Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 4 cited by

On the use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave astronomy

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The standard mismatch criterion is conservative because it uses the wrong distance; the paper shows that using the model's best-fit waveform and per-parameter distances makes it accurately predict the SNR at which biased measurements begin.

desk verdict A carefully validated demonstration that per-parameter mismatch calculations give accurate bias SNRs for aligned-spin BBHs, with the method's novelty honestly bounded and its limitations stated up front. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10530 v1 pith:Q54I63MU submitted 2025-06-12 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Jonathan E. Thompson , Charlie Hoy , Edward Fauchon-Jones , Mark Hannam This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM MSC 83C35
keywords gravitationalwaveswaveformmismatchparameterbiasindistinguishabilitySNRbinaryblackholesBayesianestimationaccuracynext-generationdetectors
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

Gravitational-wave astronomers judge when model error will corrupt source measurements by computing a mismatch between a true signal and a waveform model and converting it into an indistinguishability SNR. This paper argues that the standard form of that criterion is conservative for a specific and fixable reason: it compares the true signal with the model evaluated at the true parameters, thereby counting model error that lies perpendicular to the model manifold and cannot shift the measured parameters. Once the mismatch is instead taken between the model at its best-fit parameters and the model at the true parameters, and once it is computed separately for each parameter, the resulting bias SNR correctly places the true parameter on the boundary of the 90% credible interval. The authors demonstrate this by comparing predictions with full Bayesian parameter estimation for nine aligned-spin binary-black-hole signals, where per-parameter bias SNRs can exceed the standard estimate by a wide margin and vary strongly across parameter space. If this stands, waveform accuracy requirements for next-generation detectors can be set parameter by parameter rather than by a single conservative number.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the normalized waveform distance $\hat d = \sqrt{M}$, built from the noise-weighted inner product, together with a decomposition of the total model error into a component tangent to the model manifold, which shifts parameters, and a component perpendicular to it, which only reduces recovered SNR. The central identity is the approximate Pythagorean relation $\hat d^2_{\mathrm{bias}} = M(h_{\mathrm{bf}},h_s) \approx M(s,h_s)-M(s,h_{\mathrm{bf}})$, which lets the bias-inducing distance be read off as the difference between the faithfulness and effectualness mismatches. For individual parameters the machinery is the same relation applied along a one-parameter slice: fix the parameter of interest at its true value, optimize all others, and feed the distance between the unrestricted and restricted best-fit models into the one-degree-of-freedom chi-square criterion. This machinery converts the local geometry of the waveform model into a numerical SNR prediction for every parameter, which is exactly what the paper checks against Bayesian posteriors.

