Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 5 cited by

Fast and efficient Bayesian method to search for strongly lensed gravitational waves

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read PO2.0, a posterior-overlap statistic for strongly lensed gravitational waves, is mathematically equivalent to joint Bayesian parameter estimation yet fast enough for deep background studies, and identifies 65% of simulated galaxy-lensed…

desk verdict PO2.0 is a genuine advance in lensed-GW search methodology with a clean derivation, but the headline numbers are in-sample with respect to one fiducial population model, so they are a model-dependent forecast rather than a verified real-catalog performance. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.01278 v1 pith:HVR5Z5LO submitted 2024-12-02 gr-qc

A. Barsode , S. Goyal , P. Ajith This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords stronglensinggravitationalwavesBayesianmodelselectionposterioroverlapbinaryblackholesparameterestimationBayesfactoreffects
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

Strongly lensed gravitational waves arrive as nearly identical pairs of signals, and the challenge is telling real lensed pairs from unlensed pairs that look alike by chance. This paper claims that a reweighted posterior-overlap statistic, PO2.0, is mathematically equivalent to the slow gold-standard joint Bayesian analysis but runs in minutes instead of about an hour. The improvement comes from feeding in population information: detectable-binary priors, galaxy-lens priors, selection effects, and the lensing-biased parameters (distance, phase, arrival time) that earlier overlap methods ignored. On simulated galaxy-lensed binary-black-hole pairs, PO2.0 identifies 65% of lensed pairs at a pairwise false-alarm probability near $2\times10^{-6}$, translating to a 13% chance of a $>2.25\sigma$ lensed-event detection in an 18-month, O4-like catalog. If the claim is right, the community can screen catalogs for lensed pairs without paying the computational cost of joint parameter estimation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the PO2.0 Bayes factor $B^L_U$, a ratio of lensed to unlensed evidences built from individual-event posteriors: posteriors $P(\theta_{\rm eq},\theta_b|d_j)$ are divided by their parameter-estimation priors, multiplied by the population priors under the two hypotheses, and integrated over equal, biased, and bias parameters. Factorization into a sky-overlap factor $S^L_U$, a phase-overlap factor $P^L_{U,n}$, the time-delay ratio $R^L_U$, and a remaining overlap $B'$ reduces 14- and 16-dimensional integrals to manageable low-dimensional pieces. The numerical implementation uses kernel-density estimates of posteriors and importance sampling, with fast single-event parameter estimation to generate the hundreds of thousands of unlensed pairs needed for a deep false-alarm background.

