Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 4 cited by

Hierarchical Subtraction with Neural Density Estimators as a General Solution to Overlapping Gravitational Wave Signals

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Overlapping gravitational wave signals can be recovered as accurately as joint estimation by iterating signal subtraction with a fast neural sampler.

desk verdict A genuinely new iterative subtraction scheme for overlapping GW signals, with honest caveats, but the title overclaims and the validation does not yet establish equivalence to joint PE. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05209 v1 pith:FKE5UOM7 submitted 2025-07-07 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Qian Hu This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesoverlappingsignalshierarchicalsubtractionneuraldensityestimatorconditionalnormalizingflowsparameterestimationthird-generationdetectorsBayesianinference
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 argues that the standard objection to hierarchical subtraction of overlapping gravitational wave signals—that errors from subtracting one imperfectly reconstructed source contaminate the next—does not hold when the subtraction is iterated enough times. The author derives a Fisher-matrix recursion showing the systematic error from the unsubtracted companion shrinks as the two sources are estimated alternately, and implements the loop with a fast neural network trained only to produce posterior samples for isolated signals. Because the neural sampler is cheap, the algorithm subtracts an ensemble of 200 possible versions of each signal rather than one best guess, and a likelihood-based resampling step accelerates convergence. On simulated binary black hole pairs separated by as little as 5 ms in merger time, the recovered posteriors match full joint estimation, which would make parameter estimation of the many overlapping signals expected in third-generation detectors computationally feasible.

What carries the argument

Two mechanisms carry the argument. The first is the Fisher-matrix error recursion, Eqs. (4)–(5), which expresses the systematic error in one source's parameters after $m$ subtractions as a projection of the residual left by the other source onto the waveform gradient; the residual is either the companion signal itself (at $m=0$) or the linearized error of the companion's previous estimate. This recursion is what shows the bias can vanish with iteration. The second is the sampler: a conditional normalizing flow, trained on isolated signals, maps Gaussian draws to approximate posterior samples $q(\theta|d)$ fast enough that the loop can draw an ensemble of 200 candidate parameter vectors at each step, subtract the corresponding waveforms, and draw the companion's posterior from the residual. Likelihood-based resampling with a temperature annealed from 10 to 1 prunes low-likelihood ensemble members, and Metropolis-type updates take over near convergence; together these steer the greedy ensemble toward the joint posterior.

What would settle it

Apply the pipeline to many simulated overlapping binary black hole pairs with a fixed $5$ ms merger-time separation, compare each recovered per-source posterior to an independent fully joint stochastic sampling run on identical noise realizations, and compute the Jensen–Shannon divergence between the two posterior sets; the central claim fails if the divergence does not approach zero within 30 iterations or if a P–P plot over many realizations shows significant deviations for a substantial fraction of parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hierarchical subtraction is not inherently inferior to joint estimation for overlapping signals: if the alternating $A\to B\to A$ inference loop is run long enough, the systematic bias introduced by the overlapping source decays, so the posterior over each source's parameters converges to the joint posterior. The paper supports this with an iterative Fisher-matrix equation in which the residual left after subtracting one source acts as the driving term for the other source's systematic error, and shows numerically that the systematic-to-statistical error ratio falls below one after a handful of iterations even for nearly identical sources arriving $5$ ms apart. The implemented algorithm then uses a neural density estimator trained on single signals as the sampler, maintains an ensemble of candidate signals for subtraction to avoid committing to a biased point estimate, and alternates likelihood-based resampling with Metropolis-type updates until the Jensen–Shannon divergence between successive ensembles drops below $10^{-4}$ nats. In the paper's simulations convergence typically occurs within 15–20 iterations, a P–P plot over 64 overlapping binary black hole pairs is consistent with calibration, and the author notes that residual differences with the ground truth come from the neural sampler's own approximation rather than from the subtraction loop.

