pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.25304 · v1 · pith:H35KQ2BKnew · submitted 2026-06-24 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Constraints on Line-of-Sight Acceleration from O1-O4

Labani Roy , Alexander H. Nitz This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-25 21:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavescompact binariesline-of-sight accelerationDoppler shiftLIGOVirgobinary black holesbinary neutron stars
0
0 comments X

The pith

All compact binaries observed in O1-O4 show line-of-sight accelerations consistent with zero.

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

The paper introduces a method to measure line-of-sight acceleration of compact binaries by directly applying a time-varying Doppler shift to the source-frame waveform in the time domain. This approach works with any waveform model and is applied to every binary detected through O4a plus selected later events. Every measured acceleration is found to be consistent with zero. The analysis also identifies a partial degeneracy between acceleration and eccentricity signals. Current detectors reach only the highest acceleration values, while next-generation instruments could access the lower values expected in dense environments.

Core claim

A new method models the LOS acceleration by directly applying the time-varying Doppler shift in the time domain to the signal produced in the binary's frame; this method can be applied to any waveform model including those with higher order modes, eccentricity, and precession. We find the LOS acceleration for all known binaries to date is consistent with zero. We find that the effects of eccentricity and LOS acceleration are partially degenerate as observed in binaries such as GW200105. Current ground-based observatories are sensitive enough to only constrain scenarios that produce high accelerations, e.g ∼10^{-2}(10^{-5}) c/s for BBH (BNS) sources, however, next-generation observatories may

What carries the argument

Direct time-domain application of a time-varying Doppler shift to the binary-frame gravitational waveform, enabling extraction of line-of-sight acceleration for arbitrary waveform models.

Load-bearing premise

Any residual mismatch between the waveform model and data after the Doppler shift is applied can be absorbed by other parameters without biasing the acceleration posterior.

What would settle it

A future event whose acceleration posterior peaks significantly away from zero even after marginalizing over eccentricity and waveform modeling uncertainties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.25304 by Alexander H. Nitz, Labani Roy.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of a possible environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison of the GW strain from an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: This figure shows the mismatch between our continuum-limit waveform and a waveform generated with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: This figure shows the mismatch between our continuum-limit waveform and a waveform generated with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: This figure shows the mismatch between our continuum-limit waveform and a waveform generated with a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The upper bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: LOS acceleration for GW190814 using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: LOS acceleration posterior for GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: LOS acceleration posterior for GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Constraints on the properties of a third body [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: LOS acceleration posterior for GW [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_14.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A compact binary will experience a center-of-mass (CoM) acceleration in the vicinity of a massive third object. The line-of-sight (LOS) component of this acceleration is imprinted on gravitational waves produced by the compact binary as a time-varying Doppler shift. The observation of a non-zero LOS acceleration may indicate the binary is in a dense environment, such as an active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk or nuclear star cluster, etc. We measure the LOS acceleration of all compact binaries observed through the first part of the fourth observing run (O1-O4a) of Advanced LIGO and Virgo in addition to select binaries from later observing runs. We introduce a new method to model the LOS acceleration by directly applying the time-varying Doppler shift in the time domain to the signal produced in the binary's frame; this method can be applied to any waveform model including those with higher order modes, eccentricity, and precession. We find the LOS acceleration for all known binaries to date is consistent with zero. We find that the effects of eccentricity and LOS acceleration are partially degenerate as observed in binaries such as GW200105. Current ground-based observatories are sensitive enough to only constrain scenarios that produce high accelerations, e.g $\sim 10^{-2~}(10^{-5})~\textrm{c}/s$ for BBH (BNS) sources, however, next-generation observatories may be able to constrain the accelerations expected in some dense environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a method to model line-of-sight (LOS) acceleration of compact binaries by directly applying a time-varying Doppler shift in the time domain to any base gravitational waveform. It applies the method to all O1-O4a events (plus select later ones) and reports that all measured LOS accelerations are consistent with zero, while noting partial degeneracy with eccentricity (e.g., GW200105) and limited sensitivity of current detectors to high-acceleration environments.

