Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 7 minor 110 references

A hybrid matched-filter/deep-learning search finds a previously unreported high-mass binary black hole merger candidate with 63% probability of astrophysical origin.

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 ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 18:33 UTC pith:VGGK6P5P

load-bearing objection Solid sensitivity benchmarking for a hybrid ML search pipeline; the one new candidate's p_astro is internally inconsistent with the paper's own foreground model and needs clarification before the claim can be taken seriously. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.04516 v2 pith:VGGK6P5P submitted 2025-12-04 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Searching for binary black hole mergers with deep learning in Advanced LIGO's third observing run

Damon Beveridge , Alistair McLeod , Linqing Wen , Weichangfeng Guo , Andreas Wicenec This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.IM MSC 83C3568T07 PACS 04.30.-w04.80.Nn
keywords gravitational wavesbinary black hole mergersdeep learningmatched filteringsignal-to-noise ratiointermediate-mass black holecandidate eventO3 observing run
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 paper argues that a hybrid search—matched filtering to generate signal-to-noise ratio time series, then a deep-learning model to score them—can find binary black hole mergers that standard analytic searches miss, while matching their sensitivity for high-mass systems. Applied to the third observing run of the Hanford and Livingston detectors, the pipeline recovers 31 previously reported candidates and also flags one event seen only by a search including higher-order harmonics and one completely new candidate. The new candidate, GW190929 091722, is estimated to have a total mass of about 171 solar masses with a 44.5% chance that the primary black hole exceeds 120 solar masses, placing it in the intermediate-mass black hole range. The authors present parameter estimation and data-quality checks that find no instrumental or glitch cause, so if the candidate is real it would be a previously missed massive merger.

Core claim

The central claim is that a ranking statistic built from a deep-learning model's average prediction over the signal-to-noise ratio time series—rather than from analytical SNR thresholds—detects binary black hole mergers with sensitivity comparable to existing pipelines for source-frame chirp masses above about 25 solar masses, and identifies a distinct population of events those pipelines miss. In the offline search, 31 of 33 candidates above p_astro ≥ 0.5 and false-alarm rate < 2/day match previously reported events; one (GW190605 025957) was previously reported only by a search including higher-order harmonics; and one (GW190929 091722) is new. Parameter estimation for the new candidate gi

What carries the argument

The pipeline's ranking statistic is the maximum, over the ten highest-SNR templates in a given second, of the average output of a convolutional residual network that sees one-second SNR time series from both detectors; sixteen staggered 1/16-second views are averaged to make the model insensitive to trigger timing. Significance is assigned through a false-alarm rate estimated from time-shifted backgrounds and a probability of astrophysical origin (p_astro), computed by comparing foreground and background trigger densities with a foreground model assuming a uniform-in-volume source distribution. The deep-learning score replaces the analytical SNR ranking, and the paper shows this score—not th

Load-bearing premise

The significance estimate for the new candidate assumes that a model tuned on simulated signals with stronger, two-detector peaks still works correctly for a weaker signal with only one clear detector peak and a mass near the edge of its training data.

What would settle it

A dedicated intermediate-mass black hole search of the same data that requires both detectors to see a coincident peak above an SNR of 4 and finds nothing at GPS time 1253783860.8 would settle that the candidate is not a real merger; the paper notes that an existing dedicated IMBH search found no coincident candidate.

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

If this is right

  • Including this search in a combined detection scenario increases the sensitive volume, notably for systems with component masses at or above 20 solar masses.
  • The new candidate, if astrophysical, would be among the most massive binary black hole systems known and would support an intermediate-mass black hole population.
  • The method's sensitivity is stable over months, so retraining between observing runs rather than weekly is sufficient.
  • Independent deep-learning searches can recover events missed by matched-filter-only pipelines, strengthening multi-pipeline detection strategies.
  • Expanding training to lower masses and other source types is expected to close the sensitivity gap below 25 solar masses, given earlier work on neutron-star binaries.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If confirmed by a targeted intermediate-mass black hole search, the new candidate would suggest that current catalogs are missing a population of very massive mergers, with implications for the black hole mass gap and formation channels.
  • The fact that this search's unique detections do not overlap with other pipelines' suggests that ensemble searches with diverse ranking statistics may be more sensitive than any single pipeline—an idea the paper gestures at but does not develop.
  • Because the new candidate has a Hanford peak below the usual single-detector threshold, the model may be exploiting features other than a coincident SNR peak; testing the model on single-detector masks would clarify which features drive the detection.
  • A targeted re-search of O3 data with an IMBH template bank and a p_astro model tuned at higher masses would provide a sharper test of whether p_astro = 0.63 is reliable.