Load-bearing premise

The method depends on the neural density estimator, trained on non-overlapping signals, still proposing sufficiently good parameter values for a source whose data contain another overlapping signal; if the proposals are too badly biased, the likelihood-based resampling and Metropolis updates cannot pull the ensemble back to the true posterior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Overlapping signals can be analyzed with a single-signal neural density estimator, so no retraining is needed for each overlap geometry, source type, or time separation.
  • Parameter estimation for overlapping sources becomes fast enough for third-generation detector data streams, with reported runs taking hours on one GPU rather than tens of thousands of CPU core-hours for joint estimation.
  • Rare and difficult overlaps—similar masses, similar sky locations, merger times 5 ms apart—are recovered, with inter-source correlations captured by the ensemble iteration.
  • Because the subtraction uses a resampled ensemble rather than a single best-fit waveform, early biases such as underestimated luminosity distance, wrong sky direction, and overestimated spin magnitudes diminish as the loop continues.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same alternating-subtraction loop could in principle be run for more than two overlapping signals, one extra pass per added source; the paper's tests cover only pairs, so the behavior with three or more sources is an open extension.
  • A faster, parallelizable normalizing-flow sampler with an explicit flow likelihood—flagged in the paper as future work—would let the ensemble size match the full posterior sample count and turn the greedy loop into a proper Gibbs sampler with a convergence guarantee.
  • The Fisher-matrix recursion suggests convergence speed depends on how distinguishable the two sources are; quantifying how the required iteration count grows as masses, sky locations, and arrival times become nearly identical would be a natural stress test for third-generation source populations.
  • The resampling and Metropolis updates effectively use the neural network as a proposal distribution rather than a final answer, which points toward a fully importance-sampling or Markov-chain Monte Carlo-corrected version that removes residual neural density estimator bias.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper proposes an iterative hierarchical-subtraction algorithm for Bayesian parameter estimation of overlapping compact-binary signals. Instead of subtracting a single point estimate, the method propagates an ensemble of Nen = 200 candidate parameter sets, subtracts each candidate waveform from the data, and re-infers the companion source with a pre-trained neural density estimator (DINGO), alternating between the two sources. A likelihood-based, temperature-annealed resampling step and a Metropolis-like accept/reject step stabilize the iteration, which is terminated by a Jensen-Shannon divergence criterion. Section II derives a Fisher-matrix linear recursion (Eqs. 4-5) for the systematic error of maximum-likelihood estimates under iterative subtraction and shows numerically that the bias decays with iterations (Fig. 1). Section V presents four case studies at 5 ms separation comparing marginal posteriors with bilby joint PE, plus a 64-pair P-P calibration study spanning 5-50 ms separations. The paper claims that hierarchical subtraction can be made as accurate as joint estimation at a fraction of the cost, offering a potential general solution for overlapping signals in the 3G era, while explicitly acknowledging that the sampler is a greedy approximation without a guaranteed stationary distribution.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a timely and practically important contribution: it would make overlapping-signal inference at 3G detector rates feasible with existing single-signal NDEs, avoiding overlap-specific retraining, and the reported cost contrast (a few hours on one CPU plus one GPU versus more than 20000 CPU-core hours for bilby joint runs) is compelling. The paper deserves credit for a genuine first-principles Fisher-matrix analysis of the subtraction dynamics (Section II), for testing the hardest regime of similar masses, similar sky locations, and 5 ms separation, for the 64-pair calibration study in Fig. 3, and for unusually candid statements of its own limitations (no reverse-jump term, Nen = 200, DINGO's imperfect posteriors, untested edge cases). The significance is conditional, however: the evidence establishes a well-calibrated (marginally) approximate sampler, not yet equivalence with joint PE, which is the load-bearing claim in the title and abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II (Eqs. 4-5), Sec. IV] The paper's own Section IV states that the Metropolis update has no reverse-jump term and that the algorithm 'should be thought of as a greedy algorithm that approximates the joint parameter distribution,' which is in direct tension with the abstract's claim that hierarchical subtraction 'can achieve accurate results with a sufficient number of iterations.' The theoretical support in Section II, Eqs. (4)-(5) and Fig. 1, is a linear recursion for the systematic bias of maximum-likelihood point estimates, not a statement about the stationary distribution of the stochastic ensemble, so it does not by itself establish posterior-level convergence. At early iterations in case 4 the systematic/statistical ratio reaches about 100, so the linearization behind Eqs. (4)-(5) is also questionable precisely where the recursion is most needed. Please either supply a convergence argument or a bias-correcting reweighting (e.g., an importance-sampling step over the final ensembles) for the sampler, or explicitly re-scope the central claim to empirically validated approximate marginal inference and adjust the abstract and title accordingly.
