Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 8 cited by

Detectability of lensed gravitational waves in matched-filtering searches

T0 review · 3 major / 6 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 Matched-filtering searches catch almost none of the most strongly lensed gravitational-wave signals, despite their high optimal signal-to-noise ratio.

desk verdict First real pipeline-level demonstration that lensed GWs can be badly missed by matched-filtering searches; the qualitative result is credible, but the headline numbers are tied to a reduced template bank and should not be taken as generic LVK efficiencies. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.13058 v2 pith:JHT25O5D submitted 2024-11-20 gr-qc

Juno C. L. Chan , Eungwang Seo , Alvin K. Y. Li , Heather Fong , Jose M. Ezquiaga This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitationalwaveslensingwaveopticsmatched-filteringsearchdetectabilityinjectioncampaignsignal-consistencytestcompactdarkmatter
topics Dark Matter
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

Gravitational waves magnified and distorted by compact intervening masses (wave-optics lensing) are usually assumed to be easy to detect because lensing raises their optimal signal-to-noise ratio. This paper tests that assumption by injecting simulated lensed binary-black-hole signals into real detector noise and running a standard matched-filtering search pipeline. It finds that the strongest lensing distortions (lens mass $10^5$ solar masses, impact parameter 0.01) drop the detection efficiency from about 90% for unlensed signals to under 1%, because the distorted waveforms no longer match the unlensed templates: they lose recovered SNR and score badly on the signal-consistency test, pushing their false-alarm rates up by many orders of magnitude. The result implies that current searches are systematically missing the most highly lensed events, and that constraints on compact dark matter derived from optimal-SNR estimates are overoptimistic.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the matched-filtering detection statistic itself: the recovered signal-to-noise ratio $\rho$, the autocorrelation-based signal-consistency value $\xi^2$ (a measure of how well the SNR time series of the data matches the one expected from the best template), and the likelihood-ratio ranking that turns $\rho$, $\xi^2$, and detector information into a false-alarm rate. Against this sits the point-mass lens amplification factor $F(w,y)$, which imprints frequency-dependent beating on the waveform when the dimensionless frequency $w \sim 1$; the paper shows that the lensed-to-unlensed optimal-SNR ratio is always $>1$ for this model while the match $M$ between lensed and unlensed waveforms can fall to $0.7$. The competition between those two quantities — amplification raising SNR, mismatch lowering recovered SNR and inflating $\xi^2$ — is what determines whether an event passes the false-alarm threshold, and the injection campaigns map that competition across lens mass and source position.

What would settle it

Run the same $y=0.01$, $M_{Lz}=10^5\,M_\odot$ injection set at 125 Mpc through the full production template bank and through an independent matched-filtering pipeline; if the detection fraction stays near the unlensed level rather than falling below 1%, the claimed pipeline rejection does not generalize. A complementary check is to search the same week of data with an unmodeled burst algorithm: a strongly magnified lensed event that the template search misses but the burst search finds would directly confirm that the loss is caused by template mismatch rather than by the signal being absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that optimal signal-to-noise ratio fails as a proxy for the detectability of gravitational waves lensed by compact masses, and that the failure is large and systematic. Simulated binary-black-hole signals at 125 Mpc with a point-mass lens of redshifted mass $10^5$ solar masses and impact parameter $y=0.01$ are magnified to higher optimal SNR than their unlensed counterparts, yet the search pipeline recovers only $1$ of $19{,}432$ of them at the standard false-alarm threshold, versus $17{,}020$ of $19{,}432$ unlensed injections. The loss is driven by two pipeline effects: the distorted waveform makes the pipeline recover wrong source parameters, cutting the matched-filter SNR, and the residual mismatch inflates the signal-consistency statistic, which by itself pushes most lensed events past the false-alarm threshold. The paper also finds that lowering the signal strength by moving the source further away partly masks the distortion, so $8$ and $13$ lensed injections are found at $625$ and $1250$ Mpc, respectively, the opposite of what a louder-is-easier optimal-SNR treatment predicts.

