Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Detection counts for a machine-learning gravitational-wave search swing up to ~39% between one-month noise files, while the sensitive distance changes only ~4%; a single leftover real event can bias counts by hundreds, but barely moves the

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

AresGW model 1's injection detection count at a false-alarm rate of 1/month varies with noise dataset by up to 39% coefficient of variation, while sensitive distance varies by only a few percent.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection Worthwhile empirical study of metric variance for ML-GW search, but the headline CV numbers rest on non-independent datasets and the contamination claim depends on the authors' own unverified catalog. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05283 v1 pith:WKA4VQAW submitted 2025-09-05 gr-qc

Robustness of Sensitivity Evaluations for Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms

Alexandra E. Koloniari , Lazaros Lazaridis , Christos Paschalidis , Nikolaos Stergioulas This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitational-wave detectionmachine-learning searchsensitive distancefalse alarm ratebenchmark variabilitydataset contaminationAresGW modelLIGO O3a noise
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks how much a machine-learning gravitational-wave search's measured sensitivity depends on which month of real detector noise you test it on. Running AresGW model 1 on 28 one-month LIGO O3a datasets, the authors find that the number of detected injections at a fixed false-alarm rate is highly noise-dependent (coefficient of variation up to about 39% at FAR=1/month), while the sensitive distance is much more stable (coefficient of variation up to about 4%). They also show that real gravitational-wave signals left in the evaluation noise can seriously bias count-based results: a single high-ranking event, GW190511 125545, suppresses detection counts by roughly 560 injections at FAR=1/month while barely moving the sensitive distance. The paper concludes that sensitive distance is the more reliable benchmark when only a few datasets are available, that known signals must be removed from evaluation data, and that single-month evaluations at low false-alarm rates should be treated with caution.

Core claim

With noise fixed and only injections changed, AresGW model 1's detection counts and sensitive distance are both stable (coefficient of variation under ~2%). With noise varied and injections fixed — the condition that matters in practice — detection counts at FAR=1/month vary with coefficient of variation up to 39%, while sensitive distance stays within ~3%; the pattern holds when both vary. The reference dataset used in earlier evaluations still contained ~40 real signals; removing them raises its detection count at FAR=1/month from 2892 to 3475, driven mainly by GW190511 125545, while sensitive distance moves only from 1574.6 to 1589.9 Mpc. Conclusion: detection counts are fragile benchmark

What carries the argument

Two metrics are compared at fixed false-alarm rates (1, 10, 100/month): the number of detected injections, and the sensitive distance — the radius of a sphere equal to the sensitive volume, with each found injection reweighted by (Mc/Mmax)^(5/2). Variability is quantified by the coefficient of variation with 95% confidence intervals across three dataset categories — identical noise/varying injections, varying noise/identical injections, both varying — that isolate the sources of scatter. The contamination result hinges on 37 real events (Table X) left in the MLGWSC-1 reference noise, above all GW190511 125545, discovered by the authors' AresGW model 2 and highly ranked by model 1; its presen

Load-bearing premise

The 'clean' evaluation datasets are made by deleting 37 events that include candidates reported only by the authors' own machine-learning pipeline (AresGW model 2, reference [63]); if any of those candidates are not real gravitational waves, the measured jump in detection counts after cleaning would partly reflect deletion of the pipeline's own noise artifacts rather than removal of genuine signals.