  2. [Sec. V (Figs. 2-3)] Equivalence to joint PE is not yet demonstrated quantitatively. Fig. 2 is a visual comparison of one-dimensional marginals in only four cases, and the 64-pair P-P plot in Fig. 3 is a self-consistency test: it checks that the algorithm's own credible intervals cover the injected values at the nominal rate, not that the algorithm's posterior agrees with the bilby joint posterior. A posterior can pass marginal P-P while missing cross-source correlations, which is exactly the 'confuse sources' regime acknowledged in Section VI. I request a quantitative comparison with the bilby joint-PE posterior, for example per-parameter JSD or KL divergences between the hierarchical and bilby OS posteriors for the four case studies, and/or a joint (two-dimensional or higher) coverage test in which the reference distribution is the bilby joint posterior rather than the injected point values. Relatedly, since the method inherits the NDE's single-signal approximation error (the paper itself notes in Section V that DINGO 'does not provide perfectly accurate posterior samples'), the accuracy claim should be stated relative to the NDE's isolated-signal performance.
  3. [Sec. IV-V] The convergence statistics behind the 'within 15 iterations' claim are not reported. Section IV says 'most cases converge within 15 iterations' and Section V reports 9-16 iterations for the four displayed cases, but the 64-pair study does not give the distribution of iteration counts, the number of pairs that reached the Nit = 30 cap, or the number of pairs for which DoMetropolis never activated. This last point matters because Algorithm 1 declares convergence only when DoMetropolis = 1, so runs that remain in the resampling mode cannot converge by the stated criterion. The JSD stopping rule is also underspecified: the manuscript does not state whether the JSD is computed per parameter or on the joint distribution, over which parameters, or with which density estimator. Please report the full iteration-count distribution and the JSD details.
  4. [Sec. IV, Sec. VI] The ensemble design limits the method to marginal, not joint, inference. Section VI concedes that Nen = 200 with 80 samples per element breaks the one-to-one correspondence between samples of the two sources, so inter-source correlations are not tracked; this is precisely the information that distinguishes hierarchical subtraction from joint PE in the strongly correlated case 4. In addition, when the NDE 'samples both signals' in the initial draw (Section IV), no mechanism is described that enforces a consistent assignment of the ensemble elements to one source throughout the iterations, and label swaps between the two similar sources would silently corrupt the element-wise subtraction. Please specify and validate the label-assignment mechanism, or state explicitly that only marginal single-source inference is claimed and temper the 'general solution' phrasing accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. I, Fig. 1] Section I contains several wording errors ('detecor's frequency-dependent response,' 'trained for signal signals'), and Fig. 1's caption 'arrivial time' should be 'arrival time'; the detection-rate estimate also differs between Section I ('approximately 10^5 CBCs per year') and Section VI ('10^5 - 10^6').
  2. [Sec. V, Fig. 2] The injection parameters for the four case studies are not tabulated; Fig. 2 shows only axis ranges with grey dotted true values. A table of injection parameters, network SNRs, and noise seeds would be needed to reproduce the results.
  3. [Sec. IV, Algorithm 1] The exponential temperature-annealing schedule in Section IV and Algorithm 1 is left unspecified (initial T = 10, final T = 1, but no per-iteration rule), and the phase-grid maximization over 100 values needs implementation details (grid bounds and alignment convention).
  4. [Sec. V] Please specify the bilby configuration used as ground truth in Section V (waveform model, PSD, dynesty settings, and prior bounds) and confirm that it matches the DINGO O1 setup, so the comparison is fair.
  5. [Fig. 3] In the version under review, the text in Fig. 3 is not legible due to font-encoding artifacts in the PDF; please verify the figure rendering and, if any parameter shows a KS p-value below 0.05, discuss those failures explicitly.
  6. [Sec. IV] The cost statement in Section IV ('it takes ~6s for the DINGO model to draw samples') should specify the batch size and GPU model, since the 20-minutes-per-iteration figure depends on both; releasing the implementation would also strengthen reproducibility beyond Algorithm 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No load-bearing circularity: the iterative-subtraction claim is validated against independent bilby joint PE, and the Fisher recursion is an independent first-principles calculation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that iterated hierarchical subtraction with neural density estimators recovers parameters of overlapping signals. This claim is not reduced to its own inputs by construction. The systematic-error recursion in Eqs. (4)-(5) is derived from the Cutler-Vallisneri formula (Eq. 3), an independent linearized calculation, and is used only to show that point-estimate biases shrink with iterations; it is not a restatement of the final posterior-accuracy claim. The empirical validation compares the OS hierarchical results against independent bilby joint PE as ground truth (Fig. 2), and the P-P plot (Fig. 3) is a calibration/self-consistency check rather than a fitted prediction. The ensemble resampling and Metropolis updates are heuristic; their hyperparameters are not fitted to the target joint posterior, so any concern about them is a robustness/correctness issue, not circularity. The author cites their own prior work ([30], [35], [36], [61]), but these citations are contextual or future-improvement references and are not load-bearing: for example, [61] is suggested only as a future faster CNF model, alongside the external [50]. No equation or fitted quantity is defined in terms of the desired output. Therefore the paper is self-contained against external benchmarks and has no significant circularity; the score reflects only the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations.

