Inferring additional physics through unmodelled signal reconstructions

Chandra Kant Mishra; Divyajyoti; Imre Bartos; Rimo Das; Sergey Klimenko; Sijil Jose; V. Gayathri

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 3 cited by

Inferring additional physics through unmodelled signal reconstructions

T0 review · 4 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 Minimally modelled waveform reconstructions can flag binary eccentricity without eccentric templates.

desk verdict A useful proof-of-principle for eccentricity triage via cWB overlap distributions, but the 4% threshold is calibrated in-sample and needs repeated-noise validation before operational use. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.11749 v3 pith:F7GCHW3X submitted 2024-12-16 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Rimo Das , V. Gayathri , Divyajyoti , Sijil Jose , Imre Bartos , Sergey Klimenko , Chandra Kant Mishra This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE

keywords gravitationalwaveseccentricbinarieswaveformreconstructionCoherentWaveBurstparameterestimationbiasesbinaryblackholemergerslow-latencyinferenceunmodelledsearches

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

The paper tries to show that unmodelled waveform reconstruction can reveal a physical effect that the waveform model used for parameter estimation ignores, without needing a dedicated model for that effect. Concretely, it injects 21 eccentric 40-solar-mass binary black hole signals (mass ratios 1, 2, 3) into Gaussian noise and shows that cWB reconstructions of the event diverge from reconstructions of quasicircular posterior samples as eccentricity increases. The divergence, measured as $\Delta_{\rm median}$ between on-source and null overlap distributions, grows from about 0.01 at zero eccentricity to 0.14–0.20 near $e_{20} \simeq 0.45$, and a 4% threshold classifies all injections with $e_{20} > 0.17$ as eccentric. The same injections show chirp-mass posteriors biased outside the 90% credible interval once $e_{20} \gtrsim 0.15$. If the claim holds, this gives a low-latency way to triage gravitational-wave candidates for eccentricity follow-up using pipelines that already exist.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cWB point-estimate reconstruction, produced by inverse wavelet transform with minimal assumptions about signal morphology. The overlap $O(h_1,h_2) = \langle h_1|h_2\rangle / \sqrt{\langle h_1|h_1\rangle \langle h_2|h_2\rangle}$ is the normalized noise-weighted inner product of whitened waveforms. The null distribution uses overlaps between each PE sample injection and its own cWB reconstruction, quantifying reconstruction error; the on-source distribution uses overlaps between the cWB reconstruction of the injected event and the cWB reconstructions of the PE samples, so it is sensitive to physics missing from the circular recovery model. Their difference in medians, $\Delta_{\rm median}$, with a 4% upper-bound criterion, is the figure of merit that classifies a signal as eccentric.

What would settle it

Run the same cWB overlap analysis on circular injections tuned to the biased masses, mass ratios, and SNRs recovered from the eccentric injections; if those circular injections also push $\Delta_{\rm median}$ above 4%, the metric is tracking reconstruction fidelity rather than eccentricity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that orbital eccentricity, a subdominant effect, can be isolated even when eccentric waveforms are not readily accessible. The authors establish this by combining three ingredients: parameter estimation with a circular waveform (IMRPhenomXAS), minimally modelled cWB reconstructions of the event and of PE posterior samples, and a comparison of overlap distributions. They report that the discrepancy metric $\Delta_{\rm median}$ increases with $e_{20}$ for every mass ratio tested, and that the waveform-consistency test can therefore be repurposed as an eccentricity indicator. On this basis they conclude that the method can infer any subdominant physical effect of measurable strength, such as precession or higher-order modes, and can prioritize candidates for expensive follow-up analyses.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mismatch between on-source and null overlap distributions is caused by eccentricity, not by cWB reconstruction accuracy varying with the signal parameters that circular parameter estimation recovers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A 4% cutoff on $\Delta_{\rm median}$ separates eccentric injections with $e_{20} > 0.17$ from noneccentric ones for 40-solar-mass binaries at matched-filter SNRs of roughly 29–45.
Ignoring eccentricity at $e_{20} \gtrsim 0.15$ pushes chirp-mass recovery outside the 90% credible interval for all mass ratios studied.
cWB reconstruction plus circular-model parameter estimation can serve as a low-latency eccentricity screen, avoiding expensive eccentric parameter estimation for every candidate.
The same on-source-versus-null overlap logic extends, in principle, to any subdominant effect of measurable strength, including spin precession, higher-order modes, and environmental dephasing.
The demonstrated behaviour is tied to Gaussian noise; real noise will require re-evaluating the threshold and its classification power.

