Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 161 references

Reconsidering the consistent use of precessing, higher order multipole models for gravitational wave analyses

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Gravitational-wave analyses can use cheaper waveform models for most signals and still recover unbiased black hole mass and spin distributions, cutting analysis cost by about 20%.

desk verdict Practical model-selection rule with a real cost saving, but the threshold is calibrated in-sample and the 'unchanged' claim needs a quantitative test before the spin results are fully credible. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.18916 v2 pith:NVZIRSO7 submitted 2026-01-26 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Charlie Hoy This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholeswaveformmodelsspinprecessionhigher-ordermultipoleshierarchicalBayesianinferencecomputationalcostselectionfunction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that consistently using the most expensive, most accurate gravitational-wave models is unnecessary for most events. It proposes a selection function based on matched-filter signal-to-noise ratios for precession and higher-order multipoles to decide when cheaper models suffice. Testing on a deliberately extreme population of black hole binaries, a threshold of 1.5 reproduces the mass and spin distributions obtained with the full model, while reducing the cost of Bayesian inference by ~20%. The savings are expected to be much larger for real, astrophysically motivated populations.

What carries the argument

The selection function built on simple-pe, a fast matched-filtering tool that extracts ρp and ρHM from strain data. simple-pe's outputs assign each event to the cheapest model that still captures its observable physics: PhenomXAS when both SNRs are low, PhenomXHM or PhenomXP when only one is high, and PhenomXPHM when both are high. A companion reweighting-and-conditioning step converts aligned-spin posterior samples from XAS/XHM into comparable precessing-spin distributions, enabling unbiased hierarchical population inference.

What would settle it

Applying the recommended selection function to a set of real gravitational-wave events (e.g., from GWTC-4) and comparing the hierarchical population hyperparameters against those obtained with consistent PhenomXPHM analysis; if the inferred spin magnitude or tilt distributions differ beyond statistical fluctuations, the central claim fails. Alternatively, injecting a large set of signals with ρp just below 1.5 and checking whether the reweighted XAS posteriors reproduce XPHM posteriors.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper claims that a simple SNR threshold on the matched-filtered precession SNR ρp and higher-order-multipole SNR ρHM can safely dictate when to use cheaper waveform models. For a worst-case population of 90 rapidly spinning, asymmetric binary black holes, analysing events below the threshold with models that neglect precession and/or higher-order multipoles—and reweighting their spin posteriors—yields inferred mass and spin distributions consistent with consistently using the full PhenomXPHM model. The threshold ρthres = 1.5 produces comparable population estimates and reduces the total cost of hierarchical Bayesian inference by ~20%.

Load-bearing premise

The reweighting-and-conditioning step that converts aligned-spin posterior samples into precessing-spin-like distributions must faithfully reconstruct the spin posterior for events that pass the SNR threshold; App. B shows it visibly biases spin magnitudes and tilts at threshold 2.0.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, the standard practice of analysing every binary black hole with precessing, higher-order-multipole models can be relaxed without biasing mass and spin population measurements.
  • The ~20% cost reduction measured on a worst-case population implies larger savings (the paper estimates up to 78%) for real populations where most events have weak precession and multipole power.
  • The selection function may extend to other inference targets, such as the Hubble constant or gravitational lensing, where the same unbiasedness should apply.
  • The matched-filter approach could be incorporated into the sampling itself, avoiding a separate pre-selection step.
  • As waveform models become more accurate and more expensive, the relative computational benefit of this selection strategy will grow.
  • The reweighting-and-conditioning procedure's reliability is only demonstrated for one moderate-precession case; testing it on a suite of injections with varying ρp and ρHM values and comparing against full XPHM posteriors would sharpen confidence in the population-level result.
  • The threshold of 1.5 is tuned to current detector sensitivities; for next-generation detectors with louder signals, the fraction of events with measurable precession/multipoles grows, and the selection approach may need re-optimization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension would be to include the total network SNR in the threshold, since the paper notes that for loud misidentified events, the cheaper model could bias spins; this trade-off is not yet fully quantified.
  • The reweighting-and-conditioning procedure's reliability is only demonstrated for one moderate-precession case; testing it on a suite of injections with varying ρp and ρHM values and comparing against full XPHM posteriors would sharpen confidence in the population-level result.
  • The threshold of 1.5 is tuned to current detector sensitivities; for next-generation detectors with louder signals, the fraction of events with measurable precession/multipoles grows, and the selection approach may need re-optimization or fail to yield large savings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a selection function for gravitational-wave population analyses: using the matched-filter SNRs rho_p and rho_HM (computed with simple-pe) to decide which waveform model to use for each event, reserving the most expensive precessing higher-order-multipole model (PhenomXPHM) for events where these effects are measurable. The selection rule is tested on a simulated 90-event 'worst-case' population of high-spin, asymmetric binaries. The authors report that a threshold rho_thres = 1.5 on rho_p and rho_HM yields inferred mass and spin distributions comparable to those obtained by consistently using XPHM, at a reduced computational cost of about 20% for this population, with larger projected savings for more astrophysical populations. The paper includes single-event and hierarchical Bayesian inference methodology, a reweighting-and-conditioning procedure to convert aligned-spin posteriors from XAS/XHM into approximate precessing-spin posteriors, and appendices examining alternative thresholds, a misidentified event, and a GWTC-like population.