What would settle it

Run the paper's 28-dataset protocol (same O3a noise, injections, FARs) with a standard matched-filtering search such as PyCBC: if its detection-count coefficient of variation at FAR=1/month is near its sensitive-distance value (~4%) rather than near 39%, the metric-stability ranking is specific to AresGW model 1, not general. Separately, rebuild the clean datasets keeping only AresGW-catalog events that a matched-filter search also confirms; if the ~560-injection gap at FAR=1/month vanishes, the contamination claim depends on those events being genuine.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At FAR=1/month, a single one-month evaluation of detection counts can misrepresent AresGW model 1's sensitivity by tens of percent; reporting the sensitive distance instead cuts the variability to a few percent.
  • Prior comparisons based on the MLGWSC-1 real-noise month without removing non-GWTC-2 signals (such as the detection-count numbers in [78]) are biased: cleaning the data raises the count at FAR=1/month from 2892 to 3475 for the same model and dataset.
  • Benchmarking reports should state mean, standard deviation, coefficient of variation, and confidence intervals computed over multiple independent datasets rather than relying on one dataset.
  • Because sensitive distance has its own chirp-mass dependence, the paper recommends reporting both metrics together instead of either alone.
  • Variability at low FAR is dominated by noise realization rather than injection realization, so drawing more injection sets cannot substitute for testing across different noise months.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The contamination bias is strongest for events discovered by the same pipeline family being tested: if future benchmarking datasets are curated using only independently confirmed catalogs, the measured ~560-injection effect at FAR=1/month may shrink or disappear — a testable prediction of the paper's own logic.
  • Because the sensitive-distance reweighting scales as chirp mass to the 5/2 power, its stability advantage may not extend to injections outside AresGW model 1's effective training range (chirp mass below 10 or above 40 solar masses); binning the same 28 datasets by chirp mass would settle this.
  • If the noise-dominance finding generalizes, next-generation detectors with stronger non-stationarity will make single-month benchmarking even less representative, pushing evaluation protocols toward longer effective durations or explicitly noise-marginalized metrics.
  • Applying the same protocol to a matched-filtering pipeline would reveal whether the 39%-versus-4% gap between metrics is specific to the AresGW architecture or a general property of count-based metrics; the paper does not include that control.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the robustness of AresGW model 1, an ML-based gravitational-wave search pipeline, across 28 one-month datasets constructed from O3a LIGO noise. Three dataset categories are considered: identical noise with varying injections, varying noise with identical injections, and both varying. For each category the authors compute the number of detected injections and the sensitive distance at FAR = 1, 10, and 100 per month, with confidence intervals for the mean, standard deviation, and coefficient of variation using t, chi-square, and BCa bootstrap methods after Shapiro-Wilk normality checks. The central claims are that detection counts are much more variable across noise realizations than the sensitive distance (CV upper bound ~39% versus ~4% at FAR = 1/month), that noise variability dominates over injection variability, and that contamination by real GW events—especially GW190511_125545—biases detection-count metrics, so clean datasets and multiple metrics are recommended.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides practically useful benchmarking guidance for ML-based GW search pipelines and makes concrete reproducibility artifacts public (seeds, offsets, injection files). The use of real O3a noise and the comparison of two standard sensitivity metrics address a real methodological gap. The paper is also commendable for reporting explicit statistical procedures and for identifying a specific contamination effect that could affect earlier evaluations. However, the central quantitative claim relies on statistical inference from ten small, overlapping, non-randomly sampled datasets, and the contamination analysis uses the authors' own catalog as ground truth; both issues need to be addressed before the conclusions can be considered robust.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III; Tables III, V; Appendix C] The ten datasets in the varying-noise categories are not independent random draws from a common distribution. They are a deterministic grid of offsets and seeds on a single 81-day noise file, with several 30-day windows overlapping substantially (e.g., offsets 40 and 46.3 days overlap by ~23.7 days, and multiple offset-0 rows use the same time span). Appendix C explicitly assumes independent observations for the t, chi-square, and bootstrap intervals. With n=10 and overlapping windows, the nominal 95% coverage is not valid. This directly affects the headline quantitative contrast: the upper CV bound of 39.1% for detection counts at FAR=1/month is a small-sample chi-square artifact, and the point CV itself is driven by two low-count windows. The authors should either construct non-overlapping independent month-long datasets, use a method that accounts for the dependence (e.g., block boots
  2. [Sec. V; Table X; Sec. VI] The contamination-cleaning step uses events from the AresGW catalog—produced by the authors' own model 2—as ground truth for which signals are real and should be removed. If some or all of those events are false positives of model 2, then removing them removes the model's own noise artifacts, and the measured increase in detection counts after cleaning is at least partly an artifact. This is load-bearing for the claim that dataset contamination by real GW events substantially biases detection-count evaluations and for the recommendation in Sec. VI that all known events be removed. The authors should redo the cleaning using only independently confirmed events (e.g., GWTC-2.1, OGC, IAS) or otherwise provide evidence that the AresGW candidates are genuine signals.
  3. [Sec. IV B; Sec. IV C; Appendix D] The comparison of the coefficient of variation of detection counts with that of sensitive distance is not like-for-like. The sensitive distance is a weighted integral over thousands of injections (Appendix D), so it is expected to be smoother than a raw count even under identical underlying detection performance. The claim that 'sensitive distance is more robust' should be framed as a property of the estimator, not necessarily as evidence about the stability of the model's detection capability. A more convincing analysis would compare, on the same non-overlapping datasets, the bootstrap distributions of both metrics, or explicitly discuss the bias-variance trade-off introduced by the chirp-mass weighting in the sensitive distance.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV A; Table I] The text after Table I states that the CIs for sigma_N/mu_N are [0.4%,1.0%], [0.4%,1.0%], and [0.5%,1.2%], but Table I reports [0.8%,2.0%], [0.7%,1.9%], and [0.7%,2.0%]. The text values match Table II instead. This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Table IV and Table VI] The presentation of the mean CI in Table IV is inconsistent with other tables: it is given as an interval rather than mean +/- margin. Also, 'sigma_S/mu_s' uses a lowercase 's' in the header, and dimensionless CV intervals are labeled with 'Mpc'.
  3. [Sec. IV B; Table X] The text says the datasets contain 'approximately 40 real signals,' while Table X lists 37 events. The count should be made consistent and the source of the discrepancy clarified.
  4. [Sec. I and Sec. III] The datasets are described as 'independent one-month datasets,' but they are overlapping windows drawn from one 81-day file. The wording should be adjusted to avoid overstating independence, especially in the abstract and introduction.
  5. [Sec. IV B] The category 'varying noise and identical injections' is not strictly identical in received signal: because the injections are placed at different GPS times, the antenna response changes. The text acknowledges this but later attributes all differences to noise; the caveat should be carried through the interpretation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Partial circularity: contamination-cleaning result leans on the authors' own AresGW catalog as ground truth; the CV-variance comparison itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section V, paragraph beginning 'Notably, the significant boost...'; also Table X/Appendix B]
    "Notably, the significant boost in detection performance observed for AresGW model 1 appears to be largely driven by the inclusion of the event GW190511 125545 in the original evaluation dataset. As noted previously, this event was initially identified by its successor, AresGW model 2, but is also detected with a high ranking statistic by model 1. Thus, its presence skewed the F AR estimate, leading to the rejection of many injections at a F AR threshold of 1/month."

