pith. sign in

arxiv: 2404.16103 · v4 · submitted 2024-04-24 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.IM

Validating Prior-informed Fisher-matrix Analyses against GWTC Data

Ulyana Dupletsa , Jan Harms , Ken K. Y. Ng , Jacopo Tissino , Filippo Santoliquido , Andrea Cozzumbo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 01:38 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitational wavesFisher matrixparameter estimationpriorsGWTCEinstein TelescopeBayesian analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Fisher-matrix methods produce parameter estimates consistent with full Bayesian analyses of real gravitational-wave events.

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

This paper checks how well the fast Fisher-matrix approximation matches the full Bayesian results from LIGO and Virgo when both are applied to the same real signals. The authors modify their GWFish code to incorporate priors through sampling so the comparison is direct. They find that the Gaussian approximation reproduces the published uncertainties closely enough across the tested events. The size of any difference tracks the amount of degeneracy in the waveform parameters, with priors mattering more when degeneracy is high. These checks support the continued use of Fisher methods for planning studies with the Einstein Telescope.

Core claim

By comparing prior-informed Fisher-matrix results from GWFish to the Bayesian posteriors published for GWTC events, we find that the Gaussian approximation holds sufficiently well that Fisher methods remain valid for science-case studies of the Einstein Telescope, with prior effects being strongest in cases of high parameter degeneracy.

What carries the argument

The prior-informed Fisher-matrix implementation in GWFish, which samples the prior to adjust the covariance for comparison with full posteriors.

If this is right

  • ET forecast studies can rely on Fisher-matrix calculations without full Bayesian sampling for each simulated event.
  • The accuracy of Fisher approximations is highest when waveform-parameter degeneracies are low.
  • Including priors in Fisher analyses matters mainly for signals with high degeneracy.
  • Validation against catalog data lowers the uncertainty attached to ET science-case predictions.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same validation approach could be applied to forecasts for other third-generation detectors such as Cosmic Explorer.
  • If ET data show systematically different degeneracy patterns than current events, the relative importance of priors may shift.
  • The method of prior sampling inside Fisher codes could be tested on other waveform families or detector networks.

Load-bearing premise

The GWTC events chosen for comparison have parameter degeneracy levels similar to those of the high-signal-to-noise events that the Einstein Telescope is expected to detect.

What would settle it

A clear mismatch between the Fisher covariance and the actual posterior width for a high-SNR event observed by ET would show the approximation fails for the signals it is meant to forecast.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2404.16103 by Andrea Cozzumbo, Filippo Santoliquido, Jacopo Tissino, Jan Harms, Ken K. Y. Ng, Ulyana Dupletsa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ). Moreover, it is more evident when fewer detectors are involved, and the SNR in each detector is low (below 4-5). Multi-modality cannot, by definition, be a feature coming out of Fisher’s analysis, as it provides a Gaussian likelihood centred around the injected value. This ex￾plains the ample range (up to two orders of magnitude) of the ratio between the 90% credible interval obtained with GWFish analys… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distribution of ratios between the 90% credible interval obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Median of the ratio between the 90% credible interval obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Histograms of the median of the ratio distribution between the 90% credible interval obtained from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic representation of angular parameters that [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Schematic view of relevant angular parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Fisher-matrix methods are widely used to predict how accurately parameters can be estimated. Being computationally efficient, this approach is prompted by the large number of signals simulated in forecast studies for future gravitational-wave (GW) detectors, for which adequate analysis tools and computational resources are still unavailable to the scientific community. However, approximating the full likelihood function with a Gaussian may lead to inaccuracies, which we investigate in this work. To assess the accuracy of the Fisher approximation, we compare the results of the Fisher code GWFish against real data from the Gravitational Wave Transient Catalogs (GWTCs) provided by the Virgo/LIGO Bayesian analyses. Additionally, we present a sampling algorithm to include priors in GWFish, not only to ensure a fair comparison between GWFish results and the Virgo/LIGO posteriors but also to investigate the role of prior information and to assess the need to include it in standard Fisher analyses. We find that the impact of priors depends mostly on the level of signal-dependent degeneracy of the waveform parameterization, and priors are generally more important when the level of degeneracy is high. Our findings imply that Fisher-matrix methods are a valid tool for ET science-case studies.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript compares Fisher-matrix results from the GWFish code (augmented with a new sampling algorithm to incorporate priors) against independent LIGO/Virgo Bayesian posteriors from selected GWTC events. It reports that the impact of priors depends primarily on waveform-parameter degeneracy and concludes that Fisher-matrix methods are therefore a valid tool for ET science-case studies.

