Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Stochastic template banks for GW searches using low-discrepancy sequences

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that replacing uniform random sampling with low-discrepancy sequences when proposing candidate templates cuts the required proposal-set size by 27.5% in two dimensions and 12% in three, with essentially no loss in detection

desk verdict Honest, modest engineering result: LDS proposal sets for stochastic template banks are tested carefully, but the headline savings are partly an artifact of post hoc |U| choice and the real gain is small. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18633 v1 pith:3FPFG44S submitted 2026-07-21 gr-qc astro-ph.COphysics.comp-ph

Tarun Kumar , Anand S. Sengupta This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COphysics.comp-ph PACS 04.30.-w
keywords gravitationalwavestemplatebanksstochasticplacementlow-discrepancysequencesHaltonsequenceSobolmatchedfilteringfittingfactor
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

Gravitational-wave searches work by matching detector data against a bank of theoretical waveforms scattered across a parameter space of masses and spins. Building that bank with the standard stochastic recipe requires an oversampled set of random proposal points, and a large fraction of those points are wasted. This paper argues that drawing the proposals from low-discrepancy sequences—Halton and Sobol sets that fill space more evenly than random points—lets the same covering algorithm reach equal recovery fractions with about 27.5% fewer proposals in two dimensions and 12% fewer in three. The final template count barely moves (~1%), because the number of templates is set by the metric volume of the search space, not by how the proposals were drawn. If the result holds, it is a drop-in efficiency upgrade for stochastic and hybrid bank construction: lower memory use, cheaper nearest-neighbour searches, and less bookkeeping, with larger gains expected in higher dimensions.

What carries the argument

The central objects are low-discrepancy sequences—deterministic point sets such as Halton and Sobol that fill the unit cube more uniformly than pseudo-random points—and the top-down stochastic placement algorithm that consumes them. Proposals are drawn once from the chosen sequence over the chirp-time coordinates (θ0, θ3, θ3s), mapped to physical masses and spins, and filtered by physical constraints. A KD-tree is built once over the surviving proposals; at each iteration a random active proposal is promoted to the template list, a conservative Euclidean ball (scaled by the inverse square root of the smallest metric eigenvalue) retrieves candidates, a slab-wise filter prunes those outside th

What would settle it

Compute the exact match (not the metric approximation) between waveform pairs at the boundaries of the 2D and 3D parameter ranges used here, and compare the exact mismatch ellipsoids against the metric ellipsoids of Eq. (A.8); if the metric systematically underestimates mismatch near boundaries, the LDS banks would recover a smaller fraction of boundary injections than the claimed R0.97, and the equal-coverage claim would fail for real signals. Alternatively, measure the recovery fraction for a 4D aligned-spin bank with LDS vs random proposals at the same |U|; if LDS does not reduce |U| at equ

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that low-discrepancy sequences (LDS) are a drop-in replacement for uniform random sampling in the proposal stage of top-down stochastic template placement. Using the IMRPhenomD waveform model and the standard metric-based mismatch ellipsoid, the authors construct 2D and 3D banks over chirp-time coordinates and show that Halton (2D) and Sobol (3D) proposal sets achieve statistically indistinguishable recovery fractions—96.4% and 94.1% respectively—with 27.5% and 12% fewer proposal points than random sampling. The final template count is reduced by only about 1%, which they interpret as confirming that bank size is governed by metric volume and minimal match, not by propos