    The 'contamination by genuine GW signals' correction treats AresGW-catalog events (Table X, e.g. GW190511 125545) as true astrophysical signals. That catalog is the output of the authors' own prior ML pipeline, AresGW model 2 [63], so the genuineness of these events is supported only by the same group's earlier detection claim. The paper's third conclusion — that real-event contamination biases detection counts and must be removed — therefore rests on a self-citation as its load-bearing premise. If the AresGW events are false positives of model 2, then 'cleaning' removes artifacts of the authors' own pipeline, and the reported increase (2913 to 3471 injections at FAR=1/month) is an artifact of using one self-built detection claim as ground truth for evaluating another self-built detector.

full rationale

The paper's main variance comparison — coefficient of variation of detected-injection counts versus sensitive distance across ten one-month datasets — is a measurement-based empirical study. The counts and distances are computed directly from pipeline output and injection sets; no parameter is fitted to the target conclusion, and no defining equation for one metric is constructed from the other. That central comparison is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The overlapping, non-independent one-month windows (offsets 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 46.3 days on a single 81-day noise file) and small sample size affect the nominal coverage of the reported confidence intervals, but that is a statistical-reliability issue, not a circularity, and it does not enter this score. The one genuine circular element is the contamination-cleaning analysis. The paper removes 'all known GW signals' including events whose first catalog is AresGW, the output of the same group's earlier ML pipeline (model 2). The key event GW190511 125545, which the paper says 'skewed the F AR estimate,' was 'initially identified by its successor, AresGW model 2.' Thus the conclusion that genuine-signal contamination reduces detection counts, and that cleaning it reveals a large increase, depends on the authors' own prior detections being true astrophysical signals. If those AresGW events are false positives, the measured effect is simply removal of the network's own noise artifacts. This is load-bearing self-citation for one of the three main conclusions, but it does not contaminate the metric-robustness result, which has independent empirical content. Accordingly, a moderate score of 4 is appropriate rather than a higher one.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new free parameters are fitted in this paper; AresGW model 1 and the MLGWSC-1 injection framework are inherited. The main unstated assumptions are that AresGW catalog events are real, that the ten datasets per category behave as independent random samples, and that conclusions from one model generalize to the broader class of ML searches.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The AresGW model 1 evaluation behavior is representative of ML GW search pipelines in general.
    The paper generalizes conclusions about metric robustness and contamination to 'both ML-based and traditional detection systems' (Sec. I and Sec. VI) based on a single model.
  • ad hoc to paper Events from the AresGW catalog (Table X) are real astrophysical signals that should be removed from test data.
    Table X and Sec. V use events discovered by the authors' own ML pipeline (AresGW model 2, [63]) as ground truth for cleaning. If these events are false positives, the measured bias is not caused by real signals.
  • domain assumption The ten datasets in each category are treated as independent samples from a noise/injection population.
    Sec. III generates datasets using chosen offsets, seeds, and slide buffers from one 81-day noise file. Sec. IV computes CIs with t, chi-square, or bootstrap methods assuming independent samples, but the datasets are deterministic selections, so the independence and randomness assumptions are not fully met.
  • standard math The sensitive distance metric (Eqs. D1-D4) is a valid sensitivity measure as defined in MLGWSC-1.
    The paper adopts the sensitive volume/distance definitions from [69] without re-derivation; the metric is an input from prior work.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Robustness of Sensitivity Evaluations for Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WKA4VQAW

