Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Identifying and characterizing extragalactic circum-CBC exoplanets with future gravitational-wave detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Future GW detectors could measure exoplanet masses around extragalactic compact binaries

desk verdict Plausible proof-of-principle for a genuinely new idea—extragalactic exoplanet detection via CBC Doppler wobble—but the forecasting chain rests on an imported 4PN phase formula and ideal viewing geometry, so the size of the claimed reach is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09658 v2 pith:5IKWJ4T5 submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Avinash Tiwari , Aditya Vijaykumar , Shasvath J. Kapadia , Sourav Chatterjee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc MSC 83C3585A04
keywords gravitationalwavesexoplanetscompactbinarycoalescenceDopplerphasemodulation4thpost-NewtonianorderFishermatrixEinsteinTelescopeDECIGO
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that the 'wobble' of a compact binary's center of mass as it orbits an accompanying exoplanet imprints a measurable phase modulation on the emitted gravitational waves. For future detectors like Einstein Telescope and DECIGO, this signature allows recovering the exoplanet's mass (up to an unknown orbital inclination) and orbital radius to within a factor of order a few for a significant portion of parameter space. If true, this would be a new, extinction-free channel for detecting and characterizing exoplanets far beyond the Milky Way. The authors demonstrate the claim with Fisher-matrix forecasts and Markov-chain sampling for representative BNS, NSBH, and BBH systems, including known exoplanets placed in fiducial orbits.

What carries the argument

The key object is the 4th-post-Newtonian (4PN) phase-modulation formula, Eq. (3), derived from the radial-velocity wobble of the CBC's center of mass. This formula (and its eccentric-orbit generalization) converts a small periodic Doppler shift into a frequency-dependent phase term in the stationary-phase approximation. It is the sole carrier of the planetary signature in the waveform; all parameter estimation of Mpl and a is performed through a Fisher-matrix inversion and a Jacobian transformation from the measurable (M, η, zL0, Ωdet) to physical (M, η, Mpl, a) parameters.

What would settle it

An independent, non-perturbative or higher-order waveform calculation (e.g., a complete 4.5PN or resummed computation of the Doppler-induced phase including amplitude modulations) that finds corrections comparable to the leading 4PN term would invalidate the forecasted parameter extraction. Alternatively, a future observation of a known Galactic exoplanet system with a GW signal (e.g., a white-dwarf binary) could check whether the recovered Mpl matches the electromagnetically measured value to within the predicted uncertainties.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a circum-CBC exoplanet leaves a detectable 4th post-Newtonian order phase correction, ΔΨ4(f), in the gravitational-wave signal, arising from the Doppler shift of the CBC's center-of-mass motion around the common barycenter. For circular outer orbits this phase correction is given by a compact analytic formula involving the line-of-sight velocity amplitude, the outer-orbit frequency, and the CBC's mass-ratio-dependent combination ξ. Using this formula, Fisher-matrix and MCMC analyses show that the exoplanet mass and orbital semi-major axis can be extracted with fractional uncertainties of order unity at 68% confidence for a substantial fraction of the considered para