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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a hybrid gravitational-wave search pipeline for binary black hole (BBH) mergers, combining matched filtering with a deep-learning classifier that acts on the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) time series. The pipeline is applied to Advanced LIGO O3 data from Hanford and Livingston. The authors first benchmark sensitivity using the official GWTC-3 injection set and report sensitivity comparable to existing pipelines for source-frame chirp masses above ~25 M_sun, with decreased sensitivity at lower masses. They then conduct an offline O3 search, recovering 31 GWTC-3 candidates, one IAS higher-order-mode candidate, and one previously unreported candidate (GW190929 091722) with a reported p_astro of 0.63. Parameter estimation for this new candidate yields a high total mass (median 171 M_sun) and a substantial probability for an intermediate-mass primary black hole. The paper also emphasizes the large number of uniquely detected injections produced by the deep-learning ranking statistic compared to template-bank-only searches.

Significance. The work is potentially significant as an independent, open-data search that demonstrates a deep-learning ranking statistic can recover known events and identify new candidates. The injection study uses the official GWTC-3 injection set and includes comparisons with multiple established pipelines, which is a strength. The reported new candidate, if real, would be a high-mass BBH possibly containing an intermediate-mass black hole, making it astrophysically interesting. However, the central novelty—the p_astro=0.63 for GW190929 091722—relies on a p_astro model that appears internally inconsistent with the stated foreground distribution, as detailed in the major comments. The sensitivity and unique-detection claims may also be affected by this issue for low-SNR injections. These concerns must be resolved before the results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II E 2, Eqs. (3)-(4); Table IV] The reported p_astro=0.63 for GW190929 091722 is inconsistent with the foreground model as written. Eq. (3) defines p1(ρ) = 3ρ_th^3/ρ^4 as the SNR distribution of detected signals above an SNR threshold ρ_th. For O3a the tuned threshold is ρ_th=8.5. The candidate occurred in O3a and has network SNR 6.7 (Table IV). Since 6.7 < 8.5, the support of Eq. (3) excludes this trigger, so p1(6.7)=0, K=0 in Eq. (4), and p_astro=0 by Eq. (1). The reported value 0.63 implies either that the implementation evaluates the power-law formula below its support or that the quantity used in Eq. (3) is not the network SNR reported in Table IV. Either way, the stated statistical model does not justify the candidate's significance. This is a load-bearing issue because the new candidate is a central claim of the paper.
  2. [Section II E 2; Section III, Figs. 3-4; Table II] The same support issue likely affects the injection study. The paper states that the p_astro model is tuned on injections with a minimum network SNR of 6 (Section IV B), yet the O3a ρ_th is 8.5. If Eq. (3) is applied to any injection or candidate trigger with SNR between 6 and 8.5, the foreground density is zero on its support, meaning p_astro should be zero; if instead the implementation extrapolates the ρ^{-4} tail, the resulting p_astro values are not normalized and may be inflated. Since the detection threshold used throughout the sensitivity study is p_astro≥0.5, the reported total and unique detection counts (e.g., Table II) and ⟨VT⟩ values could be biased for low-SNR injections. The authors should quantify how many of the 23,238 detected injections have network SNR < ρ_th and demonstrate that their p_astro calculation is valid for those triggers, or recompute the sensitivity resul
  3. [Section IV B; Section IV B 1; Table V] The new candidate's estimated parameters place it near or beyond the edge of the deep-learning model's training distribution. The training set uses component masses 2–100 M_sun, while the posterior for GW190929 091722 gives 44.5% probability for m1 > 120 M_sun and a median total mass 171 M_sun. The paper notes this issue but does not provide a quantitative test of the model's ranking statistic for such out-of-distribution signals. Given that the Hanford peak is below the usual single-detector SNR threshold of 4 and the model was not trained on such samples, the significance measure (p_astro) is not reliable without additional validation—e.g., applying the pipeline to the LVK IMBH injection set or a dedicated high-mass, low-SNR injection campaign. The current qualitative caveat is insufficient to support the 'promising new candidate' claim.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Table V] The header uses the same symbol 'M' for both total mass and chirp mass; the second column should be labeled with a distinct symbol, e.g., \mathcal{M}, to avoid ambiguity.
  2. [Section II E 2, Eq. (1)] The vector x is used generically in Eq. (1), but it is not explicitly defined as the pair (ρ, R) until later. Please define the ranking-statistic vector clearly before Eq. (1).
  3. [Section II E 2] The 'p-astro4 package' is referenced by URL only; please provide a formal citation or a version number to support reproducibility.
  4. [Figure 9] The star symbols marking the trigger peaks are hard to discern, especially for the Hanford subthreshold peak. Consider adding an inset or a zoom of the SNR time series around the trigger.
  5. [Section IV A 2] In the sentence 'the candidate has a low SNR, resulting in unconstrained priors,' specify whether this refers to the network SNR, the original search SNR, or the reweighted SNR.
  6. [Tables VI and VII] The ellipsis notation for absent triggers is explained only in the caption; repeating this explanation in the text just before the tables would improve readability.
  7. [Section IV B] The sentence 'A common concern in developing deep learning models is explainability...' is somewhat disconnected from the preceding discussion; consider integrating it more smoothly or moving it to the model description section.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; sensitivity is externally benchmarked and p_astro is calibrated in the standard way.