@misc{pith2026250905283,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Robustness of Sensitivity Evaluations for Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WKA4VQAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05283}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The discovery of gravitational waves (GWs) from merging compact binaries has transformed modern astrophysics, driving innovation in detection methodologies. Whereas matched-filtering techniques have long been the standard, the growing volume of data from advanced observatories like LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA has spurred interest in machine learning (ML) solutions for their scalability and computational efficiency. As next-generation detectors approach reality, the development of reliable and adaptable search algorithms becomes increasingly urgent. This work examines the consistency of detection sensitivity in AresGW model 1, an ML-based pipeline, when applied to multiple month-long datasets consisting of real detector noise. By analyzing the number of waveform injections detected and the sensitive distance at different FAR thresholds, we evaluate the model's performance under low false alarm rates and investigate how sensitivity metrics fluctuate due to dataset variability. In addition, we evaluate the performance of our algorithm on data both with and without contamination of genuine GW signals. Our findings reveal notable performance variations, highlighting the challenges introduced by finite-duration datasets and emphasizing the need for more rigorous statistical validation. By identifying these challenges, we aim to clarify the practical limitations of both ML-based and traditional detection systems and inform future benchmarking standards for GW searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05283 by Alexandra E. Koloniari, Christos Paschalidis, Lazaros Lazaridis, Nikolaos Stergioulas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Chirp mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Number of detected injections as a function of chirp mass for various one-month datasets, using identical background noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Sensitive distance vs. FAR, using identical background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Histogram of various tests at a FAR of 1/month, using identical background noise (offset = 0 and noise seed = 2514409456) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. As in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Q-Q plot of the sample data for the number of injec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Wave Optics Effects from Gravitational Wave Propagation Through Dark Matter Halos

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Numerical simulations of plane gravitational waves through Gaussian, NFW and Burkert potentials show non-geodesic propagation for Gaussian profiles and wave convexity reversal for Burkert in strong gravity, with order...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 24 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    V arying Clean Noise and Identical Injections Considering the case of different background files with identical injections (in terms of source parameters), the in- crease inµ N appears much smaller compared to Sec. V. Specifically, ¯µN increased statistically insignificantly from 2634 to 2693. Thus, after event removal, the 95% CI for µN is given by 2693±...

  2. [2]

    Both V arying Clean Noise and Injections Finally, we examine the impact of removing known GW signals from datasets varying both in background noise and injections. Fig. 11 and Table IX present the same infor- mation for this dataset category as Fig. 9 and Table VII, respectively. Here, in terms of the number of injections detected, at F AR = 1/month, ¯µN ...

  3. [3]

    Confidence Interval Estimation A point estimate ˆθderived from a sampleprovides no information about the accuracyof the estimation of the parameterθ. The estimate ˆθwe obtain from a sample is a single value, and thus we do not know how close it is to the true value ofθ- in our contextθcorresponds to the true values ofµ N,σ 2 N etc. Moreover, this estimate...

  4. [4]

    This approach is particularly useful for small sample sizes and unknown or non-normal underlying distributions

    Non-Parametric Confidence Intervals for Non-Normal Sample Distributions What happens when the sample we want to analyze does not follow a normal distribution? In that case, to estimate confidence intervals (CIs) for the mean (µ), standard devi- ation (σ), and variance (σ 2) without assuming normality, we employed thenon-parametric bootstrap method. This a...

  5. [5]

    The sample mean ¯xserves as an unbiased estimator ofµ, as its mean isµ

    Confidence Interval of the Meanµunder Normality The CI for the population meanµis constructed based on the distribution of the sample mean ¯x. The sample mean ¯xserves as an unbiased estimator ofµ, as its mean isµ. The variance of ¯xis derived as follows: σ2 ¯x≡Var[¯x] = Var " 1 n nX i=1 xi # = σ2 n ,(C1) whereσ 2 denotes the variance of the underlying ra...

  6. [6]

    (n−1)s 2 χ2 1−α/2 , (n−1)s 2 χ2 α/2 # .(C10) If a CI for the population standard deviationσis desired instead, it can be obtained by taking the square root of the bounds:

    Confidence Interval of the V arianceσ 2 under Normality To construct a CI for the populationσ 2 using the para- metric approach, we assume, again, that the underlying population is normally distributed. Given a sample of size nwith observationsx 1, x2, . . . , xn, the sample variance is computed as: s2 = 1 n−1 nX i=1 (xi −¯x)2.(C7) Thus, under the assumpt...