Load-bearing premise

The whole placement pipeline assumes that the local quadratic metric g_ij (built from the Fisher matrix) accurately predicts waveform mismatch everywhere in the search space, including boundaries and strongly anisotropic regions—the paper validates it only at a representative central point in Fig. A1.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For 2D banks over (θ0, θ3), LDS proposal sets deliver the same recovery fraction (≈96.4%) with 27.5% fewer proposals than uniform random sampling; for 3D banks over (θ0, θ3, θ3s), the saving is ≈12% at ≈94.1% recovery.
  • Final template counts change by only ~1%, confirming that bank size is set by metric volume and minimal match, not by the sampling strategy.
  • Because memory and nearest-neighbour overhead scale with the proposal set, LDS sampling reduces memory usage and bookkeeping without touching the covering logic—applicable to stochastic and hybrid placement alike.
  • The slab-wise coarse filter reduces local covering-step time by 20–30% for dimensions > 3, independent of metric anisotropy, making higher-dimensional banks cheaper to build.
  • The benefit is expected to grow with dimensionality, where adequate coverage demands proposal sets far larger than the final bank.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An immediate testable extension is to plug LDS proposal sets into hybrid geometric-random placement (which currently starts from uniformly sampled U); the same 10–30% reduction in |U| should carry over, and the paper notes this as a natural next step.
  • The 27.5%/12% savings are measured for one waveform family (IMRPhenomD) and one PSD; the generic claim—that better space-filling at the proposal stage reduces waste—should transfer to precessing and eccentric waveform families, where the parameter space is higher-dimensional and the metric is less reliable, but the size of the gain needs re-measuring.
  • The paper implicitly predicts that the savings increase with dimension: at fixed covering radius, the covering-radius advantage of low-discrepancy sets over random points grows in higher dimensions, so a 4D or 5D intrinsic space should show a larger reduction in |U| than 12%.
  • The slab-wise filter's speed-up is independent of anisotropy but assumes a locally uniform proposal density; in regions where the physical constraint boundaries leave holes in U, the filter's candidate-count ratios may differ—an effect the controlled benchmark in Table 2 does not capture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes using low-discrepancy sequences (Halton, Sobol, and scrambled variants) as the proposal set for the top-down stochastic template-bank algorithm of Ref. [22], replacing uniform random sampling. In two dimensions (θ0, θ3) and three dimensions (θ0, θ3, θ3s) using IMRPhenomD and the aLIGOZeroDetHighPower PSD with Mmin=0.97, the authors report that LDS requires 27.5% and 12% fewer proposal points than uniform random sampling while achieving 'comparable' recovery fractions (R0.97) on a common set of 10^5 injections, with final template counts differing by about 1%. The paper also introduces a slab-wise coarse-filtering step based on the oriented bounding box of the local metric ellipsoid, with a synthetic benchmark showing candidate-count reductions for anisotropic metrics. The evaluation uses 10 independent realizations per configuration.

