Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Searching for stellar-origin binary black holes in LISA Data Challenge 1b: Yorsh

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A semi-coherent search recovers all five stellar-origin black hole binaries in LISA Data Challenge 1b with injected SNR at least 12.94, indicating a lower detection threshold.

desk verdict A useful, honest first benchmark of SoBBH searching on an official LISA Data Challenge, but the 'confident detection' label leans on an unvalidated background from an earlier paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.10501 v2 pith:7E2O474Z submitted 2024-12-13 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Diganta Bandopadhyay , Christopher J. Moore This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords LISADataChallengestellar-originbinaryblackholessemi-coherentsearchgravitationalwaveanalysistime-delayinterferometryparticleswarmoptimizationparameterestimationYorsh
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 reports the first search for stellar-origin binary black holes inside a multipurpose LISA Data Challenge, specifically the 1b Yorsh dataset. The authors apply their GPU-accelerated hierarchical semi-coherent search, using templates from an eccentric post-Newtonian waveform and a simplified model of the LISA time-delay interferometry response, to hunt for the injected signals. The better of the two searches, SC search-1.5, confidently identifies all five injected sources with SNR at least 12.94 and recovers their chirp masses to within about $0.002\,M_\odot$ and merger times to within hours, with the two sources that merge during the mission recovered to within minutes. The authors read this as evidence that the SNR threshold for detecting stellar-origin binary black holes in LISA data is lower than some earlier estimates, which matters because the expected number of detected sources depends strongly on that threshold.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the semi-coherent detection statistic $\Upsilon$: a matched-filter score built by splitting the data into segments, comparing eccentric post-Newtonian template waveforms (TaylorF2Ecc, with aligned-spin terms up to 2.5 PN order) against the A/E/T time-delay-interferometry channels, and maximizing over parameters. The search uses a particle-swarm optimizer to explore each narrow tile in chirp-mass and starting-frequency space, and a fast frequency-domain model of the LISA response (TDI-1.5, a rigid rotating-constellation version of time-delay interferometry) rather than the full TDI-2 response used in the injections. Candidates with $\Upsilon \geq 100$ are declared confidently detected based on a noise background imported from an earlier search, then followed up with a fast ensemble MCMC for parameter estimation.

What would settle it

Generate many Yorsh-like datasets containing only the same instrumental noise and no injected signals, run the identical search (SC search-1.5 with the same tiles and threshold), and count how often a pure-noise candidate reaches $\Upsilon \geq 100$; if the false-alarm rate is materially higher than the imported background predicts, the confident-detection labels are not calibrated for Yorsh.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a semi-coherent matched-filter search can find the five loudest stellar-origin binary black holes hidden in the Yorsh LISA Data Challenge 1b dataset, even though the search's waveform and instrument-response models differ from those used to generate the data. In the best-performing version (SC search-1.5, using the TDI-1.5 response and the Yorsh noise power spectral density), all five sources with injected SNR of 12.94 or higher are confidently detected; chirp masses are recovered within about $0.002\,M_\odot$ and merger times within hours, with the two sources that merge during the mission recovered to within minutes. The paper interprets these detections as evidence that the minimum SNR needed to detect stellar-origin binary black holes in LISA is lower than previous estimates. Rapid MCMC parameter estimation confirms that the detections correspond to the injected sources, with the expected small biases from waveform and response modeling.

