Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 83 references

Minute-late gravitational-wave masses match the slow full analysis.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 07:20 UTC pith:RXUSBZEG

load-bearing objection Honest, well-tested low-latency PE pipeline; the source-frame distance rescaling is the real caveat and needs a targeted fix before I'd call the headline claims fully earned. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2601.20512 v3 pith:RXUSBZEG submitted 2026-01-28 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Enhancing online estimation of CBC parameters with the low-latency MBTA analysis

Florian Aubin , In\`es Bentara , Damir Buskulic , Gianluca M Guidi , Vincent Juste , Morgan Lethuillier , Fr\'ed\'erique Marion , Lorenzo Mobilia
show 4 more authors
Beno\^it Mours Amazigh Ouzriat Thomas Sainrat Viola Sordini
This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.IM MSC 83C35 PACS 04.30.-w04.80.Nn
keywords gravitational wavescompact binary coalescencelow-latency parameter estimationmatched filteringtemplate banksSNR optimizationsource classificationneutron star-black hole
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that a low-latency gravitational-wave search pipeline can produce its own source-parameter posterior distributions—component masses, spins, and source class—in one to two minutes after the signal arrives, rather than the hours-to-days needed for full Bayesian inference. The authors argue that after a candidate is found, filtering a dense, locally adapted template bank twice and treating the recovered signal-to-noise ratios as a likelihood surface gives posteriors nearly equivalent to the offline analysis. On 71 real events from the first half of the fourth observing run, the paper reports a median 92% overlap of the source-frame mass posteriors with the collaboration's published results, and a jump in correct neutron-star–black-hole classification from 50% to 91% on their injected population. If the claim holds, public alerts could carry calibrated masses and classes minutes after a merger, letting electromagnetic follow-up skip the slow step that currently decides which events to chase.

Core claim

The central claim is that the search itself can become a fast parameter estimator by re-filtering the data with a bespoke dense bank. The bank is built in dimensionless chirp-time coordinates, where a universal set of template locations is projected through the metric at the initial trigger, so placement takes about a second. A first iteration scans uniformly to correct for bank boundaries and search misestimates; a second concentrates templates around the first pass's best point. Filter outputs feed a likelihood comparing each template's recovered SNR with the loudest template's, and a Jacobian prior reweighting yields detector-frame posteriors. These convert to source-frame using the rapid

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the SNR optimizer: a hierarchical, metric-guided template densification. In the dimensionless chirp-time basis θ = (θ0, θ3, θ3s), the distance between templates is Euclidean once the Fisher metric is diagonalized, so a pre-generated universal sphere of samples can be projected to physical masses and spins in about a second. The first pass covers the space uniformly; the second pass places templates with density proportional to the expected matched-filter likelihood, effectively targeting the posterior mass. Reweighting the filter outputs by the template density and the Jacobian prior is what converts a discrete scan of SNR values into a probability distribution.

Load-bearing premise

The pipeline leans on a single untested rescaling: the distance posterior from the rapid sky localization, computed at one template, is assumed to transform to any other mass by a chirp-mass power law—and the paper's own high-redshift, high-mass example shows this can shift masses enough to cut the mass-posterior overlap to 69%.

