pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19201 · v2 · pith:AZ4Y7S4Rnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 🌀 gr-qc

Impact of the Einstein Telescope's duty cycle on the estimation of binary black holes parameters

Luca Negri , Thomas C.K. Ng , Thibeau Wouters , Tim J. Kuhlbusch , Harsh Narola , Robin Chan , Kailib Ryan Doney , Francesco Cireddu
show 8 more authors
Isaac C. F. Wong Fabian Gittins Peter T. H. Pang Anuradha Samajdar Achim Stahl Justin Janquart Chris Van Den Broeck Tjonnie G. F. Li
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:13 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords Einstein Telescopeduty cyclebinary black holesparameter estimationgravitational wavesluminosity distancedetector configurationMarkov chains
0
0 comments X

The pith

The nested triangular Einstein Telescope design yields tighter constraints on binary black hole luminosity distance and source-frame masses than the two L-shaped detectors when realistic duty cycles are modeled.

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

The paper compares the triangular ET-Δ and the separated ET-2L designs for the Einstein Telescope by performing full Bayesian inference on simulated binary black hole merger signals. It incorporates a duty cycle model based on continuous-time Markov chains to simulate realistic periods when detectors are up or down for maintenance. The triangular layout keeps multiple detectors running simultaneously more often, leading to better precision on luminosity distance and component masses even when some events have lower signal strength. This matters because the final geometry choice will determine how accurately future observations can measure black hole properties and population statistics.

Core claim

The redundancy inherent in the ET-Δ design enables it to maintain at least two operational detectors for the majority of the observing time, whereas the ET-2L configuration is often limited to a single detector. Crucially, during partial network operation, ET-Δ often outperforms ET-2L, and the increased multi-detector uptime translates into tighter constraints on the luminosity distance and source-frame component masses. Notably, this remains true even when gravitational-wave events have a lower signal-to-noise ratio in ET-Δ than in ET-2L.

What carries the argument

Duty cycle modeled via continuous-time Markov chains applied to full Bayesian parameter estimation of binary black hole signals in the two ET geometries.

If this is right

  • ET-Δ provides tighter posterior constraints on luminosity distance and source-frame component masses compared to ET-2L under partial network operation.
  • The advantage of multi-detector uptime outweighs differences in per-event signal-to-noise ratio for these parameters.
  • Different maintenance strategies tested still show the redundancy benefit of the triangular configuration.
  • Parameter estimation improves when at least two detectors operate simultaneously for most observing time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar duty cycle considerations could influence design decisions for other future gravitational wave detectors.
  • The findings suggest prioritizing geometric redundancy in network layouts to maximize science return from uptime.
  • Validation of the Markov chain downtime model against current detector statistics would strengthen the case for one geometry over the other.

Load-bearing premise

The continuous-time Markov chain models of detector uptime and maintenance strategies accurately capture the real operational behavior of the Einstein Telescope.

What would settle it

Observing the actual duty cycles of a built Einstein Telescope and re-running parameter estimation on real binary black hole events to check if the triangular design indeed delivers the predicted tighter constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19201 by Achim Stahl, Anuradha Samajdar, Chris Van Den Broeck, Fabian Gittins, Francesco Cireddu, Harsh Narola, Isaac C. F. Wong, Justin Janquart, Kailib Ryan Doney, Luca Negri, Peter T. H. Pang, Robin Chan, Thibeau Wouters, Thomas C.K. Ng, Tim J. Kuhlbusch, Tjonnie G. F. Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Fractions of time spent by ET-2L and ET-∆ in specific detector configurations as a function of the uptime of a single [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distributions of the source-frame compo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Ratio of the 90% highest density interval widths of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The efficiency of different ET designs, defined by the duty-cycle-weighted uncertainty ratio (see Eq. 3), as a function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Comparison of results between GWfish and dynesty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. All cornerplots overlayed for the 5 different configurations for the signal in Figure 2. It is evident how the ET-2L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Full cornerplot for the signal in Figure 2. While some intrinsic parameters are better constrained by ET-1L due to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The geometry of the Einstein Telescope, the proposed next-generation European gravitational-wave observatory, is yet to be finalized. Two competing designs are under consideration: a nested triangular configuration (ET-{\Delta}) and two separated L-shaped detectors (ET-2L). Extensive prior comparisons of ET designs established the scientific landscape using the Fisher-information-matrix formalism and identified that duty-cycle-induced single-detector operation is precisely the regime where this approximation becomes less reliable, underscoring the need for a refined, principled treatment of the duty cycle. In this manuscript, we build on that foundation by revisiting the comparison with full Bayesian parameter estimation of gravitational-wave signals from binary black-hole mergers, projected onto a simulated Einstein Telescope that incorporates a refined duty cycle modelled via continuous-time Markov chains and testing different detector maintenance strategies. We find that the redundancy inherent in the ET-{\Delta} design enables it to maintain at least two operational detectors for the majority of the observing time, whereas the ET-2L configuration is often limited to a single detector. Crucially, we show that, during partial network operation, ET-{\Delta} often outperforms ET-2L, and that the increased multi-detector uptime translates into tighter constraints on the luminosity distance and source-frame component masses. Notably, this remains true even when gravitational-wave events have a lower signal-to-noise ratio in ET-{\Delta} than in ET-2L.