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

The central claim depends on the standard GW data model, the linearized Fisher-matrix systematic-error approximation, the adequacy of a single-signal NDE as a proposal for overlapping data, the assumption of exactly two signals, and the confinement of injections to the NDE's training prior. No new physical entities are introduced; the main hand-set quantities are algorithmic hyperparameters rather than physical constants.

free parameters (5)
  • Ensemble size Nen = 200
    Number of posterior samples used for signal subtraction each iteration. Chosen as a compromise between accuracy and GPU runtime (~20 min per iteration); the author notes this is fewer than ideal and breaks one-to-one correspondence between samples.
  • Initial resampling temperature T = 10, annealed exponentially to 1
    Temperature in the tempered-likelihood weights w ∝ L^(1/T); hand-tuned to prevent a few elements dominating the resampling.
  • JSD convergence threshold = 1e-4 nat
    Stopping criterion for the greedy iteration; chosen empirically. The specific value affects reported iteration counts.
  • Retry tolerance Ntrial = 100
    Maximum attempts to achieve a monotonically increasing mean log-likelihood before switching to Metropolis updates; hand-set.
  • Maximum number of iterations Nit = 30
    Upper bound in the pseudocode; the author reports most cases converge within 15, so this cap is not usually reached.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Data are generated as d = h_A + h_B + n with stationary Gaussian noise n (likelihood of Eq. 2).
    Standard GW data model; used throughout the simulations and likelihood-based resampling.
  • domain assumption The linearized Fisher-matrix systematic-error formula (Eq. 3) is valid, and the leftover signal after approximate subtraction can be approximated by first-order parameter offsets.
    Underpins the central theoretical claim that systematic errors diminish with iterations (Eqs. 4-5, Fig. 1).
  • domain assumption The publicly available DINGO model, trained on isolated 8s BBH signals with IMRPhenomXPHM and O1 sensitivity, provides posterior samples accurate enough to serve as a proposal for each source in overlapping data.
    The whole algorithm relies on the NDE proposal; the author notes DINGO samples are not perfectly accurate and can confuse sources.
  • domain assumption The number of overlapping signals is known and fixed at two in all demonstrations.
    All simulations contain exactly two BBH signals; more than two signals is left to future work.
  • domain assumption Injection parameters lie within the DINGO training prior (masses 10-80 solar masses, distances to 2000 Mpc).
    The 64-pair P-P test and the four case studies all use parameters inside the NDE's training distribution; behavior outside is untested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Subtraction with Neural Density Estimators as a General Solution to Overlapping Gravitational Wave Signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FKE5UOM7