Reading between the lines

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

The 0.17 eccentricity threshold and the 4% cutoff are calibrated for one total mass, one distance, and one detector network, so they should not be treated as fixed; a broader injection campaign would show how far the criterion generalizes.
A direct test the paper leaves implicit is running the same pipeline on circular injections matched to the biased recovered masses and SNRs to measure how often the 4% classifier raises a false eccentricity alarm.
Because the null distribution inherits the circular-model posterior's biases, the method's sensitivity and false-alarm rate are coupled to the PE model's bias; an eccentric-aware prior or a noise-subtracted null set would decouple them.
If the approach survives real-noise validation, every search pipeline that already produces cWB reconstructions gains an eccentricity screen at essentially no extra computational cost, which could prioritize the small fraction of candidates needing eccentric follow-up.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Let me give you the short version. This is a competent proof-of-principle paper, and the core idea is worth taking seriously. The genuinely new piece is the Δmedian figure of merit — the difference between medians of the on-source and null overlap distributions — and the claim that it grows monotonically with injected eccentricity across three mass ratios. Prior work already showed quasicircular PE biases eccentric signals and that cWB consistency tests can flag events like GW190521; this paper systematizes that into a proposed triage threshold. That is a real, incremental contribution.

What it does well: the injection setup is sensible, using NR-PN eccentric hybrids from Chattaraj et al., and the PE bias story in Fig. 2 is clean. The cWB reconstruction plots (Fig. 3) are illustrative, and the trend in Fig. 5 is visible even with error bars. The authors are also upfront about the controlled setting: Gaussian noise, nonspinning, (2,2)-only hybrids, and footnote 3 explicitly concedes that cWB reconstruction errors may be parameter-dependent.

Where it gets soft. The 4% classification threshold is chosen in-sample from the same 21 injections that are used to demonstrate the trend. There are only three zero-eccentricity injections, one per mass ratio, and no repeated noise realizations, no null injections at other masses or SNRs, and no false-alarm estimate. The stress-test concern is legitimate: the monotonic Δmedian trend could in principle be produced by cWB reconstructing higher-mass circular templates differently rather than by eccentricity itself. Since the same posterior samples enter both the null and on-source distributions, reconstruction errors do not cancel by construction; their parameter dependence needs calibration. I don't think this kills the paper — the stability of the null distribution for moderate eccentricity and the monotonic trend make the eccentricity interpretation plausible — but the operational claim that 4% separates e20 > 0.17 is not yet validated. Also, the abstract says e20 ≳ 0.1 while the text and threshold use ~0.15–0.17; that inconsistency should be fixed.

Bottom line: This deserves a serious referee. It's a methods paper, not a discovery claim, and the central idea could be operationally useful for low-latency eccentricity triage in O4 and beyond. A referee should push for out-of-sample noise trials, repeated injections, and a measured null-hypothesis distribution of Δmedian. If those hold up, I'd cite it. As it stands, I'd treat the threshold as provisional.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a low-latency pipeline to infer the presence of orbital eccentricity in gravitational-wave signals without using eccentric waveform models for parameter estimation. The authors inject 21 nonspinning eccentric hybrid BBH signals (total mass 40 M_sun, mass ratios q = 1, 2, 3) into Gaussian noise, perform Bayesian parameter estimation with the circular model IMRPhenomXAS, reconstruct the injections with the unmodelled pipeline cWB, and compare on-source overlap distributions with null overlap distributions built from cWB reconstructions of PE posterior samples. They define the figure of merit Δmedian as the difference between the medians of the null and on-source overlap distributions, find that Δmedian grows with eccentricity, and propose a 4% upper bound on Δmedian as a classifier for whether a source should be flagged as eccentric (e20 ≳ 0.17). They also report that ignoring eccentricity biases the recovered chirp mass outside the 90% credible interval for larger e20 values.