What would settle it

Take a set of events, compute the pipeline's source-frame masses as described, then compare the underlying luminosity-distance distribution (before mass conversion) with the distance posterior from the full Bayesian analysis. If the two distance distributions disagree on high-redshift or high-mass events beyond statistical scatter, the homothetic rescaling is falsified, and with it the source-frame masses and classification probabilities that depend on it.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • Public alerts in ongoing and future runs can include estimated masses, spins, and source classes within about two minutes of the signal.
  • Neutron-star–black-hole candidates become distinguishable from black-hole binaries with roughly 91% accuracy, sharpening electromagnetic follow-up decisions.
  • The roughly 2.5% median network-SNR gain systematically improves sky maps (about 3.5% smaller searched areas), aiding localization.
  • The same bank-projection and reweighting scheme could be adopted by other matched-filter searches, since it depends only on the metric and the filter outputs.
  • The online implementation described is already operating and uploading updated results, so the claimed latency applies to real alerts.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper leaves untested whether the homothetic distance rescaling is valid; comparing the pipeline-derived distance posterior against the full analysis on low- and high-redshift events would isolate where the 92% median overlap degrades.
  • If the dense-filter approximation holds, matched-filter SNR landscapes could serve as lightweight surrogates for full Bayesian inference on a growing parameter set, including precessing spins, at a computational cost that scales with template count alone.
  • The rare bank-exclusion events imply a monitoring statistic: the probability–probability plot tail could be tracked per event in real time to flag candidates whose initial trigger misled the bank, prompting a fallback to a wider scan.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper describes the MBTA low-latency SNR optimizer and a matched-filter-based posterior estimation method. The SNR optimizer builds dense local template banks via a two-pass hierarchical scheme, using metric-projected universal template banks. The PE method reweights the measured filter outputs by the template density and an LVK-style agnostic prior, yielding detector-frame posteriors; these are converted to source frame using Bayestar's distance posterior and a homothetic rescaling of the luminosity distance. The method is validated on O4a injections (pop-1 and pop-2) and applied to 71 O4a events, reporting a median 92% overlap with LVK source-frame (m1,m2) posteriors, improved NSBH classification (91% vs 50% on pop-1), and a ~2.5% median network-SNR gain. The paper also reports latency figures from the O4c online implementation.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a practically valuable contribution: it would give the LVK alert system the ability to release mass estimates and calibrated classifications within 1-2 minutes of a candidate, materially aiding electromagnetic follow-up triage. The paper's strengths are its broad validation (1,000 injections, 71 real events, online implementation), its honest disclosure of known deviations (P-P tails, six low-overlap events, configuration differences), and its use of externally defined priors and independent ground truth. The central SNR-gain and sky-localization improvements are well documented. The main weakness is the source-frame distance conversion, which is an unvalidated approximation that fails on at least one real event; since source-frame masses feed the classification and property claims, this issue is load-bearing.

