pith. machine review for the scientific record.
sign in

arxiv: 2510.05400 · v2 · pith:BYAOQSYYnew · submitted 2025-10-06 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Binary Neutron Stars from the Moon: Early Warnings and Precision Science for the Artemis Era

Anjali B. Yelikar , Karan Jani This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 08:47 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords binary neutron starsgravitational waveslunar observatoriesmulti-messenger astronomyearly warningsky localizationparameter estimationneutron star equation of state
0
0 comments X

The pith

Lunar gravitational-wave detectors would warn of binary neutron star mergers weeks to months ahead and localize them to 0.01 square degrees.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines how detectors placed on the Moon could observe the full inspiral of binary neutron stars instead of only their final minutes. For events like GW170817, these instruments would give advance notice far longer than Earth-based facilities and shrink the sky area that needs to be searched to a tiny fraction of a square degree. Annual detection of roughly one hundred well-localized mergers would support coordinated electromagnetic campaigns. When lunar data are combined with terrestrial signals, the joint analysis yields neutron-star mass ratios to 0.1 percent, spins to 0.001 percent, and distances to 1 percent. These numbers would tighten constraints on the equation of state of dense matter and on the cosmic expansion rate.

Core claim

Lunar-based gravitational-wave observatories can forecast binary neutron star mergers weeks to months in advance, localize them to areas as small as 0.01 deg², detect on the order of 100 well-localized mergers annually, and when combined in a multi-band LIGO+Moon network deliver neutron star mass-ratio uncertainties at ~0.1% precision, spin constraints to 0.001%, and luminosity distance errors to 1% level.

What carries the argument

Lunar detectors LILA, LGWA, and GLOC operating in a multi-band network with Earth-based observatories, which lengthens the observable inspiral and tightens sky localization and parameter estimates for binary neutron star signals.

If this is right

  • Early warnings would let electromagnetic telescopes point at the merger site days or weeks before the event.
  • One hundred well-localized events per year would enable population studies of neutron-star masses and spins.
  • Mass-ratio precision of 0.1 percent would sharply limit allowed equations of state for neutron-star matter.
  • Luminosity-distance errors at the 1 percent level would provide independent Hubble-constant measurements from each event.
  • Sky areas of a few arcseconds squared would match the field of view of high-zoom optical and infrared telescopes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A permanent lunar gravitational-wave station could serve as the anchor for a solar-system-wide detector network that observes the same sources at widely separated frequencies.
  • The same long-duration tracking that benefits neutron-star binaries would also improve early-warning times for other long-lived sources such as intermediate-mass black-hole inspirals.
  • Artemis infrastructure built for these detectors would simultaneously supply a stable platform for precision timing and ranging experiments that test general relativity in the lunar environment.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity curves and noise models used for the proposed lunar detectors match the actual performance that will be achieved once the instruments are built and operated on the Moon.

