pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2512.09978 · v2 · submitted 2025-12-10 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 3 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

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

Francesco Iacovelli , Jacopo Tissino , Jan Harms , Emanuele Berti
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 23:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavesbinary black holeslunar gravitational wave antennamultiband observationsparameter estimationdeci-Hz band
0
0 comments X

The pith

A lunar deci-Hz detector could observe more than one third of known binary black hole events and measure chirp masses more precisely than ground-based instruments.

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

The paper evaluates the performance of the proposed Lunar Gravitational-Wave Antenna (LGWA) operating in the deci-Hz band for binary black hole systems. It finds that LGWA alone would have detected more than one third of the events in current catalogs and would catch about 90 merging systems per year out to redshifts of 3-5. For massive binaries like GW231123, which accumulate roughly 100,000 inspiral cycles in the deci-Hz band, LGWA data alone can constrain the chirp mass more tightly than third-generation ground detectors while also delivering useful sky localization and inclination estimates from a single observatory. These capabilities enable multiband observations because the time from deci-Hz detection to ground-band merger is typically months to a year, opening routes to early warnings and joint analyses of hundreds of events.

Core claim

LGWA would capture a substantial fraction of binary black hole mergers, with deci-Hz observations yielding superior chirp-mass precision and single-observatory localization for intermediate-mass systems such as GW231123-like events, thereby enabling systematic multiband studies with ground-based detectors.

What carries the argument

Application of the LGWA noise curve to LVK-consistent BBH population models, together with an injection study of a GW231123-like system that spends 10^5 cycles in the deci-Hz band.

If this is right

  • Current ground-based detectors at design sensitivity could observe thousands of BBHs per year, with one to a few hundred having LGWA multiband counterparts.
  • Third-generation detectors would see most LGWA-detected BBHs in their frequency band, allowing joint analyses of hundreds of events.
  • The months-to-year delay from deci-Hz to ground-band merger enables early warning, targeted follow-up, and archival searches.
  • Multiband observations are especially promising for intermediate-mass BBHs in the 7 to 600 solar-mass range.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Multiband data could tighten population inferences by linking the long inspiral phase observed from the Moon with the merger phase seen from Earth.
  • Single-site LGWA localizations might enable electromagnetic follow-up campaigns if massive BBH mergers produce detectable counterparts.
  • Extended deci-Hz coverage could provide new tests of general relativity for systems that remain in the band for many thousands of cycles.

Load-bearing premise

The noise curve, sensitivity, and duty cycle assumed for the proposed LGWA detector accurately represent its actual performance.

What would settle it

A real LGWA observation campaign that detects substantially fewer than one third of current catalog events or that fails to achieve better chirp-mass precision than 3G detectors on a GW231123-like system.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.09978 by Emanuele Berti, Francesco Iacovelli, Jacopo Tissino, Jan Harms.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sensitivity curves for the various detectors considered in this work, and representative massive BBH signals (see text). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Inverse cumulative distribution of the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results for our injection study of a GW231123-like event at the various networks considered in this work. We also [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the prospects of the Lunar Gravitational-Wave Antenna (LGWA), a proposed deci-Hz GW detector, to observe binary black holes (BBHs) and enable multiband science with ground-based detectors. We assess the detectability of the events observed by current instruments up to the GWTC-4.0 data release, and of simulated populations consistent with the latest reconstruction by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration. We find that LGWA alone would have been able to observe more than one third of the events detected so far, and that it could detect $\sim\!90$ events merging in the ground-based band per year out to redshifts $z\sim3-5$. Current detectors at design sensitivity and 100% duty cycle could detect thousands of BBHs per year, with one to a few hundred multiband counterparts in LGWA. Third-generation (3G) detectors can observe most of the BBHs detected by LGWA merging in their frequency band in the simulated mass range $7\,{\rm M}_\odot\lesssim M_{\rm tot}\lesssim 600\,{\rm M}_\odot$, enabling systematic joint analyses of hundreds of events. The short time to merger from the deci-Hz band to the Hz-kHz band (typically months to a year) allows for early warning, targeted follow-up, and archival searches. Multiband observations of intermediate-mass BBHs in the deci-Hz band are particularly promising. We perform an injection study for a GW231123-like system (the most massive BBH detection to date, which accumulates $\sim 10^5$ inspiral cycles in LGWA) and show that deci-Hz observations can measure the chirp mass even better than 3G instruments and yield good sky localization and inclination measurement, even with a single observatory. Opening the deci-Hz band would substantially improve the prospects of GW astronomy for intermediate-mass BBHs.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper evaluates the scientific prospects of the proposed Lunar Gravitational-Wave Antenna (LGWA) for detecting binary black holes (BBHs). It reports that LGWA alone could have observed more than one third of the events in GWTC-4.0, projects a detection rate of ~90 BBH mergers per year out to z~3-5 from LVK-consistent populations, and shows via injection studies that deci-Hz observations of GW231123-like systems yield superior chirp-mass precision relative to third-generation detectors while providing useful sky localization and inclination constraints even from a single observatory. The work emphasizes multiband synergies, early-warning capabilities, and the particular promise for intermediate-mass BBHs.