full rationale

The paper's main claims are empirical and externally validated rather than derived from their own inputs. Sensitivity is measured on the LVK's public BBH injection set: "The set of injected signals we use is from the BBH-only injection sets provided by the L VK with the third gravitational wave transient catalog [63]" (Sec. III), and comparisons are made to the published cWB, GstLAL, MBTA, PyCBC-broad and PyCBC-BBH results. The p_astro statistic is explicitly calibrated: "We tune the rho_th and F_th in the pastro model such that for a test dataset of injection run results, the FAR value where the trigger densities intersect approximately lines up with a pastro of 0.5" (Sec. II E 2); using a calibrated detection statistic to score a candidate is standard practice, not a prediction that reduces by construction to the calibration injections. The new candidate GW190929 091722 is scored by that same calibrated statistic, and the paper itself flags the limitation that "Since we do not train our model on low SNR and single detector samples, and we tune our pastro model on a set of injections with a minimum network SNR of 6, there is a reasonable amount of uncertainty in our pastro calculation" (Sec. IV B). The skeptic's observation that the candidate's network SNR 6.7 is below the tuned O3a threshold rho_th=8.5, making Eq. (3) formally zero on its support, is a potential internal-consistency/correctness problem with the reported p_astro; it is not a circularity, because the paper neither defines p_astro in terms of the candidate nor derives the candidate from p_astro. Self-citations to Refs. [57,58] supply the model architecture and training recipe, but the central sensitivity benchmark and the candidate's parameter estimation use external data and tools, so those citations are not load-bearing. No circular step is exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are calibration choices for the p_astro model and the training distribution; the axioms are standard assumptions in gravitational-wave search analyses.