What would settle it

Deployment of a prototype lunar gravitational-wave sensor and measurement of its actual noise spectrum and sensitivity would show whether the predicted weeks-to-months warning times and sub-square-degree localizations are realistic.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.05400 by Anjali B. Yelikar, Karan Jani.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Sensitivity curves of various detectors, along with GW strain of a GW170817-like signal with annotated times to merger. provided proof that such systems are progenitors of short gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) [4]. Since then, the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) GW detectors also observed GW190425 [5, 6], but no counterpart EM signals were found, and the masses of the neutron stars in the binary were also found to be heavi… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: SNR evolution to merger as a function of time (in hours). The black dashed line at SNR=8 shows the threshold that is generally used to claim a GW detection. the improvements in constraints when a multi-detector study is conducted, which we refer to as multi-band PE. We also discuss detection rates for a population of BNS mergers. In Section 4, we discuss the implications of how Lunar detectors will help th… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Horizon distance of a GW170817-like system as a function of time to merger in hours, for a threshold of SNR=8 (solid curve) and SNR=30 (dashed curve). The gray dotted line denotes the reported luminosity distance of GW170817 (40 Mpc). from [48]: τc = 5 256 c 5 G 5 5 (πfs) − 8 3 M 5 3 (4) where c is the speed of light, G the gravitational constant, and fs the starting frequency considered for the GW signal.… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 90% CI of the sky location errors (∆Ω) for a GW170817-like system at luminosity distance of 40 Mpc, observed in Lunar-SEI at 1 month pre-merger (shaded region in the left inset near the marker), Lunar-SUS at 1 day pre-merger, ET at 6 hours pre-merger along with HLV sky localization of the real event (includes the complete observed inspiral signal). Assuming optimal sky location and orientation, we compute … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 90% CI of the sky location errors (∆Ω) of a GW170817-like system at a luminosity distance of 40 Mpc, as a function of time to merger in hours. Note this is the early warning alert sky localization. 3.2 Early warning and Sky localization For confident EM counterpart identification, an early warning alert should be accompanied by accurate source localization information. For this, we compute the sky localiza… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 90% CI posteriors for an Earth-only 2G analysis (HLA), Earth-only 2G and 3G detectors (ET+CE40+L), and Multiband (Lunar-SEI+HLA, Lunar-SUS+HLA) analysis. The blue star denotes the true value of the parameters. We plot the difference of the individual mass posteriors from their true value, for example ∆m1 = m1 − m¯1. outperforms Lunar-SEI in terms of SNR and an order of magnitude better constraint in mass a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Binary neutron star mergers are unique probes of matter at extreme density and standard candles of cosmic expansion. The only such event observed in both gravitational waves and electromagnetic radiation, GW170817, revealed the origin of heavy elements, constrained the neutron star equation of state, and provided an independent measurement of the Hubble constant. Current detectors such as LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA capture only the final minutes of inspiral, offering limited advance warning and coarse sky localization. In this study, we present a comprehensive analysis of binary neutron star signals for lunar-based gravitational-wave observatories (LILA, LGWA, GLOC) envisioned within NASA's Artemis and Commercial Lunar Payload Services programs, and compare their performance with current and next-generation Earth-based facilities. For GW170817-like sources, we find that lunar detectors can forecast mergers weeks to months in advance and localize them to areas as small as 0.01 deg$^{2}$, far beyond the reach of terrestrial detectors. We further show that lunar observatories would detect on the order of 100 well-localized mergers annually, enabling coordinated multi-messenger follow-up. When combined in a multi-band LIGO+Moon network, sky-localization areas shrink to just a few arcsec$^{2}$, comparable to the field of view of the James Webb Space Telescope at high zoom. Multi-band parameter estimation also delivers dramatic gains: neutron star mass-ratio uncertainties can be measured with $\sim0.1\%$ precision, spin constraints to 0.001$\%$ with luminosity distance errors to 1$\%$ level, enabling precision measurements of the equation of state and the cosmic expansion rate. Our results demonstrate that lunar gravitational-wave observatories would revolutionize multi-messenger astrophysics with binary neutron stars and open a unique discovery landscape in the Artemis era.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a simulation study of binary neutron star (BNS) gravitational-wave signals for proposed lunar observatories LILA, LGWA, and GLOC under the Artemis program. It claims that, for GW170817-like sources, these detectors enable merger forecasts weeks to months in advance, sky localizations down to 0.01 deg², detection of order 100 well-localized events per year, and, in a multi-band network with LIGO, sky areas of a few arcsec² together with parameter precisions of ~0.1% in mass ratio, 0.001% in spin, and 1% in luminosity distance.