What would settle it

A concrete check is to compute PO2.0 Bayes factors and full joint-parameter-estimation Bayes factors on the same set of simulated lensed and unlensed pairs and compare their rankings and ROC curves: if the two statistics disagree substantially, the claimed equivalence is broken by the kernel-density and importance-sampling reconstruction. A complementary check is to run PO2.0 on a real O4 catalog and see whether the predicted $>2.25\sigma$ candidate or the predicted detection rate actually appears.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Bayes factor between the lensed and unlensed hypotheses, written as an integral over reweighted products of the two signals' individual posterior distributions, is mathematically equivalent to the joint-parameter-estimation Bayes factor. The key expression is Eq. (5): each individual posterior is divided by the prior used in that signal's parameter estimation, the product is weighted by the lensed population prior, and the integral runs over equal parameters ($\theta_{\rm eq}$) as well as the lensing-biased parameters ($\theta_{b}$) and the biases themselves ($\Delta\theta_b$). This equivalence follows from splitting the joint likelihood into individual likelihoods, which is justified when the two signals do not overlap in time and their noise realizations are uncorrelated. With population priors that include selection effects and all these parameters, PO2.0 detects 65% of simulated galaxy-lensed binary-black-hole pairs at a pairwise false-alarm probability near $2\times10^{-6}$. For an 18-month catalog at current detector sensitivity, the paper forecasts a 13% probability of detecting at least one lensed event above $2.25\sigma$ significance, roughly double the chance offered by the earlier posterior-overlap method.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the simulated populations used to build the informative priors, namely the high-redshift merger rate, mass and spin distributions, galaxy lens population, and detector selection effects, faithfully represent the real detectable unlensed and lensed signals; PO2.0's reported efficiencies and the 13% forecast rest on those priors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pair of detected signals can be ranked for lensing in minutes, so false-alarm backgrounds of hundreds of thousands of pairs become feasible; with about $5\times10^5$ background pairs the paper probes pairwise false-alarm probabilities down to about $2\times10^{-6}$.
  • If PO2.0's claimed equivalence to joint parameter estimation holds in practice, lensing searches no longer need to run hourly joint samplings over every candidate pair.
  • The forecast is a 13% probability of detecting at least one lensed pair above $2.25\sigma$ catalog significance during 18 months of O4-like observation, compared with 7.5% for the earlier $B_{\rm eq}\times R^L_U$ statistic.
  • PO2.0 also produces joint posteriors for source and lens parameters by reweighting individual posteriors, yielding tighter intrinsic-parameter constraints and Morse-phase identification better than 80% efficiency at a false-alarm probability of 0.05.
  • All earlier fast statistics, including posterior overlap, the time-delay ratio, and the magnification-ratio statistic, are recovered as approximations of PO2.0; approximating distance and phase posteriors as delta functions degrades efficiency, which PO2.0 avoids by marginalizing over their uncertainties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Our inference: the 13% detection forecast inherits the assumed lensing fraction $u=1.5\times10^{-3}$, a detection rate of 100 events per year, and the O4 sensitivity curve; a different lensing fraction or high-redshift merger rate would directly change that number.
  • Our inference: because the Bayes factor is sensitive to the lens population model, the same machinery could be turned around to rank competing lens models on observed candidate pairs, an extension the paper flags as future work.
  • Our inference: a direct comparison of PO2.0 rankings with joint-parameter-estimation rankings on identical simulated pairs, which the paper says is underway, would quantify how much efficiency is lost to kernel-density reconstruction noise.
  • Our inference: extending the reweighted-overlap product to triplets and quadruplets of images, mentioned as future work, would directly attack the catalog false-alarm problem that grows quadratically with the number of detected signals.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PO2.0, a posterior-overlap statistic for identifying strongly lensed gravitational-wave events. The authors derive a Bayes factor that reweights individual-event posteriors with an informative lensed/unlensed population prior, claim that this statistic is mathematically equivalent to joint parameter estimation, and show that under various simplifications it reduces to existing statistics such as Beq, R_L/U, Mgal, and phazap-like measures. They implement PO2.0 using Gaussian KDEs and importance sampling on posterior samples produced by the cogwheel PE code, and benchmark it on simulated galaxy-lensed BBH pairs against an unlensed background. They report 65% detection efficiency at a pairwise false-alarm probability of ~2e-6, and a 13% probability of detecting a lensed event above 2.25σ in an 18-month O4-like catalog. They also present a reweighting method for estimating joint source/lens parameters (e.g., relative magnification, Morse phase) from individual posteriors, with caveats about numerical biases.