Significance. If validated, the proposed method would be a practically useful triage tool: it promises to identify eccentric binaries using only a circular-waveform PE run plus a fast unmodelled reconstruction, without the computational cost of eccentric PE. The paper is clearly written, uses physically motivated hybrid waveforms from Ref. [61], and presents a simple, reproducible overlap metric. The monotonic increase of Δmedian with e20 visible in Fig. 5 is a plausible and falsifiable signature. However, the central classification claim rests on a threshold chosen post hoc from the same 21 injections, with only three zero-eccentricity controls, a single noise realization per injection, and no false-alarm study. The paper also explicitly concedes (footnote 3) that cWB reconstruction errors may depend on signal parameters, which is exactly the confounding channel that would need to be controlled before attributing the Δmedian trend to eccentricity. The work is therefore a promising proof-of-principle rather than an established classifier.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III B 2, Fig. 5] The 4% threshold for Δmedian is selected after inspecting the same 21 injections used to demonstrate the trend, and the paper provides no null-hypothesis distribution of Δmedian for circular signals. Only three zero-eccentricity injections are shown (one per mass ratio), with Δmedian values of 0.01, 0.02, and 0.001, and there are no repeated noise realizations at any parameter point. Consequently, the false-alarm rate of the proposed classifier is undefined, and the e20 > 0.17 separation could in principle be a property of the particular noise realization rather than of eccentricity. The authors should compute the sampling distribution of Δmedian under the null hypothesis (circular injections) over many noise realizations and a grid of masses and SNRs, set the threshold from that distribution, and report the expected false-alarm probability.
[Sec. II C, footnote 3] The method's central assumption is that a deviation between the on-source and null overlap distributions is caused by additional physics absent from the PE model, but footnote 3 concedes that cWB reconstruction errors may be sensitive to variations in signal parameters. Because eccentric injections produce biased PE posteriors (e.g., biased chirp mass, Sec. III A), the on-source distribution may deviate from the null distribution simply because cWB reconstructs the effectively higher-mass circular-like templates differently, rather than because the signal is eccentric. This confounding is load-bearing and untested. A concrete control experiment would be to inject circular signals at the biased PE medians obtained from eccentric injections and measure Δmedian; if the same Δmedian values appear, the metric is not eccentricity-specific.
[Sec. II C] The null injections are described as being placed "near the event times" in the GW data, which suggests that the same Gaussian noise realization is used for the on-source reconstruction, the PE posterior, and the null injections. If so, the null overlap distribution may be artificially narrowed or inflated because the same noise appears both in the reconstructed event and in the injected posterior samples. The authors should clarify whether the null injections reuse the same noise realization, and if so, repeat the null analysis in independent noise realizations or in off-source times to assess the impact on the null distribution and on Δmedian.
[Sec. IV and abstract] The claims that the method "can be applied to identify any physical effect of measurable strength" (Sec. IV) and that it enables "low-latency inferences of binary properties" are broader than the evidence presented. The study covers only nonspinning, (2,2)-only hybrid signals with total mass 40 M_sun, mass ratios q = 1, 2, 3, and SNRs in the range 29–45. The generalization to other masses, spins, higher-order modes, and other subdominant effects is not supported by any test. The conclusions should be restricted to the tested parameter region, and the more general applicability should be explicitly labeled as future work.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The abstract says the method works "in real time," but the pipeline includes a full Bayesian PE run; the total latency is not quantified anywhere. Please clarify what 'real time' means here.
[Eq. (4)] The error σ on Δmedian is computed from the 90% credible intervals of the two overlap distributions, but this does not account for noise-realization variance or sampling noise in the medians. At minimum, the text should state that these are distribution-width errors, not total uncertainties on the classifier.
[Table I] The table title says 'Priors for parameters used in precessing spin recoveries,' but all injections and recoveries are nonspinning. The title appears to be a copy-paste error and should be corrected.
[Sec. II C] The paper uses 'off-source injection,' 'null-sources injections,' and 'null distribution' in adjacent sentences; please unify the terminology to avoid confusion.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the colored horizontal lines denote injected chirp masses, but for some mass ratios these lines may be obscured by the violin plots; consider adding markers or a legend to make the injected values visible.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central Δmedian–eccentricity trend is independent of the injected e20 values; only the 4% classification threshold is calibrated in-sample.

fitted input called prediction [Fig. 1 caption; Sec. III B 2 (overlap-distribution results and Fig. 5)]
"We choose to work with a conservative choice of 4% for the upper bound on ∆ median estimates as a criterion for classification of the injection as noneccentric (see Fig. 5 as well as Sec. III B 2 for details)."

The 4% cutoff is not derived from a measured null-hypothesis distribution; it is explicitly chosen after inspecting Fig. 5, which contains the same 21 injections that the criterion is then used to classify. The companion statement in Sec. III B 2 that the 4% line 'eliminates cases with eccentricity values ... smaller than 0.17 as potential eccentric sources' restates the threshold choice: the line was placed so that the low-eccentricity points, including the three circular injections, fall below it. This is in-sample calibration rather than an independently forced prediction.

full rationale

The paper's main derivation chain is not circular. The figure of merit Δmedian is the difference between two cWB overlap distributions, both computed from reconstructed waveforms and PE posterior samples; the injected eccentricity e20 is not an input to Eq. (3), so the observed monotonic increase of Δmedian with eccentricity is an independent empirical result, not an identity. The eccentric hybrid injections come from prior work by some of the same authors, but they serve as test data rather than as justification for the mismatch statistic. Self-citations to cWB's eccentric sensitivity ([120,121]) are supporting external usage, not load-bearing proof of this paper's claim. The one genuinely questionable element is the 4% threshold: it is selected in-sample from the same 21 injections and then presented as the operational eccentricity classifier, so the 'e20 > 0.17' boundary is calibrated on the data it classifies rather than predicted from a measured null distribution. Footnote 3 also concedes that reconstruction errors may depend on signal parameters, which is a correctness risk for the null-comparison logic but not a circularity of the type where an output is identical to an input by construction. Overall the central trend is self-contained; the classification threshold is mildly post-hoc, giving score 2.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger shows the key declared inputs: the 4% classification threshold is calibrated on the same injections, and the method leans on assumptions about cWB fidelity and the absence of confounding modes. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)