Significance. If the central claim is robust, the paper offers a practical and timely way to reduce the growing computational cost of Bayesian GW population inference without biasing mass and spin measurements. The use of publicly available code and posterior samples is a significant strength, as is the choice of a deliberately pessimistic simulated population. The paper also engages with existing literature on model selection and waveform systematics. However, the validation is currently based on a single simulated catalog, the recommended threshold is selected after inspecting the same data, and the spin-reweighting step is validated on only one moderate-precession case while showing visible bias at a nearby threshold. These issues need quantitative and independent testing before the 'unchanged' population-inference claim can be accepted. The paper's practical value is clear, but at present the evidence is suggestive rather than definitive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4, Fig. 5] The recommended threshold rho_thres = 1.5 is chosen after inspecting the results for six thresholds applied to the same 90-event population. The claim that the inferred mass and spin distributions are 'unchanged' rests on visual overlap of 90% credible intervals in a single realization. Since the same data are used to select and to demonstrate performance, this is post-hoc calibration. Please provide an independent validation (e.g., a second simulated population, or a quantitative metric such as the shift in hyperposterior means, a Bayes factor, or a coverage test) that distinguishes 'no detectable difference with 90 events' from 'no bias'.
  2. [Sec. 4, Fig. 4 and App. B] The reweighting-and-conditioning procedure used to convert XAS/XHM aligned-spin posteriors into full spin posteriors is validated only on one moderate-precession case (rho_p = 2.0, rho_HM = 0.6). Appendix B explicitly states that at rho_thres = 2.0 this procedure produces visibly biased spin magnitudes and tilts. Since the same procedure is applied to every event analysed with XAS or XHM at the recommended rho_thres = 1.5, the central claim of unbiased population spin inference depends on this approximation being accurate at the recommended threshold. The manuscript does not quantify the residual bias at rho_thres = 1.5 (e.g., by comparing the reweighted XAS/XHM posteriors to the XPHM posteriors on a population of events with rho_p or rho_HM just below 1.5). Please add such a test.
  3. [App. C] The paper concedes that for a misidentified event with network SNR > 20, XAS would likely recover biased spin estimates, and floats the idea of adding a total-SNR guard ('we could always use XPHM if the total signal power is greater than e.g. 20') but does not implement it. This is a load-bearing caveat because the selection function uses only rho_p and rho_HM, and the worst-case population deliberately contains loud, extreme events. Either implement the total-SNR guard and re-run the population analysis, or demonstrate quantitatively that such loud misidentified events are rare enough in the target population that the population-level spin inference is unaffected.
  4. [Sec. 3 and App. A2] The validation population contains only 90 events, and detectability is modelled by a simplified cut (network SNR > 12) rather than an injection campaign into realistic search pipelines. The 6% false-negative rate is also computed on the same simulated catalog used for the main inference. This is acceptable as a first test, but it means the paper currently demonstrates consistency for one noise realization of one population, not a general property. Please clarify how the quoted 20% cost reduction and the population-level consistency would be affected by a different noise realization, a different population draw, or a more realistic detection selection function.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and throughout] The phrase 'worse-case scenario' appears repeatedly; this should be 'worst-case scenario'.
  2. [Eq. (1)] The definition of chi_p contains a typo: the second term in the max should be A2 * chi_2 * sin(theta_2), not A2 * chi_1 * sin(theta_1).
  3. [Sec. 2.3] The text says 'Bayes factor’s between the different models' and elsewhere uses an apostrophe in plural forms (e.g., 'binary’s'); please correct the grammar.
  4. [Fig. 5 and Fig. B1] The green/orange/dashed line styles may be difficult to distinguish for color-blind readers; consider adding different line types or markers, and ensure the caption explicitly describes the credibility levels.
  5. [Sec. 4] The claim that 'it is unlikely that the uncertainties will shrink enough to expose differences' for O(1000)-event catalogs is speculative. The cited Monte-Carlo error concerns are real, but they do not remove the need for a quantitative null test at the current 90-event scale.
Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities, particles, or forces are introduced. The reweighting/conditioning procedure is an algorithmic step, not an entity. The central free parameters are the threshold choices, which are calibrated on the simulated data.