Significance. If the central claims hold, PO2.0 would be a substantial practical advance: it offers joint-PE-like sensitivity at a fraction of the computational cost, making deep background studies feasible for lensing searches. The derivation of the reweighting identity (Eq. 5, Appendix A) is correct and is a genuine contribution, and the paper gives a useful taxonomy showing how existing statistics arise as limiting cases. The authors also perform a careful validation of their PE pipeline with p-p plots, and they openly acknowledge numerical limitations in the parameter-estimation extension. The main risk is not internal inconsistency but that the headline efficiency and detection-probability numbers are in-sample with respect to the population models used to build the informative priors, and that the implemented statistic is an approximation to the exact Bayes factor despite the paper's 'equivalent to joint PE' claim. These issues are fixable but require a revised presentation and additional robustness analysis.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.2, Appendix B, Eq. (5) vs. Eq. (B11)] The exact Bayes factor in Eq. (5) is derived correctly, but the statistic actually evaluated is not Eq. (5). Appendix B drops the PE priors (Section B.1), approximates arrival-time posteriors as delta functions (Section B.4), and factorizes sky and phase terms, leading to Eq. (B11). The abstract and Section 2 claim that PO2.0 is 'mathematically equivalent to joint parameter estimation'; that equivalence is only true for the unsimplified Eq. (5) under exact marginalization. As written, the claim overstates what is tested. The paper should explicitly distinguish the exact reweighting identity from the implemented approximation, and ideally quantify the bias introduced by these approximations, e.g., by comparing PO2.0 with joint PE on a small subset of pairs, which the authors note is underway.
  2. [§3.1, Fig. 2, Appendix D] The 65% efficiency at FAP ~2e-6 is an in-sample benchmark: the foreground and background injections are drawn from the same population models used to construct the informative priors (Madau-Dickinson merger rate, power-law+peak masses/spins from Abbott et al. 2023, SIE lenses from Collett 2015, O4 selection cuts). The authors' own Fig. 2 shows that replacing the lensed prior with the unlensed detectable prior H_D^U substantially degrades the ROC, confirming that efficiency is prior-sensitive. Consequently, the abstract's 65% number is conditional on one fiducial population model and does not carry an uncertainty budget for model misspecification. The manuscript should include out-of-sample or stress-test variations (e.g., different mass distributions, lens velocity-dispersion functions, or optical depths) or at least a quantitative sensitivity analysis, to support claims about expected real-catalog performance.
  3. [§4, Eq. (15)] The forecast detection probability of 13% is directly proportional to the assumed lensing fraction u = 1.5e-3 and the detection rate R = 100/yr, as shown in Eq. (15). Neither parameter has an uncertainty budget in the main text, nor is the dependence stated in the abstract, where the 13% appears as a headline number. Since the lensing fraction is especially uncertain, the paper should state the parametric dependence explicitly and provide a plausible range for the detection probability, e.g., varying u by a factor of 2, to avoid overstating the certainty of the forecast.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6, Conclusion] The sentence 'The probability of confidently identifying that lensed event using our method is 65% lower' appears to be a wording error; the intended meaning is that the identification probability is 65%, not 65% lower, since 0.13/0.20 = 0.65. Please rephrase.
  2. [§5.2, Fig. 12] The p-p plot in Fig. 12 shows a KS p-value of 5.6e-25, indicating that the relative-magnification posteriors are systematically overestimated. The authors acknowledge this bias, but the conclusion still lists 'measure the relative magnification better than naive' as an achievement. Consider moving the magnification-measurement claim to future work or adding a caveat in the conclusion.
  3. [§3.4] The comparison with phazap (Ezquiaga et al. 2023) is not entirely apples-to-apples, since phazap is described by its authors as a veto pipeline rather than a detection pipeline. The text notes this, but the ROC comparison may still be misinterpreted; a brief statement of the intended roles would help.
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B4)] The factorization that makes the Bayes factor independent of the Morse phase (by writing B_n as independent of Δφ) is described as 'empirically motivated.' Since this is a modeling assumption that could affect the reported efficiency, it would be helpful to state how sensitive the ROC curves are to this choice.
  5. [Throughout] The manuscript does not state whether the code and simulation datasets are publicly available. Providing a code repository would improve reproducibility, given that the method depends on several numerical choices (KDE bandwidths, importance sampling proposals, etc.).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PO2.0 is an explicit Bayes-theorem reweighting; the reported efficiencies are conditional simulation benchmarks, not reductions to fitted inputs, and the paper acknowledges model sensitivity.