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

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper compares the triangular ET-Δ and two-L ET-2L designs for the Einstein Telescope using full Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated binary black hole signals. A duty cycle is modeled via continuous-time Markov chains with several maintenance strategies. The central claim is that ET-Δ maintains higher multi-detector uptime due to its redundancy, yielding tighter posteriors on luminosity distance and source-frame component masses during partial-network operation, even when individual events have lower SNR than in ET-2L.

Significance. If the duty-cycle model is representative, the work supplies a concrete, simulation-based argument for preferring the redundant ET-Δ geometry when parameter estimation (rather than detection) is the figure of merit. It improves on prior Fisher-matrix studies by employing full Bayesian recovery and by explicitly testing maintenance policies, thereby quantifying how uptime fractions translate into measurable gains on d_L and m1, m2.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3] §3 (duty-cycle model): the continuous-time Markov chain transition rates and the specific maintenance strategies are not calibrated against published downtime statistics from LIGO/Virgo. Because the headline result—that ET-Δ outperforms ET-2L in partial operation—rests entirely on the uptime ordering produced by this model, an uncalibrated choice of rates constitutes a load-bearing assumption; different failure/repair statistics could reverse the ordering while leaving the Bayesian pipeline unchanged.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comment on the duty-cycle model. We address the point below and will revise the manuscript to strengthen the analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (duty-cycle model): the continuous-time Markov chain transition rates and the specific maintenance strategies are not calibrated against published downtime statistics from LIGO/Virgo. Because the headline result—that ET-Δ outperforms ET-2L in partial operation—rests entirely on the uptime ordering produced by this model, an uncalibrated choice of rates constitutes a load-bearing assumption; different failure/repair statistics could reverse the ordering while leaving the Bayesian pipeline unchanged.

    Authors: We agree that the transition rates were chosen on the basis of plausible order-of-magnitude estimates rather than a direct fit to published LIGO/Virgo downtime statistics, and that this choice is load-bearing for the quantitative comparison. In the revised manuscript we will (i) extract published uptime and maintenance statistics from LIGO and Virgo observing runs, (ii) recalibrate the continuous-time Markov chain rates to those data, and (iii) repeat the full set of Bayesian injections under the calibrated rates. We will also add a brief sensitivity study in which the rates are varied by factors of two around the calibrated values to confirm that the relative multi-detector uptime ordering between ET-Δ and ET-2L is robust. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: forward simulations of signals and Bayesian recovery

full rationale

The paper models detector duty cycles via continuous-time Markov chains, tests maintenance strategies, injects binary black hole signals into simulated ET networks, and recovers parameters with full Bayesian inference. All reported advantages of ET-Δ over ET-2L (tighter d_L and source-frame mass posteriors during partial uptime) are direct numerical outputs of these independent simulations. No equations define a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameters are relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing premise reduces to a self-citation chain. The referenced prior Fisher-matrix studies supply context only; the present results stand on the new simulation pipeline.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only; cannot enumerate free parameters, axioms, or invented entities without the full methods and simulation sections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5868 in / 1081 out tokens · 19142 ms · 2026-06-26T20:13:52.417990+00:00 · methodology

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

105 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), 1602.03837

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016), 1602.03840

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), 1903.04467

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), 2112.06861

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), 2010.14529

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026), 2509.08099

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2026), 2603.19019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), 1805.11581

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Ob- servatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), Nature551, 85 (2017), 1710.05835

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), As- trophys. J.949, 76 (2023), 2111.03604

    arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2508.18083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2508.18082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2509.04348

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2026), 2605.27225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  15. [15]

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise (2008), 0810.0604

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  16. [16]