Significance. If robust, the zero result constrains binary environments by ruling out high LOS accelerations (~10^{-2} c/s for BBH) expected in some dense settings such as AGN disks. The method's claimed generality to waveforms with higher modes, eccentricity, and precession is a technical strength, as is its direct application to public strain data rather than self-generated signals.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method (abstract and results discussion)] The central claim that all O1-O4a LOS accelerations are consistent with zero rests on the modeling assumption that any residual mismatch between the base waveform and data (from unmodeled eccentricity, precession, higher modes, or calibration) is absorbed without biasing the a_LOS posterior. This assumption is explicitly flagged as partial degeneracy for GW200105 but receives no quantitative bias assessment via mismatched injections on real-event-like data.
  2. [Results section] The abstract states that posteriors for all events are consistent with zero, yet the manuscript provides neither the full analysis pipeline details, data selection criteria, nor the acceleration posterior plots. Without these, it cannot be verified whether the zero result is data-driven or influenced by prior volume.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Method] Clarify the exact prior range and sampling details used for a_LOS in the time-domain implementation to allow reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve the manuscript's clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method (abstract and results discussion)] The central claim that all O1-O4a LOS accelerations are consistent with zero rests on the modeling assumption that any residual mismatch between the base waveform and data (from unmodeled eccentricity, precession, higher modes, or calibration) is absorbed without biasing the a_LOS posterior. This assumption is explicitly flagged as partial degeneracy for GW200105 but receives no quantitative bias assessment via mismatched injections on real-event-like data.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative bias assessment is needed to support the robustness of the zero-acceleration results. In the revised version, we will add a section presenting results from mismatched injections: simulated signals with unmodeled eccentricity, precession, or higher modes will be injected into real detector noise resembling the analyzed events, and the recovered a_LOS posteriors will be examined for systematic shifts. This will directly address potential biases for cases like GW200105. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results section] The abstract states that posteriors for all events are consistent with zero, yet the manuscript provides neither the full analysis pipeline details, data selection criteria, nor the acceleration posterior plots. Without these, it cannot be verified whether the zero result is data-driven or influenced by prior volume.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the initial submission omitted some details to maintain brevity. The revised manuscript will include an expanded methods/results section describing the full analysis pipeline (including sampling settings and likelihood implementation), explicit data selection criteria for the O1-O4a events (and later ones), and representative posterior plots for a_LOS across all events. These additions will allow verification that the consistency with zero is data-driven rather than prior-dominated. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper introduces a time-domain method for applying LOS acceleration via Doppler shift to any waveform model and directly fits this parameter to public O1-O4 strain data for known binaries, reporting posteriors consistent with zero. No equation reduces the reported acceleration to a quantity defined by the same data or fit; the central result is an external measurement on catalog events rather than a self-generated prediction. No load-bearing self-citation, uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggling is present in the provided derivation steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard general-relativity waveform generation plus the assumption that the line-of-sight acceleration can be treated as a purely kinematic Doppler effect without back-reaction on the binary orbit; no new entities are introduced and the acceleration parameter itself is the fitted quantity.

free parameters (1)
  • line-of-sight acceleration a_LOS
    The parameter that is measured or constrained for each event; its posterior is the central output of the analysis.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The gravitational-wave signal can be transformed by a time-dependent Doppler shift without altering the intrinsic binary dynamics
    Invoked when the time-varying Doppler shift is applied directly to the waveform produced in the binary frame.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5790 in / 1291 out tokens · 19062 ms · 2026-06-25T21:08:41.309890+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The uniform acceleration ap- proximation is valid only when the observation duration is sufficiently short that the acceleration does not vary appreciably over the signal

    expansions: the binary undergoes uniform acceler- ation during the observation, while tidal perturbations fromthetertiaryobjectandotherrelativisticeffects(e.g., lensing [59]) are neglected. The uniform acceleration ap- proximation is valid only when the observation duration is sufficiently short that the acceleration does not vary appreciably over the sig...

  2. [2]

    The event contains measurable higher-order mode contributions and has attracted considerable in- terest because of its unusual mass configuration

    GW190814 GW190814is aBBHmergerconsistent withthecoales- cence of a22.2−24.3M⊙ black hole and a2.50−2.67M⊙ compact object, indicating a significantly asymmetric mass ratio, detected with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 25 [53]. The event contains measurable higher-order mode contributions and has attracted considerable in- terest because of its unusual ma...