free parameters (3)
  • rho_thres = 1.5
    Recommended SNR threshold on matched-filter rho_p and rho_HM; chosen post hoc because rho_thres=2.0 produces visible spin biases in the same simulated population (Sec. 4, Figs. 5, B1).
  • detection threshold = SNR > 12
    Events are assumed detectable if total network SNR exceeds 12, replacing full search injection campaigns (Sec. 3, App. A2). This affects which events enter the population and the stated cost savings.
  • significant-effect definition = rho_p = rho_HM = 2.0
    A binary is defined as having significant evidence of precession/higher multipoles when true SNR is >= 2.0 (Sec. 3, Fig. 3). This cut defines false-negative rates.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The simulated worst-case population (90 events, high spins, isotropic tilts, asymmetric masses) is representative of the most challenging population for which the selection criterion must work.
    The paper uses this population to set the threshold and claims it is an upper limit on false negatives (Sec. 3).
  • domain assumption simple-pe matched-filter rho_p and rho_HM reliably measure the observability of precession and higher multipoles in the strain data.
    The selection function depends on these estimates being trustworthy before running expensive inference (Sec. 3, Fig. 3).
  • domain assumption Idealized Gaussian noise and the SNR>12 detection cut are sufficient to validate the method for real detector data.
    All injections use idealized Gaussian noise and no actual search; the paper states the systematic from the detection cut is neglected (App. A2).
  • ad hoc to paper The reweighting-and-conditioning procedure recovers the spin posterior that would have been obtained with a precessing-spin prior.
    This is a new procedure introduced in Sec. 4; its failure at higher thresholds is visible in App. B.
  • domain assumption Waveform models PhenomXAS/XP/XHM/XPHM form a nested set of sufficient approximations to GR for the purposes of inference.
    The whole method assumes that a model containing the relevant physics is unbiased, while simpler models are unbiased only when rho_p, rho_HM are small (Sec. 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconsidering the consistent use of precessing, higher order multipole models for gravitational wave analyses." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NVZIRSO7

@misc{pith2026260118916,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconsidering the consistent use of precessing, higher order multipole models for gravitational wave analyses},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NVZIRSO7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.18916}
}
abstract

The growing number of gravitational-wave (GW) observations allows for constraints to be placed on the underlying population of black holes; current estimates show that black hole spins are small, with binaries more likely to have comparable component masses. Since general relativistic effects, such as spin-induced orbital precession and higher order multipole moments, are more likely to be observed for asymmetric binary systems, a direct measurement remains unlikely. Nevertheless, we continue to consistently probe these effects by performing Bayesian inference with our most accurate and computationally expensive models. As the number of GW detections increases, it may soon become infeasible to consistently use these models for analyses. In this paper, we provide a selection criterion that determines when less accurate and computationally cheaper models can be used without giving biased estimates for the population properties of black holes in the Universe. We show that when using our selection criterion, comparable estimates can be obtained for the underlying mass and spin distribution of black holes for a simulated ``worst-case'' scenario population, while reducing the overall cost of performing Bayesian inference on our population by $\sim 20\%$. We anticipate a reduction of up to $78\%$ in the overall cost for an astrophysically motivated population, since there are fewer events with observable spin-precession and higher order multipole power.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.18916 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Plot showing the amplitude of the plus polarization, h+, for two GW signals when assuming different physics; XAS assumes no spin-precession and higher order multipoles, XP assumes no higher order multipoles, XHM assumes no spin-precession, and XPHM includes both spin-precession and higher order multipoles. The Top panel compares the GW signals for an equal mass ratio binary with small spin magnitudes, χ1 = χ2 = 0.2,… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Plot showing the inferred primary mass and mass ratio when performing Bayesian inference on the GW signals shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Plot comparing the matched filtered SNR in precession ρp and higher order multipoles ρHM to the true SNR for our worst-case scenario population. The shaded red region shows false negatives: a region where we identify the binary as having no evidence for precession and/or higher order multipoles from the filtered SNR despite there being observable features in the signal. The green region shows false positives, true p… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Plot showing the reweighting and conditioning procedure that is applied to the spin magnitude, χ, and spin tilt, cos θ, posterior distributions obtained with XAS and XHM. The posterior distributions were obtained by analysing a simulated GW signal injected into idealis…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Plot comparing the inferred mass and spin distribution for a simulated highly spinning population. The top and middle panels show the inferred distribution for the primary mass m1 and mass ratio q = m2/m1 respectively. The bottom left and bottom right panels show the i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Plot showing the GW signals in our simulated, worst￾case scenario population that were analysed by each model. We show this as a function of ρp and ρHM. We use the recommended SNR threshold of ρthres = 1.5. App. B. As the threshold is further increased, more signif￾ica…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

161 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aasi J., et al., 2015, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 , 32, 074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  2. [2]

    G., et al., 2025d, arXiv:2509.04348

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025d, arXiv:2509.04348

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    G., et al., 2025b, arXiv:2508.18081

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025b, arXiv:2508.18081

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    G., et al., 2025c, arXiv:2508.18083

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025c, arXiv:2508.18083

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    G., et al., 2025e, arXiv:2512.16347

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025e, arXiv:2512.16347

    arXiv

  6. [6]