major comments (2)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (29)-(30)] The source-frame conversion rests on the homothetic rescaling of Bayestar's luminosity-distance posterior, computed for the highest-SNR template, via d_L,eff = f(z) (m_chirp,det_highest / [m_chirp_src(1+z)])^(5/3), and on the identification p_z(z|m_s) = p_z(z_eff). This assumes (i) the distance posterior's shape is invariant under the rescaling, and (ii) the chirp-mass scaling fully captures the mass dependence of the amplitude. Neither is validated in the paper. The O4a comparison provides direct counter-evidence: for GW230922 040658 (z~1, M_tot~125 M_sun), Sec. 4.4 reports that the source luminosity distance is underestimated, shifting source-frame masses and reducing the (m1,m2) overlap to 69%. Because source-frame masses feed the HasMassGap/HasNS probabilities and the BNS/NSBH/BBH classification - the two headline products - the unvalidated distance rescaling is load-bearing. Please
  2. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 7] The P-P plots for pop-1 show significant deviations from the diagonal for the symmetric mass ratio and effective spin (Fig. 7a). The authors attribute this to prior sensitivity, noting that pop-2 (resampled to the prior) is consistent (Fig. 7b), and also mention 'rare cases' where the true parameters fall outside the SNR-optimizer bank. The paper does not quantify how often this exclusion occurs, nor does it show the impact on the classification/property claims. Since the pop-1 set is the one used for the NSBH classification improvement (Fig. 10b), the calibration gap should be quantified and discussed in relation to the classification results.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. 3.1] Typo: 'reutlting' should be 'resulting'. Also 'p astro' in Sec. 3.3 has an unnecessary space.
  2. [Sec. 2.4 and App. A.2] The quantity \tilde{\rho} appears in Eq. (16) and is defined in App. A.2, but its first use in Sec. 2.4 would benefit from a forward reference or brief definition.
  3. [Sec. 4.4, Eq. (11)] The overlap metric is a binned Bhattacharyya coefficient; the sensitivity of the reported median (0.92) to the binning choice is not discussed. Please add a sentence on robustness.
  4. [Sec. 5.1] 'The variances of the bias decrease' is unclear; suggest rewording to 'the bias and its variance decrease'.
  5. [Appendix C] When referring to 'the highest-SNR trigger', please specify explicitly that this is the trigger from the second SNR-optimizer iteration (or clarify if another iteration is meant).
  6. [General] References [31] and [41] are URLs without access dates; please add retrieval dates or use persistent identifiers where available.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the PE pipeline is validated against independent injections and LVK full posterior results, and no load-bearing claim reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. Section 3.1 uses the standard matched-filter likelihood (Eq. 10) with the externally defined LVK agnostic prior (Appendix B), then reweights by the actual template density (Eq. 20); the posterior is therefore not forced by construction. The adaptive bank placement (Section 2) is hierarchical, and the second-iteration density (Eq. 16) is explicitly divided out, so the PE result does not reduce to the bank-generation rule. The only non-trivial approximation is the source-frame conversion in Appendix C: Eq. 29 rescales Bayestar's luminosity-distance posterior by the chirp-mass amplitude dependence and Eq. 28 asserts shape invariance. This is an unvalidated physical assumption, not a fitted parameter or a self-referential definition; the paper's own Section 4.4 documents its failure for GW230922 040658 (overlap 69%), which is a correctness/accuracy risk rather than circularity. Similarly, the disclosed bank-exclusion effects on the P-P tails (Section 4.3) are robustness limitations. The headline claims are benchmarked against independent ground truth: O4a LVK common injections (pop-1/pop-2) for SNR, sky localization, classification, and P-P tests, and GWTC-4.0 full Bayesian posteriors for the 71 O4a events. No 'uniqueness theorem' from the authors is invoked, and the self-citations to the MBTA search [13] and O4 banks [45] describe the pipeline's own infrastructure rather than carrying the validation. Thus no circular step can be exhibited.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new physics entities are postulated; the ledger contains design/tuning choices and domain assumptions. The free parameters (bank sizes, minimal match, sampling-shape constants, scaling vector S, prior clipping) are engineering knobs, most of which changed between the early-O4c and final configurations (Section 5.1) - an honest disclosure that they are not unique. The physical assumptions are the 3-parameter (m1,m2,chi_r) reduction with equal aligned spins (Eq. 8), the quadratic metric (Eq. 5) governing placement, the stationary-Gaussian matched-filter likelihood (Eq. 10), the adopted LVK agnostic prior, and the Bayestar-distance-based redshift conversion (Eqs. 27-30). The last is the most fragile, since its failure is directly observed for one real event.