  7. [7]

    Klimenko, G

    S. Klimenko, G. Vedovato, M. Drago, F. Salemi, V. Ti- wari, G. A. Prodi, C. Lazzaro, K. Ackley, S. Tiwari, C. F. Da Silva, and G. Mitselmakher, Method for detection and reconstruction of gravitational wave transients with net- works of advanced detectors, Phys. Rev. D93, 042004 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    This assumption is critical for the validity of parametric procedures, such as CI estimation using thet- distribution or chi-square distribution

    Normality Assessment Before conducting inferential statistical analyses, we needed to test whether the sample data we used could rea- sonably be assumed to come from a normally distributed population. This assumption is critical for the validity of parametric procedures, such as CI estimation using thet- distribution or chi-square distribution. Thus, we a...

  9. [9]

    S. A. Usman et al., The PyCBC search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 215004 (2016)

    2016

  10. [10]

    A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, C. M. Biwer, J. Willis, T. D. Canton, C. Capano, T. Dent, L. Pekowsky, A. R. Williamson, S. De, M. Cabero, B. Machenschalk, D. Macleod, P. Kumar, F. Pannarale, S. Reyes, G. S. C. Davies, dfinstad, S. Kumar, M. T´ apai, L. Singer, S. Khan, S. Fairhurst, A. Nielsen, S. Singh, T. Massinger, K. Chan- dra, Shasvath, and Veronica-vi...

    2022

  11. [11]

    Kumar and T

    P. Kumar and T. Dent, Optimized search for a binary black hole merger population in LIGO-Virgo O3 data, Phys. Rev. D110, 043036 (2024), arXiv:2403.10439 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    F. Aubin et al., The MBTA pipeline for detecting com- pact binary coalescences in the third LIGO-Virgo observ- ing run, Classical and Quantum Gravity38, 095004 (2021), arXiv:2012.11512 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Messick, K

    C. Messick, K. Blackburn, P. Brady, P. Brockill, K. Can- non, R. Cariou, S. Caudill, S. J. Chamberlin, J. D. E. Creighton, R. Everett, C. Hanna, D. Keppel, R. N. Lang, T. G. F. Li, D. Meacher, A. Nielsen, C. Pankow, S. Priv- itera, H. Qi, S. Sachdev, L. Sadeghian, L. Singer, E. G. Thomas, L. Wade, M. Wade, A. Weinstein, and K. Wies- ner, Analysis framewor...

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.042001 2017

  14. [14]

    Cannon, R

    K. Cannon, R. Cariou, A. Chapman, M. Crispin-Ortuzar, N. Fotopoulos, M. Frei, C. Hanna, E. Kara, D. Keppel, L. Liao, S. Privitera, A. Searle, L. Singer, and A. We- instein, Toward early-warning detection of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence, The Astrophysi- cal Journal748, 136 (2012)

    work page 2012

  15. [15]

    Akutsu et al., Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Progress of Theoretical and Ex- perimental Physics2021, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 (2020), 05A101

    T. Akutsu et al., Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, Progress of Theoretical and Ex- perimental Physics2021, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 (2020), 05A101

    doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2020

  16. [16]

    Drago, S

    M. Drago, S. Klimenko, C. Lazzaro, E. Milotti, G. Mit- selmakher, V. Necula, B. O’Brian, G. Prodi, F. Salemi, M. Szczepanczyk, S. Tiwari, V. Tiwari, G. V, G. Vedovato, and I. Yakushin, coherent waveburst, a pipeline for un- modeled gravitational-wave data analysis, SoftwareX14, 100678 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Klimenko, G

    S. Klimenko, G. Vedovato, V. Necula, F. Salemi, M. Drago, R. Poulton, E. Chassande-Mottin, V. Tiwari, C. Lazzaro, B. O’Brian, M. Szczepanczyk, S. Tiwari, and V. Gayathri, cwb pipeline library: 6.4.1 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Cuoco et al., Enhancing gravitational-wave science with machine learning, Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy2, 011002 (2020)

    E. Cuoco et al., Enhancing gravitational-wave science with machine learning, Machine Learning: Science and Technol- ogy2, 011002 (2020)

    work page 2020

  19. [19]

    Benedetto, F

    V. Benedetto, F. Gissi, G. Ciaparrone, and L. Troiano, Ai in gravitational wave analysis, an overview, Applied Sciences 13, 10.3390/app13179886 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3390/app13179886 2023

  20. [20]

    T. Zhao, R. Shi, Y. Zhou, Z. Cao, and Z. Ren, Dawning of a New Era in Gravitational Wave Data Analysis: Unveil- ing Cosmic Mysteries via Artificial Intelligence – A Sys- tematic Review, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2311.15585 (2023), arXiv:2311.15585 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave de- tector, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  23. [23]