Load-bearing premise

The significance threshold that decides which candidates count as confidently detected was calibrated on a background of noise triggers measured in a different, earlier search on different synthetic data, and that same threshold is applied to every search tile here without re-measuring the background for Yorsh.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the threshold SNR for detecting stellar-origin binary black holes in LISA is around 12 rather than higher, the expected number of such sources in real LISA data increases, since source counts depend steeply on this threshold.
  • Simplified LISA response models (TDI-1 and TDI-1.5) are sufficient for detecting some sources, especially at lower frequencies, so parts of a global fit may be able to use cheaper response models without losing the sources.
  • The automated rapid parameter estimation after each detection delivers posteriors narrow enough to initialize more detailed global-fit parameter estimation.
  • For the two sources that merge within the LISA mission lifetime, merger time is recovered to within minutes, enabling multi-band follow-up planning.
  • The per-tile computational cost of about one to three days on a GPU makes a full survey of roughly 100 to 1000 search tiles over the stellar-origin binary black hole parameter space feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the search used one hand-picked tile per injected source rather than covering the whole parameter space automatically, the demonstrated sensitivity applies to sources whose approximate location in chirp-mass and frequency space is already known; a fully blind search still needs automated tiling and per-tile background calibration.
  • The success with mismatched models suggests the search is robust to waveform and response inaccuracies for the loudest sources, but it also means the reported parameter biases, such as underestimated distances and slightly nonzero eccentricities, are partly systematic offsets from model mismatch rather than purely statistical errors.
  • If the lower threshold holds in realistic data with gaps, noise uncertainties, and confusion from other source classes, previous forecasts of LISA's stellar-origin binary black hole detection yield may need to be revised upward; this is directly testable in future LISA Data Challenges that include these sources and more realistic noise.
  • A natural next step would be to re-run the same pipeline on the same Yorsh data with the full TDI-2 response to separate the response-model contribution to parameter biases from waveform-model effects.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper applies the authors' semi-coherent hierarchical search (SC search) to the LISA Data Challenge 1b Yorsh dataset, using two approximate LISA response models. The more accurate model, SC search-1.5, returns candidate detections for the five injected SoBBH sources with SNR ≥ 12.94, recovering chirp mass to within ~0.002 M_sun and merger time to within hours; rapid MCMC parameter estimation gives posteriors consistent with the injections. The paper interprets this as evidence that the threshold SNR for detecting SoBBHs in LISA data is lower than some previous estimates. The main caveats are that detection significance is assigned using a background distribution imported from Ref. [17] rather than a Yorsh-specific noise background, and that search tiles were hand-placed around known injections.

Significance. If the results are taken at face value, they constitute a useful validation of a hierarchical semi-coherent search on a community LDC dataset, with public code and data products (Refs. [30, 46]) that aid reproducibility. The recovery accuracy reported in Tables II and III is internally consistent and the rapid parameter estimation is a practical contribution. However, the headline threshold-SNR conclusion is not fully supported: the false-alarm calibration is imported from a different search on different synthetic data, and the hand-placed tiles mean the exercise is not a blind search. These caveats temper the significance but do not destroy the value of the recovery results.

major comments (2)
  1. [III] The threshold used to classify detections as confident is imported from Fig. 5 of Ref. [17] and applied unchanged to all Yorsh tiles, with no noise-only background computed for the Yorsh PSD, TDI-2 injections, or the SC search-1.5 response. Since the false-alarm rate of the Υ statistic is a property of the search and the data, the statement that source #5 at injected SNR 12.94 is 'confidently detected' is not calibrated, and the threshold-SNR conclusion in Sec. VI rests on this unvalidated input. The authors should either compute Yorsh-specific background distributions for at least representative tiles or explicitly weaken the significance language and the threshold-SNR claim.
  2. [III] The search tiles were chosen by hand around each individual injection, with the flow width set so that the prior on the derived parameter tc brackets the actual merger time (Fig. 2). This makes the search non-blind: the reported detection efficiencies and the threshold-SNR interpretation apply only to a search already directed to the correct region of parameter space. The text notes that Yorsh is not a blind challenge, but the abstract and Sec. VI do not carry this qualifier; this limitation should be stated explicitly wherever the headline results are summarized.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The phrase 'all five sources in the data challenge with injected signal-to-noise ratios ≳ 12' is ambiguous because Yorsh contains eight SoBBH injections, three of which are not found by either search; the paper should say 'the five loudest injections' or 'all sources with injected SNR ≥ 12.94'.
  2. [Table II] The table layout contains stray punctuation and spacing, for example 'δMc, [M⊙]' in the SC search-1.5 header and entries such as '40689 .' and '11.60'; these should be cleaned for readability.
  3. [III] The semi-coherent statistic Υ_{N=1} is not defined in this paper; a one-sentence definition or an explicit equation reference to Ref. [17] would make the methods section more self-contained.
  4. [IV, Table II] Reporting the maximum Υ value for every candidate, including the non-detections, would let readers see how far each candidate is from the adopted threshold; currently only the found/not-found status and matched-filter SNR are given.
  5. [Appendix A and Sec. IV] Appendix A correctly states that no detailed convergence checks were performed for the rapid parameter estimation, but the main text says the parameter estimation 'confirms' the detections; 'is consistent with' would be more proportionate given the absence of convergence checks.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The 'confidently detected' threshold is imported unchanged from the authors' earlier work (Fig. 5 of Ref. [17]) and applied to all Yorsh tiles, so the detection-significance claim rests on unvalidated self-citation; the recovered parameter values are, however, independent measurements.