Δmedian classification threshold = 0.04 (4%)
Chosen after inspecting Fig. 5 to separate eccentric (e20 > 0.17) from noneccentric injections; not derived from a false-alarm budget or validated on an independent set.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption cWB reconstructions are faithful minimal-model point estimates that capture all physically relevant signal content.
Section II B and II C; the entire Δmedian logic requires reconstruction differences to track signal physics rather than pipeline artifacts.
domain assumption The difference between on-source and null overlap distributions is caused by the additional physics (eccentricity) and not by cWB reconstruction error varying with source parameters.
Section II C, footnote 3 acknowledges reconstruction errors may depend on parameters; the method assumes residual differences are dominated by eccentricity.
domain assumption Gaussian noise with design PSDs adequately represents detector behavior for this proof of principle.
Section III A and III B; the authors note real noise will affect results, so the claim is conditional on this assumption.
domain assumption Hybrid PN+NR waveforms accurately represent true eccentric BBH signals including only the (2,2) mode.
Section II A; hybrids are built from Chattaraj et al. [61] and SXS NR simulations, with subdominant modes deliberately omitted.
domain assumption IMRPhenomXAS is an appropriate quasicircular recovery model for the parameter estimation step.
Section III A; this is the model whose mismatch with eccentric injections is being exploited, and the analysis treats its errors as the baseline.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Inferring additional physics through unmodelled signal reconstructions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F7GCHW3X

@misc{pith2026241211749,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Inferring additional physics through unmodelled signal reconstructions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F7GCHW3X}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.11749}
}

abstract

Parameter estimation of gravitational wave data is often computationally expensive, requiring simplifying assumptions such as circularisation of binary orbits. Although, if included, the sub-dominant effects like orbital eccentricity may provide crucial insights into the formation channels of compact binary mergers. To address these challenges, we present a pipeline strategy leveraging minimally modelled waveform reconstruction to identify the presence of eccentricity in real time. Using injected signals, we demonstrate that ignoring eccentricity ($e_{\rm 20Hz} \gtrsim 0.1$) leads to significant biases in parameter recovery, including chirp mass estimates falling outside the 90% credible interval. Waveform reconstruction shows inconsistencies increase with eccentricity, and this behaviour is consistent for different mass ratios. Our method enables low-latency inferences of binary properties supporting targeted follow-up analyses and can be applied to identify any physical effect of measurable strength.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.11749 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Violin plots showing the chirp mass posteriors for various hybrids. The horizontal axis shows the hybrid ID [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: Reconstructed whitened strain using cWB for a given parameter estimation run. The orange curve [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Overlap histograms showing on-source (orange) and null (blue) distributions for different cWB [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Plot of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

Third post-Newtonian dynamics for eccentric orbits and aligned spins in the effective-one-body waveform model SEOBNRv5EHM
gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The authors obtain, for the first time, 3PN-accurate eccentric-orbit fluxes, radiation-reaction force, and waveform modes in the effective-one-body formalism, and use them to build the SEOBNRv5EHM inspiral model.
Accurate waveforms for eccentric, aligned-spin binary black holes: The multipolar effective-one-body model SEOBNRv5EHM
gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

SEOBNRv5EHM, a new effective-one-body waveform model with third-post-Newtonian eccentricity corrections, reaches a median 0.02% mismatch against eccentric numerical-relativity simulations, about an order of magnitude ...
When vacuum breaks: a self-consistency test for astrophysical environments in extreme mass ratio inspirals
gr-qc 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A duration-scan self-consistency test on vacuum EMRI parameter posteriors flags unmodeled environmental effects without adding environmental parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

137 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

[61]

Chiaramello and A

D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020
[1]

The details about cWB reconstruction are discussed in Sec

Reconstructed waveforms We perform the cWB-waveform reconstructions for all injections mentioned in the PE section. The details about cWB reconstruction are discussed in Sec. II B. These analyses were performed in Gaussian noise with Advanced LIGO and Virgo sensitivity. Figure 3 shows the reconstructed whitened strain for parameter estimation of selected ...
[2]

Overlap factors were computed using Eq

Figures of merit: Overlap distribution In this section, we present the results of the figure-of- merit analysis conducted for the injected signals. Overlap factors were computed using Eq. (1) for all simulated signals, following the methodology outlined in the flow chart. Figure. 4 illustrates the overlap distributions for on-source (orange) and null (blu...