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts rest entirely on the completeness of the 4PN phase-modulation formula: if amplitude corrections, 4.5PN or higher-order terms, or inclination-dependent effects contribute comparably to the phase, the Fisher and MCMC uncertainties on Mpl and a would change and the claimed O(1) mass recovery could fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A+ (LIGO O5) would detect essentially none of the known exoplanet population around a BNS at 100 Mpc, but Einstein Telescope would detect a significant fraction of them.
  • DECIGO at 1 Gpc would detect a very large number of known exoplanets if they orbit BNSs or BBHs, including hot super-Earths within 0.1 AU and super-Earths farther out.
  • For a fixed exoplanet mass, detectability as a function of orbital radius is non-monotonic: in the regime where the CBC completes many outer orbits, the phase correction grows as ∝ a, while in the opposite regime it falls as ∝1/a², producing characteristic banana-shaped contours in the mass–radius plane.
  • The method recovers the true parameters (including outer-orbit eccentricity) at 90% credible levels for the three example systems, though zero eccentricity remains allowed in the NSBH case.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same 4PN phase-modulation technique could, in principle, be applied to other circumbinary or hierarchical triple configurations, not only exoplanets—for instance, to identify low-mass black-hole companions or brown dwarfs at cosmological distances, since the formalism depends only on the existence of a third body that induces a periodic barycentric wobble.
  • The assumed sin ι_out = 1 (edge-on outer orbit) and face-on inner binary geometry maximize the Doppler signal and the SNR; random orientations will degrade the recoverable parameter space, meaning the presented contours are optimistic upper limits on detectability rather than typical expectations.
  • The independence of the result from extinction and scattering in the ISM/IGM suggests a follow-up observational strategy: if extragalactic exoplanets are detected this way, their frequency around compact binaries could constrain planet survival in supernova and common-envelope environments, a question the paper does not address.
  • An immediate testable extension would be to apply the Fisher formalism to the upcoming LISA band for Galactic white-dwarf binaries, where the same physics was previously explored with only linear-in-time frequency drift; the full 4PN modulation offers a more complete description.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that future gravitational-wave detectors (A+, Einstein Telescope, DECIGO) can detect and characterize exoplanets orbiting extragalactic compact-binary coalescences (CBCs). The method uses the Doppler modulation of the CBC's centre-of-mass motion around the CBC–exoplanet barycentre, which enters the GW phase at leading 4PN order. The authors construct a Fisher-matrix forecast over a grid of exoplanet mass and semi-major axis, draw contours where the fractional uncertainty in M_pl equals unity, and overlay known exoplanets to estimate detectability. They also present three MCMC examples in which injected exoplanet parameters are recovered. The central assumption is an edge-on outer orbit (sin i_out = 1) and a face-on inner binary, which the authors state yields lower-limit errors.

