Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

The MBTA Pipeline for Detecting Compact Binary Coalescences in the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The MBTA pipeline, as configured for the first half of the fourth observing run, detects compact binary coalescences with a median alert latency near 21 seconds and recovers six of nine previously catalogued events in a rerun.

desk verdict A transparent O4 pipeline paper that deserves refereeing; the main thing to press is the unvalidated cRS^-3 foreground assumption, which is testable and non-fatal. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.04598 v2 pith:4QQPM3SX submitted 2025-01-08 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Christopher Alléné , Florian Aubin , Inès Bentara , Damir Buskulic , Gianluca M Guidi , Vincent Juste , Morgan Lethuillier , Frédérique Marion
show 5 more authors
Lorenzo Mobilia Benoît Mours Amazigh Ouzriat Thomas Sainrat Viola Sordini
This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavescompactbinarycoalescencematchedfilteringlow-latencyalertsprobabilityofastrophysicaloriginsub-solar-masssearchearly-warningglitchrejection
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 describes the configuration of the MBTA matched-filtering pipeline for the offline analysis of the first half of the fourth observing run and for its online low-latency operation. It argues that MBTA reliably detects compact binary coalescences with an alert latency below 30 seconds, contributes to many low-latency alerts, and recovers six of nine previously catalogued events in a 40-day rerun of earlier data. The paper introduces a glitch-rejection reweighting called SNR-Excess, adds single-detector triggers, and launches online sub-solar-mass and early-warning searches. If the paper is right, MBTA supplies reliable candidate events for the O4 catalog and for electromagnetic follow-up of neutron-star mergers.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the two-band matched filter: the search splits the filtering into a low-frequency and a high-frequency part, then combines them into 'virtual templates,' which cuts computational cost while retaining sensitivity. Candidate triggers are ranked by a statistic $\mathrm{cRS}$ that adds single-detector reweighted signal-to-noise ratios in quadrature plus a term for arrival-time and phase consistency; the SNR-Excess reweighting penalizes triggers whose maximum-SNR timeseries around the event looks unlike injected signals. Significance comes from $p_{\mathrm{astro}}$, the probability of astrophysical origin, computed per parameter-space bin from foreground counts (from injections) and background counts (from time-shifted or single-detector data) and converted into a false-alarm rate through the same mapping.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline's offline configuration on many simulated signals spread across the parameter space and compare the measured cumulative counts at high ranking statistic to the assumed $\mathrm{cRS}^{-3}$ curve; a statistically significant mismatch would show the pastro and false-alarm calibrations are wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MBTA, as configured for the first part of the fourth observing run, successfully detects compact binary coalescences with the described sensitivity and glitch rejection, and improves on its third-run configuration. The evidence includes a 40-day rerun of earlier data in which six of nine events from the third observing-run catalog were recovered with a probability of astrophysical origin above 0.5, and an online run with median alert latency around 21 seconds and fewer retracted alerts than in the previous run. A new reweighting called SNR-Excess replaces the older ER method for the offline analysis, single-detector triggers from the two most sensitive detectors are included for chirp masses below seven solar masses, and the false-alarm rate is built from the same astrophysical-origin ranking statistic so that the two significance measures are consistent.