free parameters (4)
  • rho_th (foreground SNR threshold in p_astro) = 8.5 (O3a), 7.25 (O3b)
    Tuned so that p_astro=0.5 aligns with the crossing of background and foreground trigger densities in injection runs (Sec. II E 2).
  • F_th (background FAR threshold in p_astro) = 1e-4 Hz
    Tuned together with rho_th; same value for O3a and O3b.
  • Training SNR power-law exponent and bounds = exponent -3, lower 6, upper 1000
    Hand-chosen distribution for expected network SNR of injected training signals (Sec. II C).
  • Chirp-mass training distribution slope = linear decreasing, 2:1 low-to-high mass ratio
    Manual choice to compensate for the astrophysical mass distribution's low-mass bias (Sec. II C).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The SEOBNRv4ROM and SEOBNRv4PHM waveform models accurately represent the signals searched for
    Used for matched-filter templates and training injections; waveform-model error could bias sensitivity and ranking (Sec. II B, II C).
  • domain assumption The template bank (GstLAL O2 subset with m>2 M_sun) adequately covers the BBH parameter space
    If the bank is incomplete, signals could be missed regardless of the deep learning model; the bank is reused from prior work (Sec. II B).
  • domain assumption The O3 public strain data and pre-computed PSDs are calibrated and free of undocumented glitches
    All results rely on the public data release; data quality is checked only for specific candidates (Sec. II A).
  • domain assumption The GWTC-3 injection set is representative of the true BBH population for sensitivity comparisons
    Sensitivity results are computed on these injections; if the population is unrepresentative, the comparison to other pipelines is biased (Sec. III).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32986 in / 7073 out tokens · 67660 ms · 2026-08-03T18:33:25.326367+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The detection of gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences has provided significant insights into our Universe, and the discovery of new and unique gravitational wave candidates from independent searches remains an ongoing field of research. In this work, we built a hybrid search pipeline that combines matched filtering and deep learning to identify stellar-mass binary black hole candidates from detector strain data. We first present results from a targeted injection study to benchmark the sensitivity of our method and compare it with existing search pipelines. We demonstrate that our hybrid approach has comparable sensitivity for injections with a source-frame chirp mass greater than 25$\,$M$_{\odot}$, and below this threshold our sensitivity drops off for signals with a network SNR less than 15. We also observe that our search method can identify a significant population of unique candidates. Furthermore, we conduct an offline search for gravitational wave candidates in the third observing run of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration (LVK), yielding 31 candidates previously reported by the LVK with a probability of astrophysical origin $p_{\rm astro}\geq0.5$. We identify two other candidates: one previously reported only in a search conducted by the Institute for Advanced Study, and one previously unreported promising new candidate with a $p_{\rm astro}$ of 0.63. This unique candidate has a high chirp mass and a high probability that the primary black hole is an intermediate-mass black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.04516 by Alistair McLeod, Andreas Wicenec, Damon Beveridge, Linqing Wen, Weichangfeng Guo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. A flowchart of the search pipeline presented in this [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Source frame chirp mass and network signal-to-noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Foreground (orange) and background (blue) trigger [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Probability of astrophysical origin ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitive hypervolume, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of detected injection counts over source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Search sensitivities in terms of the fraction of detected events over the course of the O3 observing run. The detection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Ratio of the fraction of detected events from Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. SNR time series and time-frequency spectro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Parameter estimation results for our new candidate event, GW190929 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. SNR time series for the template that pro [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    GW190814 211039 is one of five potential NSBH candidates in O3 and is the only NSBH candidate we identify in the GWTC catalogs

    GW190814 211039 Our searched mass space includes a subset of the theo- retical neutron star population as our lower mass limit is 2 M⊙. GW190814 211039 is one of five potential NSBH candidates in O3 and is the only NSBH candidate we identify in the GWTC catalogs. Our results indicate that we identify it with lower pastro and higher F AR than the search pi...

  2. [2]

    This is a reasonably significant result, as offline searches independent of the GWTC catalogues have previously identified 49 additional candidates dur- ing O3

    GW190605 025957 This candidate was first reported in the IAS higher- order modes search [43] and is jointly identified for the first time here. This is a reasonably significant result, as offline searches independent of the GWTC catalogues have previously identified 49 additional candidates dur- ing O3. Of these, only 10 have been jointly identified by in...

  3. [3]

    To understand these behaviors, further investigation is required using injection campaigns to compare pastro values across search pipelines

  4. [4]

    [81] and used the Asi- mov software framework [87, 88] to manage and com- plete the parameter estimation workflows

    Parameter estimation For our new candidate event, we based our parame- ter estimation analysis on Ref. [81] and used the Asi- mov software framework [87, 88] to manage and com- plete the parameter estimation workflows. We used BayesW ave[89, 90] to produce on-source PSD estimates in both the Hanford and Livingston detectors. These PSDs were used with Bilb...

  5. [5]

    Additionally, we miss GW190911 195101 because it occurs in a data segment with a duration less than 1024 seconds, which we exclude from our search as per Section II A

    Hopeless candidates Excluded from Tables VI and VII are 11 events due to no coincident Hanford and Livingston detector data, including six in O3a and three in O3b from the GWTC- 3 catalog, as well as one in each of the observation runs from the OGC catalog. Additionally, we miss GW190911 195101 because it occurs in a data segment with a duration less than...

  6. [6]

    We discuss only the events listed in Ta- bles VI and VII for which our search pipeline has the op- portunity to detect candidates

    Detectable candidates In this section, we relate trends from our injection sen- sitivity tests to the population of remaining missed events in our O3 search. We discuss only the events listed in Ta- bles VI and VII for which our search pipeline has the op- portunity to detect candidates. This includes 39 events in O3a and 36 events in O3b. The most notabl...