Significance. If the forecast is correct, it would be a step change: gravitational waves could detect extragalactic exoplanets, going beyond the Galactic LISA-era white-dwarf binary proposals. The paper is honest about the sin i_out degeneracy and labels the quoted errors as lower limits. The MCMC examples recover injected values, and the parameter-space behaviour of the contours is explained with a clear physical scaling argument. However, the entire forecast rests on a 4PN phase formula imported from a companion paper, and the paper does not provide a formal detection criterion. These are load-bearing gaps, but they are addressable.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, Eq. (3)] The leading-order phase correction ΔΨ4(f) is imported without derivation from Tiwari et al. (2026), and the eccentric generalization is only cited as Eq. (20) of the same paper. All Fisher and MCMC likelihoods use this formula, so an undetected sign, prefactor, or missing term would change every contour. Please provide a self-contained derivation or at least an explicit PN-counting argument and a numerical check against a time-domain modulated waveform. In addition, the claim that amplitude corrections are negligible is deferred by reference. This is not obviously safe at the highest SNRs: for D:BBH2, ρ≈4.25×10^4, so 1/ρ≈2.4×10^-5, while the allowed z_L0 values are as large as 0.05. An amplitude modulation of order z_L0 can contribute comparably to the phase-only signal in this regime and should be quantified rather than assumed away.
  2. [Abstract and Section 3, Figures 2–3] The abstract claims that the presence of a circum-CBC exoplanet can be 'identified' by extracting its mass within a factor O(1), but the figures are based on δM_pl = 1 Fisher contours. A Fisher error on M_pl is a conditional parameter-estimation uncertainty, not a detection significance or false-alarm probability. A 68% credible interval with relative width 100% does not by itself demonstrate that the planet signal is present. The paper needs an explicit detection statistic — for example, the SNR of the ΔΨ4 term or a Bayes factor against the no-planet model — and the contours should be translated into detection regions using that statistic.
  3. [Section 3, parameter choices] The text says 'we fix θ_c = 0.1 rad in all system and detector configurations, while setting e_out = 0.5 and ϑ_p = 0.1 rad', even though the Fisher parameter vectors Θ_E and Θ_C include θ_c, e_out, and ϑ_p. If these nuisance parameters are fixed rather than marginalized in the Fisher inversion, the quoted uncertainties on M_pl and a are underestimated. Please clarify whether these parameters are fixed only in the injections or also in the estimation; if the latter, marginalize over them or justify why their uncertainty is negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (3) and text after it] The notation for v, v_lso, f, and f_lso should be defined more carefully: v uses the redshifted total mass M while f is described as observed frequency. It would help to state explicitly which quantities are detector-frame and which are source-frame.
  2. [Figure 2 caption] The caption says 'The left and right panels correspond to a 1.6-1.3M☉ BNS in A+ and ET, respectively, while the right panel corresponds to a 5-1.4M☉ NSBH in ET.' This appears to describe three panels with two 'right' panels; the panel labels should be corrected.
  3. [Figure 4 and Appendix C] The phrase '1dmarginalised' should be '1D marginalized'. Minor typos such as 'T able' in the Table 1 caption should also be corrected.
  4. [References] The companion paper Tiwari et al. (2026) is cited only by arXiv number; please include the full reference or DOI. Also check that the journal's formatting style is applied consistently to the LaTeX header.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central forecast rests on the same-authors companion paper's 4PN phase formula and its assertion that amplitude corrections are negligible; the planet measurement itself is not a fitted input, so this is load-bearing self-citation rather than definitional circularity.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, Eq. (3) and the following sentence on eccentric orbits]
    "For circular outer orbits, at the leading order, ∆Ψ4,C(f) can be written as (A. Tiwari et al. 2026): ∆Ψ4,C(f) = − 5zL,0/128η v^3/ξ [sin(ξ/v^8 − θc) − sin(ξ/v^8_lso − θc)] ... For eccentric outer orbits ... The phase correction in this case is given by Equation (20) of A. Tiwari et al. (2026)."

    The Fisher and MCMC likelihoods, and hence every δMpl=1 contour and posterior shown, are constructed directly from this imported phase template and its eccentric generalization. This paper supplies no derivation, numerical check, or external benchmark for Eq. (3); it is justified solely by the overlapping-authors companion paper Tiwari et al. (2026). The forecast therefore stands or falls on a load-bearing self-citation. However, the planet parameters are injected and then measured rather than fitted inputs, so the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 2, paragraph immediately after Eq. (3)]
    "Note that there will be amplitude corrections as well. However, as argued in A. Tiwari et al. (2026), we will not be including the amplitude corrections in the Fisher matrix because these will be negligible."

    The claimed precision for high-SNR DECIGO cases is sensitive to exactly this neglect: for D:BBH2, ρ≈4.25×10^4, so 1/ρ≈2.4×10^-5, which is the same order as the allowed maximum z_L,0≈0.05. The decision that amplitude corrections are negligible is itself taken from the same companion paper without independent derivation here, making the error budget and all derived contours dependent on another unverified self-citation.

full rationale

The paper is internally self-consistent in its measurement procedure: synthetic signals are injected with known Mpl and a, and Fisher/MCMC analyses recover these parameters from the waveform; the recovered values are not forced by construction. The central circularity risk is instead that the entire detection/characterization pipeline is built on the 4PN phase-modulation formula of Eq. (3), imported from the same-authors companion paper (Tiwari et al. 2026), and on that companion's assertion that amplitude corrections are negligible. No independent derivation, code archive, or external check is provided for the phase template, and the eccentric-orbit generalization is likewise cited to the same companion. This is a genuine load-bearing self-citation chain, but it is not definitional circularity: the planet parameters are measured, not assumed, and the paper's stated degeneracies and lower-limit caveats are honest. Score 4 reflects one or more load-bearing self-citations while acknowledging the central inference has independent statistical content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast rests on a known physical mechanism (Doppler wobble) but imports the quantitative 4PN phase model and methodology from the authors' companion papers. The free parameters are fiducial values that set the scale of the claimed detectable region; none is fit to real GW data. The assumptions listed are the load-bearing modeling choices that would need independent verification.