2022
[3]

Aasi et al

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

arXiv 2015
[4]

Acernese et al

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

arXiv 2015
[6]

Shoemaker (LIGO Scientific), (2019), arXiv:1904.03187 [gr-qc]

D. Shoemaker (LIGO Scientific), (2019), arXiv:1904.03187 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019
[7]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, (2016)

2016
[8]

B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO), Living Rev. Rel.21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018

Show all 137 references

[9]

P¨ urrer, Class

M. P¨ urrer, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 195010 (2014), arXiv:1402.4146 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[10]

Smith, S

R. Smith, S. E. Field, K. Blackburn, C.-J. Haster, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, and P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 044031 (2016), arXiv:1604.08253 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[11]

Calder´ on Bustillo, N

J. Calder´ on Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres-Forn´ e, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 201101 (2021), arXiv:2009.01066 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Gayathri, J

V. Gayathri, J. Healy, J. Lange, B. O’Brien, M. Szczep- anczyk, I. Bartos, M. Campanelli, S. Klimenko, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Nature Astron. 6, 344 (2022), arXiv:2009.05461 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[13]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. C. Bustillo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 903, L5 (2020), arXiv:2009.04771 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[14]

H. L. Iglesias et al., (2022), arXiv:2208.01766 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[15]

Dwyer, D

S. Dwyer, D. Sigg, S. W. Ballmer, L. Barsotti, N. Maval- vala, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 91, 082001 (2015), arXiv:1410.0612 [astro-ph.IM]

2015 arXiv
[16]

Punturo et al

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

2010
[17]

Sato et al., Journal of Physics: Conference Series 840, 012010 (2017)

S. Sato et al., Journal of Physics: Conference Series 840, 012010 (2017)

2017
[18]

Amaro-Seoane, H

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, et al. , arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

2017 arXiv
[19]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[20]

Antonini, S

F. Antonini, S. Toonen, and A. S. Hamers, ApJ 841, 77 (2017), arXiv:1703.06614 [astro-ph.GA]

2017 arXiv
[21]

C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[22]

Tagawa, B

H. Tagawa, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, K. Omukai, and J. Samsing, ApJ 907, L20 (2021), arXiv:2010.10526 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[23]

Bartos, B

I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, and S. M´ arka, As- trophys. J. 835, 165 (2017), arXiv:1602.03831 [astro- ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[24]

Y. Yang, V. Gayathri, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, M. Sa- farzadeh, and H. Tagawa, Astrophys. J. Lett. 901, L34 (2020), arXiv:2007.04781 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[25]

Gayathri, Y

V. Gayathri, Y. Yang, H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and I. Bartos, Astrophys. J. Lett. 920, L42 (2021), arXiv:2104.10253 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[26]

S. F. Portegies Zwart and S. McMillan, Astrophys. J. Lett. 528, L17 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910061

2000 arXiv
[27]

J. M. B. Downing, M. J. Benacquista, M. Giersz, and R. Spurzem, MNRAS 407, 1946 (2010), arXiv:0910.0546 [astro-ph.SR]

2010 arXiv
[28]

C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084029 (2016), arXiv:1602.02444 [astro- ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[29]

Banerjee, Mon

S. Banerjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 473, 909 (2018), arXiv:1707.00922 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[30]

U. N. Di Carlo, N. Giacobbo, M. Mapelli, M. Pasquato, M. Spera, L. Wang, and F. Haardt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 2947 (2019), arXiv:1901.00863 [astro- ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[31]

Formation channels of single and binary stellar-mass black holes,

M. Mapelli, “Formation channels of single and binary stellar-mass black holes,” in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer Singapore, Singapore,
[32]

Mandel and A

I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Phys. Rept. 955, 1 (2022), arXiv:1806.05820 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Samsing, Phys

J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D 97, 103014 (2018), arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[34]

Fragione, E

G. Fragione, E. Grishin, N. W. C. Leigh, H. B. Perets, and R. Perna, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 488, 47 (2019), arXiv:1811.10627 [astro-ph.GA]

2019 arXiv
[35]

Samsing, I

J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, Nature 603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[36]

Kozai, Astron

Y. Kozai, Astron. J. 67, 591 (1962)

1962
[37]

Lidov, Planetary and Space Science 9, 719 (1962)

M. Lidov, Planetary and Space Science 9, 719 (1962)

1962
[38]

M. A. S. Martinez et al., Astrophys. J. 903, 67 (2020), arXiv:2009.08468 [astro-ph.GA]

2020 arXiv
[39]

Naoz, ARA&A 54, 441 (2016), arXiv:1601.07175 [astro-ph.EP]

S. Naoz, ARA&A 54, 441 (2016), arXiv:1601.07175 [astro-ph.EP]

2016 arXiv
[40]