Significance. If the assumed lunar detector sensitivities are realized, the work would demonstrate a substantial advance in multi-messenger astrophysics by extending the observable inspiral phase, tightening constraints on the neutron-star equation of state, and improving standard-siren cosmology. The analysis employs standard general-relativity waveforms and Fisher-matrix methods, providing a reproducible framework for projecting the scientific return of lunar gravitational-wave facilities.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3 (Detector sensitivity models)] §3 (Detector sensitivity models) and associated figures: All headline quantitative results—early-warning times, localization areas, annual event rates, and multi-band parameter uncertainties—are obtained from SNR and Fisher-matrix calculations that adopt specific extrapolated noise PSDs for LILA, LGWA, and GLOC. The manuscript does not include a sensitivity analysis quantifying how factor-of-two changes in the 0.01–1 Hz band (plausible from unmodeled regolith or tidal effects) propagate into the reported metrics.
  2. [§4.2 (Event-rate and population assumptions)] §4.2 (Event-rate and population assumptions): The estimate of ~100 well-localized mergers per year rests on a particular BNS population model and the adopted sensitivity curves; without explicit tabulation of the merger-rate density, redshift distribution, and selection criteria used, it is not possible to judge the robustness of this number against reasonable variations in the underlying astrophysical priors.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the spin-precision claim is written as '0.001%'; clarify the intended numerical value and units for consistency with the mass-ratio and distance figures.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions: ensure every noise-curve comparison explicitly labels the frequency interval relevant to the long BNS inspiral and states the reference terrestrial detectors used for scaling.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The suggestions identify valuable opportunities to strengthen the robustness and transparency of our projections for lunar gravitational-wave detectors. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to enhance the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (Detector sensitivity models) and associated figures: All headline quantitative results—early-warning times, localization areas, annual event rates, and multi-band parameter uncertainties—are obtained from SNR and Fisher-matrix calculations that adopt specific extrapolated noise PSDs for LILA, LGWA, and GLOC. The manuscript does not include a sensitivity analysis quantifying how factor-of-two changes in the 0.01–1 Hz band (plausible from unmodeled regolith or tidal effects) propagate into the reported metrics.

    Authors: We agree that a sensitivity analysis would better quantify the robustness of our results against uncertainties in the lunar noise models. In the revised manuscript, we will add a new subsection to §3 performing this analysis. We will scale the adopted noise PSDs by factors of 0.5 and 2 across the 0.01–1 Hz band, recompute SNRs, sky localizations, and Fisher-matrix uncertainties for representative GW170817-like sources, and present the variations in an additional table or figure. This will explicitly show how plausible regolith or tidal effects could affect the headline metrics while preserving the core conclusions based on the nominal models. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.2 (Event-rate and population assumptions): The estimate of ~100 well-localized mergers per year rests on a particular BNS population model and the adopted sensitivity curves; without explicit tabulation of the merger-rate density, redshift distribution, and selection criteria used, it is not possible to judge the robustness of this number against reasonable variations in the underlying astrophysical priors.

    Authors: We acknowledge that explicit documentation of the population assumptions will improve transparency and allow readers to evaluate robustness. In the revised manuscript, we will add a table in §4.2 that tabulates the adopted BNS merger-rate density, redshift distribution, selection criteria for well-localized events (including SNR and localization thresholds), and key parameters of the population model. We will also include a brief discussion of how reasonable variations in these priors, drawn from current astrophysical literature, would affect the annual rate estimate. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward projections from standard waveforms and assumed detector curves

full rationale

The paper computes early-warning times, localization areas, event rates, and parameter precisions via standard SNR integrals and Fisher-matrix analysis applied to GW170817-like signals. These outputs are generated from explicitly stated input assumptions (lunar noise PSDs for LILA/LGWA/GLOC, standard GR inspiral waveforms, and multi-band network combinations). No equation reduces a claimed performance metric to a quantity fitted from the same data being predicted, nor does any step rely on self-definition, renaming of known results, or load-bearing self-citations whose validity is internal to the present work. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained once the external sensitivity curves are granted; deviations in those curves affect the numerical results but do not render the logic circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central projections rest on unverified performance assumptions for future lunar instruments and standard astrophysical priors for BNS populations and waveforms; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Lunar detector noise curves and sensitivity
    Performance of LILA, LGWA, GLOC is taken as input to the simulations; actual values will be determined only after construction.
axioms (2)
  • standard math General-relativity waveform models for BNS inspirals remain accurate at the frequencies accessible to lunar detectors
    Invoked implicitly when extrapolating signals to earlier inspiral phases.
  • domain assumption BNS merger rate and mass distribution are well-represented by GW170817-like events
    Used to scale annual detection numbers and localization statistics.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5865 in / 1572 out tokens · 48386 ms · 2026-05-18T08:47:09.720961+00:00 · methodology

