Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 45 references

No Glitch in the Matrix: Robust Reconstruction of Gravitational Wave Signals Under Noise Artifacts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A deep network trained only on clean simulated binary-black-hole signals can pull gravitational-wave signals out of detector noise even when transient glitches overlap them.

desk verdict AWaRe's glitch-robustness claim is real but narrower than advertised; the whistle-glitch failure and the reconstruction-error metric matter. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.17185 v1 pith:YAC76O77 submitted 2024-12-22 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Chayan Chatterjee , Karan Jani This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesglitchmitigationwaveformreconstructiondeeplearningbinaryblackholessignalinjectionresidualanalysis
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

This paper tries to establish that AWaRe, a waveform-reconstruction network trained exclusively on clean simulated precessing binary-black-hole mergers, can still recover gravitational-wave signals when the detector data contain real transient noise artifacts called glitches. The authors build a catalog of 6000 cases by injecting simulated signals into real glitch data of six morphologies, then check that the reconstructed waveforms match the injections and that subtracting the reconstructions leaves residuals resembling the original glitch-only data. They also reconstruct the two events GW191109 and GW200129, both known to be affected by data-quality problems, and find the recovered waveforms agree with established pipelines around the merger. The reason to care is that glitch mitigation would not require explicit training on every new glitch type; a signal prior learned from clean data may suffice, with the caveat that the paper itself shows one whistle glitch that breaks the model.

What carries the argument

The central object is AWaRe, an encoder-decoder network built from convolutional layers, an attention mechanism, and LSTM layers, trained on fully precessing binary-black-hole waveforms with higher-order modes generated by IMRPhenomXPHM. The property that carries the argument is the zero-output prior learned during training: AWaRe outputs silence when its input does not look like a signal, which is what lets it ignore most glitches while still reconstructing the chirp. That same prior is the failure mechanism for glitches whose time-domain amplitude envelope mimics a gravitational-wave chirp, so the paper's interpretability results trace the model's successes and failures to the same learned rule.

What would settle it

Use the paper's own whistle-glitch example: inject a GW signal into that glitch, run AWaRe, and measure the recovered SNR separately in the time region where the glitch amplitude jumps from 0 to about 300. If the recovered SNR in that region is close to zero while the same signal injected into clean noise is recovered at full SNR, the mechanism of the failure is confirmed; if a catalog-wide test shows that only this type of amplitude envelope drives errors, then the paper's 'wide range of amplitudes and morphologies' claim is over-broad, and the honest statement would be 'robust for glitches that do not mimic chirp amplitude evolution'.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that pre-trained AWaRe, without any retraining on glitch-contaminated data, separates the gravitational-wave signal from the glitch rather than blending the two. The paper supports this with an injection study: recovered SNR tracks injected SNR for most of the 6000 glitch-plus-signal samples, and the residual after subtracting the reconstruction is statistically consistent with the glitch-only background, with residual SNRs mostly below the online-search trigger threshold of 8. On GW191109 the reconstruction removes the signal cleanly, and on GW200129 the glitch remains in the residual while the signal is recovered, matching published cWB and PE bands around merger with a phase mismatch in the pre-merger part. The paper also documents a limiting case: a whistle glitch whose amplitude jumps from 0 to about 300 triggers chirp-like false features because the model was trained to emit a zero vector when no signal is present, so any strain feature with chirp-like amplitude evolution can be mistaken for a signal.