    Hild et al., Class

    S. Hild et al., Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094013 (2011), 1012.0908

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  17. [17]

    Punturo et al., Class

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

    2010

  18. [18]

    Reitze et al., Bull

    D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), 1907.04833

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  19. [19]

    Evans et al

    M. Evans et al. (2021), 2109.09882

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Evans et al

    M. Evans et al. (2023), 2306.13745

    arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Maggiore et al

    M. Maggiore et al. (ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), 1912.02622

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    Kalogera et al

    V. Kalogera et al. (2021), 2111.06990

    arXiv 2021

  23. [23]

    Borhanian and B

    S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083040 (2024), 2202.11048

    arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Branchesi et al., JCAP07, 068 (2023), 2303.15923

    M. Branchesi et al., JCAP07, 068 (2023), 2303.15923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    Abac et al

    A. Abac et al. (ET) (2025), 2503.12263

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    E. D. Hall and M. Evans, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 225002 (2019), 1902.09485

    arXiv 2019

  27. [27]

    Bhagwat, C

    S. Bhagwat, C. Pacilio, P. Pani, and M. Mapelli, Phys. Rev. D108, 043019 (2023), 2304.02283

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Franciolini, F

    G. Franciolini, F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, M. Mag- giore, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D108, 043506 (2023), 2304.03160

    arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Gupta et al., Class

    I. Gupta et al., Class. Quant. Grav.41, 245001 (2024), 2307.10421

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Maggiore, F

    M. Maggiore, F. Iacovelli, E. Belgacem, M. Mancarella, and N. Muttoni, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 215004 (2025), 2411.05754

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Iacovelli, E

    F. Iacovelli, E. Belgacem, M. Maggiore, M. Mancarella, and N. Muttoni, JCAP10, 085 (2024), 2408.14946

    arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    Pedrotti, M

    A. Pedrotti, M. Mancarella, J. Bel, and D. Gerosa (2025), 2504.10482

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Begnoni, S

    A. Begnoni, S. Anselmi, M. Pieroni, A. Renzi, and A. Ricciardone (2025), 2506.21530

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    De Renzis, F

    V. De Renzis, F. Iacovelli, D. Gerosa, M. Mancar- ella, and C. Pacilio, Phys. Rev. D111, 044048 (2025), 2410.17325

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Loffredo et al., Astron

    E. Loffredo et al., Astron. Astrophys.697, A36 (2025), 2411.02342

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Colombo, O

    A. Colombo, O. S. Salafia, G. Ghirlanda, F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, F. S. Broekgaarden, L. Nava, B. Gia- comazzo, and M. Colpi, Astron. Astrophys.704, A260 (2025), 2503.00116

    arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Begnoni, W

    A. Begnoni, W. Del Pozzo, M. Pegorin, J. Pomper, and A. Ricciardone (2025), 2511.07520

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Nanadoumgar-Lacroze, N

    D. Nanadoumgar-Lacroze, N. Muttoni, M. Maggiore, and M. Mancarella (2026), 2603.19377

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Capote, W

    E. Capote, W. Jia, N. Aritomi, M. Nakano, V. Xu, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, R. X. Adhikari, A. Ananyeva, S. Appert, et al., Phys. Rev. D111, 062002 (2025)

    2025

  40. [40]

    Vallisneri, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D77, 042001 (2008), gr- qc/0703086

    arXiv 2008

  41. [41]

    C. L. Rodriguez, B. Farr, W. M. Farr, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D88, 084013 (2013), 1308.1397

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  42. [42]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. H. V¨ olkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, Phys. Rev. X15, 031036 (2025), 2404.05811

    arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Astrophys. J. Supp.263, 2 (2022), 2207.06910

    arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Dupletsa, J

    U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, K. K. Y. Ng, J. Tissino, F. San- toliquido, and A. Cozzumbo, Phys. Rev. D111, 024036 (2025), 2404.16103

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Santoliquido, J

    F. Santoliquido, J. Tissino, U. Dupletsa, M. Branchesi, and J. Harms (2025), 2512.20699

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav.40, 185006 (2023), 2210.15633

    arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

    ET Steering Committee, Tech. Rep. ET-0007A- 20, ET collaboration (2020), https://apps.et- gw.eu/tds/?content=3&r=16984

    2020

  48. [48]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), 1411.4547

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    LIGO Collaboration, Timeline O4a LIGO, https://gwosc.org/timeline/show/O4a_16KHZ_R1/ H1_DATA*L1_DATA/1368195220/21260798/, accessed 27th of September 2025