Significance. If established, the LDS proposal-set reduction would be a simple, drop-in improvement for stochastic and hybrid template-bank generation, reducing memory and nearest-neighbour costs with no change in final bank size. The paper's strengths are the external random-sampling baseline, common injection set, 10 realizations, and the separate analysis of proposal-set size versus final template count. The slab-wise filter is a neat and potentially useful algorithmic addition. However, the headline percentages are not currently supported by a controlled protocol: the LDS proposal-set sizes were selected post hoc until recovery was 'comparable,' with no saturation curves for random sampling or equivalence margins, and in 3D the LDS recovery is actually slightly lower than the random baseline.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Table 4 and text following] The headline reductions (27.5% in 2D, 12% in 3D) are the result of an after-the-fact choice of |U| for LDS: 'For LDS sampling, |U| is then adjusted until an average recovery fraction comparable to that of random uniform sampling is achieved.' The random baseline sizes (400K, 20000K) are fixed, but no recovery-vs-|U| saturation curves are shown for random sampling. Without such curves one cannot exclude that random sampling at 290K (2D) or 17600K (3D) already achieves the same R0.97, which would eliminate the claimed savings. Please report R0.97 as a function of |U| for each method and dimension, with error bars, and use a pre-specified equivalence margin (e.g., two one-sided tests) to define 'comparable.' This is essential to the abstract's central quantitative claim.
  2. [§4, Table 4 Set II (3D)] The Sobol and Sobol-S recovery fractions (94.10±0.06 and 94.13±0.07) are lower than the random baseline (94.22±0.04). The text labels these 'comparable,' but the difference is in the direction adverse to the claim, and with σ≈0.05–0.07 it is about 1.5–2σ. The proposed remedy of adding 200–300K points to 17600K would reduce the headline saving from 12% to roughly 10.5–11%, so the numbers should be recomputed. Please either run LDS at the larger |U| and report the result or provide a formal equivalence test with a pre-specified margin.
  3. [§4, paragraph on determining |U|] The sentence 'We therefore determine the required size of U by studying the bank coverage as a function of |U| and selecting the point beyond which the improvement in coverage is negligible' describes a procedure that is never shown. The manuscript does not present the coverage-versus-|U| curves on which the choices 400K/20000K (random) and 290K/17600K (LDS) are based. Without these data the selection is not reproducible and the reported percentage reductions are not testable. Please include those curves for all methods and intermediate |U| values, or release the relevant data/code.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3, Table 2] The synthetic slab-filter benchmark uses uniform points in the unit hypercube and random orthogonal metrics with condition number 10^4. The connection to the actual parameter-space anisotropy encountered in Set I and Set II is not established; a sentence reporting the typical κ(g) values would help the reader judge the relevance.
  2. [Fig. A1 caption] The metric is validated only at the central point of each parameter space, while the text says 'validity of this approximation is assessed.' Please add a caveat, or include boundary checks, since the covering claim relies on the metric remaining accurate throughout the domain.
  3. [§4, CPU-time paragraph] The wall-clock speed-ups (4.5% in 2D, 7% in 3D) are based on a single representative run per method. With differences this small, please report the spread over multiple runs or clearly label these as indicative.
  4. [Abstract and §1] The precise percentages '27.5%' and '12%' are not warranted by the post hoc protocol; consider reporting ranges (e.g., '10–30%') or softening the quantitative claim until the saturation curves are provided.
  5. [Eq. (3.10) and general typos] In Eq. (3.10) 'V nan max' appears to be a typo for the volume of the n-ball times a_max^n. The Fig. A1 caption has awkward grammar ('we illustrate the validity of this approximation is assessed').

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LDS efficiency claim is an external benchmark comparison, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical comparison between LDS and uniform random proposal sets in a top-down stochastic placement algorithm. Recovery fractions in Table 4 are measured on a common set of 100,000 random injections per parameter space, so the comparison is anchored to an external random baseline rather than to any fitted quantity. The phrase 'For LDS sampling, |U| is then adjusted until an average recovery fraction comparable to that of random uniform sampling is achieved' describes experimental tuning of the proposal-set size, not a derivation; no equation is shown to reduce to another by construction. Eq. (5.1) is an interpretive scaling law used after the fact and does not enter the recovery measurement. The only self-citations ([22], [23]) concern the placement algorithm and hybrid methods; the LDS benefit is demonstrated by the present bank-generation runs and injections, not imported from those references. The lower 3D recovery (94.10 vs 94.22), the post hoc definition of 'comparable', and the absence of saturation curves to prove that even smaller |U| would fail are threats to the validity of the efficiency claim, but they are not circularity. Score 1 reflects minor self-citation that is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The result rests on the standard stochastic top-down placement algorithm, a quadratic metric approximation, and the assumption that recovery fractions from 100k self-generated injections measure real search performance. The only hand-tuned numbers are the proposal-set sizes and Mmin; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Proposal set size |U| — 2D Set I = Random: 400,000; Halton/Halton-S: 290,000
    Hand-selected after observing recovery until LDS results were 'comparable'; the 27.5% reduction is a direct consequence of these choices.
  • Proposal set size |U| — 3D Set II = Random: 20,000,000; Sobol/Sobol-S: 17,600,000
    Chosen so LDS mean recovery is comparable to random; 3D means actually sit 0.09–0.12 pp below the random baseline; the 12% reduction is tied to this choice.
  • Minimal match Mmin = 0.97
    Standard threshold used to define Dmax and R0.97; all template counts and recovery fractions depend on it. Not fitted to data, but a hand-chosen operating point that controls the reported numbers.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption IMRPhenomD waveform model faithfully represents nonprecessing CBC signals in the search band
    All banks and injections are generated with this model; an inaccurate model would make recovery fractions unrepresentative of real searches. Table 3; Sec. 3.1.
  • domain assumption Quadratic metric g_ij from Eq. (A.8) approximates exact mismatch throughout the parameter space
    Coverage decisions use this metric; validation in Fig. A1 is only at representative central points. Appendix A, Eq. (3.1).
  • domain assumption Reduced-spin parameter chi_r captures dominant spin effects so that the 3D manifold {m1, m2, chi_r} is an adequate intrinsic manifold
    Used to set up Set II; follows Ajith et al. [21]. Sec. 3.1.
  • domain assumption Rewriting (m1, m2, chi_r) into chirp-time coordinates (theta0, theta3, theta3s) yields a slowly varying metric
    Underpins uniform LDS sampling in these coordinates; not proven for the full range. Eq. (3.2).
  • domain assumption The set of 100,000 random injections drawn from the same parameter space gives a representative recovery-fraction estimate
    Recovery is measured only against these injections, with no independent search-data validation. Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 4.
  • standard math KD-tree Euclidean bound with alpha_min and slab cuts return exactly the metric neighbours (Eqs. 3.5–3.9)
    Follows from positive-definiteness of the metric and the oriented bounding box containment; not a physical assumption. Sec. 3.2–3.3.
  • domain assumption Objects with mass <= 3 M_sun are treated as neutron stars with spins bounded to ±0.04
    Used to define Set II; if unrealistic, 3D results do not transfer to real NSBH searches. Table 3 footnote.
  • domain assumption Final bank size is governed by metric-volume scaling N ∝ V_g / (1 - Mmin)^{n/2}
    Used to interpret the ~1% template-count change; assumes the bank is in the saturated oversampling regime. Eq. (5.1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic template banks for GW searches using low-discrepancy sequences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3FPFG44S