full rationale

The central claim of the paper is that the Bayes factor in Eq. 5, computed by reweighting individual posterior samples, is mathematically equivalent to joint parameter estimation. This is an algebraic result: Appendix A derives Eq. 5 from the likelihood ratio Eq. A1 using Bayes theorem (Eqs. A2-A9), with no fitted parameter entering the derivation. The informative priors P(theta | HU) and P(theta_eq, theta_b1, Delta_theta_b | HL) are constructed from stated external inputs, namely the Madau-Dickinson merger rate, the Abbott et al. (2023) power-law+peak mass and spin model, Collett (2015) SIE galaxy lenses, and O4 noise/selection cuts (Appendix D), not from the foreground/background test pairs. The 65% efficiency and 13% detection probability are Monte Carlo outputs conditional on those assumptions; they are not equal to any input by construction, nor is any parameter fitted to the benchmark pairs. The benchmark is in-sample in that the simulated test pairs and the priors share the same generative model; this is a model-validity caveat for real-catalog extrapolation, not a circular reduction, because the priors are specified before and independently of the test pairs. The paper explicitly acknowledges this sensitivity: 'The flip side of being sensitive to model assumptions is that PO2.0 depends on the population models of the BBH mergers, which, as of now, are not directly measurable at high redshifts' (Section 6), and it also states that numerical parity with joint PE 'needs to be demonstrated' (Section 6). Self-citations (Barsode et al. 2024, Haris et al. 2018) serve as simulation-methodology references whose physical ingredients are external; they are not invoked as uniqueness theorems or to forbid alternatives. Therefore, no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on externally supplied population models (BBH merger rate, mass/spin distribution, SIE galaxy lens population) that enter the statistic as informative priors, plus several tractability approximations to the exact reweighting expression. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • detection rate R = 100 yr^-1
    Assumed rate of detectable BBH mergers used to compute the expected number of pairs and the catalog significance mapping in Section 4. Based on a short O4 sample from GraceDB, not a measured constant.
  • lensing fraction u = 1.5e-3
    Fraction of detectable events that are strongly lensed, used in eq. 15 for the O4 detection probability. It is an output of the SIE optical-depth simulation but directly sets the headline 13% forecast and is sensitive to the lens model.
  • observing duration T = 18 months
    Scenario parameter for O4; enters the unlensed time-delay prior (eq. B14) and the catalog false-alarm calculation in Section 4.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption BBH population follows the power-law + peak mass model and spin distributions from Abbott et al. (2023), with merger rate evolving as Madau-Dickinson.
    Used in Appendix D to sample foreground/background events and to construct the population priors P(theta|H). High-redshift BBH population is weakly constrained.
  • domain assumption Lens population consists of SIE galaxies with velocity dispersions and axis ratios from Collett (2015), with strong-lensing optical depth tau(zs).
    Determines the time-delay, magnification, and Morse-phase priors that drive R_L^U and the lensed population prior. Different lens models would change the efficiency numbers.
  • domain assumption The two signals are non-overlapping in time and their noise realizations are uncorrelated.
    Explicitly assumed in Section 2 and Appendix A to factorize the joint likelihood; reasonable for lensed images separated by minutes to months.
  • ad hoc to paper Arrival-time posterior is a delta function at the measured value.
    Used in Appendix B.4 to derive R_L^U; justified by millisecond timing precision versus minute-to-month delays, but it is an approximation that changes the exact statistic.
  • ad hoc to paper PE priors can be dropped from the reweighting integrals.
    Appendix B.1 shows empirically that keeping the non-uniform dL PE prior adds noise and reduces efficiency; the implemented statistic therefore differs from eq. 5.
  • domain assumption Sky localization and phase/polarization-angle posteriors are approximately uncorrelated with other parameters and with each other.
    Motivates the factorization into S_L^U and P_L^U_n in Appendix B.2-B.3; holds for dominant-mode signals but not generally with higher modes.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast and efficient Bayesian method to search for strongly lensed gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HVR5Z5LO

@misc{pith2026241201278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast and efficient Bayesian method to search for strongly lensed gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HVR5Z5LO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.01278}
}
abstract