Kowalska, T

I. Kowalska, T. Bulik, K. Belczynski, M. Dominik, and D. Gondek-Rosinska, A&A 527, A70 (2011), arXiv:1010.0511 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[41]

M. E. Lower, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083028 (2018), arXiv:1806.05350 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[42]

Samsing and E

J. Samsing and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astrophys. J. Lett. 840, L14 (2017), arXiv:1703.09703 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[43]

Zevin, I

M. Zevin, I. M. Romero-Shaw, K. Kremer, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L43 (2021), arXiv:2106.09042 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[45]

Yunes, K

N. Yunes, K. G. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084001 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 89, 109901 (2014)], arXiv:0906.0313 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[46]

Klein and P

A. Klein and P. Jetzer, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124001 (2010), arXiv:1005.2046 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[47]

C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084040 (2015), arXiv:1501.07096 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[48]

Moore, M

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

2016 arXiv
[49]

Tanay, M

S. Tanay, M. Haney, and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064031 (2016), arXiv:1602.03081 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[50]

Klein, Y

A. Klein, Y. Boetzel, A. Gopakumar, P. Jetzer, and L. de Vittori, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104043 (2018), arXiv:1801.08542 [gr-qc]. 12

2018 arXiv
[51]

Boetzel, C

Y. Boetzel, C. K. Mishra, G. Faye, A. Gopakumar, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044018 (2019), arXiv:1904.11814 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Ebersold, Y

M. Ebersold, Y. Boetzel, G. Faye, C. K. Mishra, B. R. Iyer, and P. Jetzer, Phys. Rev. D 100, 084043 (2019), arXiv:1906.06263 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[53]

Moore and N

B. Moore and N. Yunes, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 185003 (2019), arXiv:1903.05203 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[54]

Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

A. Klein, (2021), arXiv:2106.10291 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[55]

Khalil, A

M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024046 (2021), arXiv:2104.11705 [gr- qc]

2021 arXiv
[56]

Paul and C

K. Paul and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024023 (2023), arXiv:2211.04155 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[57]

Henry and M

Q. Henry and M. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104016 (2023), arXiv:2308.13606 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[58]

Hinder, L

I. Hinder, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044015 (2018), arXiv:1709.02007 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[59]

E. A. Huerta et al. , Phys. Rev. D 97, 024031 (2018), arXiv:1711.06276 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[60]

Cao and W.-B

Z. Cao and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D 96, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1708.00166 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[62]

Islam, V

T. Islam, V. Varma, J. Lodman, S. E. Field, G. Khanna, M. A. Scheel, H. P. Pfeiffer, D. Gerosa, and L. E. Kid- der, Phys. Rev. D 103, 064022 (2021), arXiv:2101.11798 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[63]

Chattaraj, T

A. Chattaraj, T. RoyChowdhury, Divyajyoti, C. K. Mishra, and A. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124008 (2022), arXiv:2204.02377 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[64]

Ramos-Buades, A

A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044035 (2022), arXiv:2112.06952 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[65]

X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, International Jour- nal of Modern Physics D 32, 2350015 (2023), arXiv:2306.15277 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[66]

Ramos-Buades, A

A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124063 (2023), arXiv:2309.15528 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[67]

K. Paul, A. Maurya, Q. Henry, K. Sharma, P. Satheesh, Divyajyoti, P. Kumar, and C. K. Mishra, (2024), arXiv:2409.13866 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[68]

X. Liu, Z. Cao, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044049 (2020), arXiv:1910.00784 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[69]

Hinderer and S

T. Hinderer and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D 96, 104048 (2017), arXiv:1707.08426 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[70]

Albanesi, A

S. Albanesi, A. Placidi, A. Nagar, M. Orselli, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 105, L121503 (2022), arXiv:2203.16286 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[71]

Nagar, A

A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[72]

X. Liu, Z. Cao, and Z.-H. Zhu, Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 035009 (2022), arXiv:2102.08614 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[73]

Yun, W.-B

Q. Yun, W.-B. Han, X. Zhong, and C. A. Benavides-Gallego, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124053 (2021), arXiv:2104.03789 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[74]

O’Shea and P

E. O’Shea and P. Kumar, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104018 (2023), arXiv:2107.07981 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[75]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 490, 5210 (2019), arXiv:1909.05466 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[76]

R. J. E. Smith, G. Ashton, A. Vajpeyi, and C. Talbot, MNRAS 498, 4492 (2020), arXiv:1909.11873 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[77]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, As- trophys. J. 940, 171 (2022), arXiv:2206.14695 [astro- ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[78]

A. K. Lenon, A. H. Nitz, and D. A. Brown, MNRAS 497, 1966 (2020), arXiv:2005.14146 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[79]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 921, L31 (2021), arXiv:2108.01284 [astro- ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[80]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, D. Gerosa, and N. Loutrel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 519, 5352 (2023), arXiv:2211.07528 [astro-ph.HE]