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mapping AWaRe learned from clean simulated signals, especially its learned behavior of outputting zero when no chirp-like amplitude evolution is present, continues to work when a glitch is added, and that glitches do not produce the same amplitude-envelope features as real signals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Glitch mitigation can be achieved without glitch-augmented training for a broad set of real glitch morphologies, because the signal prior alone is enough to reject most transients.
  • Subtracting an AWaRe reconstruction is a practical way to expose the glitch: the residual after removal is a relatively clean view of the noise artifact, useful for glitch classification.
  • For GW191109, the AWaRe reconstruction leaves no significant excess power, supporting the interpretation that the signal can be isolated despite the scattered-light glitch.
  • For GW200129, the glitch remains in the residual and the waveform is recovered around merger, giving a cross-check of precession evidence that is independent of glitch modelling assumptions.
  • Performance degrades predictably with glitch loudness: residual SNR after subtraction correlates with the original glitch SNR, and high-SNR Koi fish glitches leave residual SNRs that approach or exceed the typical trigger threshold of 8.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension of the paper's mechanism: the false-trigger rate of AWaRe on glitch-only data should be predictable from a simple feature—how well the glitch's amplitude envelope matches the time-domain envelope of a GW chirp. Scanning the glitch catalog for that feature would tell whether the stated robustness extends to all six classes or only to those without chirp-like amplitude evolution
  • The paper leaves open whether AWaRe's reconstruction uncertainty estimates remain calibrated when a glitch overlaps the signal; checking whether the 90% credible interval widens appropriately on glitch-contaminated samples would be the natural next test of whether the point-estimate robustness is accompanied by honest error bars.
  • An implicit consequence is that AWaRe could be used as a glitch-vs-signal discriminator: the regions where the zero-output prior activates indicate which parts of the strain the network thinks carry a signal, giving a data-driven way to flag noise artifacts that are most dangerous for searches.
  • Because the training set is binary-black-hole-only, the same approach could be tested on other morphologies such as neutron-star signals, but a glitch with a neutron-star-like chirp may be misread; this is a gap the authors do not address.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the authors' pre-trained AWaRe encoder-decoder network, trained on clean simulated BBH signals, to reconstruct gravitational-wave waveforms from detector data contaminated by real LIGO O3 glitches. The main claims are that AWaRe, without any glitch-specific training, accurately isolates GW signals across a wide range of glitch amplitudes and morphologies; that residuals after subtraction are consistent with the underlying glitch background; and that the method reliably reconstructs the real events GW191109 and GW200129 despite overlapping data-quality issues. The evidence consists of a 6000-sample injection study over six GravitySpy glitch classes, residual SNR analyses, Grad-CAM interpretability plots, and qualitative comparisons with cWB and PE reconstructions for the two events.