  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. III (Methods), significance paragraph; used to define confident detections in Sec. IV (Table II).]
    "The background should be generated by running a large number of identical searches on simulated LISA datasets which do not contain SoBBHs. For more details, see the demonstration of this process in Ref. [17]. This process is computationally expensive and must be repeated for each tile to account for variations in the background distribution across parameter space. Therefore, the background noise distribution from Fig. 5 in Ref. [17] was used for all tiles in this study. Here, sources with ΥN=1 ≥ 100 are deemed to be confidently detected."

    The 'confident detection' threshold is not computed for Yorsh; it is taken from Fig. 5 of Ref. [17], the authors' own prior search on different synthetic data. Every confident detection in Table II, including source #5 (SNR 12.94) that drives the threshold-SNR conclusion, inherits its false-alarm calibration from that self-citation. The Yorsh background is never re-estimated, so the stated significance is an imported assumption, not a measured property of this dataset. Hence the headline 'confidently identifies five sources' is load-bearing on an unverified self-citation; the recovered parameter values themselves are independent measurements.

full rationale

The central parameter-recovery content is not circular: the search computes a semi-coherent statistic against Yorsh data, and the reported chirp-mass and time-to-merger accuracies are measured outputs, not inputs. The waveform and response models are cited from independent sources (TaylorF2Ecc, BBHx, LISAbeta/LISACode), and the injection/recovery mismatch is an external consistency check. The main circularity-sensitive step is the significance calibration: the Υ≥100 threshold is imported unchanged from Fig. 5 of Ref. [17] instead of being recomputed for Yorsh tiles, so the 'confident detection' claim for the five sources is supported only by a self-citation whose transferability is unverified. The paper is candid about this ('the background noise distribution from Fig. 5 in Ref. [17] was used for all tiles') and even concedes that the threshold SNR 'will not be accurately known until a search pipeline has been fully developed and run on realistic LISA data.' This warrants a moderate score rather than a high one, because the recovery of parameters remains independent content. The paper also explicitly states 'Yorsh is not a blind data challenge' and describes hand-placed search tiles around the known injections; that limits the search as a blind benchmark, but it does not by itself make the detections equivalent to the inputs, since the detection statistic still has to exceed threshold and the reported parameters come from the search and MCMC, not from the tile boundaries. No equation in the paper reduces the predicted detections to the injected values by construction, so the result is not forced circularity; the issue is the unvalidated self-cited false-alarm calibration.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is small: no new physical entities are introduced, and the main free choices are the hand-tuned search tiles and the imported detection threshold. The central assumptions concern the transferability of the background distribution from prior work, the sufficiency of the approximate TDI response models, and the optimization convergence of the search.

free parameters (2)
  • Search tile boundaries in (Mc, flow) per source = Tile width ~5 Msun in Mc; flow chosen so the prior width on tc approximately equals the source's true time to merger…
    Hand-selected using the known injection parameters, not automated. This localizes each search around the true signal and weakens the claim of a blind all-sky detection threshold.
  • Detection threshold Υ>=100 = 100
    Adopted from the background distribution in Fig. 5 of Ref. [17], not recomputed for Yorsh. The 'confident detection' status of all five sources depends on this externally chosen threshold.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The background distribution of the semi-coherent statistic Υ from Ref. [17] is representative for all Yorsh search tiles.
    Sec. III: 'the background noise distribution from Fig. 5 in Ref. [17] was used for all tiles'. If the background differs across tiles or datasets, the significance assignments are not calibrated.
  • domain assumption The approximate LISA response models TDI-1 and TDI-1.5 are accurate enough to detect the injected TDI-2 signals for the sources claimed.
    Sec. III and the SC search-1 failures in Sec. IV show that the approximation quality varies strongly with frequency and source parameters; the SC search-1.5 success depends on the TDI-1.5 model being sufficiently close for the loudest sources.
  • domain assumption The particle swarm optimization and semi-coherent statistic converge to the loudest template in each hand-placed tile.
    No convergence checks or repeated runs are reported for the search stage; the reported maxima are assumed to be the global maxima of Υ in each tile.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for stellar-origin binary black holes in LISA Data Challenge 1b: Yorsh." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7E2O474Z