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. Gravitational-wave parameter estimation to the Moon and back: massive binaries and the case of GW231123

    gr-qc 2025-12 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    LGWA could observe more than one third of known binary black hole events, detect ~90 mergers per year, and measure chirp mass better than third-generation detectors for massive systems.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 16 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Hulse R A and Taylor J H 1975Astrophys. J. Lett.195L51–L53 REFERENCES16

    work page

  2. [2]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2017Phys. Rev. Lett.119161101 (Preprint 1710.05832)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019Phys. Rev. X9011001 (Preprint 1805.11579)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi- LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAASTRO, VINROUGE, MASTER, J-GE...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2020Astrophys. J. Lett.892L3 (Preprint 2001.01761)

    work page arXiv 2001

  6. [6]

    J.922269 (Preprint2102.11569)

    Raaijmakers Get al.2021Astrophys. J.922269 (Preprint2102.11569)

    work page arXiv

  7. [7]

    J.87618 (Preprint1902.03300)

    Farrow N, Zhu X J and Thrane E 2019Astrophys. J.87618 (Preprint1902.03300)

    work page arXiv

  8. [8]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2017Astrophys. J. Lett.851L16 (Preprint 1710.09320)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [9]

    Raaijmakers Get al.2020Astrophys. J. Lett.893L21 (Preprint1912.11031)

    work page arXiv

  10. [10]

    Kedia A, O’Shaughnessy R, Wade L and Yelikar A 2024 (Preprint2405.17326)

    work page arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2018Phys. Rev. Lett.121161101 (Preprint 1805.11581)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [12]

    Zhu Z and O’Shaughnessy R 2025 (Preprint2508.11875)

    work page arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Nissanke S, Holz D E, Dalal N, Hughes S A, Sievers J L and Hirata C M 2013 (Preprint 1307.2638)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER) 2017Nature55185–88 (Preprint1710.05835)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Palmese A, Kaur R, Hajela A, Margutti R, McDowell A and MacFadyen A 2024Phys. Rev. D109063508 (Preprint2305.19914)

    work page arXiv

  16. [16]

    Feeney S M, Peiris H V, Williamson A R, Nissanke S M, Mortlock D J, Alsing J and Scolnic D 2019Phys. Rev. Lett.122061105 (Preprint1802.03404)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    J.91916 (Preprint2106.15656)

    Freedman W L 2021Astrophys. J.91916 (Preprint2106.15656)

    work page arXiv

  18. [18]

    Freedman W 2025Nature639858–860 REFERENCES17

    work page

  19. [19]

    Simpson G, Bolejko K and Walters S 2025Class. Quant. Grav.42143001 (Preprint 2507.08479)

    work page arXiv

  20. [20]

    Abbott B P, Abbott R, Abbott T D, Abernathy M R, Ackley K, Adams C, Addesso P, Adhikari R X, Adya V B, Affeldt C, Aggarwal N, Aguiar O D, Ain A, Ajith P, Allen B, Altin P A, Anderson S B, Anderson W G, Arai K, Araya M C, Arceneaux C C, Areeda J S, Arun K G, Ashton G, Ast M, Aston S M, Aufmuth P, Aulbert C, Babak S, Baker P T, Ballmer S W, Barayoga J C, Ba...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [21]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO

    Reitze D, Adhikari R X, Ballmer S, Barish B, Barsotti L, Billingsley G, Brown D A, Chen Y, Coyne D, Eisenstein R, Evans M, Fritschel P, Hall E D, Lazzarini A, Lovelace G, Read J, Sathyaprakash B S, Shoemaker D, Smith J, Torrie C, Vitale S, Weiss R, Wipf C and Zucker M 2019 Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational- Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Evans M, Adhikari R X, Afle C, Ballmer S W, Biscoveanu S, Borhanian S, Brown D A, Chen Y, Eisenstein R, Gruson A, Gupta A, Hall E D, Huxford R, Kamai B, Kashyap R, Kissel J S, Kuns K, Landry P, Lenon A, Lovelace G, McCuller L, Ng REFERENCES18 K K Y, Nitz A H, Read J, Sathyaprakash B S, Shoemaker D H, Slagmolen B J J, Smith J R, Srivastava V, Sun L, Vitale...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  23. [23]

    Punturo M, Abernathy M, Acernese F, Allen B, Andersson N, Arun K, Barone F, Barr B, Barsuglia M, Beker M, Beveridge N, Birindelli S, Bose S, Bosi L, Braccini S, Bradaschia C, Bulik T, Calloni E, Cella G, Chassande Mottin E, Chelkowski S, Chincarini A, Clark J, Coccia E, Colacino C, Colas J, Cumming A, Cunningham L, Cuoco E, Danilishin S, Danzmann K, De Lu...

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084007

  24. [24]

    Hild Set al.2011Class. Quant. Grav.28094013 (Preprint1012.0908)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Harms J, Ambrosino F, Angelini L, Braito V, Branchesi M, Brocato E, Cappellaro E, Coccia E, Coughlin M, Della Ceca R, Della Valle M, Dionisio C, Federico C, Formisano M, Frigeri A, Grado A, Izzo L, Marcelli A, Maselli A, Olivieri M, Pernechele C, Possenti A, Ronchini S, Serafinelli R, Severgnini P, Agostini M, Badaracco F, Bertolini A, Betti L, Civitani M...

    work page arXiv

  26. [26]

    Ajith P, Amaro Seoane P, Arca Sedda M, Arcodia R, Badaracco F, Banerjee B, Belgacem E, Benetti G, Benetti S, Bobrick A, Bonforte A, Bortolas E, Braito V, Branchesi M, Burrows A, Cappellaro E, Della Ceca R, Chakraborty C, Chalathadka Subrahmanya S, Coughlin M W, Covino S, Derdzinski A, Doshi A, Falanga M, Foffa S, Franchini A, Frigeri A, Futaana Y, Gerberd...

    work page arXiv

  27. [27]

    Jani K and Loeb A 2021Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021044 ISSN 1475-7516 URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/044

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/044 2021

  28. [28]

    Jani Ket al.2022 Gravitational-wave astrophysics from the moon: The case for artemis Artemis III Science White Paper URLhttps://www.lpi.usra.edu/announcements/ artemis/whitepapers/2084.pdf

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Ballmer S W, Adhikari R, Badurina L, Brown D A, Chattopadhyay S, Evans M, Fritschel P, Hall E, Hogan J M, Jani K, Kovachy T, Kuns K, Schwartzman A, Sigg D, Slagmolen B, Vitale S and Wipf C 2022 Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: Future gravitational-wave detector facilities (Preprint2203.08228) URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2203.08228

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Jani Ket al.2025 (Preprint2508.11631)

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Creighton T, Lognonn´ e P, Panning M P, Trippe J, Quetschke V and Jani K 2025 (Preprint2508.18437)

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Panning M P, Lognonn´ e P, Creighton T, Trippe J, Quetschke V, Majstrorovi´ c J and Jani K 2025 (Preprint2509.15452)

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Trippe J M, Jani K, Quetschke V, Reed R A, Sierawski B D, Karsai G and Lognonn´ e P 2024 Laser Interferometer Lunar AntennaLPI Contributions(LPI Contributionsvol

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    Binary Neutron Star Mergers