Load-bearing premise

The central assumption is that the simplified setup — one search pipeline, a 14,606-template bank, point-mass lenses, and one week of detector noise — is representative enough that the same drop in detection efficiency would occur with the full production template bank, other pipelines, and real astrophysical event populations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Lensing-rate forecasts and detection-rate estimates built on optimal SNR thresholds will overpredict how many lensed events current searches can actually claim.
  • Existing constraints on compact dark matter that acts as wave-optics lenses are overoptimistic in the high-distortion region of lens mass and impact parameter, because they assume events are detectable when the pipeline rejects them.
  • A dedicated lensed template bank, especially covering the low-match, high-$\xi^2$ region the paper maps, would be needed to recover strongly lensed events with matched filtering.
  • Improving detector sensitivity will not straightforwardly improve detection of strongly lensed signals: at higher SNR the distortion penalty and signal-consistency rejection become stronger, so detection efficiency actually grows as sources are placed farther away.
  • Follow-up lensing and parameter-estimation analyses restricted to catalog events inherit a selection bias, because the most distorted lensed events are absent from the catalogs that matched-filtering produces.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the mechanism across other missing-physics scenarios (eccentric orbits, higher-order modes, modified gravity) would likely show the same qualitative pattern: waveform distortion lowers recovered SNR and worsens signal-consistency scores, so optimal-SNR detectability estimates are probably biased for any physics absent from the template bank.
  • Because the $\xi^2$ test cannot tell waveform mismatch from noise, a ranking statistic that explicitly models lensing distortion (rather than only adding lensed templates) might recover part of the lost efficiency, an option the paper does not explore.
  • If the SNR-dependence holds, next-generation more-sensitive detectors could make strongly lensed events harder to find even as the absolute number of loud sources grows; rate estimates for future runs should fold in the mismatch penalty as a function of SNR.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports the first injection campaign using the GstLAL matched-filtering pipeline to study the detectability of gravitational waves lensed by point masses in the wave-optics regime. It injects 30-30 solar-mass spinless BBH signals, both lensed and unlensed, into one week of O3 Hanford-Livingston data, searches with a reduced 14,606-template bank, and counts injections with FAR below 1/30 days. The central result is that strongly lensed signals (y=0.01, M_Lz=10^5 solar masses) at 125 Mpc are found in only 1/19432 injections versus 17020/19432 for the unlensed case, despite higher optimal SNR, because of SNR loss and elevated signal-consistency test values. The paper argues that optimal-SNR proxies overestimate detectability and that current compact dark matter constraints based on such proxies are overoptimistic.