What would settle it

Take a deliberately deficient model whose error is known to lie along a curved direction of parameter space, compute the per-parameter bias SNRs from the Pythagorean relation, and compare with a full Bayesian posterior run at the predicted SNR; a significant offset of the true parameter from the 90% boundary would disprove the relation's scope. A cheaper version is to measure the left- and right-hand sides of $M(h_{\mathrm{bf}},h_s) \approx M(s,h_s)-M(s,h_{\mathrm{bf}})$ across a grid of high-mismatch signals and identify where the approximation fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the mismatch criterion, calculated with the right distance and the right number of degrees of freedom, is an accurate predictor rather than a conservative bound. The right distance is $\hat d^2_{\mathrm{bias}} = M(h_{\mathrm{bf}}, h_s)$, the mismatch between the model at the parameters that best fit the signal and the model at the true parameters, which isolates the part of model error that can produce a systematic parameter shift. For a set of $N$ parameters held fixed, Eq. (8) then places the true parameters on the $N$-dimensional 90% credible boundary at the predicted SNR; for one parameter, holding that parameter fixed and optimizing the rest gives a per-parameter bias SNR that similarly marks the boundary of the marginalized 90% interval. The paper verifies both statements with explicit posterior computations for aligned-spin binaries, and shows that the two distances obey the approximate Pythagorean relation $M(h_{\mathrm{bf}},h_s) \approx M(s,h_s)-M(s,h_{\mathrm{bf}})$. It also argues that $\hat d=\sqrt{M}$, not $M$, is the quantity that scales linearly with SNR and with waveform phase and amplitude uncertainty, which relaxes the apparent accuracy requirement by a square root.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three waveform distances form a right triangle, with the error that shifts parameters perpendicular to the error that does not, so that subtracting one mismatch from the other yields the bias distance; if the model manifold is strongly curved or the parameter dependence nonlinear, that subtraction is only approximate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The standard faithfulness SNR is a lower bound on the bias SNR and can be low by an order of magnitude or more, so model-accuracy claims based on it understate how loud signals can be before individual parameters drift.
  • The $N$-dimensional bias SNR predicts when the joint posterior moves off the true parameters, while per-parameter bias SNRs predict when each marginalized parameter moves, and the two can differ by large factors.
  • Accuracy requirements for next-generation detectors should be expressed through $\hat d = \sqrt{M}$ and per-parameter bias SNRs; a conservative requirement of mismatch below about $10^{-6}$ for SNR $\sim 1000$ can be relaxed substantially if model errors are directed perpendicular to the dominant parameter directions.
  • Fisher-matrix bias estimates agree with the bias-distance method when the signals are aligned in time and phase and the Fisher matrix is evaluated at both the true and best-fit parameters, making the two approaches interchangeable for practical bias-SNR estimation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit is that the direction of model error, not just its magnitude, becomes a design target: a model built so that its residuals are nearly orthogonal to the principal parameter directions would systematically push its bias SNRs upward, easing accuracy requirements.
  • The same per-parameter Pythagorean decomposition should transfer to any smooth parametric signal family with Gaussian high-SNR likelihoods, including extreme-mass-ratio inspirals or neutron-star waveforms, provided the posterior is unimodal.
  • A concrete extension would be to produce full parameter-space maps of per-parameter bias SNRs for current generic-binary models, turning them into trust-region surfaces that say, for a given mass-spin location, which SNR would bias which parameter; this is exactly the direction the paper flags for future work.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the standard mismatch-based indistinguishability criterion for gravitational-wave signal models, which is known to be overly conservative for estimating the SNR at which model error biases parameter measurements. The authors propose two corrections: first, replace the faithfulness mismatch between the true signal and the model at the true parameters by the mismatch between the model at the best-fit parameters and the model at the true parameters (Eq. 8); second, compute per-parameter bias SNRs by fixing the parameter of interest to its true value and optimizing all others. They test these predictions against full Bayesian parameter estimation for nine aligned-spin, quadrupole-only binary black hole cases, using both in-sample (BAM) and out-of-sample (NRHybSur3dq8) signals as true signals, and cross-check with PCA-based credible-interval rescaling and Fisher analysis. They find that the N-D bias SNR correctly places the true parameters on the 90% credible boundary in the N-D posterior, and that per-parameter bias SNRs match the onset of bias in 1D marginalized posteriors within the reliable SNR regime (<500), with deviations attributable to prior railing at the chi_2z=-1 boundary of the model and to numerical precision at high SNR.