    G., et al., 2025a, arXiv:2508.18082

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025a, arXiv:2508.18082

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    G., et al., 2025f, @doi [Astrophys

    Abac A. G., et al., 2025f, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d54 , 993, L21

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d54

  8. [8]

    Abbott R., et al., 2020a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043015 , 102, 043015

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043015

Show all 161 references
  1. [9]

    Abbott R., et al., 2020b, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f , 896, L44

    doi

  2. [10]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe949 , 913, L7

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023a, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 , 13, 011048

    doi

  4. [12]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023b, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 , 13, 041039

    doi

  5. [13]

    Abbott R., et al., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001 , 109, 022001

    2024 doi

  6. [14]

    Acernese F., et al., 2015, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 , 32, 024001

    2015 doi

  7. [15]

    Adams T., et al., 2016, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/33/17/175012 , 33, 175012

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/adda3a , 987, 47

    Agarwal A., et al., 2025, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/adda3a , 987, 47

    2025 doi

  9. [17]

    Ajith P., et al., 2011, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.241101 , 106, 241101

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    Ak c ay S., Hoy C., Mac Uilliam J., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/rkgr-psrt , 112, 084032

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Akutsu T., et al., 2021, @doi [PTEP] 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 , 2021, 05A101

    2021 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Cutler C., Sussman G

    Apostolatos T. A., Cutler C., Sussman G. J., Thorne K. S., 1994, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.6274 , 49, 6274

    1994 doi

  13. [21]

    Ashton G., et al., 2019, @doi [Astrophys. J. Suppl.] 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc , 241, 27

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    Babak S., Taracchini A., Buonanno A., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.024010 , 95, 024010

    2017 doi

  15. [23]

    Babak S., Petiteau A., Hewitson M., 2021, arXiv:2108.01167

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Baird E., Fairhurst S., Hannam M., Murphy P., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.024035 , 87, 024035

    2013 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Capano C

    Biwer C. M., Capano C. D., De S., Cabero M., Brown D. A., Nitz A. H., Raymond V., 2019, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.] 10.1088/1538-3873/aaef0b , 131, 024503

    2019 doi

  18. [26]

    Boh\'e A., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044028 , 95, 044028

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    A., 2004, Other thesis ( @eprint arXiv 0705.1514 )

    Brown D. A., 2004, Other thesis ( @eprint arXiv 0705.1514 )

    2004 arXiv

  20. [28]

    M., P \"u rrer M., 2016, @doi [Phys

    Calder \'o n Bustillo J., Husa S., Sintes A. M., P \"u rrer M., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084019 , 93, 084019

    2016 doi

  21. [29]

    E., Gair J

    Canizares P., Field S. E., Gair J. R., Tiglio M., 2013, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.87.124005 , 87, 124005

    2013 doi

  22. [30]

    E., Gair J., Raymond V., Smith R., Tiglio M., 2015, @doi [Phys

    Canizares P., Field S. E., Gair J., Raymond V., Smith R., Tiglio M., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.071104 , 114, 071104

    2015 doi

  23. [31]

    J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136 , 748, 136

    Cannon K., et al., 2012, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.1088/0004-637X/748/2/136 , 748, 136

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    Chatziioannou K., Cornish N., Klein A., Yunes N., 2015, @doi [Astrophys. J. Lett.] 10.1088/2041-8205/798/1/L17 , 798, L17

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    Chu Q., et al., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.024023 , 105, 024023

    2022 doi

  26. [34]

    Chua A. J. K., Vallisneri M., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.041102 , 124, 041102

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Colleoni M., Vidal F. A. R., Garc \' a-Quir \'o s C., Ak c ay S., Bera S., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.104019 , 111, 104019

    2025 doi

  28. [36]

    Colpi M., et al., 2024, arXiv:2402.07571

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    J., 2010, arXiv:1007.4820

    Cornish N. J., 2010, arXiv:1007.4820

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Cornish N. J., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.104054 , 104, 104054

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Cotesta R., Buonanno A., Boh\'e A., Taracchini A., Hinder I., Ossokine S., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084028 , 98, 084028

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    Cotesta R., Marsat S., P\"urrer M., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124040 , 101, 124040

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    R., Gair J., Macke J

    Dax M., Green S. R., Gair J., Macke J. H., Buonanno A., Sch \"o lkopf B., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.241103 , 127, 241103

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    R., Louppe G., 2020, arXiv:2010.12931

    Delaunoy A., Wehenkel A., Hinderer T., Nissanke S., Weniger C., Williamson A. R., Louppe G., 2020, arXiv:2010.12931

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    H., Buonanno A., Estelles H., Gair J., Pfeiffer H

    Dhani A., V \"o lkel S. H., Buonanno A., Estelles H., Gair J., Pfeiffer H. P., Pompili L., Toubiana A., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. X] 10.1103/5pks-qz6b , 15, 031036