Significance. If the quantitative result is robust, this is an important correction to detectability estimates used in lensing-rate calculations and dark matter constraints, and it provides concrete motivation for lensed template banks and alternative search pipelines. The paper is careful in separating the roles of matched-filter SNR and the signal-consistency statistic, and it demonstrates that higher optimal SNR does not automatically imply higher detectability. The main limitation is that the headline numbers are obtained for one pipeline configuration, one reduced template bank, one week of data, and one source/lens model; the generalization to full LVK searches is asserted rather than demonstrated. The qualitative conclusion is likely to survive, but the specific efficiency numbers and the claim about overoptimistic constraints need further support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V.A and Sec. VI.A, Eqs. (5), (7), (10)-(13), Table I] The reduced 14,606-template bank is load-bearing for the headline result, but the paper's defense of it is not convincing. Adding templates to a bank cannot reduce the maximum match defined in Eq. (5) or the quality of the best available template, and a better-matched template should reduce the autocorrelation mismatch entering Eq. (7); the argument that a larger bank 'permits greater scope for inaccurate recovery' addresses noise-trigger misrecovery, not the recovery of injected signals. In addition, the FAR in Eqs. (10)-(13) is calibrated on the noise-trigger distribution of this specific bank, so the same trigger would receive a different FAR with a different bank; the found counts in Table I are therefore not robust until this is tested. Please provide a control with a denser bank around the injection parameters and quantify the change in C(ln L|noise).
  2. [Sec. V.A and Table I] The analysis uses one week of O3 Hanford-Livingston data and a single noise realization. The FAR threshold of 3.85e-7 Hz corresponds to one event per 30 days; with one week of data, the empirical C(ln L|noise) distribution has limited statistics near the threshold, and the found counts (17020, 12878, 6217, and the lensed counts 1, 8, 13) carry unquantified uncertainty. The central trend is plausible, but the specific detection-efficiency numbers and the Sec. VII conclusion that current constraints are overoptimistic extrapolate beyond the tested configuration. Please provide error estimates on the found counts or analyze additional data stretches, and qualify the constraint statement accordingly.
  3. [Sec. VII and Conclusion] The statement that current compact dark matter constraints are 'overoptimistic' is a quantitative population-level claim that does not follow directly from the single-source, single-lens-model injection study. Computing the impact on constraints requires a selection function over the source and lens populations, the full production template bank, and the pipeline's actual FAR calibration. The paper itself notes that a full injection campaign is required; as written, the conclusion outruns the evidence. Please either reframe this as a direction for future work or provide the necessary population-level calculation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. VI.A] The text states that 'only 1 out of 19421 injections is successfully detected,' but Table I lists 19432 injections; please correct the number for consistency.
  2. [Sec. II.B and Sec. IV] There are typos 'inacccurate modelling' and 'mathced filtering' that should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (13)] The sentence preceding Eq. (13) mentions N as the total number of triggers, but N does not appear in the equation; please remove or clarify the definition.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The right-panel caption has an unmatched parenthesis in 'ρL,opt) and unlensed (ρUL,opt'; please fix the formatting.
  5. [Abstract and throughout] The terms 'matched-filtering' and 'match-filtered' are used inconsistently; please standardize the terminology.
  6. [Figs. 4 and 6] The FAR color scale and threshold tick are difficult to read in printed form; consider adding a clear threshold line or annotation in each panel.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: detection efficiency is an injection-campaign result from the standard GstLAL ranking statistic, not a fitted or self-referential prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—that matched-filtering searches with unlensed templates detect strongly lensed CBC signals far less often than optimal-SNR proxies suggest—is derived from direct injection campaigns in real O3 noise using GstLAL. The lensed waveforms are generated from the standard point-mass Fresnel-Kirchhoff diffraction integral (Eqs. 14-17) of Takahashi & Nakamura, and the pipeline's SNR, xi^2, and FAR ranking statistics are used as implemented (Eqs. 3, 7, 9-13); no parameter is fitted to make the efficiency drop emerge. The comparison with optimal SNR is not circular because the optimal-SNR proxy is an independent calculation (Eq. 5 and Fig. 1) that is contradicted rather than assumed by the pipeline results. Self-citations to GstLAL development papers and prior lensing-search work are methodological references, not load-bearing uniqueness or ansatz justifications. The paper's reduced 14,606-template bank and one-week O3 data stretch are acknowledged limitations that could affect the quantitative 90%-to-<1% ratio, and the claim that a larger bank worsens xi^2 is an unsupported extrapolation rather than a circular step; robustness concerns do not constitute equivalence of inputs and outputs. No circular derivation chain was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The paper's central estimate rests on modeling choices and data-selection choices rather than fitted physical parameters; the xi-squared window and FAR threshold are the most consequential unspecified settings.

free parameters (3)
  • FAR threshold = 3.85e-7 Hz (1 in 30 days)
    Chosen as representative of a confident detection threshold. The headline detection-efficiency numbers depend on this choice.
  • Integration window delta-t in the xi-squared test = not reported explicitly
    The signal-consistency test depends on this tunable parameter; the paper does not report the value used, which affects the quantitative detection efficiencies.
  • Template bank boundary choices = m1 in [10, 90] Msun, m2 in [10, 40] Msun, 14606 templates
    The reduced template bank is a design choice that affects recovered parameter accuracy and FAR computation; the paper argues it is adequate but does not demonstrate equivalence with the full bank.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Point-mass lens model with thin-lens and weak-field approximations
    The lensing amplification factor Eq. (17) rests on these standard assumptions; the conclusions are stated for this lens model only.
  • domain assumption GstLAL ranking statistic accurately reflects true detectability
    The entire study measures detectability through GstLAL's likelihood-ratio ranking and FAR; if this ranking is itself miscalibrated, the absolute detection efficiencies inherit that error.
  • domain assumption SEOBNRv4 waveforms are adequate templates for unlensed CBC signals
    The template bank uses SEOBNRv4 with aligned spins and pure quadrupole mode; the study does not test sensitivity of the conclusions to waveform approximant choice.
  • domain assumption One week of O3 data from two detectors is representative
    All injections are placed in the same week of Hanford-Livingston data; the paper does not quantify how detector configuration, duty cycle, or noise stationarity affects the results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Detectability of lensed gravitational waves in matched-filtering searches." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JHT25O5D