free parameters (5)
  • Second-pass bank shape constants k and rho_max_tilde = k = 0.4 (safety factor); rho_max_tilde = 15
    Eqs. 16-17 configure second-pass template density to track the likelihood; k and rho_max_tilde are hand-chosen to broaden the bank. Section 5.1 shows the online O4c version used a fixed variance of 0.2 (SNR ~ 3.5) instead, so these are tuning choices, not derived.
  • Template bank sizes and minimal match = 4000 (pass 1), 7000 (pass 2); minimal match 98%
    Section 2.4 / Appendix A.2 set bank sizes and spacing to balance cost and coverage; the early O4c version used half the pass-1 points, confirming these are adjustable design parameters.
  • Universal-space scaling vector S = S = (1,1,2) pass 1; (1,1,1) pass 2
    Section 2.4 / Appendix A.3: the third-dimension stretch probes theta_3s (mass-ratio/spin coupling) because metric variations there are underestimated; compensated by generating a denser bank.
  • Prior clipping parameters = q <= 0.99; |chi_z| >= 0.001
    Appendix B: clips the divergence of the Jacobian at eta = 0.25 and of the spin prior at chi_z = 0; regularization constants, not data-derived.
  • Filtering band and waveform-model split = 24-2048 Hz (20 Hz for M_tot > 30 Msun); SpinTaylorT4 below 4 Msun, SEOBNR v4opt above
    Section 2.3: configuration choices affecting recovered SNR and posteriors; adopted from MBTA search design, not fitted in this paper.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Quadratic metric approximation M ≈ 1 - g_mu_nu Delta-lambda^mu Delta-lambda^nu (Eq. 5) holds over the bank region
    Section 2.2 / Appendix A: template placement and universal-bank projection rely on this local Taylor expansion; the paper notes fast metric variations in some dimensions cause a few percent of sources to fall outside the bank.
  • domain assumption Reduced 3-parameter intrinsic space: waveforms determined by (m1, m2, chi_r) with equal aligned spins chi1 = chi2 (Eq. 8)
    All templates restrict to the equal-spin effective-spin manifold; the Appendix B prior likewise assumes a single chi_z component. Real binaries need not satisfy this, so individual-spin posterior structure is limited by construction.
  • domain assumption Stationary Gaussian noise and likelihood form of Eq. 10
    Section 3.1: posterior = matched-filter likelihood maximized over extrinsic parameters, cited to McWilliams et al. [63]; non-Gaussian noise is the stated cause of several low-overlap O4a events (Section 4.4).
  • domain assumption Bayestar distance posterior on the highest-SNR template is usable, after the 5/3 homothetic rescale, as the redshift prior for all masses
    Appendix C, Eqs. 27-30: the whole source-frame conversion rests on this; the paper documents one high-z failure (GW230922, overlap 69%), so the assumption is known to fail in part of parameter space.
  • domain assumption Waveform models SpinTaylorT4 / SEOBNR v4opt faithfully represent signals in the search band
    Section 2.3 and Section 4.4: waveform-model dependence is acknowledged as a source of disagreement with LVK results (GW231123, the most massive BBH).
  • domain assumption The LVK agnostic prior (uniform detector-frame masses, isotropic spins) is the correct target prior
    Section 3.1 / Appendix B: adopted for comparability with [5]; the pop-1 vs pop-2 P-P difference shows the eta and chi_eff posteriors are sensitive to this choice, with pop-1 (realistic population) deviating from the diagonal.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23831 in / 21592 out tokens · 234314 ms · 2026-08-03T07:20:18.083326+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancing online estimation of CBC parameters with the low-latency MBTA analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RXUSBZEG

@misc{pith2026260120512,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancing online estimation of CBC parameters with the low-latency MBTA analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RXUSBZEG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.20512}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

In this paper, we describe the procedure implemented in the Multi-Band Template Analysis (MBTA) search pipeline to produce online posterior distributions of compact binary coalescence (CBC) gravitational-wave parameters. This procedure relies on an SNR optimizer technique, which consists of filtering dense local template banks. We present how these banks are constructed using information from the initial detection and detail how the results of the filtering are used to estimate source parameters and provide posterior distributions. We demonstrate the performance of our procedure on simulations and compare our source parameter estimates with the results from the first part of the fourth observing run (O4a) recently released by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) collaboration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20512 by Amazigh Ouzriat, Beno\^it Mours, Damir Buskulic, Florian Aubin, Fr\'ed\'erique Marion, Gianluca M Guidi, In\`es Bentara, Lorenzo Mobilia, Morgan Lethuillier, Thomas Sainrat, Vincent Juste, Viola Sordini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Illustration of the SNR optimizer bank construction process for GW230529 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Prior probability distribution of the templates [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization of the parameter inference ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of the network SNR ratio between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of the 90% credible region ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Distribution of the searched area ratio between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: P–P plots for key parameters recovered by the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Distribution of overlaps between MBTA and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparison of 90% symmetric credible intervals for source-frame component masses between LVK (green) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Confusion matrices of source classification for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of P–P plots for mass ratio and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: ROC curves of source properties made with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Upload latency from MBTA to GraceDB between June 13 and September 05, 2025. Solid (dashed) lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

83 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Aasi et al

    J. Aasi et al. Advanced LIGO.Classical and Quan- tum Gravity, 32(7):074001, March 2015. ISSN 1361-

    2015

  2. [2]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detec- tor.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(2):024001, December 2014. ISSN 1361-6382. doi:10.1088/ 0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2014