Significance. If the detector assumptions hold, the results strengthen the case for opening the deci-Hz band by quantifying concrete multiband gains for massive binaries, including better chirp-mass recovery and archival-search opportunities. The injection study for a specific high-mass event supplies a falsifiable benchmark that can be tested once LGWA data exist. The work is timely given ongoing lunar-detector concept studies and directly informs prioritization of deci-Hz instrumentation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3] §3 (population forecasts): The headline rate of ~90 events yr⁻¹ is obtained by folding the LVK-reconstructed BBH mass/redshift distribution through a fixed LGWA noise curve and 100 % duty cycle. No Monte-Carlo variation of the high-z extrapolation or of the lunar seismic/thermal noise floor is shown; the quoted number therefore scales linearly with any revision of those inputs and lacks the error envelope needed to support the central claim.
  2. [§4] §4 (GW231123 injection study): The statement that LGWA measures chirp mass “even better than 3G instruments” is presented without the explicit Fisher-matrix or likelihood details (e.g., the number of inspiral cycles retained, the waveform approximant, or the marginalization over spin and distance). Because the ~10⁵-cycle accumulation is the load-bearing feature, the absence of these technical elements prevents independent verification of the precision gain.
  3. [§2] §2 (detector model): The LGWA sensitivity curve and duty-cycle assumption are taken as external inputs without a dedicated robustness section. A one-sentence statement that “results scale with SNR” is insufficient when the central quantitative claims (detection fractions, multiband event counts) are proportional to that curve.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 and associated text: the caption should explicitly state the assumed duty cycle and whether the plotted SNR includes only the deci-Hz segment or the full multiband waveform.
  2. [Abstract, §1] The abstract and §1 use “more than one third” without quoting the exact fraction or the GWTC-4.0 event list used; adding the numerical value (e.g., 35/102) would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below and will revise the paper accordingly to improve clarity, provide additional technical details, and add robustness checks.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3 (population forecasts): The headline rate of ~90 events yr⁻¹ is obtained by folding the LVK-reconstructed BBH mass/redshift distribution through a fixed LGWA noise curve and 100 % duty cycle. No Monte-Carlo variation of the high-z extrapolation or of the lunar seismic/thermal noise floor is shown; the quoted number therefore scales linearly with any revision of those inputs and lacks the error envelope needed to support the central claim.

    Authors: We agree with the referee that an error envelope would better support the central claim. In the revised version, we will perform a Monte Carlo sampling over the uncertainties in the LVK population model for high-redshift extrapolation and vary the LGWA noise curve by factors reflecting plausible lunar noise variations (e.g., ±30% in strain amplitude). This will yield a range for the detection rate, such as 60-120 events per year, while preserving the order-of-magnitude estimate. The 100% duty cycle assumption will be explicitly discussed as an optimistic baseline. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4 (GW231123 injection study): The statement that LGWA measures chirp mass “even better than 3G instruments” is presented without the explicit Fisher-matrix or likelihood details (e.g., the number of inspiral cycles retained, the waveform approximant, or the marginalization over spin and distance). Because the ~10⁵-cycle accumulation is the load-bearing feature, the absence of these technical elements prevents independent verification of the precision gain.

    Authors: We thank the referee for pointing this out. The injection study used a Fisher-matrix approach with the IMRPhenomXAS waveform approximant, integrating over approximately 10^5 inspiral cycles in the LGWA band for the GW231123-like system. Parameters marginalized include component masses, spins, inclination, sky location, and luminosity distance. In the revision, we will add these details in a new appendix or subsection, including the relevant Fisher matrix elements and the resulting 1-sigma uncertainties on chirp mass for LGWA versus 3G detectors. This will substantiate the claim of superior chirp-mass precision. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §2 (detector model): The LGWA sensitivity curve and duty-cycle assumption are taken as external inputs without a dedicated robustness section. A one-sentence statement that “results scale with SNR” is insufficient when the central quantitative claims (detection fractions, multiband event counts) are proportional to that curve.