@misc{pith2026241113058,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Detectability of lensed gravitational waves in matched-filtering searches},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JHT25O5D}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.13058}
}
abstract

Gravitational lensing by compact, small-scale intervening masses causes frequency-dependent distortions to gravitational-wave events. The optimal signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is often used as a proxy for the detectability of exotic signals in gravitational-wave searches. In reality, the detectability of such signals in a matched-filtering search requires comprehensive consideration of match-filtered SNR, signal-consistency test value, and other factors. In this work, we investigate for the first time the detectability of lensed gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences with a match-filtering search pipeline, GstLAL. Contrary to expectations from the optimal-SNR approximation approach, we show that the strength of a signal (i.e., higher optimal SNR) does not necessarily result in higher detectability. We also demonstrate that lensed gravitational waves with wave optics effects can suffer significantly, from $~90\%$ (unlensed) to $<1\%$ (lensed) detection efficiency, due to downranking by the signal-consistency test values. These findings stress the need to extend current template banks to effectively search for lensed gravitational waves and to reassess current constraints on compact dark matter scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.13058 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: match between lensed signals and unlensed templates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Time-domain gravitational-wave waveforms of a spinless binary black hole with component masses [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The role of lensing in the accuracy of the recovered source parameters of lensed gravitational waves. The panels show the histogram [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The role of lensing in the detectability of lensed gravitational waves. The panels show the distribution of the simulated events in our [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The role of signal strength in the accuracy of the recovered source parameters of lensed gravitational waves. The panels show the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The role of signal strength in the detectability of lensed gravitational waves. The panels show the distribution of the simulated events [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Detectability of lensed gravitational waves. The panels show the distribution of the simulated events in our third injection campaign [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 8 Pith papers

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

  1. Probing small-scale power spectrum with gravitational-wave diffractive lensing

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Gravitational-wave diffractive lensing, combined statistically across many events, can map the small-scale matter power spectrum through a new frequency-to-scale relation.

  2. The diffraction-lensing interpretation of GW231123 with astrophysical priors

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GW231123 is better fit by a lower-mass merger diffracted by an isolated ~1000 M_sun lens, but astrophysical priors and a frequentist rate estimate make this lensing interpretation unlikely.

  3. Across the Universe: GW231123 as a magnified and diffracted black hole merger

    astro-ph.GA 2025-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GW231123's extreme mass and spins may be explained by a point-mass microlens embedded in a galaxy, reducing the inferred source mass to about 100-180 solar masses.

  4. 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.

  5. Biases in Tests of General Relativity from Microlensed Gravitational-Wave Signals

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Microlensing in the wave-optics regime can push standard LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA general-relativity tests to false ~4–4.5σ deviations, even for signals that are perfectly consistent with GR.

  6. Discovering gravitational waveform distortions from lensing: A deep dive into GW231123

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GW231123's apparent gravitational-lensing signal has a false-alarm probability around 4σ, so the event cannot be claimed as lensed under the two-image wave-optics model.

  7. 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.

  8. Multi-band observation of lensed gravitational waves as a probe of small-mass dark matter halos

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Using Fisher forecasts, the paper shows that joint ET and DECIGO observations of one lensed gravitational wave can break the degeneracy between lens mass, impact parameter, and halo core size.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

95 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 8 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Four injection sets are examined: one unlensed set and three lensed sets with varying lensing parameters ( y = 0 .01 and MLz = {10, 103, 105}M⊙)

    Injection campaign 1: The role of lensing The first injection campaign explores the impact of lens- ing amplification on gravitational-wave signal detectability. Four injection sets are examined: one unlensed set and three lensed sets with varying lensing parameters ( y = 0 .01 and MLz = {10, 103, 105}M⊙). These sets represent different lensing regimes: n...