  3. [3]

    Aso et al

    Y. Aso et al. Interferometer design of the KA- GRA gravitational wave detector.Phys. Rev. D, 88:043007, Aug 2013. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.88. 043007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88 2013

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. GW150914: First results from the search for binary black hole coalescence with Ad- vanced LIGO.Phys. Rev. D, 93:122003, Jun 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.122003 2016

  5. [5]

    A. G. Abac et al. GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Obser- vations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO- Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run. 2025. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2508.18082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18082 2025

  6. [6]

    A. H. Nitz, T. Dal Canton, D. Davis, et al. Rapid de- tection of gravitational waves from compact binary mergers with PyCBC Live.Phys. Rev. D, 98:024050, Jul 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024050

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.024050 2018

  7. [7]

    Dal Canton, A

    T. Dal Canton, A. H. Nitz, B. Gadre, et al. Real- time Search for Compact Binary Mergers in Ad- vanced LIGO and Virgo’s Third Observing Run Using PyCBC Live.The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 923(2):254, dec 2021. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ ac2f9a

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2021

  8. [9]

    Sachdev, S

    S. Sachdev, S. Caudill, H. Fong, et al. The Gst- LAL Search Analysis Methods for Compact Binary Mergers in Advanced LIGO’s Second and Advanced Virgo’s First Observing Runs, 2019

    2019

  9. [10]

    Ewing, R

    B. Ewing, R. Huxford, D. Singh, et al. Performance of the low-latency GstLAL inspiral search towards 18 LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth observing run. Phys. Rev. D, 109:042008, Feb 2024. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.042008

    2024

  10. [12]

    Hooper, S

    S. Hooper, S. K. Chung, J. Luan, et al. Summed par- allel infinite impulse response filters for low-latency detection of chirping gravitational waves.Phys. Rev. D, 86:024012, Jul 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86. 024012

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.86 2012

  11. [13]

    All´ en´ e, F

    C. All´ en´ e, F. Aubin, I. Bentara, et al. The MBTA pipeline for detecting compact binary coalescences in the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42(10):105009, may

  12. [14]

    Klimenko, S

    S. Klimenko, S. Mohanty, M. Rakhmanov, et al. Constraint likelihood analysis for a network of grav- itational wave detectors.Phys. Rev. D, 72:122002, Dec 2005. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.122002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.72.122002 2005

  13. [15]

    Klimenko, G

    S. Klimenko, G. Vedovato, M. Drago, et al. Method for detection and reconstruction of gravitational wave transients with networks of advanced detec- tors.Phys. Rev. D, 93:042004, Feb 2016. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.042004 2016

  14. [16]

    Lynch, S

    R. Lynch, S. Vitale, R. Essick, et al. Information- theoretic approach to the gravitational-wave burst detection problem.Phys. Rev. D, 95:104046, May

  15. [17]

    Skliris, M

    V. Skliris, M. R. K. Norman, and P. J. Sutton. Real- Time Detection of Unmodelled Gravitational-Wave Transients Using Convolutional Neural Networks, 2024

    2024

  16. [18]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848(2):L12, October 2017. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  17. [20]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. GW170817: Observation of Grav- itational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star In- spiral.Physical Review Letters, 119(16), October

  18. [21]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gravitational Waves and Gamma-Rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger: GW170817 and GRB 170817A.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848(2):L13, October 2017. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  19. [22]

    Troja, L

    E. Troja, L. Piro, H. van Eerten, et al. The X-ray counterpart to the gravitational-wave event GW170817.Nature, 551(7678):71–74, October 2017. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/nature24290

    doi:10.1038/nature24290 2017

  20. [23]

    Soares-Santos et al

    M. Soares-Santos et al. The Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Binary Neutron Star Merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. I. Discovery of the Optical Counterpart Using the Dark Energy Camera.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848(2):L16, October

  21. [24]

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119

    ISSN 1079-7114. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119. 161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119