A small fraction of the gravitational-wave (GW) signals from binary black holes observable by ground-based detectors will be strongly lensed by intervening objects such as galaxies and clusters. Strong lensing will produce nearly identical copies of the GW signals separated in time. These lensed signals must be identified against a background of unlensed pairs GW events, some of which may appear similar by accident. This is usually done using fast, but approximate methods that, for example, check for the overlap between the posterior distributions of a subset of binary parameters, or using slow, but accurate joint Bayesian parameter estimation. In this work, we present a modified version of the posterior overlap method dubbed "PO2.0" that is mathematically equivalent to joint parameter estimation while still remaining fast. We achieve a significant gain in efficiency by incorporating informative priors about the binary and lensing populations, selection effects, and all the inferred parameters of the binary. For binary black hole signals lensed by galaxies, our improved method can detect 65% lensed events at a pair-wise false alarm probability of $\sim 2\times 10^{-6}$. Consequently, we have a 13% probability of detecting a strongly lensed event above $2.25\sigma$ significance during 18 months of observation by the LIGO-Virgo detectors at their current sensitivity. We also show how we can compute the joint posteriors of the lens and source parameters from a pair of lensed events by reweighting the posteriors of individual events in a computationally inexpensive way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.01278 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left panel: The astrophysical prior P(m z 1 ,log10 dL,1 | H) on the detector frame primary mass m z 1 and the apparent luminosity distance dL,1 ≡ dL/ √µ1 of the first image (or the only image in case of unlensed) under the lensed (H = HL) and unlensed (H = HU ) hypotheses. The top and side panels show their marginalized distributions. The orange shades show the intrinsic population and the blue shades (with a supers… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ROC curves showing the improvement in detection efficiency due after incorporating population priors with (HD L ,HD U ) or without (HL,HU ) se￾lection effects. Only equal parameters θeq are included in the calculation of B L U in eq. 5. Also shown in an ROC assuming that both unlensed as well as lensed events follow the same prior HD U . The ROC corresponding to Haris et al. (2018)’s model agnostic overlap statistic… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. ROC curves comparing the full version of PO2.0 with fast but ap￾proximate statistics computed by combining the overlaps in various param￾eter subsets such as sky localization (α,sinδ), chirp mass Mc, component masses (m z 1 ,m z 2 ) and inclination cosθJN. All statistics, except Haris et al. (2018)’s Beq × RL U , are calculated assuming population priors including se￾lection effects, (HD U and HD L ), and RL U is mu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ROC curves showing the efficiency of the PO2.0 statistic in iden￾tifying the correct Morse phase difference between two lensed images as a function of the false alarm probability. Here the efficiency (false alarm prob￾ability) is defined as the probability of the Bayes…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The astrophysical prior P(log10 ∆t,log10 √µr | H) on the rel￾ative magnification and time delay between pairs of detectable unlensed (H = HU D) events, and between detectable lensed (H = HL D) images. The top and side panels show their marginalized distributions. These…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Posterior probability distribution of the intrinsic parameters (chirp mass Mc, mass ratio q, spin magnitudes a1, a2) and inclination θJN. These are shown for the two images of a simulated lensed event, along with those obtained by combining them with appropriate weight…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior probability distribution of the sky localization for the two images of a simulated lensed event, along with that obtained by combin￾ing them with appropriate weights. The contours correspond to the 50 and 90 % credible regions. The posterior obtained by naiv…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Posterior probability distribution of the relative magnification be￾tween simulated pairs of lensed images. The three panels correspond to three different pairs of lensed events (the Bayes factor for each pair is indicated). Posteriors obtained by naively calculating …
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: p − p plot showing the fraction p% of the 942 injections whose true value for the relative magnification lies within p% credible interval of the estimated posteriors. Orange bands show the 1, 2, and 3 σ credible regions according to the p-value computed using the KS t…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: ROC curves showing improvement in detection efficiency due to ignoring PE priors in eq. 5. The inset shows bootstrap errors (estimated by re￾peatedly resampling from the available samples and computing the Bayes fac￾tor) in the calculation of individual B L U ’s with …
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The upper panel shows the bootstrap error (estimated by repeat￾edly resampling from the available samples, computing the Bayes factor, and taking the difference between their 16th and 84th percentile) in Bayes factor as we change the number of posterior samples used i…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: This p − p plot shows the fraction p% of the injections whose true value for the parameters lies within the p% credible interval of the esti￾mated posteriors. The plot is computed using 991 PE runs performed using cogwheel. The names of the parameters are shown in the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Identifying lensed gravitational waves with physics-informed posterior learning

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fusing a simulation-trained common-source mass posterior with waveform features raises lensed-event detection efficiency from 20.8% to 35.2% at 1% false-positive rate and lowers the SNR for 50% efficiency from 45.3 to 33.5.

  2. Can Eccentric Binary Black Hole Signals Mimic Gravitational-Wave Microlensing?

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric BBH signals can masquerade as wave-optics microlensing in quasicircular analyses, but eccentric recovery templates break the degeneracy.

  3. 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.

  4. A $\chi^2$ statistic for the identification of strongly lensed gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences

    gr-qc 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A chi-squared test built from gravitational wave search templates can separate lensed event pairs from unlensed pairs with accuracy comparable to slower Bayesian methods.