Load-bearing premise

The probability that a trigger is astrophysical assumes that real events above a given signal-to-noise ratio become rarer as that ratio to the minus third power; if nature does not follow that curve, every quoted significance and false-alarm rate would shift.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The offline O4a configuration feeds candidate events into the O4 catalog, each with a probability of astrophysical origin and a false-alarm rate that use the same ranking statistic.
  • Online alerts with median latency near 21 seconds, including about 10 seconds of data transfer, make electromagnetic follow-up of neutron-star mergers more feasible.
  • Including single-detector triggers covers the roughly 14% of time with only one detector online and cases where a signal is visible in only one of two online detectors.
  • The sub-solar-mass search, run online for the first time, can respond quickly to a candidate and will constrain or discover low-mass compact objects.
  • The early-warning searches, filtering only up to 42-58 Hz, can report some binary neutron star mergers before merger, at the cost of requiring stronger signals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The assumed $\mathrm{cRS}^{-3}$ scaling of the foreground cumulative distribution is the step most worth stress-testing: a direct comparison with injection-recovered foreground counts would show whether the quoted $p_{\mathrm{astro}}$ values carry a population-dependent bias.
  • The chirp-mass cutoff of seven solar masses for single-detector triggers means high-mass single-detector events are deliberately missed; future configurations could extend coverage as better background models become available.
  • The decision to split the online false-alarm budget equally among binary neutron star, neutron star-black hole, and binary black hole sources is a policy choice; it could be re-weighted to match measured merger rates, which would change which candidates are reported as significant.
  • The early-warning technique could be extended to neutron star-black hole or higher total-mass systems as low-latency computing allows, though the shorter signals limit the achievable time gain.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper describes the Multi-Band Template Analysis (MBTA) pipeline as configured for the offline analysis of the first part of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's fourth observing run (O4a) and gives a brief overview of the online configuration. It documents the preprocessing, template-bank construction, trigger generation, coincidence logic, the new SNR-Excess glitch-rejection method, the new single-detector trigger analysis, the computation of pastro and false-alarm rates, the sub-solar-mass search, and the early-warning BNS searches. The central performance claims are that the O4a offline configuration recovers 6 of 9 GWTC-3 events from a 40-day O3 rerun with pastro > 0.5, that the online pipeline contributed to a large number of O4a low-latency alerts with a median latency near 21 s, and that improved glitch management reduced retractions relative to O3.

Significance. If the claims are correct, this paper is a useful reference for the MBTA contributions to the forthcoming GWTC-4 catalog and for the interpretation of O4 low-latency alerts. The paper provides concrete validation anchors: an O3 rerun against GWTC-3, a comparison of online alert statistics to other pipelines, and figures showing the behavior of the SNR-Excess model on injections and glitches. It is candid about a retracted alert and about events not recovered. The main weakness is that the pastro/FAR calibration rests on an unvalidated power-law assumption for the foreground ranking-statistic distribution; this is directly testable with the existing injection products and should be demonstrated before publication.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 2.6, Eq. (3)] The foreground density n_f(cRS) used in Eq. (3) is built from the injection-recovered mass distribution combined with the stated assumption that the foreground cumulative distribution is proportional to SNR^-3 ≈ cRS^-3. This power law is asserted without derivation or comparison to the empirically recovered cRS distribution, even though the injection set has already been run through the pipeline. Because the ranking statistic cRS includes auto-chi^2 and SNR-Excess reweighting, the Euclidean-volume SNR^-3 scaling for a single detector is not self-evident for this combined statistic. This assumption controls the shape of n_f in Eq. (3) and, through the Sec. 2.7 construction, the global FAR(pastro) mapping in Eqs. (4)-(5), so any deviation shifts the pastro assigned to every candidate, including the marginal events in Table 3 (e.g., GW200209 085452 at pastro=0.70 and GW200208 222617 at pastro=0.14). The authors should plot the empirical cumulative cRS distribution of recovered injections against the assumed power law for representative parameter-space bins and show how robust the Table 3 classifications and the online alert set are to the power-law index. This is a calibration check that is directly feasible with the existing injection products.
  2. [Section 2.5] The single-detector background is estimated by fitting an exponential to the single-detector trigger distribution during double-detector time and extrapolating to high ranking-statistic values. The paper states that the validity of this extrapolation was verified by an alternative fake-coincidence method based on MBTA's two-band feature, but it refers only to chapter 6 of a PhD thesis [36] for details. Since single-detector triggers are a new component of the O4a search and can contribute to public alerts, the paper should summarize that cross-check in enough detail for the reader to assess the extrapolation, or at least give the quantitative agreement between the two methods. Without this, the significance assigned to single-detector candidates cannot be independently evaluated.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Miscellaneous] The heading 'Acknowlegements' contains a typo; it should be 'Acknowledgements'.
  2. [Section 2.6] The notation 'Λ1 and Λ0 rates' is introduced by reference to [37] but not defined in this paper; these quantities should be identified explicitly for readers not familiar with the earlier MBTA paper.
  3. [Table 2] The caption says 'The first number corresponds to the median latency', but the table rows are not clearly structured around that statement; consider reorganizing the table or the caption so the reader can see which entries are latencies and which are event counts.
  4. [Section 2.2] The sentence 'Compared to O3, the parameter space has been extended to cover total masses up to 500 M⊙, however limiting the mass ratio to 50 (100 in O3)' is grammatically awkward and the parenthetical is ambiguous; rephrase to clarify that the mass-ratio limit was reduced relative to O3.
  5. [Conclusion] The sentence 'The pipeline was able to contribute to many of low-latency alerts during the O4 run' would benefit from a quantitative statement or a pointer to Table 2, since 'many' is vague.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the O3 rerun and online alert results are benchmarked against external GWTC-3 and GraceDB data, and the cRS^-3 foreground assumption is an explicit modeling input rather than a quantity derived from the claimed detections.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are supported by independent external benchmarks, not by inputs that are re-branded as outputs. In Section 2.9, the O4a offline configuration is tested on a 40-day O3 period and compared to GWTC-3, an external catalog, with recovery rates reported in Table 3; the online performance in Table 2 is measured against GraceDB alerts and latency times. The pastro construction in Section 2.6 uses injection-recovered foreground counts plus an explicit assumption that 'the foreground cumulative distribution is proportional to SNR^-3 ≈ cRS^-3.' This is a stated modeling assumption about the shape of the foreground ranking-statistic distribution, not a prediction derived from the pipeline's own outputs, and it is not fitted to the target events whose significance it later evaluates. The same section references [37] and [38] for the general pastro method, and Section 2.3 references [2] for the ranking statistic formula and Pij; these are ordinary self-citations to prior pipeline documentation, and the current paper's detection claims do not collapse into those references because the pipeline is independently validated against external catalogs and live alerts. The unvalidated cRS^-3 power law is a legitimate calibration/robustness concern: if the true foreground tail differs, pastro and FAR values would shift, but that is a correctness risk, not circularity. No equation in the paper defines the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is presented as an independent prediction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited with the required specificity, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The pipeline's statistical significance machinery relies on standard matched filtering and on several domain assumptions: aligned spins, representative injections, an SNR^-3 foreground scaling, and an exponential tail for single-detector background. These are standard practices in the field but are not independently verified here.