Significance. The paper provides a practical and computationally cheap method for setting waveform accuracy requirements for next-generation detectors, replacing overly conservative faithfulness-based estimates. The central derivation is standard (Gaussian posterior, chi-square scaling), and the paper validates its predictions against full PE for nine cases, including out-of-sample waveforms, with independent Fisher and PCA cross-checks. The method is not entirely new (the equivalence to Ref. [22] is acknowledged), but the application to binary black hole waveform models and the systematic validation against full PE is a useful contribution. The paper honestly discloses its limitations: only the (2,2) multipole of aligned-spin binaries is considered, predictions above SNR~500 are numerically unreliable, and prior-railing cases are identified. Within this stated scope, the evidence supports the central claim. The Pythagorean relation in Eq. (9) is not load-bearing because the bias distances are computed directly from Eq. (8), consistent with the skeptic's assessment.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III.A] The name "Baumgate-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura" should be "Baumgarte-Shapiro-Shibata-Nakamura".
  2. [Figure 4 caption] The word "Pricipal" should be "Principal".
  3. [Section IV.A] The class name "StandardScalar" should be "StandardScaler".
  4. [Figures 10 and 11 captions] The word "verticle" should be "vertical".
  5. [Section II] The word "coalesence" should be "coalescence".
  6. [Abstract and Section V.A] The abstract's claim of "accurate estimates" should be tempered by the caveat, stated later in the paper, that SNR predictions above ~500 are numerically unreliable; a short qualifier in the abstract would avoid overstatement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; bias-SNR predictions are computed from waveform mismatches and validated against independent Bayesian parameter estimation and Fisher cross-checks.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a correctly calculated mismatch-based indistinguishability SNR accurately predicts parameter-bias SNRs. The bias distances in the headline results are computed directly as mismatches between model waveforms, M(h_bf, h_s) in Eq. (8) and M(h_bf, h_bf|theta_i) in Sec. V, not from the Pythagorean subtraction in Eq. (9). The paper says of Eq. (9): 'This is equivalent to Eq. (8) because, to a good approximation, d_hat^2_bias = d_hat^2_s - d_hat^2_bf', and Table I checks the relation, but the tabulated d_hat^2_bias values are direct distances, so the approximate relation is a consistency check, not the source of the predictions. The predictions are validated against full Bayesian parameter estimation: 'we performed an extensive set of parameter estimation analyses to confirm that the parameter-bias SNRs calculated from the appropriate normalised distance (mismatch) correctly predicted the SNR at which the true value of each parameter would lie on the 90% CI', and against a Fisher analysis that is independent of the mismatch pipeline ('both approaches are equivalent at estimating the bias SNR for the cases we have considered'). No load-bearing claim is imported from a self-citation: Eq. (6) is standard (Ref. [20]), and the equivalence with Ref. [22] is acknowledged rather than used to justify the method. The one genuine caveat is benchmark contamination: 'PhenomD was calibrated to a subset of the BAM NR waveforms that we use in this study... allowing a consistent test of the performance of the model against waveforms that were treated as true signals in the model's construction.' This makes the BAM cases a training-set check rather than an independent test, and the paper explicitly discloses it; it does not constitute a circular derivation because the bias SNRs are not fitted to the PE outcomes, and the SUR cases provide an independent check. The paper also discloses failures (prior railing in BAM-3/BAM-4, unreliable numerics above SNR ~500), which further indicates the validation is not manufactured. Overall the derivation is self-contained and no step reduces by construction to its own input.

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

The central claim rests on the standard high-SNR Gaussian posterior formalism, the linear signal approximation, and the geometric decomposition of waveform differences. No free parameters are fitted in the derivation; all bias SNRs are computed from mismatch distances and cross-validated against PE. The paper introduces no new physical entities.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption High-SNR Gaussian likelihood: the posterior distribution for signal parameters is approximately multivariate normal, so credible intervals follow a chi-square distribution.
    Used to derive Eq. (6)-(8) and to justify the PCA-based CI rescaling; stated in Sec. II and Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Linear signal approximation: the difference between the true signal and the model at the best-fit parameters is small enough to truncate the Taylor expansion at first order (Eq. A3).
    Underlies both the mismatch-based bias SNR and the Fisher bias estimate; stated in Appendix A.
  • domain assumption Pythagorean relation between mismatches: M(hbf, hs) = M(s, hs) - M(s, hbf) holds to good approximation (Eq. 9).
    Assumes the signal-model difference decomposes into orthogonal components relative to the model manifold; verified numerically for Table I cases but not proven generally.
  • domain assumption The posterior is approximately unimodal and priors are negligible except near parameter boundaries.
    Explicitly stated in Sec. II B; violated for BAM-3 and BAM-4 where the chi2z prior bound rails, as discussed in Sec. V C.
  • domain assumption Numerical-relativity waveforms used as 'true' signals have uncertainties far smaller than the model error (mismatch uncertainty approximately 1e-4).
    Stated in Sec. III A; necessary so that signal proxy uncertainty does not contaminate bias SNR estimates.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On the use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave astronomy." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q54I63MU