  5. Machine Learning Assisted Parameter-Space Searches for Lensed Gravitational Waves

    gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Normalizing flow based non-Gaussian consistency tests in a compressed detector basis select GW170104-GW170814 as the only promising lensed pair in GWTC-3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts #0 'before.all :=...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" "doi:" doi * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix ":" * if eprint field.or.null * if FUNCTION format.pid eprint empty format.doi format.eprint if FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = ...

  3. [3]

    2015, Classical and quantum gravity, 32, 074001

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Classical and quantum gravity, 32, 074001

    2015

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T., et al. 2020, Living reviews in relativity, 23, 1

    2020

  5. [5]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e83

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., Ackley, K., et al. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e83

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3e83 2024

  6. [6]

    2021, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 923, 14, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db 2021

  7. [7]

    2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048

    2023

  8. [8]

    2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001

    2014

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    J., & Ajith, P

    Barsode, A., Kapadia, S. J., & Ajith, P. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 975, 48, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad77c4

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    1946, Sankhy \=a : the indian journal of statistics, 401

    Bhattacharyya, A. 1946, Sankhy \=a : the indian journal of statistics, 401

    1946

  3. [11]

    M., Hannuksela, O

    Caliskan, M., Ezquiaga, J. M., Hannuksela, O. A., & Holz, D. E. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 063023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063023

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4842

    Chakraborty, A., & Mukherjee, S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 532, 4842

    2024

  5. [13]

    H., Rinaldi, S., Toscani, M., & Hannuksela, O

    Cheung, D. H., Rinaldi, S., Toscani, M., & Hannuksela, O. A. 2023, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.12182

    2023

  6. [14]

    Collett, T. E. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 811, 20

    2015

  7. [15]

    2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04724

    Dai, L., & Venumadhav, T. 2017, arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.04724

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    2017, Physical Review D, 95, 044011

    Dai, L., Venumadhav, T., & Sigurdson, K. 2017, Physical Review D, 95, 044011

    2017

  9. [17]

    2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12709

    Dai, L., Zackay, B., Venumadhav, T., Roulet, J., & Zaldarriaga, M. 2020, arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.12709. 2007.12709

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    M., Hu, W., & Lo, R

    Ezquiaga, J. M., Hu, W., & Lo, R. K. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 103520

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fukugita, M., & Turner, E. L. 1991, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (ISSN 0035-8711), vol. 253, Nov. 1, 1991, p. 99-106., 253, 99

    1991

  12. [20]

    2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 015005

    Garr \'o n, \'A ., & Keitel, D. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 015005

    2023

  13. [21]

    K., & Ajith, P

    Goyal, S., Haris, K., Mehta, A. K., & Ajith, P. 2021 a , Phys. Rev. D, 103, 024038, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.024038

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Ajith, P

    Goyal, S., Kapadia, S. J., & Ajith, P. 2021 b , Physical Review D, 104, 124057

    2021

  15. [23]

    J., Cudell, J.-R., Li, A

    Goyal, S., Kapadia, S. J., Cudell, J.-R., Li, A. K., & Chan, J. C. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 023028

    2024

  16. [24]

    2019, Astrophys

    Hannuksela, O., Haris, K., Ng, K., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 874, L2, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0c0f

    2019 doi

  17. [25]

    A., Collett, T

    Hannuksela, O. A., Collett, T. E., C al s kan, M., & Li, T. G. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 3395

    2020

  18. [26]

    K., Kumar, S., Venumadhav, T., & Ajith, P

    Haris, K., Mehta, A. K., Kumar, S., Venumadhav, T., & Ajith, P. 2018, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.07062

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16278

    Islam, T., Roulet, J., & Venumadhav, T. 2022, arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16278

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Venumadhav, T., More, S., & Ajith, P

    Jana, S., Kapadia, S. J., Venumadhav, T., More, S., & Ajith, P. 2024 a , arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05290

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    2024 b , Classical and Quantum Gravity, 10.1088/1361-6382/ad8d2e

    ---. 2024 b , Classical and Quantum Gravity, 10.1088/1361-6382/ad8d2e

    2024 doi

  22. [30]

    A., Haris, K., & Van Den Broeck, C

    Janquart, J., Hannuksela, O. A., Haris, K., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2021 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 506, 5430