  22. [25]

    Nicholl et al

    M. Nicholl et al. The Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Binary Neutron Star Merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. III. Optical and UV Spectra of a Blue Kilonova from Fast Polar Ejecta.The Astrophysi- cal Journal Letters, 848(2):L18, October 2017. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa9029 2017

  23. [26]

    Watson, C

    D. Watson, C. J. Hansen, J. Selsing, et al. Identifi- cation of strontium in the merger of two neutron stars.Nature, 574(7779):497–500, October 2019. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3

    doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1676-3 2019

  24. [27]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. GW170817: Measurements of Neu- tron Star Radii and Equation of State.Physical Review Letters, 121(16), October 2018. ISSN 1079-

    2018

  25. [28]

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ aa9059

    ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ aa9059

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ 2041

  26. [29]

    P. S. Cowperthwaite et al. The Electromagnetic Counterpart of the Binary Neutron Star Merger LIGO/Virgo GW170817. II. UV, Optical, and Near- infrared Light Curves and Comparison to Kilonova Models.The Astrophysical Journal, 848(2):L17, October 2017. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/ 2041-8213/aa8fc7

    2017

  27. [30]

    Kalogera et al

    V. Kalogera et al. The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observatory: The Science Book, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2111.06990. 19

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2111.06990 2021

  28. [31]

    LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Pub- lic Alerts User Guide.https://emfollow.docs

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration Virgo Collaboration KAGRA Collaboration. LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Pub- lic Alerts User Guide.https://emfollow.docs. ligo.org/userguide/index.html

  29. [32]

    S. J. Kapadia, S. Caudill, J. D. E. Creighton, et al. A self-consistent method to estimate the rate of compact binary coalescences with a Pois- son mixture model.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 37(4):045007, January 2020. ISSN 1361-6382. doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f2d

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f2d 2020

  30. [33]

    Andres, M

    N. Andres, M. Assiduo, F. Aubin, et al. As- sessing the compact-binary merger candidates re- ported by the MBTA pipeline in the LIGO–Virgo O3 run: probability of astrophysical origin, clas- sification, and associated uncertainties.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 39(5):055002, February 2022. ISSN 1361-6382. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac482a

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac482a 2022

  31. [34]

    B. P. Abbott et al. A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant.Nature, 551(7678):85–88, October 2017. ISSN 1476-4687. doi:10.1038/nature24471

    doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  32. [35]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Ad- vanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA.Living Reviews in Relativity, 23(1), September 2020. ISSN 1433-8351. doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2020

  33. [36]

    Veitch, V

    J. Veitch, V. Raymond, B. Farr, et al. Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInfer- ence software library.Phys. Rev. D, 91:042003, Feb

  34. [37]

    Pankow, P

    C. Pankow, P. Brady, E. Ochsner, et al. Novel scheme for rapid parallel parameter estimation of gravitational waves from compact binary coales- cences.Physical Review D, 92(2), July 2015. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.023002 2015

  35. [38]

    C. A. Rose, V. Valsan, P. R. Brady, et al. Sup- plementing rapid Bayesian parameter estimation schemes with adaptive grids, 2022. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2201.05263

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2201.05263 2022

  36. [39]

    Ashton, M

    G. Ashton, M. H¨ ubner, P. D. Lasky, et al. Bilby: A User-friendly Bayesian Inference Library for Gravitational-wave Astronomy.The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241(2):27, apr 2019. doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  37. [40]

    Villa-Ortega, T

    V. Villa-Ortega, T. Dent, and A. Curiel Barroso. Rapid source classification and distance estima- tion for compact binary mergers with PyCBC live. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 515(4):5718–5729, July 2022. ISSN 1365-2966. doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2120

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2120 2022

  38. [42]

    B. Moe, P. Brady, B. Stephens, E. Katsavounidis, R. Williams, and F. Zhang. GraceDB: A Gravitational Wave Candidate Event Database.https://dcc. ligo.org/LIGO-T1400365/public

  39. [43]