    2025 doi

  36. [44]

    K., Dudi R., Tichy W., 2019, @doi [Phys

    Dietrich T., Samajdar A., Khan S., Johnson-McDaniel N. K., Dudi R., Tichy W., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044003 , 100, 044003

    2019 doi

  37. [45]

    Essick R., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043011 , 108, 043011

    2023 doi

  38. [46]

    Essick R., Farr W., 2022, arXiv:2204.00461

    2022 arXiv

  39. [47]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604 , 962, 169

    Essick R., Fishbach M., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604 , 962, 169

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    Estell\'es H., Ramos-Buades A., Husa S., Garc\' a-Quir\'os C., Colleoni M., Haegel L., Jaume R., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.124060 , 103, 124060

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    Estell\'es H., Husa S., Colleoni M., Keitel D., Mateu-Lucena M., Garc\' a-Quir\'os C., Ramos-Buades A., Borchers A., 2022a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084039 , 105, 084039

    doi

  42. [50]

    Estell\'es H., Colleoni M., Garc\' a-Quir\'os C., Husa S., Keitel D., Mateu-Lucena M., Planas M. d. L., Ramos-Buades A., 2022b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.084040 , 105, 084040

    doi

  43. [51]

    Estell \'e s H., Buonanno A., Enficiaud R., Foo C., Pompili L., 2025, arXiv:2506.19911

    2025

  44. [52]

    Fairhurst S., Green R., Hoy C., Hannam M., Muir A., 2020a, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024055 , 102, 024055

    doi

  45. [53]

    Fairhurst S., Green R., Hannam M., Hoy C., 2020b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.041302 , 102, 041302

    doi

  46. [54]

    A., 2023, @doi [Phys

    Fairhurst S., Hoy C., Green R., Mills C., Usman S. A., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.082006 , 108, 082006

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    Fairhurst S., Mills C., Colpi M., Schneider R., Sesana A., Trinca A., Valiante R., 2024, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stae443 , 529, 2116

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    S., Tonolini F., Murray-Smith R., 2022, @doi [Nature Phys.] 10.1038/s41567-021-01425-7 , 18, 112

    Gabbard H., Messenger C., Heng I. S., Tonolini F., Murray-Smith R., 2022, @doi [Nature Phys.] 10.1038/s41567-021-01425-7 , 18, 112

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    Gamboa A., et al., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/jxrc-z298 , 112, 044038

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Garc\' a-Quir\'os C., Colleoni M., Husa S., Estell\'es H., Pratten G., Ramos-Buades A., Mateu-Lucena M., Jaume R., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064002 , 102, 064002

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    Gerosa D., Bellotti M., 2024, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/1361-6382/ad4509 , 41, 125002

    2024 doi

  52. [60]

    M., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Gerosa D., Mould M., Gangardt D., Schmidt P., Pratten G., Thomas L. M., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.064067 , 103, 064067

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    N., MacFarlane A

    Goldberg J. N., MacFarlane A. J., Newman E. T., Rohrlich F., Sudarshan E. C. G., 1967, @doi [J. Math. Phys.] 10.1063/1.1705135 , 8, 2155

    1967 doi

  54. [62]

    R., Gair J., 2021, @doi [Mach

    Green S. R., Gair J., 2021, @doi [Mach. Learn. Sci. Tech.] 10.1088/2632-2153/abfaed , 2, 03LT01

    2021 doi

  55. [63]

    R., Simpson C., Gair J., 2020, @doi [Phys

    Green S. R., Simpson C., Gair J., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104057 , 102, 104057

    2020 doi

  56. [64]

    K., Du Z., Wen L., Gu Y., 2018, @doi [Comput

    Guo X., Chu Q., Chung S. K., Du Z., Wen L., Gu Y., 2018, @doi [Comput. Phys. Commun.] 10.1016/j.cpc.2018.05.002 , 231, 62

    2018 doi

  57. [65]

    Hamilton E., et al., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.124027 , 104, 124027

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    Hamilton E., et al., 2025, arXiv:2507.02604

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Hanna C., et al., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.022003 , 101, 022003

    2020 doi

  60. [68]

    Hannam M., Schmidt P., Boh\'e A., Haegel L., Husa S., Ohme F., Pratten G., P\"urrer M., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.151101 , 113, 151101

    2014 doi

  61. [69]

    Hannam M., et al., 2022, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-022-05212-z , 610, 652

    2022 doi

  62. [70]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    Harry I., Hoy C., 2025, arXiv: 2503.09773

    2025

  64. [72]

    Heinzel J., Vitale S., 2025, arXiv:2509.07221

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Hild S., et al., 2011, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 , 28, 094013

    2011 doi

  66. [74]

    Hoy C., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.083003 , 106, 083003

    2022 doi

  67. [75]