@misc{pith2026250705209,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Subtraction with Neural Density Estimators as a General Solution to Overlapping Gravitational Wave Signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FKE5UOM7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05209}
}
read the original abstract

Overlapping gravitational wave (GW) signals are expected in the third-generation (3G) GW detectors, leading to one of the major challenges in GW data analysis. Inference of overlapping GW sources is complicated - it has been reported that hierarchical inference with signal subtraction may amplify errors, while joint estimation, though more accurate, is computationally expensive. However, in this work, we show that hierarchical subtraction can achieve accurate results with a sufficient number of iterations, and on the other hand, neural density estimators, being able to generate posterior samples rapidly, make it possible to perform signal subtraction and inference repeatedly. We further develop likelihood-based resampling to accelerate the convergence of the iterative subtraction. Our method provides fast and accurate inference for overlapping GW signals and is highly adaptable to various source types and time separations, offering a potential general solution for overlapping GW signal analysis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05209 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The ratio of systematic errors to statistical uncer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Posterior distributions of four cases considered in Fig. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. P-P plot for the hierarchical subtraction scheme ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Hierarchical subtraction workflow excluding the convergence part, more details are given in the main text and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Fast neural network surrogate for multimodal effective-one-body gravitational waveforms from generically precessing compact binaries

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neural network surrogate approximates precessing compact binary gravitational waveforms up to 1000x faster than the base EOB model with validated accuracy.

  2. Spin Precession Signatures as an Indicator of Microlensing in Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves

    astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Microlensing wave-optics effects in strongly lensed gravitational waves can produce false evidence of spin precession, with the effect growing at higher signal-to-noise ratios.

  3. GW231123: Overlapping Gravitational Wave Signals?

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GW231123 data favors an overlapping two-signal model over a single merger with Bayes factors of 100-10000, mitigating waveform-dependent discrepancies and suggesting possible gravitational lensing.

  4. Accelerated inference of microlensed gravitational waves with machine learning

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A neural posterior estimator trained on wave-optics-microlensed gravitational-wave signals recovers source and lens parameters and Bayes factors consistent with Bilby, about 10 times faster.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

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

    arXiv 2019

  4. [4]

    Abbott et al

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

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Abbott et al

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

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Abbott et al

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

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 66 references
  1. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), 10.48550/arXiv.2112.06861, arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2021 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019), arXiv:1805.11579 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 061104 (2019), arXiv:1808.08676 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  8. [16]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cum- bres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), Nature 551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. 949, 76 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Soares-Santos et al

    M. Soares-Santos et al. (DES, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 876, L7 (2019), arXiv:1901.01540 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. 909, 218 (2021), arXiv:1908.06060 [astro- ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B. P. Abbott et al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Albert et al

    A. Albert et al. (ANTARES, IceCube, Pierre Auger, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 850, L35 (2017), arXiv:1710.05839 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017

  17. [25]

    Punturo et al., Class

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

    2010

  18. [26]

    Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abac et al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Reitze and et al, (2019), 10.48550/arXiv.1907.04833, arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    D. Reitze and et al, (2019), 10.48550/arXiv.1907.04833, arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph, physics:gr-qc]

    2019 doi arXiv

  20. [28]

    Evans et al., (2023), 10.48550/arXiv.2306.13745, arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Evans et al., (2023), 10.48550/arXiv.2306.13745, arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Branchesi et al

    M. Branchesi et al. , JCAP 07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, (2024), arXiv:2412.02651 [gr-qc]

    2024

  23. [31]

    A. M. Baker, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. Golomb, (2025), arXiv:2503.04073 [gr-qc]

    2025

  24. [32]

    Chen and N

    A. Chen and N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, (2024), arXiv:2407.15732 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Essick, S

    R. Essick, S. Vitale, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084004 (2017), arXiv:1708.06843 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P¨ urrer and C.-J

    M. P¨ urrer and C.-J. Haster, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044042 (2022), arXiv:2205.08448 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Astrophys. J. 945, 103 (2023), arXiv:2210.04769 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Pizzati, S