@misc{pith2026241210501,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for stellar-origin binary black holes in LISA Data Challenge 1b: Yorsh},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7E2O474Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.10501}
}
abstract

This paper reports the first search for stellar-origin binary black holes within the LISA Data Challenges (LDC). The search algorithm and the \Yorsh{} LDC datasets, both previously described elsewhere, are only summarized briefly; the primary focus here is to present the results of applying the search to the challenge of data. The search employs a hierarchical approach, leveraging semi-coherent matching of template waveforms to the data using a variable number of segments, combined with a particle swarm algorithm for parameter space exploration. The computational pipeline is accelerated using graphical processing unit (GPU) hardware. The results of two searches using different models of the LISA response are presented. The most effective search finds all five sources in the data challenge with injected signal-to-noise ratios $\gtrsim 12$. Rapid parameter estimation is performed for these sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.10501 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The high-frequency LISA bandwidth containing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. One-dimensional marginalized prior probability on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Rapid parameter estimation posteriors on selected parameters for source #10. Magenta lines indicate the injected [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Multiband parameter estimation with phase coherence and extrinsic marginalization: Extracting more information from low-SNR CBC signals in LISA data

    gr-qc 2025-06 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A coherent multiband Bayesian parameter estimation method with extrinsic-parameter marginalization extracts useful information from LISA observations of stellar-mass binary black holes down to LISA SNR 3, nearly doubl...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [17]

    Bandopadhyay and C

    D. Bandopadhyay and C. J. Moore, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103026 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    Colpi et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571

    M. Colpi et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571

    arXiv 2024

  3. [2]

    Kyutoku and N

    K. Kyutoku and N. Seto, MNRAS 462, 2177 (2016), arXiv:1606.02298

    arXiv 2016

  4. [3]

    Sesana, PRL 116, 231102 (2016), arXiv:1602.06951 [gr-qc]

    A. Sesana, PRL 116, 231102 (2016), arXiv:1602.06951 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  5. [4]

    The Ligo Scientific Collaboration, VIRGO and Kagra Collaborations, Physical Review X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [5]

    Seto and K

    N. Seto and K. Kyutoku, MNRAS 514, 4669 (2022), arXiv:2201.02766

    arXiv 2022

  7. [6]

    Gerosa et al

    D. Gerosa et al. , PRD 99, 103004 (2019), arXiv:1902.00021

    arXiv 2019

  8. [7]

    Toubiana, S

    A. Toubiana, S. Marsat, S. Babak, J. Baker, and T. Dal Canton, PRD 102, 124037 (2020), arXiv:2007.08544 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 46 references
  1. [8]

    Buscicchio et al

    R. Buscicchio et al. , PRD 104, 044065 (2021), arXiv:2106.05259

    2021 arXiv

  2. [9]

    M. C. Digman and N. J. Cornish, PRD 108, 023022 (2023), arXiv:2212.04600 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Klein et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2204.03423 (2022), arXiv:2204.03423

    A. Klein et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2204.03423 (2022), arXiv:2204.03423

    2022 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Y. Fu, Y. Wang, and S. D. Mohanty, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.10797 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Zhang, N

    X.-T. Zhang, N. Korsakova, M. L. Chan, C. Messenger, and Y.-M. Hu, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.07336 (2024), arXiv:2406.07336

    2024 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Zhang, C

    X.-T. Zhang, C. Messenger, N. Korsakova, M. L. Chan, Y.-M. Hu, and J.-d. Zhang, PRD 105, 123027 (2022), arXiv:2202.07158

    2022 arXiv

  7. [14]

    K. W. K. Wong, E. D. Kovetz, C. Cutler, and E. Berti, PRL 121, 251102 (2018), arXiv:1808.08247

    2018 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Ewing, S

    B. Ewing, S. Sachdev, S. Borhanian, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, PRD 103, 023025 (2021), arXiv:2011.03036 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Bandopadhyay and C

    D. Bandopadhyay and C. J. Moore, PRD 108, 084014 (2023), arXiv:2305.18048 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    LISA Data Challenges,

    LISA Data Processing Group, “LISA Data Challenges,” https://lisa-ldc.lal.in2p3.fr (accessed Nov 2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Karamanis, F