    Skliris, M

    V. Skliris, M. R. K. Norman, and P. J. Sutton, Toward real- time detection of unmodeled gravitational wave transients using convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. D110, 104034 (2024), arXiv:2009.14611 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Gabbard, M

    H. Gabbard, M. Williams, F. Hayes, and C. Mes- senger, Matching matched filtering with deep networks for gravitational-wave astronomy, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 141103 (2018). 18

    work page 2018

  25. [25]

    George and E

    D. George and E. A. Huerta, Deep neural networks to en- able real-time multimessenger astrophysics, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044039 (2018)

    work page 2018

  26. [26]

    T. D. Gebhard, N. Kilbertus, I. Harry, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Convolutional neural networks: A magic bullet for gravitational-wave detection?, Phys. Rev. D100, 063015 (2019), arXiv:1904.08693 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Corizzo, M

    R. Corizzo, M. Ceci, E. Zdravevski, and N. Japkowicz, Scal- able auto-encoders for gravitational waves detection from time series data, Expert Systems with Applications151, 113378 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    M. B. Sch¨ afer, F. Ohme, and A. H. Nitz, Detection of gravitational-wave signals from binary neutron star mergers using machine learning, Phys. Rev. D102, 063015 (2020)

    work page 2020

  29. [29]

    H. Wang, S. Wu, Z. Cao, X. Liu, and J.-Y. Zhu, Gravitational-wave signal recognition of LIGO data by deep learning, Phys. Rev. D101, 104003 (2020), arXiv:1909.13442 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  30. [30]

    P. G. Krastev, Real-time detection of gravitational waves from binary neutron stars using artificial neural networks, Physics Letters B803, 135330 (2020), arXiv:1908.03151 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [31]

    Chaturvedi, A

    P. Chaturvedi, A. Khan, M. Tian, E. A. Huerta, and H. Zheng, Inference-optimized ai and high performance computing for gravitational wave detection at scale, Fron- tiers in Artificial Intelligence5, 10.3389/frai.2022.828672 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Detection of Gravitational Waves Using Bayesian Neural Networks

    Y.-C. Lin and J.-H. P. Wu, Detection of gravitational waves using Bayesian neural networks, Phys. Rev. D103, 063034 (2021), arXiv:2007.04176 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    H. Dodia, Detecting residues of cosmic events using residual neural network, in 2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on Intelligent Computer Communication and Processing (ICCP) (2021) pp. 179–186

    work page 2021

  34. [34]

    E. A. Huerta et al., Accelerated, scalable and reproducible AI-driven gravitational wave detection, Nature Astronomy 5, 1062 (2021), arXiv:2012.08545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    A semi-supervised Machine Learning search for never-seen Gravitational-Wave sources

    T. Marianer, D. Poznanski, and J. X. Prochaska, A semisupervised machine learning search for never-seen gravitational-wave sources, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc.500, 5408 (2021), arXiv:2010.11949 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    W. Wei, A. Khan, E. A. Huerta, X. Huang, and M. Tian, Deep learning ensemble for real-time gravitational wave de- tection of spinning binary black hole mergers, Physics Let- ters B812, 136029 (2021), arXiv:2010.15845 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    J. D. ´Alvares, J. A. Font, F. F. Freitas, O. G. Freitas, A. P. Morais, S. Nunes, A. Onofre, and A. Torres-Forn´ e, Explor- ing gravitational-wave detection and parameter inference using deep learning methods, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity38, 155010 (2021), arXiv:2011.10425 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Improving significance of binary black hole mergers in Advanced LIGO data using deep learning : Confirmation of GW151216

    S. Jadhav, N. Mukund, B. Gadre, S. Mitra, and S. Abra- ham, Improving significance of binary black hole merg- ers in Advanced LIGO data using deep learning: Confir- mation of GW151216, Phys. Rev. D104, 064051 (2021), arXiv:2010.08584 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Identification of Binary Neutron Star Mergers in Gravitational-Wave Data Using YOLO One-Shot Object Detection

    J. Aveiro, F. F. Freitas, M. Ferreira, A. Onofre, C. Providˆ encia, G. Gon¸ calves, and J. A. Font, Identification of binary neutron star mergers in gravitational-wave data using object-detection machine learning models, Phys. Rev. D106, 084059 (2022), arXiv:2207.00591 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    SiGMa-Net: Deep learning network to distinguish binary black hole signals from short-duration noise transients