    Hoy C., Leyde K., 2025, arXiv:2511.07551

    2025 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Hoy C., Raymond V., 2021, @doi [SoftwareX] 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100765 , 15, 100765

    2021

  69. [77]

    Hoy C., Mills C., Fairhurst S., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023019 , 106, 023019

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    R., Nuttall L

    Hoy C., Weaving C. R., Nuttall L. K., Harry I., 2024, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/1361-6382/ad8f26 , 41, 245012

    2024 doi

  71. [79]

    E., 2025a, @doi [Nature Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-025-02579-7 , 9, 1256

    Hoy C., Akcay S., Mac Uilliam J., Thompson J. E., 2025a, @doi [Nature Astron.] 10.1038/s41550-025-02579-7 , 9, 1256

    doi

  72. [80]

    Hoy C., Fairhurst S., Mandel I., 2025b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023037 , 111, 023037

    doi

  73. [81]

    D., 2007, @doi [CSE] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    Hunter J. D., 2007, @doi [CSE] 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007CSE.....9...90H 9, 90

    2007 doi

  74. [82]

    Husa S., Khan S., Hannam M., P\"urrer M., Ohme F., Jim\'enez Forteza X., Boh\'e A., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044006 , 93, 044006

    2016 doi

  75. [83]

    Iyer B., et al., 2011, LIGO-India, Proposal of the Consortium for Indian Initiative in Gravitational-wave Observations (IndIGO), DCC, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-M1100296/public

    2011

  76. [84]

    Kalaghatgi C., Hannam M., Raymond V., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103004 , 101, 103004

    2020 doi

  77. [85]

    Khan S., Husa S., Hannam M., Ohme F., P\"urrer M., Jim\'enez Forteza X., Boh\'e A., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.044007 , 93, 044007

    2016 doi

  78. [86]

    Khan S., Chatziioannou K., Hannam M., Ohme F., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024059 , 100, 024059

    2019 doi

  79. [87]

    Khan S., Ohme F., Chatziioannou K., Hannam M., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.024056 , 101, 024056

    2020 doi

  80. [88]

    N., Williams N., Zimmerman A., 2023, arXiv:2312.06009

    Krishna K., Vijaykumar A., Ganguly A., Talbot C., Biscoveanu S., George R. N., Williams N., Zimmerman A., 2023, arXiv:2312.06009

    2023 arXiv

  81. [89]

    V., Ohme F., 2022, @doi [Phys

    Krishnendu N. V., Ohme F., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064012 , 105, 064012

    2022 doi

  82. [90]

    Lange J., O'Shaughnessy R., Rizzo M., 2018, arXiv:1805.10457

    2018 arXiv

  83. [91]

    K., Hooper S., Blair D., Wen L., 2012, @doi [Class

    Liu Y., Du Z., Chung S. K., Hooper S., Blair D., Wen L., 2012, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/29/23/235018 , 29, 235018

    2012 doi

  84. [92]

    London L., et al., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. Lett.] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.161102 , 120, 161102

    2018 doi

  85. [93]

    E., 2024, @doi [Phys

    Mac Uilliam J., Akcay S., Thompson J. E., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.084077 , 109, 084077

    2024 doi

  86. [94]

    Maggiore M., et al., 2020, @doi [JCAP] 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/050 , 03, 050

    2020 doi

  87. [95]

    M., Gair J

    Mandel I., Farr W. M., Gair J. R., 2019, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stz896 , 486, 1086

    2019 doi

  88. [96]

    Matas A., et al., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.043023 , 102, 043023

    2020 doi

  89. [97]

    McIsaac C., Hoy C., Harry I., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123016 , 108, 123016

    2023 doi

  90. [98]

    K., Olsen S., Wadekar D., Roulet J., Venumadhav T., Mushkin J., Zackay B., Zaldarriaga M., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Mehta A. K., Olsen S., Wadekar D., Roulet J., Venumadhav T., Mushkin J., Zackay B., Zaldarriaga M., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.024049 , 111, 024049

    2025 doi

  91. [99]

    Messick C., et al., 2017, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042001 , 95, 042001

    2017 doi

  92. [100]

    Metropolis N., Ulam S., 1949, Journal of the American statistical association, 44, 335

    1949

  93. [101]

    Mills C., Fairhurst S., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.024042 , 103, 024042

    2021 doi

  94. [102]

    K., Kela A., Arun K

    Mishra C. K., Kela A., Arun K. G., Faye G., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084054 , 93, 084054

    2016 doi

  95. [103]

    Morisaki S., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.044062 , 104, 044062

    2021 doi

  96. [104]

    Morisaki S., Smith R., Tsukada L., Sachdev S., Stevenson S., Talbot C., Zimmerman A., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123040 , 108, 123040

    2023 doi

  97. [105]

    J., Gerosa D., 2024, @doi [Phys

    Mould M., Moore C. J., Gerosa D., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063013 , 109, 063013