@misc{pith2026250610530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On the use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave astronomy},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q54I63MU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10530}
}
abstract

The difference ("mismatch") between two gravitational-wave (GW) signals is often used to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at which they will be distinguishable in a measurement or, alternatively, when the errors in a signal model will lead to biased measurements. It is well known that the standard approach to calculate this "indistinguishability SNR" is too conservative: a model may fail the criterion at a given SNR, but not necessarily incur a biased measurement of any individual parameters. This problem can be solved by taking into account errors orthogonal to the model space (which therefore do not induce a bias), and calculating indistinguishability SNRs for individual parameters, rather than the full $N$-dimensional parameter space. We illustrate this approach with the simple example of aligned-spin binary-black-hole signals, and calculate accurate estimates of the SNR at which each parameter measurement will be biased. In general biases occur at much higher SNRs than predicted from the standard mismatch calculation. Which parameters are most easily biased depends sensitively on the details of a given waveform model, and the location in parameter space, and in some cases the bias SNR is as high as the conservative estimate. We also illustrate how the parameter bias SNR can be used to robustly specify waveform accuracy requirements for future detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Illustration of the relationship between the true signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Contour plots of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measurement of the primary mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior probability distributions for the recovery of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Two-dimensional marginal posterior projections of the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Measurement of the primary mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Measurement of the primary mass, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Contour plots of parameter bias signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) computed between the models P [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The posterior distribution for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. One-dimensional marginalized posteriors for parameter estimation of the five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. One-dimensional marginalized posteriors for parameter estimation of the four [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. A comprehensive look into the accuracy of SpEC binary black hole waveforms

    gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulated black-hole merger waveforms accumulate numerical error over time, but the merger stage is not intrinsically less accurate once aligned on its own, and resolution-exchanged differences show no systematic bias...

  2. Dendro-GR at high mass ratios with high spins

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dendro-GR evolves its first binaries with mass ratio 24 and with mass ratio 12 and spins up to 0.8, demonstrating stable, low-cost inspirals with plausible waveforms.

  3. Inspiral tests of general relativity and waveform geometry

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The power of ppE-style GR tests comes from waveform geometry: GR parameter biases absorb most of any smooth phase deviation, and SVD finds the few orthogonal directions that remain.

  4. PhenomXPNR: An improved gravitational wave model linking precessing inspirals and NR-calibrated merger-ringdown

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    PhenomXPNR is a fast frequency-domain gravitational-wave template for spinning black-hole mergers that combines post-Newtonian inspiral precession with numerical-relativity-calibrated merger and ringdown.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

88 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [22]

    Toubiana and J

    A. Toubiana and J. R. Gair, (2024), arXiv:2401.06845 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

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

    arXiv 2016

  3. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.X 8, 039903 (2018)], arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [5]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V . Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, et al., Living reviews in relativity 23, 1 (2020)

    2020

  8. [7]

    Reitze et al

    D. Reitze et al. , Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 88 references
  1. [8]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  2. [9]

    Punturo et al., Class

    M. Punturo et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 084007 (2010)

    2010

  3. [10]

    Hild et al

    S. Hild et al. , Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Maggiore et al

    M. Maggiore et al. (ET), JCAP 03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [12]

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

    A. Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]. 19 FIG. 10. One-dimensional marginalized posteriors for parameter estimation of the five BAM cases, one in each row, listed in Table I. Each column corresponds to a separate parameter listed at the bottom of the figure. We plot...