    Faber J A and Rasio F A 2012Living Rev. Rel.158 (Preprint1204.3858)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  35. [35]

    Bernuzzi S 2020Gen. Rel. Grav.52108 (Preprint2004.06419)

    work page arXiv

  36. [36]

    Aasi Jet al.(LIGO Scientific) 2015Class. Quant. Grav.32074001 (Preprint1411. 4547)

    work page

  37. [37]

    B Iyer e a 2011 URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-M1100296/public

    work page 2011

  38. [38]

    Finn L S 1992Phys. Rev. D46(12) 5236–5249 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.46.5236

    work page

  39. [39]

    Flanagan E E and Hughes S A 1998Phys. Rev. D57(8) 4535–4565 URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.4535

  40. [40]

    Dupletsa U, Harms J, Banerjee B, Branchesi M, Goncharov B, Maselli A, Oliveira A C S, Ronchini S and Tissino J 2023Astronomy and Computing42100671 (Preprint 2205.02499)

    work page arXiv

  41. [41]

    Vallisneri M 2008Phys. Rev. D77042001 (Preprintgr-qc/0703086) REFERENCES20

    work page arXiv

  42. [42]

    Dietrich T, Samajdar A, Khan S, Johnson-McDaniel N K, Dudi R and Tichy W 2019 Phys. Rev. D100044003 (Preprint1905.06011)

    work page arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Marsat S, Baker J G and Canton T D 2021Phys. Rev. D103(8) 083011 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.083011

  44. [44]

    Hoy C, Weaving C R, Nuttall L K and Harry I 2024Class. Quant. Grav.41245012 (Preprint2408.12764)

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    Jan A, O’Shaughnessy R, Shoemaker D and Lange J 2025Phys. Rev. D111064079 (Preprint2410.15542)

    work page arXiv

  46. [46]

    Sharma A, Sengupta A S and Mukherjee S 2025Phys. Rev. D111(4) 042009 URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.042009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.042009

  47. [47]

    Wu S, Nitz A H, Harry I, Babak S, Williams M J, Capano C and Weaving C 2025 (Preprint2506.01898)

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    Chan M L, Messenger C, Heng I S and Hendry M 2018Phys. Rev. D97123014 (Preprint 1803.09680)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  49. [49]

    Burrows D N, Hill J E, Nousek J A, Wells A A, Short A T, Willingale R, Citterio O, Chincarini G and Tagliaferri G 2000 Swift X-Ray TelescopeX-Ray and Gamma- Ray Instrumentation for Astronomy XIvol 4140 ed Flanagan K A and Siegmund O H W International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE) pp 64 – 75 URL https://doi.org/10.1117/12.409158

    work page doi:10.1117/12.409158 2000

  50. [50]

    Weisskopf M C 1999 (Preprintastro-ph/9912097)

    work page arXiv 1999

  51. [51]

    Pandey S, Gupta I, Chandra K and Sathyaprakash B S 2025Astrophys. J. Lett.985 L17 (Preprint2411.10349)

    work page arXiv

  52. [52]

    Madau P and Dickinson M 2014Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52415–486 (Preprint 1403.0007)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  53. [53]

    Vitale S 2016Phys. Rev. Lett.117(5) 051102 URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.051102

    work page

  54. [54]

    Sesana A 2017J. Phys. Conf. Ser.840012018 (Preprint1702.04356)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  55. [55]

    Grimm S and Harms J 2020Phys. Rev. D102022007 (Preprint2004.01434)

    work page arXiv

  56. [56]

    Ranjan S, Jani K, Nitz A H, Holley-Bockelmann K and Cutler C 2025Astrophys. J. 98327 (Preprint2406.11926)

    work page arXiv

  57. [57]

    J.98127 (Preprint2407.21161)

    Ruiz-Rocha K, Holley-Bockelmann K, Jani K, Mapelli M, Dunham S and Gabella W 2025Astrophys. J.98127 (Preprint2407.21161)

    work page arXiv