    2024 doi

  98. [106]

    E., Vitale S., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Mould M., Wolfe N. E., Vitale S., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/xk1z-fxnm , 111, 123049

    2025 doi

  99. [107]

    H., Dent T., Dal Canton T., Fairhurst S., Brown D

    Nitz A. H., Dent T., Dal Canton T., Fairhurst S., Brown D. A., 2017, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f50 , 849, 118

    2017 doi

  100. [108]

    H., Dal Canton T., Davis D., Reyes S., 2018, @doi [Phys

    Nitz A. H., Dal Canton T., Davis D., Reyes S., 2018, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024050 , 98, 024050

    2018 doi

  101. [109]

    H., Kumar S., Wang Y.-F., Kastha S., Wu S., Sch \"a fer M., Dhurkunde R., Capano C

    Nitz A. H., Kumar S., Wang Y.-F., Kastha S., Wu S., Sch \"a fer M., Dhurkunde R., Capano C. D., 2023, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aca591 , 946, 59

    2023 doi

  102. [110]

    Olsen S., Venumadhav T., Mushkin J., Roulet J., Zackay B., Zaldarriaga M., 2022, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043009 , 106, 043009

    2022 doi

  103. [111]

    Ossokine S., et al., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.044055 , 102, 044055

    2020 doi

  104. [112]

    E., Mrou\'e A

    Pan Y., Buonanno A., Taracchini A., Kidder L. E., Mrou\'e A. H., Pfeiffer H. P., Scheel M. A., Szil\'agyi B., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.084006 , 89, 084006

    2014 doi

  105. [113]

    Pankow C., Brady P., Ochsner E., O'Shaughnessy R., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023002 , 92, 023002

    2015 doi

  106. [114]

    G., Tomson S

    Patterson B. G., Tomson S. M., Fairhurst S., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.044073 , 111, 044073

    2025 doi

  107. [115]

    Pompili L., et al., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124035 , 108, 124035

    2023 doi

  108. [116]

    M., 2020a, @doi [Phys

    Pratten G., Schmidt P., Buscicchio R., Thomas L. M., 2020a, @doi [Phys. Rev. Res.] 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043096 , 2, 043096

    doi

  109. [117]

    Pratten G., Husa S., Garcia-Quiros C., Colleoni M., Ramos-Buades A., Estelles H., Jaume R., 2020b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064001 , 102, 064001

    doi

  110. [118]

    Pratten G., et al., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104056 , 103, 104056

    2021 doi

  111. [119]

    Privitera S., et al., 2014, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.024003 , 89, 024003

    2014 doi

  112. [120]

    Punturo M., et al., 2010, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084007 , 27, 084007

    2010 doi

  113. [121]

    P \"u rrer M., Hannam M., Ohme F., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084042 , 93, 084042

    2016 doi

  114. [122]

    Qi H., Raymond V., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.063031 , 104, 063031

    2021 doi

  115. [123]

    Racine E., 2008, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044021 , 78, 044021

    2008 doi

  116. [124]

    P., Ossokine S., Pompili L., Shiferaw M., 2023, @doi [Phys

    Ramos-Buades A., Buonanno A., Estell \'e s H., Khalil M., Mihaylov D. P., Ossokine S., Pompili L., Shiferaw M., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.124037 , 108, 124037

    2023 doi

  117. [125]

    Reitze D., et al., 2019, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc., 51, 035

    2019

  118. [126]

    M., et al., 2020, @doi [Mon

    Romero-Shaw I. M., et al., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa2850 , 499, 3295

    2020 doi

  119. [127]

    Sachdev S., et al., 2019, arXiv:1901.08580

    2019 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Schmidt P., Ohme F., Hannam M., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024043 , 91, 024043

    2015 doi

  121. [129]

    K., Kapadia S

    Singh M. K., Kapadia S. J., Vijaykumar A., Ajith P., 2024, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad499b , 971, 23

    2024 doi

  122. [130]

    K., Patterson B

    Singh M. K., Patterson B. G., Fairhurst S., 2025, arXiv:2512.07688

    2025

  123. [131]

    AIP , @doi 10.1063/1.1835238 , https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1835238

    Skilling J., 2004, in AIP Conference Proceedings. AIP , @doi 10.1063/1.1835238 , https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1835238

    2004 doi

  124. [132]

    Skilling J., 2006, @doi [Bayesian Analysis] 10.1214/06-BA127 , 1, 833

    2006 doi

  125. [133]

    E., Blackburn K., Haster C.-J., P \"u rrer M., Raymond V., Schmidt P., 2016, @doi [Phys

    Smith R., Field S. E., Blackburn K., Haster C.-J., P \"u rrer M., Raymond V., Schmidt P., 2016, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044031 , 94, 044031

    2016 doi

  126. [134]

    S., 2020, @doi [Mon

    Speagle J. S., 2020, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staa278 , 493, 3132