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Amaro-Seoane et al

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Babak, A

    S. Babak, A. Petiteau, and M. Hewitson, (2021), arXiv:2108.01167 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Colpi et al

    M. Colpi et al. (LISA), (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro- ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  9. [16]

    L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236 (1992), arXiv:gr-qc/9209010

    1992 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys.Rev. D78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  11. [18]

    S. T. McWilliams, B. J. Kelly, and J. G. Baker, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024014 (2010), arXiv:1004.0961 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Hannam, S

    M. Hannam, S. Husa, F. Ohme, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124052 (2010), arXiv:1008.2961 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Baird, S

    E. Baird, S. Fairhurst, M. Hannam, and P. Murphy, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024035 (2013), arXiv:1211.0546 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Chatziioannou, A

    K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104004 (2017), arXiv:1703.03967 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 104002 (2017), arXiv:1611.07531 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P ¨urrer and C.-J

    M. P ¨urrer and C.-J. Haster, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Varma, S

    V . Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfei ffer, Phys. Rev. Re- search. 1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007), arXiv:0707.2982 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044042 (2022), arXiv:2205.08448 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Markovic, Phys

    D. Markovic, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4738 (1993)

    1993

  21. [29]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014. 20 FIG. 11. One-dimensional marginalized posteriors for parameter estimation of the four SUR cases, one in each row, listed in Table I. Each column corresponds to a separate parameter listed at th...

    1994 arXiv

  22. [30]

    B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6749 (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9511032

    1996

  23. [31]

    Hamilton et al

    E. Hamilton et al. , Phys. Rev. D 109, 044032 (2024), arXiv:2303.05419 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4566 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710129

    1998 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Ajith et al

    P. Ajith et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011), arXiv:0909.2867 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Ohme, Bridging the Gap between Post-Newtonian Theory and Numerical Relativity in Gravitational-Wave Data Analysis, Ph.D

    F. Ohme, Bridging the Gap between Post-Newtonian Theory and Numerical Relativity in Gravitational-Wave Data Analysis, Ph.D. thesis, Potsdam U. (2012)

    2012

  27. [35]

    A. J. K. Chua and C. J. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124046 (2022), arXiv:2109.14254 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Roulet, S

    J. Roulet, S. Olsen, J. Mushkin, T. Islam, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123015 (2022), arXiv:2207.03508 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Bruegmann, J

    B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sper- hake, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D77, 024027 (2008), arXiv:gr- qc/0610128

    2008

  30. [38]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. P ¨urrer, F. Ohme, X. Jim ´enez Forteza, and A. Boh ´e, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016), arXiv:1508.07250 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. P ¨urrer, X. Jim ´enez Forteza, and A. Boh ´e, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Kalaghatgi, M

    C. Kalaghatgi, M. Hannam, and V . Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103004 (2020), arXiv:1909.10010 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Varma, S

    V . Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L. E. Kid- der, and H. P. Pfei ffer, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064045 (2019), arXiv:1812.07865 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Balasubramanian, B

    R. Balasubramanian, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and S. V . Dhurand- har, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3033 (1996), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 54, 1860 (1996)], arXiv:gr-qc/9508011. 21 Simulation ID m1 m2 Mchirp η χ 1z χ2z χeff χantisym BAM-1 623 212 198 336 969 567 134 732 BAM-2 475 250 747 360 330 24...

    1996 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ajith et al., Class

    P. Ajith et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 124001 (2012), [Erra- tum: Class.Quant.Grav. 30, 199401 (2013)], arXiv:1201.5319 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, The Computer Journal 7, 308 (1965), https: //academic.oup.com/comjnl/article- pdf/7/4/308/1013182/7-4-308.pdf

    1965

  37. [45]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haber- land, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, 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. Polat, Y . Fe...

    2020

  38. [46]

    Veitch and W

    J. Veitch and W. Del Pozzo, Analytic Marginalisation of Phase Parameter, Tech. Rep. T1300326 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    W. M. Farr, Marginalization of the time and phase parameters in CBC parameter estimation, Tech. Rep. T1400460 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024013 (2016), arXiv:1508.03634 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    L. P. Singer et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 829, L15 (2016), arXiv:1603.07333 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 36, e010 (2019), [Erratum: Publ.Astron.Soc.Austral. 37, e036 (2020)], arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Metropolis and S

    N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, Journal of the American statistical association 44, 335 (1949)

    1949

  44. [52]

    Skilling, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP, 2004)

    J. Skilling, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP, 2004)

    2004

  45. [53]

    Skilling, Bayesian Anal

    J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Veitch et al

    J. Veitch et al. , Phys. Rev. D91, 042003 (2015), arXiv:1409.7215 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Lange, R