Significance. If the central comparison holds after addressing extrapolation concerns, the work would provide useful empirical support for the continued use of computationally efficient Fisher approximations in large-scale forecast studies for third-generation detectors. The introduction of an explicit prior-sampling algorithm in GWFish is a concrete, reusable contribution that enables fairer comparisons with full Bayesian analyses.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / concluding section] Abstract and concluding section: the claim that the GWTC comparison implies Fisher methods are valid for ET science cases is load-bearing but unsupported. GWTC events have moderate SNR (∼10–30) while ET forecasts target substantially higher SNR; the paper states that prior impact depends on signal-dependent degeneracy, yet provides no quantitative comparison of degeneracy metrics (e.g., condition numbers of the Fisher matrix or correlation coefficients) between the selected GWTC events and simulated ET signals under ET noise curves.
  2. [§3 / §4] §3 (event selection) and §4 (results): the manuscript does not demonstrate that the chosen GWTC events span the degeneracy regimes expected for ET detections. Without this, agreement on the selected sample does not establish transferability to the high-SNR, low-degeneracy regime that dominates ET science cases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1: the caption should explicitly state the SNR range and network configuration used for each event to allow readers to assess representativeness.
  2. [Figure 2] Figure 2: axis labels and legend entries are too small for print; increase font size and add a panel showing the difference between Fisher and posterior contours.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed and constructive report. The comments correctly identify that the manuscript's implication for ET forecasts rests on an untested extrapolation. We address each point below and will revise the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / concluding section] Abstract and concluding section: the claim that the GWTC comparison implies Fisher methods are valid for ET science cases is load-bearing but unsupported. GWTC events have moderate SNR (∼10–30) while ET forecasts target substantially higher SNR; the paper states that prior impact depends on signal-dependent degeneracy, yet provides no quantitative comparison of degeneracy metrics (e.g., condition numbers of the Fisher matrix or correlation coefficients) between the selected GWTC events and simulated ET signals under ET noise curves.

    Authors: We agree that the current wording in the abstract and conclusion overstates the direct support for ET applications. The manuscript demonstrates that prior impact correlates with waveform degeneracy for the chosen GWTC events and introduces a prior-sampling algorithm, but does not perform the requested degeneracy comparison under ET noise curves. We will revise the abstract and concluding section to remove the claim that the GWTC results imply validity for ET science cases. The revised text will instead emphasize the validation against real data, the role of degeneracy in determining prior importance, and note that this dependence can be assessed case-by-case for future detectors. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§3 / §4] §3 (event selection) and §4 (results): the manuscript does not demonstrate that the chosen GWTC events span the degeneracy regimes expected for ET detections. Without this, agreement on the selected sample does not establish transferability to the high-SNR, low-degeneracy regime that dominates ET science cases.

    Authors: The event selection was driven by the availability of public posterior samples and the requirement that the Fisher approximation remain reasonable at the observed SNRs; it was not designed to cover the full range of degeneracies anticipated for ET. We accept that this limits claims of transferability. In the revised manuscript we will add a short discussion (or, if space permits, a supplementary figure) comparing representative degeneracy diagnostics (condition number and maximum off-diagonal correlation) for the GWTC sample against a small set of high-SNR ET-like injections. If performing the additional ET injections proves too extensive for a minor revision, we will instead qualify the discussion in §§3–4 to state that the selected events probe moderate-degeneracy regimes only. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Validation against independent external GWTC Bayesian posteriors; no reduction to self-fitted quantities

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on direct numerical comparison of GWFish Fisher results (with added prior sampling) to independent LIGO/Virgo Bayesian posteriors from the GWTC catalogs. This external benchmark is not derived from the paper's own fits or self-citations. No self-definitional steps, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The representativeness of GWTC events for ET is a separate correctness/extrapolation question, not a circularity issue. The analysis is therefore self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Paper is an empirical validation study; it relies on the standard Fisher-matrix formalism and existing GWTC data releases rather than introducing new free parameters, axioms, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5762 in / 1067 out tokens · 26418 ms · 2026-05-24T01:38:43.874455+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Radio sirens: inferring $H_0$ with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Using simulated binary black hole mergers and neutral hydrogen maps, the radio sirens method constrains H0 to 8% precision with 3000 high-SNR events, offering a 90% improvement over standard dark siren analyses.

  2. On the use of the Derivative Approximation for Likelihoods for Gravitational Wave Inference

    astro-ph.IM 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    DALI extends the Fisher Matrix to higher orders and approximates MCMC posteriors for GW events at 55 times lower cost, with singlet-DALI offering better accuracy and the GWDALI code providing automatic differentiation...