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Col- laboration), Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Ad- vanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Reviews in Relativity 23, 3 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Aasi et al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class

    J. Aasi et al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Acernese et al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class

    F. Acernese et al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: De- tector design and construction history, PTEP 2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC- 1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    R. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  14. [14]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KA- GRA), GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First 20 Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GW170817: Observation of Grav- itational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    B. P. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with To- tal Mass ∼ 3.4M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Abbott et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star-Black Hole Coalescences, Astro- phys

    R. Abbott et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron Star-Black Hole Coalescences, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collabora- tion), Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star, Astrophys. J. Lett. 970, L34 (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    L. S. Collaboration and V. Collaboration, LIGO/Virgo Public Alerts User Guide, Tech. Rep. DCC-P1900171 (LIGO, 2019)

    2019

  22. [22]

    B. P. Abbott et al., Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017), arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150M⊙, Phys

    R. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150M⊙, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  24. [24]

    A. G. Abac et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), GW250114: Testing Hawking’s Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Abbott et al., Properties and Astrophysical Im- plications of the 150 M ⊙ Binary Black Hole Merger GW190521, Astrophys

    R. Abbott et al., Properties and Astrophysical Im- plications of the 150 M ⊙ Binary Black Hole Merger GW190521, Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Edelman, Z

    B. Edelman, Z. Doctor, and B. Farr, Poking Holes: Looking for Gaps in LIGO/Virgo’s Black Hole Population, Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L23 (2021), arXiv:2104.07783 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Hierarchical mergers of stellar-mass black holes and their gravitational- wave signatures, Nature Astronomy 5, 749 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  28. [28]

    Zevin, S

    M. Zevin, S. S. Bavera, C. P. L. Berry, V. Kalogera, T. Fragos, P. Marchant, C. L. Rodriguez, F. Antonini, D. E. Holz, and C. Pankow, One Channel to Rule Them All? Constraining the Origins of Binary Black Holes Using Multiple Formation Pathways, Astrophys. J.910, 152 (2021), arXiv:2011.10057 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  29. [29]

    Abbott et al., Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational- wave transient catalog, Phys

    R. Abbott et al., Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational- wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    A. H. Nitz, C. Capano, A. B. Nielsen, S. Reyes, R. White, D. A. Brown, and B. Krishnan, 1-OGC: The first open gravitational-wave catalog of binary mergers from analysis of public Advanced LIGO data, Astro- phys. J. 872, 195 (2019), arXiv:1811.01921 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  31. [31]

    A. H. Nitz, T. Dent, G. S. Davies, S. Kumar, C. D. Capano, I. Harry, S. Mozzon, L. Nuttall, A. Lundgren, and M. T´ apai, 2-OGC: Open Gravitational-wave Cata- log of binary mergers from analysis of public Advanced LIGO and Virgo data, Astrophys. J. 891, 123 (2020), arXiv:1910.05331 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  32. [32]

    A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and M. Cabero, 3-OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Compact-binary Mergers, Astrophys. J. 922, 76 (2021), arXiv:2105.09151 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, 4- OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Com- pact Binary Mergers, Astrophys. J. 946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    A. H. Nitz, T. Dent, G. S. Davies, and I. Harry, A Search for Gravitational Waves from Binary Merg- ers with a Single Observatory, Astrophys. J. 897, 169 (2020), arXiv:2004.10015 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    A. H. Nitz, A. Lenon, and D. A. Brown, Search for Ec- centric Binary Neutron Star Mergers in the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO, Astrophys. J. 890, 1 (2019), arXiv:1912.05464 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    A. H. Nitz and Y.-F. Wang, Search for Gravitational Waves from High-Mass-Ratio Compact-Binary Mergers of Stellar Mass and Subsolar Mass Black Holes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 021103 (2021), arXiv:2007.03583 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    A. H. Nitz and Y.-F. Wang, Search for gravitational waves from the coalescence of sub-solar mass and ec- centric compact binaries, Astrophys. J. 915, 54 (2021), arXiv:2102.00868 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    A. H. Nitz and Y.-F. Wang, Search for Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of Subsolar-Mass Binaries in the First Half of Advanced LIGO and Virgo’s Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 151101 (2021), arXiv:2106.08979 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    A. H. Nitz and Y.-F. Wang, Broad search for gravita- tional waves from subsolar-mass binaries through LIGO and Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023024 (2022), arXiv:2202.11024 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    G. S. C. Davies and I. W. Harry, Establishing signifi- cance of gravitational-wave signals from a single obser- vatory in the PyCBC offline search, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 215012 (2022), arXiv:2203.08545 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Dhurkunde and A