  2. [2]

    To better understand how signal strength in- fluences lensing’s impact on detectability, a second injection campaign was conducted

    Injection campaign 2: The role of signal strength The first injection campaign utilized a fixed unlensed SNR of ρ ∼ 100, representing an unrealistically high-SNR regime with O3 detector sensitivity and minimal impact from back- ground noise. To better understand how signal strength in- fluences lensing’s impact on detectability, a second injection campaig...

  3. [3]

    To present a general picture of how lens parameters influence matched-filtering searches, we sampled over y ∈ [0.01, 1] and MLz ∈ [10M⊙, 105M⊙] for each injection set

    Injection campaign 3: detectability of lensed gravitational waves The initial two injection campaigns elucidated the roles of lensing and signal strength, enabling us to predict lensed gravitational-wave detectability more comprehensively. To present a general picture of how lens parameters influence matched-filtering searches, we sampled over y ∈ [0.01, ...

  4. [4]

    Allen, W

    B. Allen, W. G. Anderson, P. R. Brady, D. A. Brown, and J. D. E. Creighton, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012), arXiv:gr- qc/0509116

    arXiv 2012

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

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

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    A. H. Nitz, C. Capano, A. B. Nielsen, S. Reyes, R. White, D. A. Brown, and B. Krishnan, Astrophys. J. 872, 195 (2019), arXiv:1811.01921 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zal- darriaga, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023011 (2019), arXiv:1902.10341 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

Show all 95 references
  1. [9]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zal- darriaga, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083030 (2020), arXiv:1904.07214 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abbott et al

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

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A. H. Nitz, T. Dent, G. S. Davies, S. Kumar, C. D. Ca- pano, I. Harry, S. Mozzon, L. Nuttall, A. Lundgren, and 15 M. T ´apai, Astrophys. J. 891, 123 (2020), arXiv:1910.05331 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Abbott et al

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

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abbott et al

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

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Andres et al., Class

    N. Andres et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 39, 055002 (2022), arXiv:2110.10997 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, S. Kumar, Y .-F. Wang, S. Kastha, M. Sch¨afer, R. Dhurkunde, and M. Cabero, Astrophys. J. 922, 76 (2021), arXiv:2105.09151 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

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

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Olsen, T

    S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Za- ckay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2201.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A. K. Mehta, S. Olsen, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumad- hav, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2023), arXiv:2311.06061 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Kumar and T

    P. Kumar and T. Dent, Phys. Rev. D 110, 043036 (2024), arXiv:2403.10439 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Wadekar, J

    D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Za- ckay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Schmidt et al., (2024), arXiv:2406.17832 [gr-qc]

    S. Schmidt et al., (2024), arXiv:2406.17832 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Schmidt et al., Phys

    S. Schmidt et al., Phys. Rev. D 110, 023038 (2024), arXiv:2403.17186 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Schmidt and S

    S. Schmidt and S. Caudill, Phys. Rev. D 110, 023042 (2024), arXiv:2403.17179 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Wadekar, T

    D. Wadekar, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 110, 044063 (2024), arXiv:2405.17400 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    H. S. Chia, T. D. P. Edwards, D. Wadekar, A. Zimmerman, S. Olsen, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zal- darriaga, Phys. Rev. D 110, 063007 (2024), arXiv:2306.00050 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Deguchi and W

    S. Deguchi and W. D. Watson, Phys. Rev. D 34, 1708 (1986)

    1986

  19. [27]

    T. T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1138 (1998)

    1998

  20. [28]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, Astrophys. J.595, 1039 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0305055

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Y . Wang, A. Stebbins, and E. L. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2875 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605140

    1996 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Dai and T

    L. Dai and T. Venumadhav, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.04724 (2017), arXiv:1702.04724 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, D. E. Holz, W. Hu, M. Lagos, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 103, 6 (2021), arXiv:2008.12814 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Leung, D

    C. Leung, D. Jow, P. Saha, L. Dai, M. Oguri, and L. V . E. Koopmans, (2023), arXiv:2304.01202 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. Liu, R. S. Chandramouli, O. A. Hannuksela, N. Yunes, and T. G. F. Li, (2024), arXiv:2410.21738 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Jung and C

    S. Jung and C. S. Shin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 041103 (2019), arXiv:1712.01396 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  27. [35]