2023
[81]

Gamba, M

R. Gamba, M. Breschi, G. Carullo, S. Albanesi, P. Ret- tegno, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Nature Astron. 7, 11 (2023), arXiv:2106.05575 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[82]

Bonino, R

A. Bonino, R. Gamba, P. Schmidt, A. Nagar, G. Prat- ten, M. Breschi, P. Rettegno, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 107, 064024 (2023), arXiv:2207.10474 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[83]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, N. Farrow, S. Stevenson, E. Thrane, and X.-J. Zhu, MNRAS 496, L64 (2020), arXiv:2001.06492 [astro-ph.HE]

2020
[84]

Kumar, S

Divyajyoti, S. Kumar, S. Tibrewal, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 109, 043037 (2024), arXiv:2309.16638 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[85]

Favata, Phys

M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014), arXiv:1310.8288 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[86]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 104002 (2017), arXiv:1611.07531 [gr- qc]

2017 arXiv
[87]

Favata, C

M. Favata, C. Kim, K. G. Arun, J. Kim, and H. W. Lee, Phys. Rev. D105, 023003 (2022), arXiv:2108.05861 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[88]

Ramos-Buades, S

A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, G. Pratten, H. Estell´ es, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. Colleoni, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083015 (2020), arXiv:1909.11011 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[89]

Narayan, N

P. Narayan, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, and A. Gupta, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064003 (2023), arXiv:2306.04068 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[90]

W. Guo, D. Williams, I. S. Heng, H. Gabbard, Y.-B. Bae, G. Kang, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 516, 3847 (2022), arXiv:2203.06969 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[91]

Saini, M

P. Saini, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084031 (2022), arXiv:2203.04634 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[92]

S. A. Bhat, P. Saini, M. Favata, and K. G. Arun, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024009 (2023), arXiv:2207.13761 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[93]

Gil Choi, T

H. Gil Choi, T. Yang, and H. M. Lee, (2022), arXiv:2210.09541 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[94]

Klimenko, S

S. Klimenko, S. Mohanty, M. Rakhmanov, and G. Mit- selmakher, Phys. Rev. D 72, 122002 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0508068

2005
[95]

Salemi, E

F. Salemi, E. Milotti, G. A. Prodi, G. Vedovato, C. Lazzaro, S. Tiwari, S. Vinciguerra, M. Drago, and S. Klimenko, Phys. Rev. D 100, 042003 (2019), arXiv:1905.09260 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[96]

Tiwari et al

V. Tiwari et al. , Phys. Rev. D 93, 043007 (2016), arXiv:1511.09240 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[97]

Roy, Phys

S. Roy, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033078 (2022), arXiv:2201.01526 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[98]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 883, 149 (2019), arXiv:1907.09384 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[99]

Abbott et al

B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]. 13

2016 arXiv
[100]

Klimenko, I

S. Klimenko, I. Yakushin, A. Mercer, and G. Mitsel- makher, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 114029 (2008)

2008
[101]

Klimenko et al

S. Klimenko et al. , Phys. Rev. D 93, 042004 (2016), arXiv:1511.05999 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[102]

N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 32, 135012 (2015)

2015
[103]

N. J. Cornish, T. B. Littenberg, B. B´ ecsy, K. Chatzi- ioannou, J. A. Clark, S. Ghonge, and M. Millhouse, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044006 (2021)

2021
[104]

Abbott et al

B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[105]

Abbott et al

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

2021 arXiv
[106]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[107]

Abbott et al

R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[108]

Abbott et al

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

2020
[109]

Szczepa´ nczyk et al

M. Szczepa´ nczyk et al. , Phys. Rev. D 103, 082002 (2021), arXiv:2009.11336 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[110]

A. H. Nitz, T. Dal Canton, D. Davis, and S. Reyes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 024050 (2018), arXiv:1805.11174 [gr- qc]

2018 arXiv
[111]

Caneva Santoro, S

G. Caneva Santoro, S. Roy, R. Vicente, M. Haney, O. J. Piccinni, W. Del Pozzo, and M. Martinez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 251401 (2024), arXiv:2309.05061 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[112]

S. H. W. Leong, J. Calder´ on Bustillo, M. Gracia- Linares, and P. Laguna, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124079 (2023), arXiv:2308.03250 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[113]

Evstafyeva, U

T. Evstafyeva, U. Sperhake, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and M. Agathos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 131401 (2024), arXiv:2406.02715 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[114]

Calderon Bustillo, N

J. Calderon Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, S. H. W. Leong, K. Chandra, A. Torres-Forne, J. A. Font, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, I. C. F. Wong, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 108, 123020 (2023), arXiv:2206.02551 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[115]

Varma and P

V. Varma and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D96, 124024 (2017), arXiv:1612.05608 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[116]