    R. Dhurkunde and A. H. Nitz, Search for eccentric NSBH and BNS mergers in the third observing run of Advanced LIGO and Virgo, Phys. Rev. D 111, 103018 (2025), arXiv:2311.00242 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Wang and A

    Y.-F. Wang and A. H. Nitz, Targeted search for grav- itational waves from highly spinning light compact bi- naries, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 528, 3891 (2024), arXiv:2308.16173 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Kacanja and A

    K. Kacanja and A. H. Nitz, A Search for Low-mass Neutron Stars in the Third Observing Run of Ad- vanced LIGO and Virgo, Astrophys. J. 984, 61 (2025), arXiv:2412.05369 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Kumar and T

    P. Kumar and T. Dent, Optimized search for a binary black hole merger population in LIGO-Virgo O3 data, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043036 (2024), arXiv:2403.10439 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and 21 M. Zaldarriaga, New search pipeline for compact bi- nary mergers: Results for binary black holes in the first observing run of Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023011 (2019), arXiv:1902.10341 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  46. [46]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the second observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083030 (2020), arXiv:1904.07214 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  47. [47]

    Olsen, T

    S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Za- ckay, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole merg- ers in the LIGO-Virgo O3a data, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2201.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  48. [48]

    A. K. Mehta, S. Olsen, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venu- madhav, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldar- riaga, New binary black hole mergers in the LIGO- Virgo O3b data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024049 (2025), arXiv:2311.06061 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Wadekar, J

    D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  50. [50]

    Zackay, T

    B. Zackay, T. Venumadhav, L. Dai, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, Highly spinning and aligned binary black hole merger in the Advanced LIGO first observing run, Phys. Rev. D100, 023007 (2019), arXiv:1902.10331 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Zackay, L

    B. Zackay, L. Dai, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, Detecting gravitational waves with disparate detector responses: Two new binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063030 (2021), arXiv:1910.09528 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Mishra et al., Search for binary black hole mergers in the third observing run of Advanced LIGO-Virgo using coherent WaveBurst enhanced with machine learning, Phys

    T. Mishra et al., Search for binary black hole mergers in the third observing run of Advanced LIGO-Virgo using coherent WaveBurst enhanced with machine learning, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083018 (2022), arXiv:2201.01495 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    Mishra, S

    T. Mishra, S. Bhaumik, V. Gayathri, M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, I. Bartos, and S. Klimenko, Gravita- tional waves detected by a burst search in LIGO/Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023054 (2025), arXiv:2410.15191 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Magee et al., Sub-threshold Binary Neutron Star Search in Advanced LIGO’s First Observing Run, As- trophys

    R. Magee et al., Sub-threshold Binary Neutron Star Search in Advanced LIGO’s First Observing Run, As- trophys. J. Lett. 878, L17 (2019), arXiv:1901.09884 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Huang et al., Scalable matched-filtering pipeline for gravitational-wave searches of compact binary merg- ers, Phys

    Y.-J. Huang et al., Scalable matched-filtering pipeline for gravitational-wave searches of compact binary merg- ers, Phys. Rev. D 112, 082002 (2025), arXiv:2410.16416 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Schmidt et al., Searching for Asymmetric and Heav- ily Precessing Binary Black Holes in the Gravitational Wave Data from the LIGO Third Observing Run, Phys

    S. Schmidt et al., Searching for Asymmetric and Heav- ily Precessing Binary Black Holes in the Gravitational Wave Data from the LIGO Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 201401 (2024), arXiv:2406.17832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Men´ endez-V´ azquez, M

    A. Men´ endez-V´ azquez, M. Kolstein, M. Mart ´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, Searches for compact binary coalescence events using neural networks in the LIGO/Virgo second observation period, Phys. Rev. D 103, 062004 (2021), arXiv:2012.10702 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Men´ endez-V´ azquez, M

    A. Men´ endez-V´ azquez, M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, M. Mart ´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, Searches for com- pact binary coalescence events using neural networks in LIGO/Virgo third observation period, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 135018 (2024), arXiv:2401.12912 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    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 learning, Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech. 6, 015054 (2025), arXiv:2407.07820 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Marx et al