free parameters (5)
  • Outer-orbit inclination sin ι_out = 1
    Assumed edge-on and known for all forecasts; authors state Mpl and a are degenerate with it, so quoted errors are lower limits.
  • Reference phase θ_c at coalescence = 0.1 rad
    Fixed by hand in every Fisher/MCMC example; the oscillatory phase correction depends on it.
  • Longitude of periapsis ϑ_p (eccentric cases) = 0.1 rad
    Fixed by hand; needed for the eccentric harmonic expansion.
  • Outer-orbit eccentricity e_out in grid scans = 0.5
    Used to draw the dashed δMpl=1 contours; arbitrary fiducial level.
  • Maximum Doppler parameter z_exo,0 = 0.05
    Hand-chosen validity cutoff for the SPA/z<<1 expansion; shapes the boundary of the detectable parameter space.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CBC waveform under CoM motion is h_TV(f)=h(f) exp(i ΔΨ4(f;z_L)), with ΔΨ4 given by Eq. (3) (circular) and Eq. (20) of Tiwari et al. 2026 (eccentric), with amplitude corrections negligible.
    Central waveform model imported from the companion paper; nothing in this manuscript verifies it.
  • standard math The Fisher-matrix Gaussian approximation to the likelihood is valid at the large SNRs considered.
    Standard for broadband high-SNR forecasts, but nonlinear degeneracies can invalidate local covariance estimates.
  • domain assumption Planets are stable in the considered parameter region per the Mardling & Aarseth criterion with mutual inclination π/2.
    Used to exclude unstable regions; depends on inner-binary eccentricity and orientation assumptions.
  • domain assumption No other 4PN-order waveform effect (tides, spins, higher multipoles) contaminates the wobble phase term.
    Required for the planet signal to be identifiable; not tested in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying and characterizing extragalactic circum-CBC exoplanets with future gravitational-wave detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5IKWJ4T5

@misc{pith2026260709658,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying and characterizing extragalactic circum-CBC exoplanets with future gravitational-wave detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5IKWJ4T5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09658}
}
abstract

Exoplanets are high-value targets for a variety of ground and space-based telescopes. All known exoplanets are Galactic, and a fraction of them orbit compact objects. In this work, we investigate the possibility of detecting extragalactic exoplanets orbiting stellar-mass compact binary coalescences (CBCs), such as binary neutron stars, neutron star-black holes, and binary black holes, using future gravitational wave (GW) detectors, including A+ (LIGO in O5), Einstein Telescope, and DECIGO. We use the technique of reconstructing an external potential's profile by extracting information about the centre-of-mass (CoM) kinematics of a CBC encoded in the GWs it emits. In this work, the external potential is provided by the circum-CBC exoplanet, and the resulting signature on the GW waveform comes from the ``wobble'' of the CBC's CoM around the CBC-exoplanet barycentre. As a proof of principle, we consider a few example CBCs detectable with future detectors and a range of circum-CBC exoplanet parameters in circular and eccentric orbits. We find that for a significant fraction of the range of parameters considered, we can identify the presence of a circum-CBC exoplanet by extracting its mass (up to an unknown orbital inclination angle) within a factor $\mathcal{O}(1)$ of its true value, at $68\%$ confidence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09658 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation of an exoplanet (solid) and CBC (dashed) orbiting in eccentric orbits around the system’s centre of mass (barycenter) O. Ms is the total mass of the CBC, Mpl is the mass of the exoplanet, ϑp is the angular position of the periapsis from the X-axis (longitude of periapsis), ϑ is the angular position of the exoplanet rel￾ative to the periapsis (true anomaly), and ιout is the angle between an… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detected exoplanets overplotted together with the δMpl = 1 contours over a grid of Mpl and a for the systems considered in A+ and ET band. The left and right panels correspond to a 1.6-1.3 M⊙ BNS in A+ and ET, respectively, while the right panel corresponds to a 5-1.4 M⊙ NSBH in ET. The solid contours correspond to the circular outer orbits of CBCs at 100 Mpc, the dashed ones correspond to eccentric outer orbits of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Detected exoplanets overplotted together with the δMpl = 1 contours over a grid of Mpl and a for the systems considered at 1 Gpc in the DECIGO band. The left panel corresponds to a 1.6-1.3 M⊙ BNS, the middle panel corresponds to a 10 - 9 M⊙ BBH, while the right panel corresponds to a 30-25 M⊙. The solid contours correspond to the circular outer orbits, while the dashed ones correspond to eccentric outer orbits with … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 1d marginalised posteriors of Mpl, a, and eout for example systems considered in eccentric orbits around a BNS in ET band (ET: BNS), NSBH in ET band (ET: NSBH), and BBH in DECIGO band (D: BBH2). The dashed lines represent the true values of the parameters. The shaded b…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: ET: BNS: the corner plot of Mpl, a, and eout for the ET:BNS scenario presented in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The frequency (left panel) and time (right panel) domain phase corrections for the ET: BNS scenario presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Periodic line-of-sight velocity-driven modulations to gravitational waves emitted by compact binaries in Keplerian outer orbits