    S. Choudhary, A. More, S. Suyamprakasam, and S. Bose, Deep learning network to distinguish binary black hole sig- nals from short-duration noise transients, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024030 (2023), arXiv:2202.08671 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    M. B. Sch¨ afer and A. H. Nitz, From one to many: A deep learning coincident gravitational-wave search, Phys. Rev. D105, 043003 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    F. P. Barone, D. Dell’Aquila, and M. Russo, A novel multi- layer modular approach for real-time fuzzy-identification of gravitational-wave signals, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.4, 045054 (2023), arXiv:2206.06004 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    M. B. Sch¨ afer, O. Zelenka, A. H. Nitz, F. Ohme, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Training strategies for deep learn- ing gravitational-wave searches, Physical Review D105, 043002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  44. [44]

    Baltus, J

    G. Baltus, J. Janquart, M. Lopez, H. Narola, and J.- R. Cudell, Convolutional neural network for gravitational- wave early alert: Going down in frequency, Phys. Rev. D 106, 042002 (2022)

    work page 2022

  45. [45]

    DeepSNR: A deep learning foundation for offline gravitational wave detection

    M. Andrews, M. Paulini, L. Sellers, A. Bobrick, G. Mar- tire, and H. Vestal, DeepSNR: A deep learning founda- tion for offline gravitational wave detection, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2207.04749 (2022), arXiv:2207.04749 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  46. [46]

    Detection of Gravitational Wave Signals from Precessing Binary Black Hole Systems using Convolutional Neural Network

    C. Verma, A. Reza, G. Gaur, D. Krishnaswamy, and S. Caudill, Detection of gravitational wave signals from precessing binary black hole systems using convolutional neural networks, Phys. Rev. D110, 104014 (2024), arXiv:2206.12673 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [47]

    Detecting and Denoising Gravitational Wave Signals from Binary Black Holes using Deep Learning

    C. Murali and D. Lumley, Detecting and denoising gravitational wave signals from binary black holes us- ing deep learning, Phys. Rev. D108, 043024 (2023), arXiv:2210.01718 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    W. Guo, D. Williams, I. S. Heng, H. Gabbard, Y.-B. Bae, G. Kang, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mimicking mergers: mistaking black hole captures as mergers, MNRAS516, 3847 (2022), arXiv:2203.06969 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  49. [49]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, A

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. Men´ endez-V´ azquez, M. Mart ´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, Searches for mass-asymmetric compact binary coalescence events using neural networks in the LIGO/Virgo third observation period, Phys. Rev. D 107, 082003 (2023), arXiv:2212.02829 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Detection of Einstein Telescope gravitational wave signals from binary black holes using deep learning

    W. Alhassan, T. Bulik, and M. Suchenek, Detection of Einstein telescope gravitational wave signals from binary black holes using deep learning, MNRAS519, 3843 (2023), arXiv:2211.13789 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    Langendorff, A

    J. Langendorff, A. Kolmus, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, Normalizing Flows as an Avenue to Studying Over- lapping Gravitational Wave Signals, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 171402 (2023), arXiv:2211.15097 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  53. [53]

    S. Bini, G. Vedovato, M. Drago, F. Salemi, and G. A. Prodi, An autoencoder neural network integrated into gravitational-wave burst searches to improve the rejection of noise transients, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 135008 (2023), arXiv:2303.05986 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    M. Tian, E. A. Huerta, H. Zheng, and P. Kumar, Physics- inspired spatiotemporal-graph AI ensemble for the detec- tion of higher order wave mode signals of spinning bi- nary black hole mergers, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.5, 025056 (2024), arXiv:2306.15728 [astro-ph.IM]. 19

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  55. [55]

    T. S. Yamamoto, S. Kuroyanagi, and G.-C. Liu, Deep learn- ing for intermittent gravitational wave signals, Phys. Rev. D107, 044032 (2023), arXiv:2208.13156 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

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

    P. Bacon, A. Trovato, and M. Bejger, Denoising gravitational-wave signals from binary black holes with a dilated convolutional autoencoder, Machine Learning: Sci- ence and Technology4, 035024 (2023), arXiv:2205.13513 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    McLeod, D

    A. McLeod, D. Jacobs, C. Chatterjee, L. Wen, and F. Pan- ther, Rapid Mass Parameter Estimation of Binary Black Hole Coalescences Using Deep Learning, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2201.11126 (2022), arXiv:2201.11126 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    R. Qiu, P. G. Krastev, K. Gill, and E. Berger, Deep learn- ing detection and classification of gravitational waves from neutron star-black hole mergers, Physics Letters B840, 137850 (2023), arXiv:2210.15888 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Liu and Y.-T

    H.-Y. Liu and Y.-T. Wang, Self-supervised learning for gravitational wave signal identification, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2302.00295 (2023), arXiv:2302.00295 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Wang, S.-J

    Y.-X. Wang, S.-J. Jin, T.-Y. Sun, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Rapid identification of time-frequency domain gravitational wave signals from binary black holes us- ing deep learning, Chin. Phys. C48, 125107 (2024), arXiv:2305.19003 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  61. [61]