@misc{pith2026260718633,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic template banks for GW searches using low-discrepancy sequences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3FPFG44S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18633}
}
abstract

Matched filtering remains the most sensitive method for detecting gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences. The efficiency of such searches depends on how well a discrete template bank covers the underlying parameter space. Conventional geometric, stochastic, and hybrid placement methods can lead to uneven coverage and redundant templates in higher dimensions. Hybrid methods are generally the most efficient among these, while stochastic methods are simpler to implement, particularly when the parameter-space metric is difficult to compute. In practice, both approaches rely on uniform random sampling, which often requires a large number of proposal points to achieve adequate coverage. We find that stochastic template banks constructed using low-discrepancy sequences achieve comparable recovery fractions while requiring 27.5\% fewer proposal points in two dimensions and 12\% fewer in three dimensions. The final template count changes only marginally ($\sim 1\%$), consistent with the metric-volume constraints of the covering problem. The primary benefit of low-discrepancy sampling is therefore a reduction in the size of the initial proposal set, leading to lower memory usage and reduced bookkeeping during bank generation. Since the final template count is governed mainly by the metric volume of the target parameter space, the wall-clock speed-up is more modest than the reduction in proposal count. Nevertheless, low-discrepancy sampling provides a simple and scalable improvement to stochastic template-bank generation for current and future gravitational-wave searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18633 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Scaling of the covering radius with N, for points placed in a unit space. Error bars are the standard deviation over multiple realizations. Low-discrepancy sequences (LDS) cross the threshold r = √ 1 − 0.97, with ∼ 40% fewer proposals compared to uniform sampling, demonstrating more efficient space-filling. threshold with approximately 40% fewer points than uniform random sampling, confirming their more efficient sp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flowchart for the top-down stochastic template bank construction algorithm. A proposal set U is generated once, using either traditional uniform random sampling or the LDS approach (proposed in this work), and a KD-tree is built over these points. At each iteration, a randomly chosen active proposal is promoted to the template list T . Candidate neighbors of this proposal are first identified with a KD-tree broad qu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the two-step point-deletion algorithm. The KD-tree filtering step, shown in the left panel, identifies proposals within the conservative bounding radius rmax of the reference template λref; this radius is defined in Eq. (3.7). The surviving active proposals are then tested against the metric criterion, shown in the right panel. Points satisfying Eq. (3.1) are removed from the active proposal set U. O… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Illustration of the slab-wise coarse filtering step in two dimensions. The selected template is shown at λj , and ∆λ = λ − λj . The KD-tree broad query first returns all proposals satisfying ∥∆λ∥ ≤ a (ϵ) max. The slab-wise coarse filter then keeps only candidates insid…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution of the fitting factor FF for template banks constructed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [22]