  3. [3]

    Its com- ponent masses are similar to those of GW150914 [86]

    GW250114 GW250114 is the loudest GW event with an SNR of approximately 80 detected to date [80, 81, 85]. Its com- ponent masses are similar to those of GW150914 [86]. We analyse this event usingSEOBNRv5PHM[75] wave- form model. The acceleration probability distribution is shown in Fig. 8. The high SNR yields tighter acceler- ation constraints than those o...

  4. [4]

    GW200105 Among the NSBH events, GW200105 [12] is claimed to be eccentric [41, 89–92]. This GW event is consis- tent with the coalescence of a8.9+1.2 −1.5M⊙ black hole and a1.9 +0.3 −0.2M⊙ neutron star, detected in a single detector with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 13.2 [12]. We anal- yse this event with both non-eccentric (IMRPhenomNSBH [65],SEOBNRv5...

  5. [5]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Schäfer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, As- trophys. J.946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  10. [10]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2605.27223 [gr-qc]

    N. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2605.27223 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  12. [12]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J.Lett.892,L3(2020),arXiv:2001.01761[astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observa- tory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAASTRO, VINROUGE, MAS- TER,...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  17. [17]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Mapelli, Front

    M. Mapelli, Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 38 (2020), arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    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]

    arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    B. M. Ziosi, M. Mapelli, M. Branchesi, and G. Tor- men, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.441, 3703 (2014), arXiv:1404.7147 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, S. Chatterjee, C.-J. Haster, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 051101 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 029901 (2016)], arXiv:1505.00792 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Mapelli, Y

    M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, F. Santoliquido, M. A. Sedda, and M. C. Artale, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 511, 5797 (2022), arXiv:2109.06222 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes,

    M. Mapelli, “Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes,” (2021) arXiv:2106.00699 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Torniamenti, S

    S. Torniamenti, S. Rastello, M. Mapelli, U. N. Di Carlo, A. Ballone, and M. Pasquato, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society517, 2953 (2022), arXiv:2203.08163 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    U. N. Di Carloet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498, 495 (2020), arXiv:2004.09525 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    M. A. Sedda, S. Naoz, and B. Kocsis, Universe9, 138 (2023), arXiv:2302.14071 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  27. [27]

    Rowan, T

    C. Rowan, T. Boekholt, B. Kocsis, and Z. Haiman, MonthlyNoticesoftheRoyalAstronomicalSociety524, 2770 (2023), arXiv:2212.06133 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Ishibashi and M

    W. Ishibashi and M. Gröbner, Astron. Astrophys.639, A108 (2020), arXiv:2006.07407 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Li and X.-L

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan, Astrophys. J.984, 63 (2025), arXiv:2502.11489 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Loeb, Astrophys

    A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. Lett.819, L21 (2016), arXiv:1602.04735 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, I. Bartos, M. J. Graham, W. Lyra, S. Marka, Z. Marka, N. P. Ross, D. Stern, and Y. Yang, Astrophys. J. Lett.884, L50 (2019), arXiv:1907.03746 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Perna, D

    R. Perna, D. Lazzati, and W. Farr, Astrophys. J.875, 49 (2019), arXiv:1901.04522 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    M. J. Grahamet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 251102 12 (2020), arXiv:2006.14122 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    C. L. Rodriguez, M. Zevin, C. Pankow, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.832, L2 (2016), arXiv:1609.05916 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  35. [35]

    V.Kalogera,Astrophys.J.541,319(2000),arXiv:astro- ph/9911417

    arXiv 2000

  36. [36]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, and K. Omukai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 3362 (2021), arXiv:2104.09510 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Arca Sedda and M

    M. Arca Sedda and M. Benacquista, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482, 2991 (2019), arXiv:1806.01285 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Belczynski, D

    K. Belczynski, D. E. Holz, T. Bulik, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Nature534, 512 (2016), arXiv:1602.04531 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Mapelli, N

    M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, E. Ripamonti, and M. Spera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.472, 2422 (2017), arXiv:1708.05722 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  40. [40]

    Zevin, C

    M. Zevin, C. Pankow, C. L. Rodriguez, L. Sampson, E. Chase, V. Kalogera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. 846, 82 (2017), arXiv:1704.07379 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  41. [41]