free parameters (5)
  • Single-detector chirp mass threshold = 7 M_sun
    Section 2.5: chosen based on the observed ranking-statistic distribution in Figure 4, restricting single-detector events to BNS and NSBH-like systems; this is a data-dependent selection that affects which events the pipeline can report.
  • SNR-Excess reweighting exponent = 0.2
    Equation 2: ranking statistic is multiplied by (1/χ²_SNR-Excess)^0.2 when χ² > 1; the exponent is chosen by hand with no optimization shown.
  • Coincidence rejection threshold = 15% ranking-statistic decrease
    Section 2.4: coincidences are rejected if the ranking statistic drops by more than 15% after auto-χ² and SNR-Excess, applied only in high-mass regions; threshold is empirically set.
  • Online FAR trial factors = w_BNS=0.333, w_NSBH=0.333, w_BBH-low=0.033, w_BBH-high=0.3
    Appendix A: background budget is shared between source types, with the BBH-low fraction determined empirically from the chirp-mass distribution of the population model; these factors directly set the significance assigned to online candidates.
  • Foreground cumulative power-law index = cRS^-3 (SNR^-3)
    Section 2.6: the foreground rate as a function of ranking statistic is assumed to scale as SNR^-3; this is an assumed functional form, not fitted, but it is load-bearing for the pastro calibration.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Aligned-spin template approximation: spins are assumed parallel to the orbital angular momentum.
    Section 2.2 introduces this assumption, citing refs [17-20] that precession does not strongly affect detection for the targeted population. It could bias sensitivity for precessing sources.
  • domain assumption The injection population used to build the foreground model represents the true astrophysical population.
    Section 2.6: the foreground density n_f is built from the LVK injection set 'adjusted to the number of detections'. If the real population differs, pastro and FAR assignments are biased.
  • domain assumption Foreground cumulative distribution scales as SNR^-3.
    Section 2.6 states the scaling without derivation; it is required to interpolate the foreground between discrete injection recovery points.
  • domain assumption Single-detector background ranking statistics follow an exponential tail.
    Section 2.5: the high-ranking-statistic tail is extrapolated using an exponential fit to single-detector triggers; validity is checked only by an alternative fake-coincidence method described in a thesis [36].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The MBTA Pipeline for Detecting Compact Binary Coalescences in the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QQPM3SX