    2020 doi

  127. [135]

    Talbot C., Golomb J., 2023, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/stad2968 , 526, 3495

    2023 doi

  128. [136]

    J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c , 856, 173

    Talbot C., Thrane E., 2018, @doi [Astrophys. J.] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c , 856, 173

    2018 doi

  129. [137]

    B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043030 , 100, 043030

    Talbot C., Smith R., Thrane E., Poole G. B., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043030 , 100, 043030

    2019 doi

  130. [138]

    M., Schmidt P., Pratten G., 2021, @doi [Phys

    Thomas L. M., Schmidt P., Pratten G., 2021, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083022 , 103, 083022

    2021 doi

  131. [139]

    E., Fauchon-Jones E., Khan S., Nitoglia E., Pannarale F., Dietrich T., Hannam M., 2020, @doi [Phys

    Thompson J. E., Fauchon-Jones E., Khan S., Nitoglia E., Pannarale F., Dietrich T., Hannam M., 2020, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124059 , 101, 124059

    2020 doi

  132. [140]

    E., Hamilton E., London L., Ghosh S., Kolitsidou P., Hoy C., Hannam M., 2024, @doi [Phys

    Thompson J. E., Hamilton E., London L., Ghosh S., Kolitsidou P., Hoy C., Hannam M., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063012 , 109, 063012

    2024 doi

  133. [141]

    E., Hoy C., Fauchon-Jones E., Hannam M., 2025, @doi [Phys

    Thompson J. E., Hoy C., Fauchon-Jones E., Hannam M., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/ddz7-x9zz , 112, 064011

    2025 doi

  134. [142]

    S., 1980, @doi [Rev

    Thorne K. S., 1980, @doi [Rev. Mod. Phys.] 10.1103/RevModPhys.52.299 , 52, 299

    1980 doi

  135. [143]

    Thrane E., Talbot C., 2019, @doi [Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.] 10.1017/pasa.2019.2 , 36, e010

    2019 doi

  136. [144]

    Tiwari V., 2018, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/1361-6382/aac89d , 35, 145009

    2018 doi

  137. [145]

    Tiwari V., Hoy C., Fairhurst S., MacLeod D., 2023, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.023001 , 108, 023001

    2023 doi

  138. [146]

    K., 2025, arXiv:2510.15048

    Ursell R., Hoy C., Harry I., Nuttall L. K., 2025, arXiv:2510.15048

    2025

  139. [147]

    A., et al., 2016, @doi [Class

    Usman S. A., et al., 2016, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/0264-9381/33/21/215004 , 33, 215004

    2016 doi

  140. [148]

    E., Scheel M

    Varma V., Field S. E., Scheel M. A., Blackman J., Gerosa D., Stein L. C., Kidder L. E., Pfeiffer H. P., 2019a, @doi [Phys. Rev. Research.] 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033015 , 1, 033015

    doi

  141. [149]

    E., Scheel M

    Varma V., Field S. E., Scheel M. A., Blackman J., Kidder L. E., Pfeiffer H. P., 2019b, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.064045 , 99, 064045

    doi

  142. [150]

    Veitch J., et al., 2015, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.042003 , 91, 042003

    2015 doi

  143. [151]

    Vinciguerra S., Veitch J., Mandel I., 2017, @doi [Class. Quant. Grav.] 10.1088/1361-6382/aa6d44 , 34, 115006

    2017 doi

  144. [152]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  145. [153]

    Vitale S., Mould M., 2025, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/drsl-n3wz , 112, 083015

    2025 doi

  146. [154]

    M., Taylor S

    Vitale S., Gerosa D., Farr W. M., Taylor S. R., 2020, @doi [arXiv:2007.05579] 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_45-1

    2020 arXiv

  147. [155]

    J., 2025, arXiv: 2511.04218

    Williams M. J., 2025, arXiv: 2511.04218

    2025 arXiv

  148. [156]

    J., Karamanis M., Luo Y., Seljak U., 2025, @doi [Mon

    Williams M. J., Karamanis M., Luo Y., Seljak U., 2025, @doi [Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.] 10.1093/mnras/staf1458 , 1479, 1493

    2025 doi

  149. [157]

    E., Mould M., Heinzel J., Vitale S., 2025, arXiv:2510.06220

    Wolfe N. E., Mould M., Heinzel J., Vitale S., 2025, arXiv:2510.06220

    2025

  150. [158]

    Wysocki D., Lange J., O'Shaughnessy R., 2019, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043012 , 100, 043012

    2019 doi

  151. [159]

    B., Shaughnessy R

    Yelikar A. B., Shaughnessy R. O., Lange J., Jan A. Z., 2024, @doi [Phys. Rev. D] 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.064024 , 110, 064024

    2024 doi

  152. [160]

    Zackay B., Dai L., Venumadhav T., 2018, arXiv:1806.08792

    2018 arXiv

  153. [161]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.stat...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.