

    Payne, S

    E. Payne, S. Hourihane, J. Golomb, R. Udall, D. Davis, and K. Chatziioannou, Curious case of GW200129: Interplay be- tween spin-precession inference and data-quality issues, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104017 (2022), arXiv:2206.11932 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Macas, A

    R. Macas, A. Lundgren, and G. Ashton, Revisiting the evidence for precession in GW200129 with machine learning noise mit- igation, Phys. Rev. D 109, 062006 (2024), arXiv:2311.09921 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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