Significance. If the central claims held, the work would be a valuable contribution: glitch-agnostic waveform reconstruction with a single pre-trained network would offer a computationally cheap, model-independent tool for mitigating transient noise artifacts in current and future observing runs. The paper has concrete strengths: the injection study is systematic in scale (6000 samples, six glitch types, real O3 glitches), the use of real glitch segments rather than synthetic artifacts is appropriate, and the real-event comparisons against cWB and PE are a useful sanity check. The manuscript also presents the failure modes honestly, including the whistle-glitch example, which is commendable but also directly relevant to the robustness claim. However, the paper's own whistle-glitch example contradicts the unqualified abstract claim, the residual metric in Eq. (4) is algebraically a reconstruction-error metric rather than an independent glitch-removal metric, and the absence of a glitch-only false-positive rate leaves the central robustness claim unquantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (4)] The quantity SNR(Glitch data - AWaRe residual) is not an independent test of glitch removal. Since Eq. (3) defines the AWaRe residual as (GW waveform + O3 glitch data) - (AWaRe GW reconstruction), subtracting the residual from the glitch data gives exactly (AWaRe reconstruction - injected GW waveform). Thus Eq. (4) measures the reconstruction error of the GW signal, not the closeness of the residual to the original glitch. The statement 'If the AWaRe residual and original glitch data match perfectly, this quantity should be 0' is true only because the residual matches the glitch exactly when the reconstruction equals the injected waveform. The paper should relabel this metric, derive it explicitly, and supplement it with a direct residual-versus-glitch consistency test (for example, a noise-weighted comparison of the residual segment with the pre-injection glitch segment) and with class-conditioned failure counts rather than scatter plots alone.
  2. [§2, Fig. 2 left; Abstract] The whistle-glitch example in Fig. 2 (left) is a direct counterexample to the unqualified claim in the abstract that AWaRe 'accurately isolates gravitational wave signals from data contaminated by glitches spanning a wide range of amplitudes and morphologies.' The text states that most of the GW signal overlapping the glitch is not reconstructed and that the model outputs chirp-like features at approximately 0.3 and 0.7 s that are driven by the glitch's amplitude evolution. This is precisely the false-reconstruction failure mode that a robustness claim must exclude. The paper needs to quantify the failure rate: for each glitch class, report the fraction of injections for which the reconstruction SNR is degraded beyond a defined threshold, and report a glitch-only false-positive rate on inputs containing glitches but no GW signal. Without these numbers, the aggregate scatter in Fig. 1 and Fig. 3 does not support the 'wide range' claim.
  3. [§4, Fig. 4(b); §5] The claim that AWaRe reconstructs GW191109 and GW200129 'with high accuracy' is not supported by a quantitative metric. For GW200129, the text itself notes a phase mismatch between 0.1 and 0.04 s before merger relative to cWB and PE, and Fig. 5 (right) shows elevated model output around the glitch at approximately 3 s. Visual agreement around the merger is useful but not sufficient to establish high accuracy for parameter-estimation-relevant parts of the waveform. The authors should quantify the agreement with cWB/PE or with the injected waveform in the injection study using, for example, a time-domain overlap or a frequency-band-restricted faithfulness measure, and state the tolerance within which the reconstruction is considered accurate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains the typo 'data segmentas'; it should read 'data segments'.
  2. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption for panel (b) says 'GW200109'; this should be 'GW200129' to match the text and the rest of the paper.
  3. [§2 and §5] The glitch class is referred to inconsistently as 'Repeating blips' in §2 and 'Repeating blip' elsewhere; please standardize the terminology, preferably matching GravitySpy class names.
  4. [§2] The abstract says the authors 'extend' AWaRe, while §2 states that the pre-trained model is used directly without retraining or fine-tuning. Please rephrase the abstract to avoid implying architectural or training modifications.
  5. [General] No code or data availability statement is provided. Given that the claims depend on the exact pre-trained AWaRe weights, the injection procedure, and the glitch selection, the authors should specify how to reproduce the 6000-sample catalog and the residual analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: AWaRe's glitch robustness is tested against known injected waveforms and real O3 glitches, with no parameter fitting on glitch-contaminated data.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical generalization test: a pre-trained network, AWaRe, is applied without fine-tuning to data containing real glitches. The evaluation metric in Eq. 4, SNR(Glitch data − AWaRe residual), reduces algebraically to SNR(reconstruction − injected GW), which is a direct accuracy measure against known ground truth. No parameter is fit to the glitch-contaminated test samples, so the reconstruction is not forced by construction. The use of the authors' own AWaRe model is a tool from prior work, not an assumed conclusion; the paper's robustness claim rests on new injections into real O3 glitch data and comparisons with independent cWB/PE results. Self-citations to Chatterjee & Jani (2024a,b) provide background and motivation but are not load-bearing for the core empirical finding, which is tested in this paper. The whistle-glitch failure in Fig. 2 is a genuine limitation of the claimed 'wide range' robustness, but it is evidence against the claim, not circularity. No quoted step reduces to its own input by definition; therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted quantity is the pre-trained network itself, which is carried over from prior work. The paper's assumptions are standard modeling choices for this type of ML validation study.