    K.-H. Lai, O. A. Hannuksela, A. Herrera-Mart ´ın, J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083005 (2018), arXiv:1801.07840 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Christian, S

    P. Christian, S. Vitale, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103022 (2018), arXiv:1802.02586 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dai, S.-S

    L. Dai, S.-S. Li, B. Zackay, S. Mao, and Y . Lu, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104029 (2018), arXiv:1810.00003 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Diego, O

    J. Diego, O. Hannuksela, P. Kelly, T. Broadhurst, K. Kim, T. Li, G. Smoot, and G. Pagano, Astron. Astrophys. 627, A130 (2019), arXiv:1903.04513 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    J. M. Diego, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123512 (2020), arXiv:1911.05736 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    K. Liao, S. Tian, and X. Ding, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 495, 2002 (2020), arXiv:2001.07891 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, S. Bose, and J. S. Bagla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508, 4869 (2021), arXiv:2102.03946 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    A. Liu, I. C. F. Wong, S. H. W. Leong, A. More, O. A. Hannuk- sela, and T. G. F. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 525, 4149 (2023), arXiv:2302.09870 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, (2024), arXiv:2410.06995 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    R. K. L. Lo, L. Vujeva, J. M. Ezquiaga, and J. C. L. Chan, (2024), arXiv:2407.17547 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Fairbairn, J

    M. Fairbairn, J. Urrutia, and V . Vaskonen, JCAP 07, 007 (2023), arXiv:2210.13436 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y . Cheung, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103529 (2023), arXiv:2212.11960 [astro- ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    C ¸ alıs ¸kan, L

    M. C ¸ alıs ¸kan, L. Ji, R. Cotesta, E. Berti, M. Kamionkowski, and S. Marsat, Phys. Rev. D107, 043029 (2023), arXiv:2206.02803 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Savastano, G

    S. Savastano, G. Tambalo, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103532 (2023), arXiv:2306.05282 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Cremonese, J

    P. Cremonese, J. M. Ezquiaga, and V . Salzano, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023503 (2021), arXiv:2104.07055 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A. Chen, P. Cremonese, J. M. Ezquiaga, and D. Keitel, (2024), arXiv:2408.03856 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Cao, L.-F

    Z. Cao, L.-F. Li, and Y . Wang, Phys. Rev. D90, 062003 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, W. Hu, and M. Lagos, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023531 (2020), arXiv:2005.10702 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gupta et al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.5, arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    A. Gupta et al., (2024), 10.21468/SciPostPhysCommRep.5, arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Aasi et al

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

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Acernese et al

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

    2015 arXiv

  48. [56]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, K. K. Y . Ng, S. Kumar, A. K. Mehta, D. Keitel, T. G. F. Li, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J. Lett. 874, L2 (2019), arXiv:1901.02674 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. 923, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2304.08393 (2023), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Janquart et al., Mon

    J. Janquart et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 3832 (2023), arXiv:2306.03827 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Janquart et al., (2024), arXiv:2409.07298 [gr-qc]

    J. Janquart et al., (2024), arXiv:2409.07298 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    McIsaac, D

    C. McIsaac, D. Keitel, T. Collett, I. Harry, S. Mozzon, O. Edy, and D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084031 (2020), arXiv:1912.05389 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A. K. Y . Li, R. K. L. Lo, S. Sachdev, J. C. L. Chan, E. T. Lin, T. G. F. Li, and A. J. Weinstein (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 107, 123014 (2023), arXiv:1904.06020 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    X. Liu, I. M. Hernandez, and J. Creighton, Astrophys. J. 908, 97 (2021), arXiv:2009.06539 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    L. Dai, B. Zackay, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2007.12709 (2020), arXiv:2007.12709 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 055002 (2020), arXiv:1908.11170 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Messick et al., Phys

    C. Messick et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 042001 (2017), arXiv:1604.04324 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Sachdev et al., (2019), arXiv:1901.08580 [gr-qc]

    S. Sachdev et al., (2019), arXiv:1901.08580 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Cannon, S

    K. Cannon, S. Caudill, C. Chan, B. Cousins, J. D. E. Creighton, 16 B. Ewing, H. Fong, P. Godwin, C. Hanna, S. Hooper, R. Hux- ford, R. Magee, D. Meacher, C. Messick, S. Morisaki, D. Mukherjee, H. Ohta, A. Pace, S. Privitera, I. de Ruiter, S. Sachdev, L. Singer, D. Singh, R. Ta...