@misc{pith2026250104598,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The MBTA Pipeline for Detecting Compact Binary Coalescences in the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QQPM3SX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.04598}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we describe the Multi-Band Template Analysis (MBTA) search pipeline dedicated to the detection of compact binary coalescence (CBC) gravitational wave signals from the data obtained by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration (LVK) during the fourth observing run (O4), which started in May 2023. We give details on the configuration of the pipeline and its evolution compared to the third observing run (O3). We focus here on the configuration used for the offline results of the first part of the run (O4a), which are part of the GWTC-4 catalog (in preparation). We also give a brief summary of the online configuration and highlight some of the changes implemented or considered for the second part of O4 (O4b).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.04598 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Distribution of the O4a bank templates in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Distribution of the ranking statistic of single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Ranking statistic distribution with and without [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the chirp mass (with logarith [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Representation of the process for generating the FAR( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Relation between pastro and the inverse false alarm rate (IFAR), derived from the FAR(pastro) parametrization, for the first two months of the O4a of￾fline analysis. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Cumulative distribution of the IFAR of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Virtual template bank for the O4a sub-solar mass search in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FAR(pastro) parametrizations for the online analysis, using one model per source type. [4] B. Ewing, R. Huxford, D. Singh, et al. Performance of the low-latency gstlal inspiral search towards ligo, virgo, and kagra’s fourth observing run, 2023. [5] S. Sakon, L. Tsukad…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. nmma: An extended Bayesian framework for Nuclear Multimessenger Astronomy in the Era of Next-Generation Detectors

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    nmma now jointly samples nuclear EoS parameters with GW and EM data via TOV emulators and Fiesta surrogates, delivering 20–60× speedups and future H0–nuclear constraints.

  2. Parameter Estimation on LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a Binary Merger Triggers with Sub-solar Mass Components

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Bayesian re-analysis of the seven LVK O4a sub-solar-mass triggers finds three that are compatible with a sub-solar-mass component, though none rises to detection significance.

  3. All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    An all-sky search of O4a LIGO data finds no new gravitational-wave bursts and improves burst sensitivity and rate limits by factors of 2 to 10 over the previous run.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [36]

    V. Juste. Search for compact binary coalescence us- ing a single gravitational waves detector with the MBTA data analysis pipeline . Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versit´ e de Strasbourg, 2023

    work page 2023

  2. [1]

    Adams, D

    T. Adams, D. Buskulic, V. Germain, et al. Low- latency analysis pipeline for compact binary coales- cences in the advanced gravitational wave detector era. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(17):175012, aug 2016. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/17/175012

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/17/175012 2016

  3. [2]

    Aubin, F

    F. Aubin, F. Brighenti, R. Chierici, et al. The MBTA pipeline for detecting compact binary coa- lescences in the third LIGO–virgo observing run. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 38(9):095004, apr

    work page

  4. [3]

    Tsukada, P

    L. Tsukada, P. Joshi, S. Adhicary, et al. Improved ranking statistics of the gstlal inspiral search for compact binary coalescences, 2023. 10−4 10−2 100 102 104 106 Inverse False Alarm Rate (year) 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 pastro Classification BBH high mass BBH low mass NSBH BNS Figure 11: F AR( pastro) parametrizations for the online analysis, using one m...

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Ewing, R

    B. Ewing, R. Huxford, D. Singh, et al. Performance of the low-latency gstlal inspiral search towards ligo, virgo, and kagra’s fourth observing run, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [5]

    Sakon, L

    S. Sakon, L. Tsukada, H. Fong, et al. Template bank for compact binary mergers in the fourth observing run of advanced ligo, advanced virgo, and kagra. Phys. Rev. D , 109:044066, Feb 2024. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.044066

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Hanna, J

    C. Hanna, J. Kennington, W. Niu, et al. Template bank for sub solar mass compact binary mergers in the fourth observing run of advanced ligo, advanced virgo, and kagra, 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [7]

    T. D. Canton, A. H. Nitz, B. Gadre, et al. Real-time search for compact binary mergers in advanced ligo and virgo’s third observing run using pycbc live.The Astrophysical Journal , 923(2):254, dec 2021. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f9a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f9a 2021