    2021

  23. [31]

    A., & Van Den Broeck, C

    Janquart, J., Haris, K., Hannuksela, O. A., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2023 a , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 3088

    2023

  24. [32]

    2023 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 2046

    Janquart, J., More, A., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2023 b , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 519, 2046

    2023

  25. [33]

    A., Li, T

    Janquart, J., Seo, E., Hannuksela, O. A., Li, T. G., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2021 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 923, L1

    2021

  26. [34]

    2023 c , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 3832–3860, 10.1093/mnras/stad2909

    Janquart, J., Wright, M., Goyal, S., et al. 2023 c , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 526, 3832–3860, 10.1093/mnras/stad2909

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol

    Kormann, R., Schneider, P., & Bartelmann, M. 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 284, no. 1, p. 285-299, 284, 285

    1994

  28. [36]

    H., Janquart, J., Sharma, A

    Leong, S. H., Janquart, J., Sharma, A. K., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.13144

    2024

  29. [37]

    K., Chan, J

    Li, A. K., Chan, J. C., Fong, H., et al. 2023 a , arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06416

    2023

  30. [38]

    Li, A. K. Y., Lo, R. K. L., Sachdev, S., et al. 2023 b , Phys. Rev. D, 107, 123014, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.123014

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper

    LIGO-Virgo Collaboration . 2020, Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/public

    2020

  32. [40]

    2024, Gravitational-Wave Candidate Event Database (GraceDB)

    ---. 2024, Gravitational-Wave Candidate Event Database (GraceDB). https://gracedb.ligo.org/superevents/public/O4/

    2024

  33. [41]

    M., & Creighton, J

    Liu, X., Hernandez, I. M., & Creighton, J. 2021 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 97

    2021

  34. [42]

    2021 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 97

    ---. 2021 b , The Astrophysical Journal, 908, 97

    2021

  35. [43]

    K., & Maga \ n a Hernandez, I

    Lo, R. K., & Maga \ n a Hernandez, I. 2023, Physical Review D, 107, 123015

    2023

  36. [44]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415

    2014

  37. [45]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 990

    Magare, S., More, A., & Choudhary, S. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 990

    2024

  38. [46]

    2020, Phys

    McIsaac, C., Keitel, D., Collett, T., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 084031, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.084031

    2020 doi

  39. [47]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1044

    More, A., & More, S. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515, 1044

    2022

  40. [48]

    C., Janquart, J., Phurailatpam, H., et al

    Ng, L. C., Janquart, J., Phurailatpam, H., et al. 2024, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.16532

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    2024, Bulletin of the American Physical Society

    Poon, J., Hannuksela, O., Rinaldi, S., Janquart, J., & Narola, H. 2024, Bulletin of the American Physical Society

    2024

  42. [50]

    2020, Physical Review D, 102, 064001

    Pratten, G., Husa, S., Garcia-Quiros, C., et al. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 064001

    2020

  43. [51]

    2022, Physical Review D, 106, 123015

    Roulet, J., Olsen, S., Mushkin, J., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 123015

    2022

  44. [52]

    A., & Li, T

    Seo, E., Hannuksela, O. A., & Li, T. G. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 932, 50

    2022

  45. [53]

    G., & Hendry, M

    Seo, E., Li, T. G., & Hendry, M. A. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 107

    2024

  46. [54]

    K., & Ganguly, A

    Vijaykumar, A., Mehta, A. K., & Ganguly, A. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 043036

    2023

  47. [55]

    V., Wierda, A

    Wempe, E., Koopmans, L. V., Wierda, A. R. A., Hannuksela, O. A., & Van Den Broeck, C. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 530, 3368

    2024

  48. [56]

    Wierda, A. R. A. C., Wempe, E., Hannuksela, O. A., Koopmans, L. V. E., & Broeck, C. V. D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 921, 154, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bb4

    2021 doi

  49. [57]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 70

    Wright, M., Janquart, J., & Hendry, M. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 959, 70

    2023

  50. [58]

    M., & Holz, D

    Xu, F., Ezquiaga, J. M., & Holz, D. E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 929, 9. 2105.14390

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.