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav.39, 235009 (2022), 2203.04014

    arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    T. M. Liggett, Continuous time Markov processes: an introduction, Graduate studies in mathematics 113 (American Math. 10 Soc., 2010), ISBN 978-0-8218-4949-1

    2010

  52. [52]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (Virgo) (in preparation), in prepara- tion

  53. [53]

    Freise, S

    A. Freise, S. Chelkowski, S. Hild, W. Del Pozzo, A. Per- reca, and A. Vecchio, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 085012 (2009), 0804.1036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  54. [54]

    ETO Design Task Force, Tech. Rep. EDMS: 3373921, ET collaboration (2025), https://edms.cern.ch/document/3373921

    arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Fiori et al., Galaxies8, 82 (2020)

    I. Fiori et al., Galaxies8, 82 (2020)

    2020

  56. [56]

    Boschi et al.,https://logbook.virgo-gw.eu/ virgo/?r=44268(2019), Virgo logbook entry

    V. Boschi et al.,https://logbook.virgo-gw.eu/ virgo/?r=44268(2019), Virgo logbook entry

    2019

  57. [57]

    Fiori et al.,https://logbook.virgo-gw.eu/virgo/ ?r=46055(2019), Virgo logbook entry

    I. Fiori et al.,https://logbook.virgo-gw.eu/virgo/ ?r=46055(2019), Virgo logbook entry

    2019

  58. [58]

    Amann, F

    F. Amann, F. Badaracco, R. DeSalvo, L. Naticchioni, A. Paoli, L. Paoli, P. Ruggi, and S. Selleri, Appl. Sci- ences12, 8827 (2022), 2204.04131

    arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Regimbau et al., Phys

    T. Regimbau et al., Phys. Rev. D86, 122001 (2012), 1201.3563

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  60. [60]

    Veitch and A

    J. Veitch and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D81, 062003 (2010), 0911.3820

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    Veitch et al., Phys

    J. Veitch et al., Phys. Rev. D91, 042003 (2015), 1409.7215

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  62. [62]

    Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, M

    C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estell´ es, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064002 (2020), 2001.10914

    arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 102, 043015 (2020), 2004.08342

    arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    P. B. Graff, A. Buonanno, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D92, 022002 (2015), 1504.04766

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Kalaghatgi, M

    C. Kalaghatgi, M. Hannam, and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D101, 103004 (2020), 1909.10010

    arXiv 2020

  66. [66]

    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), 2310.18158

    arXiv 2024

  67. [67]

    Janssens et al., Phys

    K. Janssens et al., Phys. Rev. D109, 102002 (2024), 2402.17320

    arXiv 2024

  68. [68]

    I. C. F. Wong, P. T. H. Pang, M. Wils, F. Cireddu, W. Del Pozzo, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D111, 044046 (2025), 2407.08728

    arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Cireddu, M

    F. Cireddu, M. Wils, I. C. F. Wong, P. T. H. Pang, T. G. F. Li, and W. Del Pozzo, Phys. Rev. D110, 104060 (2024), 2312.14614

    arXiv 2024

  70. [70]

    J. Liu, A. Vajpeyi, R. Meyer, K. Janssens, J. E. Lee, P. Maturana-Russel, N. Christensen, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D111, 062003 (2025), 2409.13224

    arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Caporali, G

    I. Caporali, G. Capurri, W. Del Pozzo, A. Ricciardone, and L. Valbusa Dall’Armi, Phys. Rev. D112, 022005 (2025), 2501.09057

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), 1904.02180

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Koposov, J

    S. Koposov, J. Speagle, K. Barbary, G. Ash- ton, E. Bennett, J. Buchner, C. Scheffler, B. Cook, C. Talbot, J. Guillochon, et al., joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4 (2024), URLhttps: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12537467 2024

  74. [74]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

    G. Ashton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), 1811.02042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  75. [75]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020), 2006.00714

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  76. [76]

    W. M. Farr, Technical Report LIGO-T1400460, LIGO Scientific Collaboration (2014), lIGO Document Control Center, URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400460/ public

    2014

  77. [77]

    L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Phys. Rev. D93, 024013 (2016), 1508.03634

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  78. [78]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 36, e010 (2019), 1809.02293

    arXiv 2019

  79. [79]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016), 1502.01589

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  80. [80]

    N. J. Cornish (2010), 1007.4820

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

Showing first 80 references.