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    Q. Chu, M. Kovalam, L. Wen, et al. Spiir online coherent pipeline to search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences. Phys. Rev. D , 105:024023, Jan 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105. 024023

    2022 doi

  2. [9]

    Klimenko, G

    S. Klimenko, G. Vedovato, M. Drago, et al. Method for detection and reconstruction of gravitational wave transients with networks of advanced detec- tors. Phys. Rev. D , 93:042004, Feb 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042004. 13

    2016 doi

  3. [10]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Ab- bott, et al. Advanced LIGO. Classical and Quan- tum Gravity, 32(7):074001, April 2015. doi:10.1088/ 0264-9381/32/7/074001

    2015

  4. [11]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, et al. Ad- vanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector. Classical and Quan- tum Gravity , 32(2):024001, January 2015. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2015 doi

  5. [12]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, et al. Interferom- eter design of the KAGRA gravitational wave detec- tor. Physical Review D, 88(4):043007, August 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007

    2013 doi

  6. [13]

    A. D. Viets, M. Wade, A. L. Urban, et al. Re- constructing the calibrated strain signal in the ad- vanced ligo detectors. Classical and Quantum Grav- ity, 35(9):095015, April 2018. ISSN 1361-6382. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aab658

    2018 doi

  7. [15]

    S. Soni, B. K. Berger, D. Davis, et al. Ligo detec- tor characterization in the first half of the fourth observing run, 2024

    2024

  8. [17]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. Search of s3 ligo data for grav- itational wave signals from spinning black hole and neutron star binary inspirals. Phys. Rev. D , 78:042002, Aug 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.78. 042002

    2008 doi

  9. [18]

    Van Den Broeck, D

    C. Van Den Broeck, D. A. Brown, T. Cokelaer, et al. Template banks to search for compact bi- naries with spinning components in gravitational wave data. Phys. Rev. D , 80:024009, 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.024009

    2009 doi

  10. [19]

    T. D. Canton, A. P. Lundgren, and A. B. Nielsen. Impact of precession on aligned-spin searches for neutron-star–black-hole binaries. Physical Review D, 91(6), mar 2015. doi:10.1103/physrevd.91. 062010

    2015 doi

  11. [20]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gw150914: First results from the search for binary black hole coalescence with advanced ligo. Phys. Rev. D , 93:122003, Jun 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122003

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    B. J. Owen. Search templates for gravitational waves from inspiraling binaries: Choice of template spacing. Physical Review D, 53(12):6749–6761, June

  13. [22]

    D. A. Brown, I. Harry, A. Lundgren, et al. Detect- ing binary neutron star systems with spin in ad- vanced gravitational-wave detectors. Phys. Rev. D , 86:084017, 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084017

    2012 doi

  14. [23]

    I. W. Harry, A. H. Nitz, D. A. Brown, et al. Investigating the effect of precession on searches for neutron-star-black-hole binaries with Advanced LIGO. Phys. Rev. D , 89(2):024010, 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.024010

    2014 doi

  15. [24]

    I. W. Harry, B. Allen, and B. S. Sathyaprakash. A Stochastic template placement algorithm for gravitational wave data analysis. Phys. Rev. D , 80:104014, 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104014

    2009 doi

  16. [25]

    S. Roy, A. S. Sengupta, and P. Ajith. Effectual tem- plate banks for upcoming compact binary searches in advanced-ligo and virgo data. Physical Review D, 99(2), January 2019. ISSN 2470-0029. doi: 10.1103/physrevd.99.024048

    2019 doi

  17. [26]

    Buonanno, B

    A. Buonanno, B. R. Iyer, E. Ochsner, et al. Com- parison of post-newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detec- tors. Phys. Rev. D , 80:084043, Oct 2009. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084043

    2009 doi

  18. [27]

    Buonanno, Y

    A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri. Detecting gravitational waves from precessing binaries of spin- ning compact objects: Adiabatic limit. Phys. Rev. D, 67:104025, May 2003. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.67. 104025

    2003 doi

  19. [28]

    Boh´ e, L

    A. Boh´ e, L. Shao, A. Taracchini, et al. Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detectors. Physical Re- view D , 95(4), feb 2017. doi:10.1103/physrevd.95. 044028

    2017 doi

  20. [29]