    Authors: We acknowledge that a more explicit robustness discussion is needed. We will add a dedicated subsection in §2 that describes the origin of the LGWA sensitivity curve (citing the relevant LGWA concept papers) and includes a scaling analysis showing how detection rates and multiband fractions vary with changes in the noise amplitude. For example, we will tabulate results for noise curves scaled by 0.5x, 1x, and 2x. The duty cycle will be addressed by noting that rates scale linearly with it, and we will provide estimates for realistic duty cycles of 70-90%. These additions will make the dependence on the detector model transparent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forecasts integrate external population models and sensitivity curves

full rationale

The paper derives detection rates and parameter precisions by integrating LVK-reconstructed BBH populations through a stated LGWA noise curve and duty cycle, plus standard injection-recovery studies on GW231123-like systems. No equation reduces a reported rate or precision to a quantity fitted inside the paper, and no central claim rests on a self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against the explicitly external inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on assumed LGWA noise properties and on BBH population parameters taken from external LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA analyses; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • LGWA sensitivity curve and noise model
    Determines detectability thresholds and is taken from the LGWA proposal without independent verification in this work.
  • BBH merger rate and mass distribution parameters
    Drawn from the latest LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA population reconstruction; small changes affect the ~90 events/year forecast.
axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard general-relativity waveform models remain valid in the deci-Hz band
    Used for both detectability and the GW231123 injection study.
  • domain assumption Detector networks operate at design sensitivity with stated duty cycles
    Underpins all multiband rate calculations.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5678 in / 1497 out tokens · 31560 ms · 2026-05-16T23:07:38.711949+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 104 canonical work pages · 39 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Advanced LIGO

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Ya- mamoto (KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D88, 043007 (2013), arXiv:1306.6747 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Essick, A

    R. Essick, A. Farah, S. Galaudage, C. Talbot, M. Fish- bach, E. Thrane, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.926, 34 (2022), arXiv:2109.00418 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    C. J. Moore and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D104, 083008 (2021), arXiv:2108.02462 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    E. J. Baxter, D. Croon, S. D. McDermott, and J. Sakstein, Astrophys. J. Lett.916, L16 (2021), arXiv:2104.02685 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Mancarella and D

    M. Mancarella and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D111, 103012 (2025), arXiv:2502.12156 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, Astrophys J.887, 53 (2019), arXiv:1910.12874 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. de Mink, M. Fishbach, and S. Justham, Astrophys. J. Lett.902, L36 (2020), arXiv:2006.06678 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L31 (2021), arXiv:2103.07933 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    M. C. Miller and E. J. M. Colbert, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 13, 1 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0308402

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  15. [15]

    J. R. Gair, I. Mandel, M. C. Miller, and M. Volonteri, Gen. Rel. Grav.43, 485 (2011), arXiv:0907.5450 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  16. [16]

    Measuring intermediate mass black hole binaries with advanced gravitational wave detectors

    J. Veitch, M. Pürrer, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 141101 (2015), arXiv:1503.05953 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  17. [17]

    Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Phys. Rev.D95, 124046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06223 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Where are LIGO's Big Black Holes?

    M. Fishbach and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.851, L25 (2017), arXiv:1709.08584 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  19. [19]

    Observational evidence for intermediate-mass black holes

    M. Mezcua, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26, 1730021 (2017), arXiv:1705.09667 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    J. E. Greene, J. Strader, and L. C. Ho, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.58, 257 (2020), arXiv:1911.09678 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Nat. Astron.5, 8 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, J. Gair, M. C. Miller, E. Farag, R. J. deBoer, M. Wiescher, and F. X. Timmes, Astrophys. J.924, 39 (2022), arXiv:2105.06366 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Mandel and F

    I. Mandel and F. S. Broekgaarden, Living Rev. Rel.25, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.14239 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Fragione, A

    G. Fragione, A. Loeb, B. Kocsis, and F. A. Rasio, As- trophys. J.933, 170 (2022), arXiv:2204.03745 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    L. Wang, A. Tanikawa, and M. Fujii, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515, 5106 (2022), arXiv:2207.09621 [astro- ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Askar, V

    A. Askar, V. F. Baldassare, and M. Mezcua (2023) arXiv:2311.12118 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    S. Lee, H. M. Lee, J.-h. Kim, R. Spurzem, J. Hong, and E. Chung, Astrophys. J.988, 15 (2025), arXiv:2503.22109 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Kritos, E

    K. Kritos, E. Berti,and J.Silk,Phys. Rev.D108,083012 (2023), arXiv:2212.06845 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Fairhurst, C

    S. Fairhurst, C. Mills, M. Colpi, R. Schneider, A. Sesana, A. Trinca, and R. Valiante, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 529, 2116 (2024), arXiv:2310.18158 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Reali, R

    L. Reali, R. Cotesta, A. Antonelli, K. Kritos, V. Strokov, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D110, 103002 (2024), arXiv:2406.01687 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Franciolini, K

    G. Franciolini, K. Kritos, L. Reali, F. Broekgaar- den, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D110, 023036 (2024), arXiv:2401.13038 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Kritos, E

    K. Kritos, E. Berti, and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, 133 (2024), arXiv:2404.11676 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Kritos, R