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Tsukada et al., Phys

    L. Tsukada et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 043004 (2023), arXiv:2305.06286 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  62. [70]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev. 136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  63. [71]

    Blanchet, T

    L. Blanchet, T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wise- man, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3515 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9501027

    1995 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Ajith et al., Phys

    P. Ajith et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011), arXiv:0909.2867 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Santamaria et al., Phys

    L. Santamaria et al., Phys. Rev. D 82, 064016 (2010), arXiv:1005.3306 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Krolak and B

    A. Krolak and B. F. Schutz, Gen. Rel. Grav. 19, 1163 (1987)

    1987

  67. [75]

    Tiwari, Class

    V . Tiwari, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 145009 (2018), arXiv:1712.00482 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Veske, I

    D. Veske, I. Bartos, Z. M´arka, and S. M ´arka, Astrophys. J. 922, 258 (2021), arXiv:2105.13983 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Gerosa, G

    D. Gerosa, G. Pratten, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103020 (2020), arXiv:2007.06585 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Bondarescu, H

    R. Bondarescu, H. Ubach, O. Bulashenko, and A. P. Lundgren, Phys. Rev. D 108, 084033 (2023), arXiv:2211.13604 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, and S. Bose, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 531, 764 (2024), arXiv:2306.11479 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Essick, Phys

    R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043011 (2023), arXiv:2307.02765 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Magee, M

    R. Magee, M. Isi, E. Payne, K. Chatziioannou, W. M. Farr, G. Pratten, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023014 (2024), arXiv:2311.03656 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Ramos-Buades, S

    A. Ramos-Buades, S. Tiwari, M. Haney, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043005 (2020), arXiv:2005.14016 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Capano, Y

    C. Capano, Y . Pan, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D89, 102003 (2014), arXiv:1311.1286 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  76. [85]

    From simulations to signals: Analyzing gravi- tational waves from compact binary coalescences,

    H. K. Y . Fong, “From simulations to signals: Analyzing gravi- tational waves from compact binary coalescences,” (2018)

    2018

  77. [86]

    Neyman and E

    J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 231, 289 (1933)

    1933

  78. [87]

    Cannon, C

    K. Cannon, C. Hanna, and J. Peoples, (2015), arXiv:1504.04632 [astro-ph.IM]

    2015 arXiv

  79. [88]

    R. S. Chandramouli, K. Prokup, E. Berti, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044026 (2025), arXiv:2410.06254 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  80. [89]

    Privitera, S

    S. Privitera, S. R. P. Mohapatra, P. Ajith, K. Cannon, N. Fo- topoulos, M. A. Frei, C. Hanna, A. J. Weinstein, and J. T. Whe- lan, Phys. Rev. D 89, 024003 (2014), arXiv:1310.5633 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  81. [90]

    Boh ´e et al., Phys

    A. Boh ´e et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  82. [91]

    LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KA- GRA Collaboration, “LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite,” Free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  83. [92]

    Drago, S

    M. Drago, S. Klimenko, C. Lazzaro, E. Milotti, G. Mit- selmakher, V . Necula, B. O’Brian, G. A. Prodi, F. Salemi, M. Szczepanczyk, S. Tiwari, V . Tiwari, V . Gayathri, G. Ve- dovato, and I. Yakushin, SoftwareX 14, 100678 (2021), arXiv:2006.12604 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [93]

    A. K. Meena, A. Mishra, A. More, S. Bose, and J. S. Bagla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 872 (2022), arXiv:2205.05409 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  85. [94]

    Oguri and R

    M. Oguri and R. Takahashi, Astrophys. J. 901, 58 (2020), arXiv:2007.01936 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  86. [95]

    Urrutia and V

    J. Urrutia and V . Vaskonen, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 509, 1358 (2021), arXiv:2109.03213 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  87. [96]

    H. Zhou, Z. Li, K. Liao, and Z. Huang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 518, 149 (2022), arXiv:2206.13128 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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