    Devine, Z

    C. Devine, Z. B. Etienne, and S. T. McWilliams. Optimizing spinning time-domain gravitational waveforms for advanced LIGO data analysis.Classi- cal and Quantum Gravity, 33(12):125025, may 2016. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/12/125025

    2016 doi

  21. [30]

    LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration. LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite. free software (GPL), 2018. doi: 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

    2018 doi

  22. [31]

    Fujii, T

    Y. Fujii, T. Adams, F. Marion, et al. Fast lo- calization of coalescing binaries with a heteroge- neous network of advanced gravitational wave de- 14 tectors. Astropart. Phys. , 113:1–5, 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.astropartphys.2019.04.008

    2019 doi

  23. [32]

    Ligo-virgo-kagra public alerts user guide

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration Virgo Collaboration KAGRA Collaboration. Ligo-virgo-kagra public alerts user guide

  24. [33]

    LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230622ba: Retraction of GW compact binary merger candidate

    Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, and Kagra Collaboration. LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S230622ba: Retraction of GW compact binary merger candidate. GRB Coordinates Network, 34065:1, June 2023

    2023

  25. [34]

    Sachdev, S

    S. Sachdev, S. Caudill, H. Fong, et al. The gstlal search analysis methods for compact binary mergers in advanced ligo’s second and advanced virgo’s first observing runs, 2019

    2019

  26. [37]

    Andres, M

    N. Andres, M. Assiduo, F. Aubin, et al. Assessing the compact-binary merger candidates reported by the mbta pipeline in the ligo–virgo o3 run: probabil- ity of astrophysical origin, classification, and asso- ciated uncertainties. Classical and Quantum Grav- ity, 39(5):055002, ...

    2022 doi

  27. [38]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Gwtc-3: Compact binary coales- cences observed by ligo and virgo during the second part of the third observing run. Physical Review X, 13(4), December 2023. ISSN 2160-3308. doi: 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    2023 doi

  28. [39]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, et al. 4- ogc: Catalog of gravitational waves from com- pact binary mergers. The Astrophysical Journal , 946(2):59, March 2023. ISSN 1538-4357. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca591

    2023 doi

  29. [40]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Search for subsolar-mass binaries in the first half of advanced ligo’s and advanced virgo’s third observing run. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 129:061104, Aug 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.061104

    2022 doi

  30. [41]

    Doroshenko, V

    V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. P¨ uhlhofer, et al. A strangely light neutron star within a super- nova remnant. Nature Astronomy , 6(12):1444– 1451, Dec 2022. ISSN 2397-3366. doi:10.1038/ s41550-022-01800-1

    2022

  31. [42]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Search for subsolar-mass black hole binaries in the second part of advanced ligo’s and ad- vanced virgo’s third observing run. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, page stad588, 02

  32. [43]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, et al. Gw170817: Observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral. Physical Review Letters , 119(16), October 2017. ISSN 1079-7114. doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

    2017 doi

  33. [44]

    Watson, C

    D. Watson, C. J. Hansen, J. Selsing, et al. Identifi- cation of strontium in the merger of two neutron stars. Nature, 574(7779):497–500, October 2019. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    2019 doi

  34. [45]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gravitational waves and gamma- rays from a binary neutron star merger: Gw170817 and grb 170817a. The Astrophysical Journal Let- ters, 848(2):L13, oct 2017. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ aa920c

    2017 doi

  35. [46]

    All´ en´ e.´Etude des pr´ e-d´ eclenchements lors de la recherche ` a faible latence de coalescences de binaires compactes par le logiciel MBTA

    C. All´ en´ e.´Etude des pr´ e-d´ eclenchements lors de la recherche ` a faible latence de coalescences de binaires compactes par le logiciel MBTA . Ph.D. thesis, Uni- versit´ e Savoie Mont Blanc, 2024

    2024

  36. [47]

    Lannelongue, J

    L. Lannelongue, J. Grealey, and M. Inouye. Green algorithms: Quantifying the carbon footprint of computation. Advanced Science , 8(12):2100707,

  37. [51]

    doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202100707. 15

    doi

  38. [1996]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.53

    ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.53. 6749

    doi

  39. [2021]

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abe913

    doi

  40. [2023]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stad588

    ISSN 0035-8711. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad588

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.