    Sengupta, and Nilay Thakor

    Soumen Roy, Anand S. Sengupta, and Nilay Thakor. Hybrid geometric-random template- placement algorithm for gravitational wave searches from compact binary coalescences. Phys. Rev. D, 95:104045, May 2017. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104045. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104045

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.104045 2017

  2. [1]

    Advanced LIGO.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(7):074001, Mar 2015

    J Aasi et al. Advanced LIGO.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(7):074001, Mar 2015. URL https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  3. [2]

    Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(2):024001, dec 2014

    F Acernese, M Agathos, K Agatsuma, et al. Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(2):024001, dec 2014. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/ 32/2/024001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2014

  4. [3]

    Interferometer design of the KAGRA gravitational wave detector.Phys

    Yoichi Aso, Michimura, et al. Interferometer design of the KAGRA gravitational wave detector.Phys. Rev. D, 88:043007, Aug 2013. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043007 2013

  5. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GW150914: First results from the search for binary black hole coalescence with Advanced LIGO.Phys. Rev. D, 93:122003, June 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.12

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.12 2016

  6. [5]

    GWTC- 5.0: Observations from the Second Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run and Updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration. GWTC- 5.0: Observations from the Second Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run and Updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. 2026

    2026

  7. [6]

    Sharan Banagiri, Christopher P. L. Berry, Cabourn Davies, et al. Unifiedp astro for gravitational waves: Consistently combining information from multiple search pipelines. Phys. Rev. D, 108:083043, Oct 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083043. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083043

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.083043 2023

  8. [7]

    Armano, H

    M. Armano, H. Audley, J. Baird, et al.LISA Pathfinder, pages 185–204. doi: 10.1142/9789 811207402_0013. URLhttps://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811207402_ 0013

    work page doi:10.1142/9789

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    The Science of the Einstein Telescope.J

    Adrian Abac, Raul Abramo, Simone Albanesi, et al. The Science of the Einstein Telescope.J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2026(03):081, March 2026. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2026/03/081

    2026 doi

  2. [9]

    Adhikari, Chaitanya Afle, et al

    Matthew Evans, Rana X. Adhikari, Chaitanya Afle, et al. A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community, 2021. URLhttps://doi.org/10.48550/a rXiv.2109.09882

    2021 doi arXiv

  3. [10]

    B. Iyer, T. Souradeep, C. S. Unnikrishnan, S. V. Dhurandhar, S. Raja, and A. S. Sengupta. LIGO-India: Proposal of the Consortium for Indian Initiative in Gravitational- wave Observations (IndIGO). Technical report, LIGO Scientific Collaboration, 2011. URL https://dcc.ligo.org/...

    2011

  4. [11]

    The science case for LIGO-India.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39(2):025004, December 2021

    M Saleem, Javed Rana, V Gayathri, et al. The science case for LIGO-India.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39(2):025004, December 2021. ISSN 1361-6382. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ ac3b99. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1361-6382/ac3b99

    2021 doi

  5. [12]

    Shukla, Lalit Pathak, and Anand S

    Sachin R. Shukla, Lalit Pathak, and Anand S. Sengupta. Pinpointing coalescing binary neutron star sources with the igwn, including ligo-aundha.Phys. Rev. D, 109:044051, Feb

  6. [13]

    Sengupta, and Sanjit Mitra

    Abhishek Sharma, Divya Tahelyani, Anand S. Sengupta, and Sanjit Mitra. IndIGO- D: Probing Compact Binary Coalescences in the Decihertz GW Band, 1 2026. URL https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2601.06956