    M. Karamanis, F. Beutler, and J. A. Peacock, arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.03468 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, PRD 107, 063004 (2023), arXiv:2301.03673 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. L. Katz et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2405.04690 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    T. A. Prince, M. Tinto, S. L. Larson, and J. W. Arm- strong, PRD 66, 122002 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0209039 [gr- qc]

    2002 arXiv

  15. [23]

    LDC Data Chal- lenge 2a: Sangria,

    LISA Data Processing Group, “LDC Data Chal- lenge 2a: Sangria,” https://lisa-ldc.lal.in2p3.fr/ static/data/pdf/LDC-manual-Sangria.pdf (2020)

    2020

  16. [24]

    Babak, M

    S. Babak, M. Hewitson, and A. Petiteau, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2108.01167 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Karnesis, S

    N. Karnesis, S. Babak, M. Pieroni, N. Cornish, and T. Littenberg, PRD 104, 043019 (2021), arXiv:2103.14598

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Boileau, A

    G. Boileau, A. Lamberts, N. Christensen, N. J. Cor- nish, and R. Meyer, MNRAS 508, 803 (2021), arXiv:2105.04283 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Khan et al., PRD 93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]

    S. Khan et al., PRD 93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  20. [28]

    LISAbeta,

    S. Marsat and J. G. Baker, “LISAbeta,” https://pypi. org/project/lisabeta/1.0.2/ (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Petiteau, G

    A. Petiteau, G. Auger, H. Halloin, O. Jeannin, E. Plagnol, S. Pireaux, T. Regimbau, and J.-Y. Vinet, PRD 77, 023002 (2008), arXiv:0802.2023 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    LDC-Yorsch- stellar-mass-search,

    D. Bandopadhyay and C. J. Moore, “LDC-Yorsch- stellar-mass-search,” https://github.com/dig07/ LDC-Yorsh-stellar-mass-search (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Moore, M

    B. Moore, M. Favata, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, PRD 93, 124061 (2016), arXiv:1605.00304 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Fumagalli, I

    G. Fumagalli, I. Romero-Shaw, D. Gerosa, V. De Ren- zis, K. Kritos, and A. Olejak, PRD 110, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2405.14945

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Favata, C

    M. Favata, C. Kim, K. G. Arun, J. Kim, and H. W. Lee, PRD 105, 023003 (2022), arXiv:2108.05861 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Marsat, J

    S. Marsat, J. G. Baker, and T. D. Canton, PRD 103, 083011 (2021), arXiv:2003.00357 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Marsat and J

    S. Marsat and J. G. Baker, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1806.10734 (2018)

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    M. L. Katz, S. Marsat, A. J. K. Chua, S. Babak, and S. L. Larson, PRD 102, 023033 (2020), arXiv:2005.01827 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Hartwig and M

    O. Hartwig and M. Muratore, PRD 105, 062006 (2022), arXiv:2111.00975 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bayle, O

    J.-B. Bayle, O. Hartwig, and M. Staab, PRD 104, 023006 (2021), arXiv:2103.06976 [gr-qc]. 7

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    C. J. Moore, D. Gerosa, and A. Klein, MNRAS 488, L94 (2019), arXiv:1905.11998

    2019

  32. [40]

    Katz, “BBHx,” https://github.com/mikekatz04/ BBHx/blob/master/src/Response.cu (2024)

    M. Katz, “BBHx,” https://github.com/mikekatz04/ BBHx/blob/master/src/Response.cu (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    Okuta, Y

    R. Okuta, Y. Unno, D. Nishino, S. Hido, and C. Loomis, in Proceedings (2017)

    2017

  34. [42]

    S. K. Lam, A. Pitrou, and S. Seibert, in Proceedings (2015) pp. 1–6

    2015

  35. [43]

    C. R. Harris et al., Nature 585, 357 (2020)

    2020

  36. [44]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering 9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    mikekatz04/bbhx: New re- lease!

    M. Katz and J. Roberts, “mikekatz04/bbhx: New re- lease!” (2023)

    2023

  38. [46]

    SC Search code,

    D. Bandopadhyay and C. J. Moore, “ SC Search code,” https://github.com/dig07/SC_Search (2024). Appendix A: Posterior plots Included here is an example of the posteriors produced by the rapid parameter estimation performed at the end of the search. Fig. 3 shows the posterior fo...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.