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    New waveform corrections for periodic Doppler shifts from circular and eccentric outer orbits let future gravitational-wave detectors measure the mass and orbit of a third body around a merging binary.

  2. Periodic line-of-sight velocity-driven modulations to gravitational waves emitted by compact binaries in Keplerian outer orbits

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Periodic non-relativistic line-of-sight velocity of a compact binary’s centre of mass produces 4PN phase and amplitude modulations that improve Fisher forecasts of tertiary mass and outer-orbit size for A+, ET, DECIGO...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    P., Tollerud, E

    Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 8 See S. Seager (2010) for more details on the Exoplanet subcat- egories

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  2. [2]

    D., Bhalerao, V., et al

    Bailes, M., Bates, S. D., Bhalerao, V., et al. 2011, Science, 333, 1717, doi: 10.1126/science.1208890

    doi:10.1126/science.1208890 2011

  3. [3]

    ´A., et al

    Bakos, G. ´A., et al. 2018, Handbook of Exoplanets, 1, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 111

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-55333-7 2018

  4. [4]

    2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 581, L115, doi: 10.1086/345794

    Benedict, G., et al. 2002, The Astrophysical Journal, 581, L115, doi: 10.1086/345794

    doi:10.1086/345794 2002

  5. [5]

    Berti, E., Buonanno, A., & Will, C. M. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 084025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.084025 7

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.084025 2005

  6. [6]

    V., Dreizler, S., et al

    Beuermann, K., Hessman, F. V., Dreizler, S., et al. 2010, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 521, L60, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201015728

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201015728 2010

  7. [7]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, L155, doi: 10.1086/421087

    Bond, I., et al. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 606, L155, doi: 10.1086/421087

    work page doi:10.1086/421087 2004

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Borucki, W. J., et al. 2010, Science, 327, 977, doi: 10.1126/science.1185402

    doi:10.1126/science.1185402 2010

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 084043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.084043

    2009 doi

  2. [10]

    2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 579, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525580

    Cabrera, J., et al. 2015, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 579, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525580

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Cutler, C., & Flanagan, E. E. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 2658, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658

    1994 doi

  4. [12]

    2020, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29, 2043007

    Danielski, C., & Tamanini, N. 2020, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29, 2043007

    2020

  5. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

    Fregeau, J. M., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal, 640, 1086, doi: 10.1086/500111

    2006 doi

  7. [15]