    2026 doi

  7. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett., 116:061102, Feb 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102. REFERENCES19

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Lee S. Finn. Detection, measurement, and gravitational radiation.Phys. Rev. D, 46:5236– 5249, Dec 1992. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.5236. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103 /PhysRevD.46.5236

    1992 doi

  9. [17]

    S. V. Dhurandhar and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Choice of filters for the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing binaries. II. Detection in colored noise.Phys. Rev. D, 49:1707–1722, Feb 1994. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.1707. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysR evD.49.1707

    1994 doi

  10. [18]

    Owen and B

    Benjamin J. Owen and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Matched filtering of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Computational cost and template placement.Phys. Rev. D, 60:022002, Jun 1999. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.022002. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/1 0.1103/PhysRevD.60.022002

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    Cokelaer

    T. Cokelaer. Gravitational waves from inspiralling compact binaries: Hexagonal template placement and its efficiency in detecting physical signals.Phys. Rev. D, 76:102004, Nov 2007. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.102004. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.76.1 02004

    2007 doi

  12. [20]

    I. W. Harry, B. Allen, and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Stochastic template placement algorithm for gravitational wave data analysis.Phys. Rev. D, 80:104014, Nov 2009. doi: 10.1103/Phys RevD.80.104014. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104014

    2009 doi

  13. [21]

    Ajith, N

    P. Ajith, N. Fotopoulos, S. Privitera, A. Neunzert, N. Mazumder, and A. J. Weinstein. Effectual template bank for the detection of gravitational waves from inspiralling compact binaries with generic spins.Phys. Rev. D, 89:084041, Apr 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89. 084041. URL...

    2014 doi

  14. [23]

    Sengupta, and Parameswaran Ajith

    Soumen Roy, Anand S. Sengupta, and Parameswaran Ajith. Effectual template banks for upcoming compact binary searches in Advanced-LIGO and Virgo data.Phys. Rev. D, 99: 024048, Jan 2019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024048. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.99.024048

    2019 doi

  15. [24]

    Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching

    Jon Louis Bentley. Multidimensional binary search trees used for associative searching. Communications of the ACM, 18(9):509–517, 1975. doi: 10.1145/361002.361007. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/361002.361007

    1975

  16. [25]

    Cover art: Issues in the metric-guided and metric- less placement of random and stochastic template banks.Phys

    Gian Mario Manca and Michele Vallisneri. Cover art: Issues in the metric-guided and metric- less placement of random and stochastic template banks.Phys. Rev. D, 81:024004, Jan 2010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.024004. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.0 24004

    2010 doi

  17. [26]

    Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries

    Sebastian Khan, Sascha Husa, Mark Hannam, Frank Ohme, Michael Pürrer, Xisco Jiménez Forteza, and Alejandro Bohé. Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. ii. a phenomenological model for the advanced detector era.Phys. Rev. D, 93:044007, Feb...

    2016 doi

  18. [27]

    John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014

    Paolo Brandimarte.Low-Discrepancy Sequences, chapter 9, pages 379–401. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2014. ISBN 9781118593264. doi: 10.1002/9781118593264.ch9. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118593264.ch9

    2014 doi

  19. [28]

    Harald Niederreiter.Random Number Generation and Quasi-Monte Carlo Methods. SIAM,

  20. [29]

    Cambridge University Press, 2010

    Josef Dick and Friedrich Pillichshammer.Digital Nets and Sequences: Discrepancy Theory and Quasi-Monte Carlo Integration. Cambridge University Press, 2010. doi: 10.1017/CBO9 780511761188. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761188

    2010 doi

  21. [30]

    J. H. Halton. On the efficiency of certain quasi-random sequences of points in evaluating multi-dimensional integrals.Numerische Mathematik, 2:84–90, 1960. doi: 10.1007/BF0138

    1960 doi

  22. [31]

    On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals.USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7(4):86–112,