    E. Pizzati, S. Sachdev, A. Gupta, and B. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 105, 104016 (2022), arXiv:2102.07692 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Himemoto, A

    Y. Himemoto, A. Nishizawa, and A. Taruya, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044010 (2021), arXiv:2103.14816 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Samajdar, J

    A. Samajdar, J. Janquart, C. Van Den Broeck, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2102.07544 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Relton and V

    P. Relton and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084039 (2021), arXiv:2103.16225 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Relton, A

    P. Relton, A. Virtuoso, S. Bini, V. Raymond, I. Harry, M. Drago, C. Lazzaro, A. Miani, and S. Tiwari, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104045 (2022), arXiv:2208.00261 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Z. Wang, D. Liang, J. Zhao, C. Liu, and L. Shao, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 055011 (2024), arXiv:2304.06734 [astro- ph.IM]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Janquart, T

    J. Janquart, T. Baka, A. Samajdar, T. Dietrich, and C. Van Den Broeck, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 523, 1699 (2023), arXiv:2211.01304 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. D. Johnson, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084015 (2024), arXiv:2402.06836 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Gupta, K

    I. Gupta, K. Chandra, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, (2024), arXiv:2410.22302 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Veitch et al

    J. Veitch et al. , Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015), arXiv:1409.7215 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [47]

    L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236 (1992), arXiv:gr- qc/9209010

    1992

  40. [48]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. Deistler, B. Sch¨ olkopf, and J. H. Macke, (2021), 10.48550/arXiv.2111.13139, arXiv:2111.13139 [cs.LG]

    2021 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. P¨ urrer, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171403 (2023), arXiv:2210.05686 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, N. Gupte, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buo- nanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Nature 639, 49 (2025), arXiv:2407.09602 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Physical Review D 76, 104018 (2007), arXiv:0707.2982

    2007 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Antonelli, O

    A. Antonelli, O. Burke, and J. R. Gair, Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society507, 5069 (2021), 8 arXiv:2104.01897 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Cutler and I

    C. Cutler and I. E. Flanagan, Physical Review D 49, 2658 (1994)

    1994

  46. [54]

    Z. Wang, Z. Hu, and L. Shao, (2025), arXiv:2501.05218 [gr-qc]

    2025

  47. [55]

    Ruthotto and E

    L. Ruthotto and E. Haber, GAMM-Mitteilungen 44, e202100008 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Kobyzev, S

    I. Kobyzev, S. J. Prince, and M. A. Brubaker, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 43, 3964 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    Papamakarios, E

    G. Papamakarios, E. Nalisnick, D. J. Rezende, S. Mo- hamed, and B. Lakshminarayanan, Journal of Machine Learning Research 22, 1 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 241103 (2021), arXiv:2106.12594 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Gupte et al., (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14286, arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    N. Gupte et al., (2024), 10.48550/arXiv.2404.14286, arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 doi arXiv

  52. [60]

    Langendorff, A

    J. Langendorff, A. Kolmus, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171402 (2023), arXiv:2211.15097 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Q. Hu, J. Irwin, Q. Sun, C. Messenger, L. Suleiman, I. S. Heng, and J. Veitch, Astrophys. J. Lett.987, L17 (2025), arXiv:2412.03454 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Pratten et al., Phys

    G. Pratten et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Physical Review X 9, 031040 (2019)

    2019

  56. [64]

    Gabbard, C

    H. Gabbard, C. Messenger, I. S. Heng, F. Tonolini, and R. Murray-Smith, Nature Phys. 18, 112 (2022), arXiv:1909.06296 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

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

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    +𝑛 𝑑",$=𝑑−ℎ(𝜃′!,$)ℎ!-subtracteddata 𝑑

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 493, 3132 (2020). 9 20 40 60 Case 1 - Source A 20 40 60 Case 1 - Source B 20 40 60 Case 2 - Source A 20 40 60 Case 2 - Source B 20 40 60 Case 3 - Source A 20 40 60 Case 3 - Source B 20 40 60 Case 4 - Source A 20 ...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.