  3. Accelerating parameter estimation for parameterized tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 4.0

    Relative binning accelerates TIGER parameterized GR tests by factors of 10-100 while recovering unbiased posteriors on simulated signals and real events like GW150914.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    This happens especially when it comes to angu- lar parameters (see, for example, the θJN parameter in Fig

    Angular Parameters and Multi-Modality A full Bayesian analysis might encounter multi-modality issues. This happens especially when it comes to angu- lar parameters (see, for example, the θJN parameter in Fig. 1). Moreover, it is more evident when fewer detectors are involved, and the SNR in each detector is low (below 4-5). Multi-modality cannot, by defin...

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    The probability density for a uniform distribution is given by: π(θ) = 1 θmax − θmin (B1) where [θmin, θmax] is the range of the parameter θ

    Uniform Prior : the uninformative choice Most of the parameters characterizing a GW event (see Tab II) have an uninformative uniform prior, meaning that given a physical range of the parameter, any value in the interval is equally probable. The probability density for a uniform distribution is given by: π(θ) = 1 θmax − θmin (B1) where [θmin, θmax] is the ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Since we are getting likelihood samples in Mchirp and q, it is necessary to reweight these samples by the determinant of the Jacobian transfor- 13 mation to component masses

    Mc and q: Uniform in component masses prior LVK analyses assume a uniform in component masses prior, meaning that the joint probability on m1 and m2, π(m1, m2), is constant. Since we are getting likelihood samples in Mchirp and q, it is necessary to reweight these samples by the determinant of the Jacobian transfor- 13 mation to component masses. This ens...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Angular parameters: Uniform on a Sphere prior While a Uniform prior might be the unbiased choice in many contexts, we must consider the spherical geometry when dealing with angular parameters describing positions on a sphere. To ensure a uniform distribution on a sphere, thus isotropy, of certain angular parameters, the right priors are the ones that are ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Luminosity distance The prior for the luminosity distance parameter varies according to different assumptions about the distribution 5 The dependence on the polarization angle enters the antenna pattern functions: F+(RA, DEC, Ψ) = F+,0(RA, DEC) cos(2Ψ) − F×,0(RA, DEC) sin(2Ψ) F×(RA, DEC, Ψ) = F+,0(RA, DEC) sin(2Ψ) +F×,0(RA, DEC) cos(2Ψ) where the F+,0(RA,...

    work page

  6. [6]

    S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, and A. Freise, Pushing towards the et sensitivity using conventional technology, (2008), arXiv:0810.0604

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Punturo et al

    M. Punturo et al. , The einstein telescope: a third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27, 194002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories

    S. Hild et al. , Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Gravitational Wave Observatories, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  9. [9]

    Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO

    D. Reitze et al. , Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribution to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evans et al. , A Horizon Study for Cosmic Ex- plorer: Science, Observatories, and Community, (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Science Case for the Einstein Telescope

    M. Maggiore et al. , Science Case for the Einstein Tele- scope, JCAP 03, 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  12. [12]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  13. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Com- pact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs

    M. Branchesi et al. , Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP 07, 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  17. [17]

    Bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy

    G. Ashton et al. , BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian infer- ence library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw et al. , Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and applica- tion to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Ashton and C

    G. Ashton and C. Talbot, B ilby-MCMC: an MCMC sam- pler for gravitational-wave inference, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 507, 2037 (2021), arXiv:2106.08730 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2037

  20. [20]

    Gravitational Waves from Mergin Compact Binaries: How Accurately Can One Extract the Binary's Parameters from the Inspiral Waveform?

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  21. [21]

    Use and Abuse of the Fisher Information Matrix in the Assessment of Gravitational-Wave Parameter-Estimation Prospects

    M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter- estimation prospects, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0703086

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  22. [22]

    Dupletsa, J

    U. Dupletsa, J. Harms, B. Banerjee, M. Branchesi, B. Gon- charov, A. Maselli, A. C. S. Oliveira, S. Ronchini, and J. Tissino, gwfish: A simulation software to evaluate parameter-estimation capabilities of gravitational-wave detector networks, Astron. Comput. 42, 100671 (2023), arXiv:2205.02499 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Borhanian, GWBENCH: a novel Fisher informa- tion package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Class