    I.M Sobol. On the distribution of points in a cube and the approximate evaluation of integrals.USSR Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics, 7(4):86–112,

  23. [32]

    J. G. van der Corput. Verteilungsfunktionen i.Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 38:813–821, 1935. URLhttps://www.dwc.knaw.nl/DL/publi cations/PU00018547.pdf

    1935

  24. [33]

    Dalal, Deian Stefan, and Jared Harwayne-Gidansky

    Ishaan L. Dalal, Deian Stefan, and Jared Harwayne-Gidansky. Low Discrepancy Sequences for Monte Carlo Simulations on Reconfigurable Platforms. In2008 International Conference on Application-Specific Systems, Architectures and Processors (ASAP), pages 108–113, July

  25. [34]

    Art B. Owen. Scrambling Sobol and Niederreiter–Xing Points.Journal of Complexity, 14 (4):466–489, 1998. ISSN 0885-064X. doi: https://doi.org/10.1006/jcom.1998.0487. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885064X98904873

    1998

  26. [35]

    Abdalla G. M. Ahmed, Matt Pharr, and Peter Wonka. ART-Owen Scrambling.ACM Trans. Graph., 42(6), December 2023. ISSN 0730-0301. doi: 10.1145/3618307. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3618307

    2023 doi

  27. [36]

    Binary tree approach to template placement for searches for gravitational waves from compact binary mergers.Phys

    Chad Hanna, James Kennington, Shio Sakon, et al. Binary tree approach to template placement for searches for gravitational waves from compact binary mergers.Phys. Rev. D, 108:042003, Aug 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.042003. URLhttps://link.aps.org /doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.042003

    2023 doi

  28. [37]

    Nitz, Shichao Wu, Marco Cusinato, Rahul Dhurkunde, Ian Harry, Tito Dal Canton, and Francesco Pannarale

    Keisi Kacanja, Alexander H. Nitz, Shichao Wu, Marco Cusinato, Rahul Dhurkunde, Ian Harry, Tito Dal Canton, and Francesco Pannarale. Efficient stochastic template bank using inner product inequalities.The Astrophysical Journal, 975(2):212, Nov 2024. doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad7d8...

    2024 doi

  29. [38]

    Brown, Ian Harry, Andrew Lundgren, and Alexander H

    Duncan A. Brown, Ian Harry, Andrew Lundgren, and Alexander H. Nitz. Detecting binary neutron star systems with spin in advanced gravitational-wave detectors.Phys. Rev. D, 86: 084017, Oct 2012. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.084017. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.86.084017

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    Implementing a search for gravitational waves from binary black holes with nonprecessing spin.Phys

    Collin Capano, Ian Harry, Stephen Privitera, and Alessandra Buonanno. Implementing a search for gravitational waves from binary black holes with nonprecessing spin.Phys. Rev. D, 93:124007, Jun 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.124007. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD...

    2016 doi

  31. [40]

    Apostolatos

    Theocharis A. Apostolatos. Search templates for gravitational waves from precessing, inspiraling binaries.Phys. Rev. D, 52:605–620, Jul 1995. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.605. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.52.605

    1995 doi

  32. [41]

    Advanced LIGO Anticipated Sensitivity Curves

    David Shoemaker. Advanced LIGO Anticipated Sensitivity Curves. Technical Report LIGO- T0900288-v2, LIGO Laboratory, 2010. URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T0900288-v2/publ ic

    2010

  33. [1967]

    doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9

    ISSN 0041-5553. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0041-5553(67)90144-9. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041555367901449

  34. [1992]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970081

    doi: 10.1137/1.9781611970081. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611970081

    doi

  35. [2003]

    URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122003

    doi

  36. [2008]

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/ASAP.2008.4580163

    doi: 10.1109/ASAP.2008.4580163. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1109/ASAP.2008.4580163

    2008

  37. [2024]

    URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysR evD.109.044051

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044051. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysR evD.109.044051

    doi

  38. [6213]

    REFERENCES20

    URLhttps://doi.org/10.1007/BF01386213. REFERENCES20

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.