    B. P. Abbott et al. The Rate of Binary Black Hole Mergers Inferred from Advanced LIGO Obser- vations Surrounding GW150914.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 833(1):L1, November 2016. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/l1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/l1 2016

  40. [44]

    L. P. Singer and L. R. Price. Rapid Bayesian position reconstruction for gravitational-wave tran- sients.Physical Review D, 93(2), January 2016. ISSN 2470-0029. doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.024013

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.024013 2016

  41. [45]

    and others

    Aubin F. and others. MBTA O4 uber banks con- struction and formatting documentation.https: //tds.virgo-gw.eu/?r=21720

  42. [46]

    A. Tolley. Improving the Detection of Gravitational- Wave Signals in Real Time, 2025. doi:10.48550/ arXiv.2503.21417

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2503.21417 2025

  43. [47]

    A. G. Abac et al. GWTC-4.0: Methods for Identi- fying and Characterizing Gravitational-wave Tran- sients. 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.18081

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18081 2025

  44. [48]

    GraceDB.https:// gracedb.ligo.org/

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration Virgo Collaboration KAGRA Collaboration. GraceDB.https:// gracedb.ligo.org/

  45. [49]

    B. J. Owen and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Matched filter- ing of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Computational cost and template place- ment.Physical Review D, 60(2), June 1999. ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.022002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.022002 1999

  46. [50]

    B. R. Iyer and C. M. Will. Post-Newtonian grav- itational radiation reaction for two-body systems. Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:113–116, Jan 1993. doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.70.113

    1993

  47. [51]

    Blanchet, G

    L. Blanchet, G. Faye, Q. Henry, et al. Gravitational- Wave Phasing of Quasicircular Compact Binary Systems to the Fourth-and-a-Half Post-Newtonian Order.Physical Review Letters, 131(12), September

  48. [52]

    P. Ajith. Addressing the spin question in gravitational-wave searches: Waveform templates for inspiralling compact binaries with nonprecess- ing spins.Physical Review D, 84(8), October 2011. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.084037

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.084037 2011

  49. [53]

    Ajith, N

    P. Ajith, N. Fotopoulos, S. Privitera, et al. Ef- fectual template bank for the detection of gravita- tional waves from inspiralling compact binaries with generic spins.Physical Review D, 89(8), April 2014. ISSN 1550-2368. doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.084041

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.084041 2014

  50. [54]

    B. J. Owen. Search templates for gravitational waves from inspiraling binaries: Choice of template spacing.Physical Review D, 53(12):6749–6761, June

  51. [55]

    Effectual template banks for up- coming compact binary searches in advanced-ligo and virgo data.Physical Review D, 99:024048, 01

    Roy, Soumen and Sengupta, Anand and Ajith, Parameswaran. Effectual template banks for up- coming compact binary searches in advanced-ligo and virgo data.Physical Review D, 99:024048, 01

  52. [56]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. Flanagan. Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspi- ral waveform?Physical Review D, 49(6):2658–2697, March 1994. ISSN 0556-2821. doi:10.1103/physrevd. 49.2658

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 1994

  53. [57]

    Klein, N

    A. Klein, N. Cornish, and N. Yunes. Fast frequency- domain waveforms for spin-precessing binary inspi- rals.Phys. Rev. D, 90:124029, Dec 2014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.124029

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.124029 2014

  54. [58]

    Devine, Z

    C. Devine, Z. B. Etienne, and S. T. McWilliams. Optimizing spinning time-domain gravitational waveforms for advanced LIGO data analysis.Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity, 33(12):125025, May

  55. [59]

    S. S. Chaudhary, , et al. Low-latency gravitational wave alert products and their performance at the time of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observing run. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(18), April 2024. ISSN 1091-6490. doi:10.1073/ pnas.2316474121

    2024

  56. [60]

    Margalit and B

    B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger. The Multi- messenger Matrix: The Future of Neutron Star Merger Constraints on the Nuclear Equation of State.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 880(1):L15, July 2019. ISSN 2041-8213. doi:10. 3847/2041-8213/ab2ae2