    K. Kritos, R. S. Beckmann, J. Silk, E. Berti, S. Yi, M. Volonteri, Y. Dubois, and J. Devriendt, Astrophys. J.991, 58 (2025), arXiv:2412.15334 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Kritos, L

    K. Kritos, L. Reali, K. K. Y. Ng, F. Antonini, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D111, 063056 (2025), arXiv:2501.16422 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories

    S. Hildet al., Class. Quantum Grav.28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  37. [37]

    Science Case for the Einstein Telescope

    M. Maggioreet al., JCAP2020(03), 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  38. [38]

    Branchesi et al.,Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07(2023) 068, [arXiv:2303.15923]

    M. Branchesiet al., JCAP2023(07), 068, 9 arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  39. [39]

    The Science of the Einstein Telescope

    A. Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

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

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Evans et al.,Cosmic Explorer: A Submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW Subcommittee, arXiv:2306.13745

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  44. [44]

    LISA Definition Study Report

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Kawamura, T

    S. Kawamura, T. Nakamura, M. Ando,et al., Class. Quantum Grav.23, S125 (2006)

    work page 2006

  46. [46]

    Current status of space gravitational wave antenna DECIGO and B-DECIGO

    S. Kawamuraet al., PTEP2021, 05A105 (2021), arXiv:2006.13545 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    J. M. Hogan and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. A94, 033632 (2016), arXiv:1501.06797 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  48. [48]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D94, 104022 (2016), arXiv:1606.01860 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [49]

    Jani and A

    K. Jani and A. Loeb 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/06/044 (2020), arXiv:2007.08550 [gr-qc]

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

  50. [50]

    Janiet al., (2025), arXiv:2508.11631 [gr-qc]

    K. Janiet al., (2025), arXiv:2508.11631 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Harmset al.(LGWA), Astrophys

    J. Harmset al.(LGWA), Astrophys. J.910, 1 (2021), arXiv:2010.13726 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Ajithet al., JCAP2025(01), 108, arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

    P. Ajithet al., JCAP2025(01), 108, arXiv:2404.09181 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  53. [53]

    G. V. Latham, M. Ewing, F. Press, G. Sutton, J. Dor- man, Y. Nakamura, N. Toksoz, R. Wiggins, J. Derr, and F. Duennebier, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta Supplement1, 2309 (1970)

    work page 1970

  54. [54]

    M. A. Seddaet al., Class. Quant. Grav.37, 215011 (2020), arXiv:1908.11375 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel.19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  57. [57]

    Borhanian, Class

    S. Borhanian, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 175014 (2021), arXiv:2010.15202 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Srivastava, D

    V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Astrophys. J.931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    cosmicexplorer.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument? .submit=Identifier&docid=T2000017&version= (2023)

    Cosmic explorer strain sensitivity, https://dcc. cosmicexplorer.org/cgi-bin/DocDB/ShowDocument? .submit=Identifier&docid=T2000017&version= (2023)

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Astrophys. J. Supp.263, 2 (2022), arXiv:2207.06910 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Dupletsa, J

    U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, B. Banerjee, M. Branchesi, B. Goncharov, A. Maselli, A. C. S. Oliveira, S. Ron- chini, and J. Tissino, Astron. Comput.42, 100671 (2023), arXiv:2205.02499 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, J. G. Williams, and D. H. Boggs, The Astronomical Journal161, 105 (2021)

    work page 2021

  63. [63]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  65. [65]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Cutler, Phys

    C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D57, 7089 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9703068

    work page arXiv 1998

  69. [69]

    N. J. Cornish and S. L. Larson, Phys. Rev. D67, 103001 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0301548

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  70. [70]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Astrophys. J.941, 208 (2022), arXiv:2207.02771 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Fourier-domain modulations and delays of gravitational-wave signals

    S. Marsat and J. G. Baker, (2018), arXiv:1806.10734 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  72. [72]

    Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detectors

    A. Buonanno, B. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D80, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0907.0700 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  73. [73]

    B. C. Rhodes, PyEphem: Astronomical Ephemeris for Python, Astrophysics Source Code Library (2011), ascl:1112.014

    work page 2011

  74. [74]

    C. H. Acton, Planetary and Space Science44, 65 (1996), planetary data system

    work page 1996

  75. [75]

    Acton, N

    C. Acton, N. Bachman, B. Semenov, and E. Wright, Planet. Space Sci.150, 9 (2018)

    work page 2018

  76. [76]

    Tissinoet al., (2026)

    J. Tissinoet al., (2026)

    work page 2026

  77. [77]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run - parameter estimation data release (v2) [data set], Zenodo (2022)

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    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 — parameter estimation data release [data set], Zenodo (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, GWTC-4.0: Parameter es- timation data release [data set], Zenodo (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [80]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and sub-dominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.