    J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, (2018), arXiv:1805.10457 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ashton et al

    G. Ashton et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V . Raymond, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019), arXiv:1807.10312 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    R. J. E. Smith, G. Ashton, A. Vajpeyi, and C. Talbot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 4492 (2020), arXiv:1909.11873 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Ashton and C

    G. Ashton and C. Talbot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507, 2037 (2021), arXiv:2106.08730 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    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]

    2021 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Tiwari, C

    V . Tiwari, C. Hoy, S. Fairhurst, and D. MacLeod, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023001 (2023), arXiv:2303.01463 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety 493, 3132?3158 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    Branchesi et al., JCAP 07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesi et al., JCAP 07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Henze and B

    N. Henze and B. Zirkler, Communications in statistics-Theory and Methods 19, 3595 (1990)

    1990

  57. [65]

    Vallat, Journal of Open Source Software 3, 1026 (2018)

    R. Vallat, Journal of Open Source Software 3, 1026 (2018)

    2018

  58. [66]

    Lin, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37, 145 (1991)

    J. Lin, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 37, 145 (1991)

    1991

  59. [67]

    Z. W. Birnbaum and P. L. Meyer, On the effect of truncation in some or all coordinates of a multinormal population (Labora- tory of Statistical Research, Department of Mathematics, Uni- 22 Simulation ID m1 m2 Mchirp η χ 1z χ2z χeff χantisym BAM-1 601 197 180 316 798 475 121 60...

    1985

  60. [68]

    G. M. Tallis, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology 23, 223 (1961)

    1961

  61. [69]

    Ferguson, K

    D. Ferguson, K. Jani, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044037 (2021), arXiv:2006.04272 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    A. Jan, D. Ferguson, J. Lange, D. Shoemaker, and A. Zim- merman, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024023 (2024), arXiv:2312.10241 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolit- sidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2312.10025 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estell ´es, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    A. J. K. Chua, N. Korsakova, C. J. Moore, J. R. Gair, and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044027 (2020), arXiv:1912.11543 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Liu, X.-D

    M. Liu, X.-D. Li, and A. J. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103027 (2023), arXiv:2307.07233 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Afshordi et al

    N. Afshordi et al. (LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), (2023), arXiv:2311.01300 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Hannam et al., Nature 610, 652 (2022), arXiv:2112.11300 [gr-qc]

    M. Hannam et al., Nature 610, 652 (2022), arXiv:2112.11300 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    M. A. Scheel et al., (2025), arXiv:2505.13378 [gr-qc]

    2025

  70. [78]

    LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KA- GRA Collaboration, “LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,” Free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of pycbc,

    A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, C. M. Biwer, J. Willis, T. D. Canton, C. Capano, T. Dent, L. Pekowsky, G. S. C. Davies, S. De, M. Cabero, S. Wu, A. R. Williamson, B. Machen- schalk, D. Macleod, F. Pannarale, P. Kumar, S. Reyes, dfinstad, S. Kumar, M. T´apai, L. Singer, P. Kumar, ...

    2024

  72. [80]

    Hoy and V

    C. Hoy and V . Raymond, SoftwareX 15, 100765 (2021), arXiv:2006.06639 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  73. [81]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  74. [82]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Taylor, 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. Sheppard...

    2020

  75. [83]

    J. L. Synge, ed., Relativity: The General theory (1960)

    1960

  76. [84]

    Mahalanobis, Sankhya A 80, 1 (2018)

    P. Mahalanobis, Sankhya A 80, 1 (2018)

    2018

  77. [85]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. V ¨olkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfei ffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, (2024), arXiv:2404.05811 [gr-qc]

    2024

  78. [86]

    Vallisneri, Phys

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

    2008

  79. [87]

    R. D. Neidinger, SIAM Review 52, 545 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1137/080743627

    2010 doi

  80. [88]

    T. D. P. Edwards, K. W. K. Wong, K. K. H. Lam, A. Coogan, D. Foreman-Mackey, M. Isi, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064028 (2024), arXiv:2302.05329 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.