free parameters (1)
  • AWaRe network weights = pre-trained, fixed from Chatterjee & Jani 2024a,b
    The central claim of glitch robustness depends entirely on the behavior of these pretrained weights; they are fitted to simulated BBH signals in prior work and applied unchanged here.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Injected gravitational wave signals are generated with the IMRPhenomXPHM approximant and are representative of real BBH signals.
    Used to construct the 6000 glitch-plus-signal samples in Sections 2 and 3; the robustness claim is only tested for this waveform family.
  • domain assumption The pre-trained AWaRe model from Chatterjee & Jani 2024a,b is a valid waveform reconstruction tool with calibrated uncertainties.
    The paper relies on the model and its published validation instead of re-deriving or re-training it.
  • domain assumption GravitySpy glitch classifications with confidence > 0.9 are correct labels for the O3 glitches.
    The glitch catalog and the six classes used in Sections 2 and 3 depend on these classifications.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No Glitch in the Matrix: Robust Reconstruction of Gravitational Wave Signals Under Noise Artifacts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YAC76O77

@misc{pith2026241217185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No Glitch in the Matrix: Robust Reconstruction of Gravitational Wave Signals Under Noise Artifacts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YAC76O77}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.17185}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational wave observations by ground based detectors such as LIGO and Virgo have transformed astrophysics, enabling the study of compact binary systems and their mergers. However, transient noise artifacts, or glitches, pose a significant challenge, often obscuring or mimicking signals and complicating their analysis. In this work, we extend the Attention-boosted Waveform Reconstruction network to address glitch mitigation, demonstrating its robustness in reconstructing waveforms in the presence of real glitches from the third observing run of LIGO. Without requiring explicit training on glitches, AWaRe accurately isolates gravitational wave signals from data contaminated by glitches spanning a wide range of amplitudes and morphologies. We evaluate this capability by investigating the events GW191109 and GW200129, which exhibit strong evidence of anti-aligned spins and spin precession respectively, but may be adversely affected by data quality issues. We find that, regardless of the potential presence of glitches in the data, AWaRe reconstructs both waveforms with high accuracy. Additionally, we perform a systematic study of the performance of AWaRe on a simulated catalog of injected waveforms in real LIGO glitches and obtain reliable reconstructions of the waveforms. By subtracting the AWaRe reconstructions from the data, we show that the resulting residuals closely align with the background noise that the waveforms were injected in. The robustness of AWaRe in mitigating glitches, despite being trained exclusively on GW signals and not explicitly on glitches, highlights its potential as a powerful tool for improving the reliability of searches and characterizing noise artifacts.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.17185 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Injected GW SNR (x-axis) and the recovered GW SNR (y-axis) for cases where GW signals overlap with glitches. The grey points represent cases without injected glitches, and the grey band shows the 90% confidence interval of the recovered SNR in these no-glitch cases, assuming a Gaussian distribution. The black line indicates the best-fit line for the no-glitch data. The colored points indicate samples where GW signal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Examples of reconstructions for simulated GW signals injected into O3 data segmentas containing glitches. The left panels correspond to a simulated GW signal overlaid with a whistle glitch, while the right panels show a GW signal with a repeating blip glitch. The top panels present the Q-transform of the input strain data, combining the simulated GW and the glitch. The second panels display the time-domain strain da… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) 1 sec O3 data around repeating blip glitch (top), AWaRe residual obtained by eq. 3 (middle) and residual obtained by subtracting the curves in the top and middle panels (bottom) for the sample shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: AWaRe reconstruction results for (a) GW191109 and (b) GW200129. The gray curves show the whitened strain data. The black curves show the mean AWaRe reconstruction with the 90% CI shown in red. The blue and orange bands show the 90% CI from cWB and PE results respective…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Reconstruction results for GW191109 (Abbott et al. 2023) (left) and GW200129 (Abbott et al. 2023) (right) using AWaRe. The top panels display the Q-transform of the original strain data. The second panels show the time-domain strain (gray), the mean waveform reconstruc…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 134001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001 —. 2017a, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471 —. 2017b, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017c, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2017d,...

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/13/134001 2016

  3. [3]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  5. [5]

    2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2014

  6. [6]

    2022, Denoising gravitational-wave signals from binary black holes with dilated convolutional autoencoder

    Bacon, P., Trovato, A., & Bejger, M. 2022, Denoising gravitational-wave signals from binary black holes with dilated convolutional autoencoder. https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.13513

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Deep Multi-view Models for Glitch Classification

    Bahaadini, S., Rohani, N., Coughlin, S., et al. 2017, Deep Multi-view Models for Glitch Classification. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.00034

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    2018, Gen

    Berti, E., Yagi, K., & Yunes, N. 2018, Gen. Rel. Grav., 50, 46, doi: 10.1007/s10714-018-2362-8

    doi:10.1007/s10714-018-2362-8 2018

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    2024, Technical Noise, Data Quality, and Calibration Requirements for Next-Generation Gravitational-Wave Science

    Capote, E., Dartez, L., & Davis, D. 2024, Technical Noise, Data Quality, and Calibration Requirements for Next-Generation Gravitational-Wave Science. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.04761

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4602 —

    Chatterjee, C., & Jani, K. 2024a, The Astrophysical Journal, 969, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad4602 —. 2024b, The Astrophysical Journal, 973, 112, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6984

    doi

  3. [11]

    2021, Phys

    Chatterjee, C., Wen, L., Diakogiannis, F., & Vinsen, K. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 064046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.064046 11

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Collaboration, T. L. S., the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2023, Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA and GEO. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.03676

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J., & Littenberg, T

    Cornish, N. J., & Littenberg, T. B. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 135012, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/13/135012

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    B., Romero-Shaw, I

    Davis, D., Littenberg, T. B., Romero-Shaw, I. M., et al. 2022, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39, 245013, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aca238

    2022 doi

  7. [15]

    S., Berger, B

    Davis, D., Areeda, J. S., Berger, B. K., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 135014, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/abfd85