    2019

  57. [61]

    Toivonen, G

    A. Toivonen, G. Mansingh, H. Griffin, et al. What to Expect: Kilonova Light Curve Predic- tions via Equation of State Marginalization.Pub- lications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 137(3):034506, March 2025. ISSN 1538-3873. doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/adbcd7

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/adbcd7 2025

  58. [62]

    Morisaki, R

    S. Morisaki, R. Smith, L. Tsukada, et al. Rapid localization and inference on compact binary coa- lescences with the Advanced LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational-wave detector network.Phys. Rev. D, 108:123040, Dec 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108. 123040

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108 2023

  59. [63]

    S. Roy, A. S. Sengupta, and N. Thakor. Hy- brid geometric-random template-placement algo- rithm for gravitational wave searches from compact binary coalescences.Physical Review D, 95(10), May

  60. [64]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95

    ISSN 2470-0029. doi:10.1103/physrevd.95. 104045

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95

  61. [65]

    Krolak and B

    A. Krolak and B. F. Schutz. Coalescing bina- ries—Probe of the universe.General Relativity and Gravitation, 19(12):1163–1171, December 1987. doi: 10.1007/BF00759095

    doi:10.1007/bf00759095 1987

  62. [66]

    P. A. R. Ade et al. Planck2015 results: XIII. Cos- mological parameters.Astronomy and Astrophysics, 594:A13, September 2016. ISSN 1432-0746. doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  63. [67]

    A. G. Abac et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Com- pact Object and a Neutron Star.The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 970(2):L34, July 2024. ISSN 2041-

    2024

  64. [68]

    Essick, M

    R. Essick, M. W. Coughlin, M. Zevin, et al. Compact Binary Coalescence Sensitivity Estimates with Injection Campaigns during the LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA Collaborations’ Fourth Observing Run

  65. [69]

    Bhattacharyya

    A. Bhattacharyya. On a measure of divergence be- tween two multinomial populations.Sankhy¯ a: The Indian Journal of Statistics (1933-1960), 7(4):401– 406, 1946. ISSN 00364452

    1933

  66. [70]

    A. G. Abac et al. GW231123: a Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190-265M ⊙, 2025. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08219

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.08219 2025

  67. [71]

    GWTC-4.0: Pa- rameter estimation data release, 2025

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collabora- tion and KAGRA Collaboration. GWTC-4.0: Pa- rameter estimation data release, 2025. doi:10.5281/ zenodo.17014085

    2025

  68. [72]

    Marsaglia

    G. Marsaglia. Choosing a Point from the Surface of a Sphere.The Annals of Mathematical Statis- tics, 43(2):645 – 646, 1972. doi:10.1214/aoms/ 1177692644. 21

    doi:10.1214/aoms/ 1972

  69. [76]

    S. T. McWilliams, B. J. Kelly, and J. G. Baker. Ob- serving mergers of nonspinning black-hole binaries. Physical Review D, 82(2), July 2010. ISSN 1550-

    2010

  70. [78]

    Chatziioannou, T

    K. Chatziioannou, T. Dent, M. Fishbach, et al. Compact binary coalescences: gravitational-wave astronomy with ground-based detectors, 2024. doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2409.02037

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.02037 2024

  71. [81]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, et al. Im- pact of the PSR J0740+6620 radius constraint on the properties of high-density matter: Neutron star equation of state posterior samples, April 2022. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6502467

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6502467 2022

  72. [83]

    doi:10.48550/arXiv.2508.10638

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10638

  73. [1996]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.53

    ISSN 1089-4918. doi:10.1103/physrevd.53. 6749

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.53

  74. [2015]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.042003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.91.042003

  75. [2016]

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/ 12/125025

    ISSN 1361-6382. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/ 12/125025

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/

  76. [2017]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.104046

  77. [2019]

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.024048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.024048

  78. [2023]

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131

    ISSN 1079-7114. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131. 121402. 20

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131

  79. [2025]

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/add234

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/add234

  80. [2368]

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.024014

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.82.024014

Showing first 80 references.