    S. Borhanian, GWBENCH: a novel Fisher informa- tion package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 175014 (2021), arXiv:2010.15202 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Forecasting the Detection Capabilities of Third-generation Gravitational-wave Detectors Using GWFAST, Astrophys. J. 941, 208 (2022), arXiv:2207.02771 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, GWFAST: A Fisher Information Matrix Python Code for Third-generation Gravitational-wave Detectors, As- trophys. J. Supp. 263, 2 (2022), arXiv:2207.06910 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Y. Li, I. S. Heng, M. L. Chan, C. Messenger, and X. Fan, Exploring the sky localization and early warning capabil- ities of third generation gravitational wave detectors in three-detector network configurations, Phys. Rev. D 105, 043010 (2022), arXiv:2109.07389 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    M. L. Chan, C. Messenger, I. S. Heng, and M. Hendry, Binary Neutron Star Mergers and Third Generation De- tectors: Localization and Early Warning, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123014 (2018), arXiv:1803.09680 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  28. [28]

    C. L. Rodriguez, B. Farr, W. M. Farr, and I. Mandel, Inad- equacies of the Fisher Information Matrix in gravitational- wave parameter estimation, Phys. Rev. D 88, 084013 (2013), arXiv:1308.1397 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  29. [29]

    Santoliquido, U

    F. Santoliquido, U. Dupletsa, J. Tissino, M. Branchesi, F. Iacovelli, G. Iorio, M. Mapelli, D. Gerosa, J. Harms, and M. Pasquato, Classifying binary black holes from Population III stars with the Einstein Telescope: a machine-learning approach, (2024), arXiv:2404.10048 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Cozzumbo, U

    A. Cozzumbo, U. Dupletsa, R. Calder´ on, R. Murgia, G. Oganesyan, and M. Branchesi, Model-independent cosmology with joint observations of gravitational waves and γ-ray bursts, (2024), arXiv:2411.02490 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, An introduction to bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: Parameter es- timation, model selection, and hierarchical models, Pub- lications of the Astronomical Society of Australia 36, 10.1017/pasa.2019.2 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

  32. [32]

    Christensen and R

    N. Christensen and R. Meyer, Parameter estimation with gravitational waves, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 025001 (2022), arXiv:2204.04449 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Z. I. Botev, The Normal Law Under Linear Restrictions: Simulation and Estimation via Minimax Tilting, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1603.04166 (2016), arXiv:1603.04166 16 [stat.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  34. [34]

    Callister, A Thesaurus for Common Priors in Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, (2021), arXiv:2104.09508 [gr-qc]

    T. Callister, A Thesaurus for Common Priors in Gravitational-Wave Astronomy, (2021), arXiv:2104.09508 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    C. R. Harris, K. J. Millman, S. J. van der Walt, R. Gom- mers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau, E. Wieser, J. Tay- lor, S. Berg, N. J. Smith, R. Kern, M. Picus, S. Hoyer, M. H. van Kerkwijk, M. Brett, A. Haldane, J. F. del R´ ıo, M. Wiebe, P. Peterson, P. G´ erard-Marchant, K. Shep- pard, T. Reddy, W. Weckesser, H. Abbasi, C. Gohlke, and T. E. Oliphant, Array ...

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    European Organization For Nuclear Research and Ope- nAIRE, Zenodo (2013)

    work page 2013

  37. [37]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and sub-dominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

    G. Pratten et al., Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. P¨ urrer, F. Ohme, X. Jim´ enez Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Frequency-domain gravitational waves from nonprecessing black-hole binaries. I. New numerical waveforms and anatomy of the signal, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016), arXiv:1508.07250 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  39. [39]

    Roulet, S

    J. Roulet, S. Olsen, J. Mushkin, T. Islam, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Removing degeneracy and multimodality in gravitational wave source parameters, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123015 (2022), arXiv:2207.03508 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  40. [40]

    Borhanian and B

    S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Listening to the Universe with Next Generation Ground-Based Gravitational-Wave Detectors, (2022), arXiv:2202.11048 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Ronchini, M

    S. Ronchini, M. Branchesi, G. Oganesyan, B. Banerjee, U. Dupletsa, G. Ghirlanda, J. Harms, M. Mapelli, and F. Santoliquido, Perspectives for multimessenger astron- omy with the next generation of gravitational-wave detec- tors and high-energy satellites, Astron. Astrophys. 665, A97 (2022), arXiv:2204.01746 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  42. [42]

    Banerjee et al

    B. Banerjee et al. , Pre-merger alert to detect prompt emission in very-high-energy gamma-rays from binary neutron star mergers: Einstein Telescope and Cherenkov Telescope Array synergy, Astron. Astrophys. 678, A126 (2023), arXiv:2212.14007 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Loffredo et al

    E. Loffredo et al. , Prospects for optical detections from binary neutron star mergers with the next-generation multi-messenger observatories, (2024), arXiv:2411.02342 [astro-ph.HE]. 17 TABLE IV. List of all the parameters used in our analysis. For a better understanding of some definitions, refer to Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. parameter label description chirp ma...

    work page arXiv 2024