    E. Marx et al. , Machine-learning pipeline for real- time detection of gravitational waves from compact bi- nary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 111, 042010 (2025), arXiv:2403.18661 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Marx et al., Machine learning-enabled search for binary black hole mergers in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s third observing run, Phys

    E. Marx et al., Machine learning-enabled search for binary black hole mergers in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 112, 043007 (2025), arXiv:2505.21261 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    E. A. Moreno et al., Neural network-based search for unmodeled transients in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 112, 022003 (2025), arXiv:2412.19883 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Beveridge, A

    D. Beveridge, A. McLeod, L. Wen, and A. Wicenec, Novel deep learning approach to detecting binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024005 (2025), arXiv:2308.08429 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    McLeod, D

    A. McLeod, D. Beveridge, L. Wen, and A. Wicenec, Binary neutron star merger search pipeline powered by deep learning, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024035 (2025), arXiv:2409.06266 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Open Data from the Third Observing Run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  66. [66]

    Allen et al., FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for detec- tion of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries, Phys

    B. Allen et al., FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for detec- tion of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012), arXiv:gr- qc/0509116

    arXiv 2012

  67. [67]

    Mukherjee et al., Template bank for spinning com- pact binary mergers in the second observation run of Advanced LIGO and the first observation run of Ad- vanced Virgo, Phys

    D. Mukherjee et al., Template bank for spinning com- pact binary mergers in the second observation run of Advanced LIGO and the first observation run of Ad- vanced Virgo, Phys. Rev. D 103, 084047 (2021)

    2021

  68. [68]

    Chu et al

    Q. Chu et al. , SPIIR online coherent pipeline to search for gravitational waves from compact bi- nary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024023 (2022), arXiv:2011.06787 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  69. [70]

    Boh´ eet al., Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detec- tors, Phys

    A. Boh´ eet al., Improved effective-one-body model of spinning, nonprecessing binary black holes for the era of gravitational-wave astrophysics with advanced detec- tors, Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [71]

    Christensen, P

    N. Christensen, P. Shawhan, G. Gonz´ alez, and (for the LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Vetoes for inspiral trig- gers in LIGO data, Classical and Quantum Gravity 21, S1747 (2004)

    2004

  71. [72]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, GraceDB — The Gravitational-Wave Candidate Event Database

  72. [73]

    Robinet, N

    F. Robinet, N. Arnaud, N. Leroy, A. Lundgren, D. Macleod, and J. McIver, Omicron: a tool to char- acterize transient noise in gravitational-wave detectors, SoftwareX 12, 100620 (2020), arXiv:2007.11374 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [74]

    Ossokine et al., Multipolar effective-one-body wave- 22 forms for precessing binary black holes: Construction and validation, Phys

    S. Ossokine et al., Multipolar effective-one-body wave- 22 forms for precessing binary black holes: Construction and validation, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044055 (2020)

    2020

  74. [75]

    Abadi et al., TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learn- ing on heterogeneous systems (2015), software available from tensorflow.org

    M. Abadi et al., TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learn- ing on heterogeneous systems (2015), software available from tensorflow.org

    2015

  75. [76]

    LeCun et al., Backpropagation Applied to Handwrit- ten Zip Code Recognition, Neural Computation 1, 541 (1989)

    Y. LeCun et al., Backpropagation Applied to Handwrit- ten Zip Code Recognition, Neural Computation 1, 541 (1989)

    1989

  76. [77]

    He et al., Deep Residual Learning for Image Recog- nition 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 (2015), arXiv:1512.03385 [cs.CV]

    K. He et al., Deep Residual Learning for Image Recog- nition 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90 (2015), arXiv:1512.03385 [cs.CV]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [78]

    ONNX Runtime developers, ONNX Runtime, https: //onnxruntime.ai/ (2021), version: 1.17.0

    2021

  78. [79]

    S. S. Chaudhary et al., Low-latency gravitational wave alert products and their performance at the time of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 121, e2316474121 (2024), arXiv:2308.04545 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  79. [80]

    W. M. Farr, J. R. Gair, I. Mandel, and C. Cutler, Count- ing And Confusion: Bayesian Rate Estimation With Multiple Populations, Phys. Rev. D 91, 023005 (2015), arXiv:1302.5341 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  80. [81]

    S. J. Kapadia et al., A self-consistent method to esti- mate the rate of compact binary coalescences with a Poisson mixture model, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 045007 (2020), arXiv:1903.06881 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

Showing first 80 references.