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    George, D., Shen, H., & Huerta, E. A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 101501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.101501

    2018 doi

  9. [17]

    M., et al

    Ghonge, S., Brandt, J., Sullivan, J. M., et al. 2024, Assessing and Mitigating the Impact of Glitches on Gravitational-Wave Parameter Estimation: a Model Agnostic Approach. https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09159

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    B., et al

    Glanzer, J., Banagiri, S., Coughlin, S. B., et al. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 065004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/acb633

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    E., et al

    Hannam, M., Hoy, C., Thompson, J. E., et al. 2022, Nature, 610, 652, doi: 10.1038/s41586-022-05212-z

    2022 doi

  12. [20]

    1997, Neural Computation, 9, 1735

    Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. 1997, Neural Computation, 9, 1735

    1997

  13. [21]

    2022, Phys

    Hourihane, S., Chatziioannou, K., Wijngaarden, M., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 042006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.042006

    2022 doi

  14. [22]

    2016, Phys

    Klimenko, S., Vedovato, G., Drago, M., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 042004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042004

    2016 doi

  15. [23]

    Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I., & Hinton, G. E. 2012, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ed. F. Pereira, C. Burges, L. Bottou, & K. Weinberger, Vol. 25 (Curran Associates, Inc.)

    2012

  16. [24]

    Kwok, J. Y. L., Lo, R. K. L., Weinstein, A. J., & Li, T. G. F. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 024066, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.024066

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    1998, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278, doi: 10.1109/5.726791

    Lecun, Y., Bottou, L., Bengio, Y., & Haffner, P. 1998, Proceedings of the IEEE, 86, 2278, doi: 10.1109/5.726791

    1998 doi

  18. [26]

    2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 075005, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab0657

    Marquina, A. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 075005, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab0657

    2019 doi

  19. [27]

    2024, Phys

    Macas, R., Lundgren, A., & Ashton, G. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 062006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.062006

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    K., et al

    Macas, R., Pooley, J., Nuttall, L. K., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 103021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.103021

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 850, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    2017 doi

  22. [30]

    K., & Williamson, A

    Mozzon, S., Ashton, G., Nuttall, L. K., & Williamson, A. R. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.043504

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    A., et al

    Pankow, C., Chatziioannou, K., Chase, E. A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 084016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084016

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    2022, Phys

    Payne, E., Hourihane, S., Golomb, J., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 104017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104017

    2022 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 155017, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aacf18

    Powell, J. 2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 155017, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aacf18

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/34/3/034002

    Powell, J., Torres-Forn´ e, A., Lynch, R., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 034002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/34/3/034002

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    2021, Phys

    Pratten, G., Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, C., Colleoni, M., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 104056, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104056

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 095016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aab793

    Razzano, M., & Cuoco, E. 2018, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35, 095016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aab793

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., et al

    Selvaraju, R. R., Cogswell, M., Das, A., et al. 2020, International Journal of Computer Vision, 128, 336, doi: 10.1007/s11263-019-01228-7

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Soni, S., Berry, C. P. L., Coughlin, S. B., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 195016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac1ccb

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    K., Davis, D., et al

    Soni, S., Berger, B. K., Davis, D., et al. 2024, LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourth Observing run. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02831 S´ anchez, B., Dom ´ ınguez R., M., Lares, M., et al. 2019, Astronomy and Computing, 28, 100284, doi: https://doi.org...

    2024

  32. [40]

    2024, The anti-aligned spin of GW191109: glitch mitigation and its implications

    Udall, R., Hourihane, S., Miller, S., et al. 2024, The anti-aligned spin of GW191109: glitch mitigation and its implications. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.03912

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    2022, Phys

    Varma, V., Biscoveanu, S., Islam, T., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191102

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, CoRR, abs/1706.03762

    Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., et al. 2017, CoRR, abs/1706.03762

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 064003, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa5cea

    Zevin, M., Coughlin, S., Bahaadini, S., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 064003, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa5cea

    2017 doi

  36. [44]

    2024, Eur

    Zevin, M., et al. 2024, Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 139, 100, doi: 10.1140/epjp/s13360-023-04795-4

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    C., Fragione, G., Kimball, C., & Kalogera, V

    Zhang, R. C., Fragione, G., Kimball, C., & Kalogera, V. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 954, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace4c1

    2023 doi

Pith tools

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