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

    arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    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]

    arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Fumagalli, I

    G. Fumagalli, I. Romero-Shaw, D. Gerosa, V. De Ren- zis, K. Kritos, and A. Olejak, Phys. Rev. D110, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2405.14945 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Saini, Mon

    P. Saini, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 833 (2024), arXiv:2308.07565 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  45. [45]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, (2025), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    M. E. Lower, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D98, 083028 (2018), arXiv:1806.05350 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    Randall and Z.-Z

    L. Randall and Z.-Z. Xianyu, Astrophys. J.864, 134 (2018), arXiv:1802.05718 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  48. [48]

    Samsing and D

    J. Samsing and D. J. D’Orazio, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481, 5445 (2018), arXiv:1804.06519 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  49. [49]

    Tiwari, A

    A. Tiwari, A. Vijaykumar, S. J. Kapadia, S. Chatter- jee, and G. Fragione, Phys. Rev. D112, 084034 (2025), arXiv:2407.15117 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  50. [50]

    Inayoshi, N

    K. Inayoshi, N. Tamanini, C. Caprini, and Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. D96, 063014 (2017), arXiv:1702.06529 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Vijaykumar, A

    A. Vijaykumar, A. Tiwari, S. J. Kapadia, K. G. Arun, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J.954, 105 (2023), arXiv:2302.09651 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    Tamanini, A

    N. Tamanini, A. Klein, C. Bonvin, E. Barausse, and C. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D101, 063002 (2020), arXiv:1907.02018 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel.17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  54. [54]

    Yunes, M

    N. Yunes, M. Coleman Miller, and J. Thornburg, Phys. Rev. D83, 044030 (2011), arXiv:1010.1721 [astro- ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  55. [55]

    Bonvin, C

    C. Bonvin, C. Caprini, R. Sturani, and N. Tamanini, Phys. Rev. D95, 044029 (2017), arXiv:1609.08093 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  56. [56]

    Yang, W.-B

    S.-C. Yang, W.-B. Han, H. Tagawa, S. Li, and C. Zhang, The Astrophysical Journal Letters988, L41 (2025)

    2025

  57. [57]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  58. [58]

    Roy and J

    S. Roy and J. Janquart, (2026), arXiv:2606.08838 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  59. [59]

    Hendriks, L

    K. Hendriks, L. Zwick, P. Saini, J. Takátsy, and J. Sam- sing, (2026), arXiv:2601.14918 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  60. [60]

    Pathak, H

    L. Pathak, H. Phurailatpam, and A. Gopakumar, (2026), arXiv:2605.21955 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, M. Boyle, L. T. Buchman, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124052 (2011), arXiv:1106.1021 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  62. [62]

    García-Quirós, M

    C. García-Quirós, M. Colleoni, S. Husa, H. Estel- lés, G. Pratten, A. Ramos-Buades, M. Mateu-Lucena, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D102, 064002 (2020), arXiv:2001.10914 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

  63. [63]

    Bartelmann, Class

    M. Bartelmann, Class. Quant. Grav.27, 233001 (2010), arXiv:1010.3829 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  64. [64]

    J. W. Cooley and J. W. Tukey, Math. Comput.19, 297 (1965)

    1965

  65. [65]

    S. A. Usmanet al., Class. Quant. Grav.33, 215004 (2016), arXiv:1508.02357 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Ashtonet al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    LVK algorithm library – lalsuite,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “LVK algorithm library – lalsuite,” Free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  68. [68]

    Dietrich, A

    T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D100, 044003 (2019), arXiv:1905.06011 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, S. Khan, E. Ni- toglia, F. Pannarale, T. Dietrich, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D101, 124059 (2020), arXiv:2002.08383 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Prattenet al., Phys

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Cutler and M

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D76, 104018 (2007), arXiv:0707.2982 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  72. [72]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  73. [73]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronom- icalSocietyofAustralia36(2019),10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

  74. [74]

    Rover, R

    C. Rover, R. Meyer, and N. Christensen, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 4895 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0602067

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  75. [75]

    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]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  76. [76]

    (2025), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. Suppl.267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  78. [78]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2312.10025 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  79. [79]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  80. [80]

    Pompiliet al., Phys

    L. Pompiliet al., Phys. Rev. D108, 124035 (2023), arXiv:2303.18039 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.