    P., et al

    Gardner, J. P., et al. 2006, Space Science Reviews, 123, 485, doi: 10.1007/s11214-006-8315-7

    2006 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 601, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629294

    Hellier, C., et al. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 601, A53, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629294

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    J., & Murray, N

    Holman, M. J., & Murray, N. W. 2005, Science, 307, 1288, doi: 10.1126/science.1107822

    2005 doi

  10. [18]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  11. [19]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Scmidt (Netherlands: IOS Press), 87–90. https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/403913/

    2016

  12. [20]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5888, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2834

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    A., & Aarseth, S

    Mardling, R. A., & Aarseth, S. J. 2001, MNRAS, 321, 398, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.03974.x

    2001

  14. [22]

    2008, Science, 322, 1348, doi: 10.1126/science.1166585

    Marois, C., et al. 2008, Science, 322, 1348, doi: 10.1126/science.1166585

    2008 doi

  15. [23]

    1995, Nature, 378, 355, doi: 10.1038/378355a0

    Mayor, M., & Queloz, D. 1995, Nature, 378, 355, doi: 10.1038/378355a0

    1995 doi

  16. [24]

    2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    Mayor, M., et al. 2003, The Messenger, 114, 20

    2003

  17. [25]

    D., Bryson, S

    Morton, T. D., Bryson, S. T., Coughlin, J. L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 822, 86, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/822/2/86 NASA Exoplanet Archive. 2020, NExScI-Caltech/IPAC, doi: 10.26133/NEA12

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    R., et al

    Ricker, G. R., et al. 2015, Journal of Astronomical

    2015

  19. [27]

    Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems, 1, 014003, doi: 10.1117/1.JATIS.1.1.014003

    doi

  20. [28]

    J., & Liu, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liu, C. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    F., S´ egransan, D., et al

    Sahlmann, J., Lazorenko, P. F., S´ egransan, D., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A77, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628854

    2016 doi

  22. [30]

    C., Casertano, S., Bond, H

    Sahu, K. C., Casertano, S., Bond, H. E., et al. 2006, Nature, 443, 534, doi: 10.1038/nature05158

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, L55

    Seto, N. 2008, The Astrophysical Journal, 677, L55

    2008

  24. [32]

    B., Hansen, B

    Sigurdsson, S., Richer, H. B., Hansen, B. M., Stairs, I. H., & Thorsett, S. E. 2003, Science, 301, 193, doi: 10.1126/science.1086326

    2003 doi

  25. [33]

    2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04330

    Tamanini, N., & Danielski, C. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.04330

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 858

    Tamanini, N., & Danielski, C. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 858

    2019

  27. [35]

    E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J

    Thorsett, S. E., Arzoumanian, Z., & Taylor, J. H. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 523, 763, doi: 10.1086/307759

    1999 doi

  28. [36]

    J., Vijaykumar, A., & Chatterjee, S

    Tiwari, A., Kapadia, S. J., Vijaykumar, A., & Chatterjee, S. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.09644

    2026 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J., Chatterjee, S., & Fragione, G

    Tiwari, A., Vijaykumar, A., Kapadia, S. J., Chatterjee, S., & Fragione, G. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 084034, doi: 10.1103/gspl-m478 van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C., & Varoquaux, G. 2011, Comput. Sci. Eng., 13, 22, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    2020, Nature Meth., doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    Virtanen, P., et al. 2020, Nature Meth., doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  31. [39]

    Bellinger, E. P. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4146, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2540

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    Wolszczan, A., & Frail, D. 1992, Nature, 355, 145, doi: 10.1038/355145a0 8 APPENDIX A.JACOBIAN The JacobianJ≡∂(M, η, z L,0,Ω det)/∂(M, η, Mpl, a) of the transformation from (M, η, Mpl, a) to (M, η, zL,0,Ω det) is given by J=   1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 − zL,0 2(1+zcos)η3/5 M⊙ Mpl+...

    1992 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.