K¨ onigsd¨ orffer and A

C. K¨ onigsd¨ orffer and A. Gopakumar, Phys. Rev. D73, 124012 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0603056 [gr-qc]

2006 arXiv
[117]

Damour and N

T. Damour and N. Deruelle, Annales de l’I.H.P. Physique th´ eorique43, 107 (1985)

1985
[118]

Memmesheimer, A

R.-M. Memmesheimer, A. Gopakumar, and G. Schae- fer, Phys. Rev. D 70, 104011 (2004), arXiv:gr- qc/0407049 [gr-qc]

2004
[119]

K. Arun, A. Buonanno, G. Faye, and E. Ochsner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104023 (2009), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. D 84, 049901 (2011)], arXiv:0810.5336 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[120]

Ossokine, L

S. Ossokine, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Physical Review D 88 (2013), 10.1103/physrevd.88.084031

2013 doi
[121]

Boyle et al., Class

M. Boyle et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 195006 (2019), arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[122]

Chandra, V

K. Chandra, V. Gayathri, J. C. Bustillo, and A. Pai, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044035 (2020), arXiv:2002.10666 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[123]

Bhaumik et al., (2024), arXiv:2410.15192 [gr-qc]

S. Bhaumik et al., (2024), arXiv:2410.15192 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[124]

M. A. Shaikh, V. Varma, H. P. Pfeiffer, A. Ramos- Buades, and M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. D 108, 104007 (2023), arXiv:2302.11257 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[125]

Pratten, S

G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[126]

C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019), arXiv:1807.10312 [astro- ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[127]

LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite,

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite,” free software (GPL) (2018)

2018
[128]

J. Skilling, in Bayesian Inference and Maximum En- tropy Methods in Science and Engineering: 24th In- ternational Workshop on Bayesian Inference and Max- imum Entropy Methods in Science and Engineering , American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 735, edited by R. F...

2004
[129]

J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society 493, 3132 (2020)

2020
[130]

Ashton et al

G. Ashton et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

2019 arXiv
[131]

I. M. Romero-Shaw et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]

2020 arXiv
[132]

aLIGOZeroDetHighPower function used for adv ligo psd,

PyCBC, “ aLIGOZeroDetHighPower function used for adv ligo psd,” https://pycbc.org/pycbc/latest/ html/pycbc.psd.html (2018)

2018
[133]

AdvVirgo function used for virgo psd,

PyCBC, “ AdvVirgo function used for virgo psd,”https: //pycbc.org/pycbc/latest/html/pycbc.psd.html (2012)

2012
[134]

gwastro/pycbc: Pycbc release v1.16.11,

A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, et al. , “gwastro/pycbc: Pycbc release v1.16.11,” (2020)

2020
[135]

C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, et al., Nature 585, 357 (2020), arXiv:2006.10256 [cs.MS]

2020 arXiv
[136]

Hoy and V

C. Hoy and V. Raymond, SoftwareX 15, 100765 (2021), arXiv:2006.06639 [astro-ph.IM]

2021 arXiv
[137]

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

2007
[138]

M. L. Waskom, Journal of Open Source Software6, 3021 (2021)

2021
[139]

Kluyver, B

T. Kluyver, B. Ragan-Kelley, F. P´ erez, et al. , in Po- sitioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Play- ers, Agents and Agendas , edited by F. Loizides and B. Scmidt (IOS Press, 2016) pp. 87–90

2016

Pith tools

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

[1] [61]

Chiaramello and A

D. Chiaramello and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D101, 101501 (2020), arXiv:2001.11736 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2020

[2] [1]

The details about cWB reconstruction are discussed in Sec

Reconstructed waveforms We perform the cWB-waveform reconstructions for all injections mentioned in the PE section. The details about cWB reconstruction are discussed in Sec. II B. These analyses were performed in Gaussian noise with Advanced LIGO and Virgo sensitivity. Figure 3 shows the reconstructed whitened strain for parameter estimation of selected ...

[3] [2]

Overlap factors were computed using Eq

Figures of merit: Overlap distribution In this section, we present the results of the figure-of- merit analysis conducted for the injected signals. Overlap factors were computed using Eq. (1) for all simulated signals, following the methodology outlined in the flow chart. Figure. 4 illustrates the overlap distributions for on-source (orange) and null (blu...

2022

[4] [3]

Aasi et al

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

arXiv 2015

[5] [4]

Acernese et al

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

arXiv 2015

[6] [6]

Shoemaker (LIGO Scientific), (2019), arXiv:1904.03187 [gr-qc]

D. Shoemaker (LIGO Scientific), (2019), arXiv:1904.03187 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019

[7] [7]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, (2016)

2016

[8] [8]

B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO), Living Rev. Rel.21, 3 (2018), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018