    Fernandes, S

    T. Fernandes, S. Vieira, A. Onofre, J. Calder´ on Bustillo, A. Torres-Forn´ e, and J. A. Font, Convolutional neural net- works for the classification of glitches in gravitational-wave data streams, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 195018 (2023), arXiv:2303.13917 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    O. G. Freitas, J. Calder´ on Bustillo, J. A. Font, S. Nunes, A. Onofre, and A. Torres-Forn´ e, Comparison of neural net- work architectures for feature extraction from binary black hole merger waveforms, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.5, 015036 (2024), arXiv:2307.16668 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    A. E. Koloniari, E. C. Koursoumpa, P. Nousi, P. Lam- propoulos, N. Passalis, A. Tefas, and N. Stergioulas, New gravitational wave discoveries enabled by machine learn- ing, Machine Learning: Science and Technology6, 015054 (2025)

    work page 2025

  64. [64]

    Novel Deep Learning Approach to Detecting Binary Black Hole Mergers

    D. Beveridge, L. Wen, and A. Wicenec, Detection of Bi- nary Black Hole Mergers from the Signal-to-Noise Ra- tio Time Series Using Deep Learning, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2308.08429 (2023), arXiv:2308.08429 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  65. [65]

    Towards a robust and reliable deep learning approach for detection of compact binary mergers in gravitational wave data

    S. Jadhav, M. Shrivastava, and S. Mitra, Towards a ro- bust and reliable deep learning approach for detection of compact binary mergers in gravitational wave data, Ma- chine Learning: Science and Technology4, 045028 (2023), arXiv:2306.11797 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Q. Tang, N. Yang, and J. Li, Deep learning for parameter estimation of supermassive binary black holes with simu- lated LISA data, Chinese Journal of Physics88, 301 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [67]

    E. Marx et al., A machine-learning pipeline for real- time detection of gravitational waves from compact bi- nary coalescences, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2403.18661 (2024), arXiv:2403.18661 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    Comparative study of 1D and 2D convolutional neural network models with attribution analysis for gravitational wave detection from compact binary coalescences

    S. Sasaoka, N. Koyama, D. Dominguez, Y. Sakai, K. Somiya, Y. Omae, and H. Takahashi, Comparative study of 1D and 2D convolutional neural network models with attribution analysis for gravitational wave detection from compact binary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D109, 043011 (2024), arXiv:2312.04855 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    and the first catalog they were listed in. # Name Catalog 1 GW190403051519GWTC-2.1 2 GW190404142514 OGC-3 3 GW190426082124 AresGW 4 GW190426190642GWTC-2.1 5 GW190427180650 OGC-3 6 GW190511125545 AresGW 7 GW190511163209 IAS-HM 8 GW190523085933 AresGW 9 GW190524134109 IAS-HM 10 GW190530030659 IAS-HM 11 GW190604103812 IAS-HM 12 GW190605025957 IAS-HM 13 GW190...

  70. [70]

    Convolutional Neural Networks for signal detection in real LIGO data

    O. Zelenka, B. Br¨ ugmann, and F. Ohme, Convolutional neural networks for signal detection in real LIGO data, Phys. Rev. D110, 024024 (2024), arXiv:2402.07492 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Neural network time-series classifiers for gravitational-wave searches in single-detector periods

    A. Trovato, E. Chassande-Mottin, M. Bejger, R. Fla- mary, and N. Courty, Neural network time-series classi- fiers for gravitational-wave searches in single-detector pe- riods, Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 125003 (2024), arXiv:2307.09268 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Saleem et al., The science case for LIGO-India, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.01716 [gr-qc]

    M. Saleem et al., The science case for LIGO-India, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.01716 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    R. X. Adhikari et al. (LIGO), A cryogenic silicon inter- ferometer for gravitational-wave detection, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 165003 (2020), arXiv:2001.11173 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitze et al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contri- bution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51 (2019) p. 35, arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    Maggiore et al., Science case for the Einstein telescope, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(3), 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggiore et al., Science case for the Einstein telescope, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020(3), 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  76. [76]

    Ackley et al., Neutron Star Extreme Matter Observa- tory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network, Publ

    K. Ackley et al., Neutron Star Extreme Matter Observa- tory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.37, e047 (2020), arXiv:2007.03128 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  77. [77]

    Sch¨ aferet al., First machine learning gravitational-wave search mock data challenge, Phys. Rev. D107, 023021 (2023), arXiv:2209.11146 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences ob- served by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  80. [80]

    Olsen, T

    S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Za- ckay, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3a data, Phys. Rev. D106, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2201.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.