pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.09678 · v1 · submitted 2026-01-14 · 🌀 gr-qc

The impact of waveform systematics and Gaussian noise on the interpretation of GW231123

Sophie Bini , Krzysztof Kr\'ol , Katerina Chatziioannou , Maximiliano Isi This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesblack hole mergersGW231123waveform systematicsNRSur7dq4spin precessionGaussian noisenumerical relativity
0
0 comments X

The pith

The high mass and high spin magnitudes of GW231123 inferred by NRSur7dq4 remain stable under waveform systematics and Gaussian noise.

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

The paper tests whether the unusual properties of gravitational-wave event GW231123, including its high black hole masses and spins, arise from the choice of signal model or from detector noise fluctuations. By injecting the maximum-likelihood NRSur7dq4 waveform into simulated data, the authors reproduce the parameter differences seen in the real event and confirm that high masses, median spins above 0.7, and high precession (median chi_p above 0.68) persist across noise realizations. This matters because reliable parameters for such an exceptional merger would directly inform models of black hole formation and evolution. The work also shows that single-detector inferences do not differ significantly from the combined result.

Core claim

Simulations using the NRSur7dq4 maximum-likelihood waveform for GW231123 closely recover the model systematics observed in the real signal. When different Gaussian noise realizations are added, the recovered parameters consistently support large masses, high spin magnitudes with median chi_1 at least 0.7, and high spin precession with median chi_p at least 0.68. The effective spin chi_eff varies more across realizations. Differences between the two detectors are not statistically significant, establishing that the headline properties are robust.

What carries the argument

Injection of the NRSur7dq4 maximum-likelihood waveform into simulated data with and without Gaussian noise realizations, followed by parameter recovery and comparison to the real GW231123 posteriors.

If this is right

  • The high masses and spins of GW231123 can be used with greater for astrophysical conclusions about black-hole formation channels.
  • Events with few observed cycles can still yield reliable parameters when analyzed with NRSur7dq4 provided the same injection tests are performed.
  • The effective spin chi_eff is the parameter most sensitive to noise, so interpretations relying on it require extra caution.
  • Single-detector analyses of similar short signals do not introduce additional bias beyond what is already captured by the combined data.
  • Systematic differences between waveform models can be diagnosed and bounded by reproducing them on noise-free injections of the maximum-likelihood waveform.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If NRSur7dq4 is faithful, GW231123 is a genuine population outlier whose formation mechanism must accommodate both high mass and high spin.
  • The same injection-based robustness test could be applied routinely to other high-mass, short-duration events to validate their parameters.
  • The observed fluctuations in chi_eff suggest that spin-aligned quantities may need tighter priors or additional waveform models in future analyses of precessing systems.
  • Extending the test to include non-Gaussian noise artifacts would further strengthen or qualify the robustness claim for real detector data.

Load-bearing premise

The NRSur7dq4 surrogate model must accurately represent the true waveform produced by this binary system, and the detector noise must consist only of stationary Gaussian noise with no unmodeled systematics.

What would settle it

A new noise realization or a different waveform model that produces posteriors for the simulated signal whose high-mass and high-spin support differs significantly from the real-event posteriors would falsify the robustness result.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.09678 by Katerina Chatziioannou, Krzysztof Kr\'ol, Maximiliano Isi, Sophie Bini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Marginalized posteriors for selected parameters for GW231123 (dashed lines, from Ref. [1, 49]) and from the NRSur [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Effect of Gaussian noise on the primary and secondary masses (left column), on the spin magnitudes (central column) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Same as Fig. 3 using the XPHM waveform model to infer the source properties. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 3 using the XO4a waveform model to infer the source properties. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. One-dimensional JS divergence between the posteri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. GW231123 source inference with LIGO Hanford [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 3 when analyzing the simulated signal with each detector individually (LIGO Hanford in blue, LIGO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. JS divergence between posterior distributions of GW231123-like simulations in Gaussian noise recovered analyzing each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Similar to Fig. 2 but simulating the signal using the XO4a maximum-likelihood waveform instead of NRSur. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

GW231123 is an exceptional gravitational-wave event consistent with the merger of two massive, highly-spinning black holes. Reliable inference of the source properties is crucial for accurate interpretation of its astrophysical implications. However, characterization of GW231123 is challenging: only few signal cycles are observed and different signal models result in systematically different parameters. We investigate whether the interpretation of GW231123 is robust against model systematics and Gaussian detector noise. We show that the model systematics observed in GW231123 can be reproduced for a simulated signal based on the numerical-relativity surrogate model NRSur7dq4. Simulating data using the maximum-likelihood NRSur7dq4 waveform for GW231123 and no noise realization, we closely recover the systematics observed for the real signal. We then explore how the headline properties of GW231123 are impacted by Gaussian detector noise. Using the NRSur7dq4 maximum-likelihood waveform and different noise realizations, we consistently find support for large masses, high spin magnitudes (median $\chi_1\geq 0.7$), and high spin precession (median $\chi_\mathrm{p}\geq 0.68$). The spin in the direction of the angular momentum ($\chi_\mathrm{eff}$) fluctuates more. Finally, again comparing to simulated signals, we show that any differences in the GW231123 inference based on each separate detector are not statistically significant. These results show that the properties of GW231123, and most importantly the high mass and high spin magnitudes inferred by NRSur7dq4, are robust.

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

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper investigates the robustness of parameter inference for the gravitational-wave event GW231123 using the NRSur7dq4 numerical-relativity surrogate model. By injecting the maximum-likelihood NRSur7dq4 waveform into simulated data (first with no noise to reproduce model-to-model systematics, then with multiple independent Gaussian noise realizations drawn from detector PSDs), the authors show that the high masses, median χ1 ≥ 0.7, and median χp ≥ 0.68 remain stable. They further demonstrate that per-detector differences are not statistically significant, concluding that the headline properties inferred by NRSur7dq4 are robust against the tested systematics and noise.

Significance. If the results hold, the work strengthens in the astrophysical interpretation of GW231123 as a merger of two massive, highly spinning black holes. The controlled injection tests directly address the observed model-to-model discrepancies and the impact of Gaussian noise, providing a clear, falsifiable check on the stability of the NRSur7dq4 posteriors. This is particularly valuable for an event with few observed cycles where parameter inference is sensitive to waveform modeling choices.

minor comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2: the text states that noise realizations are drawn from the detector PSDs but does not specify whether the same random seeds or independent draws are used across the NRSur7dq4 recovery runs; adding this detail would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure 4: the caption should explicitly note the number of noise realizations shown and whether the plotted credible intervals are 90% or 68% to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the real-event posteriors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment of our manuscript and for recommending acceptance. The referee's summary correctly reflects our central result that the high-mass, high-spin inferences for GW231123 obtained with NRSur7dq4 remain stable under the controlled injection tests we performed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain

full rationale

The paper conducts standard Bayesian inference on real GW231123 data using the external NRSur7dq4 surrogate model, then performs controlled robustness tests by injecting the maximum-likelihood NRSur7dq4 waveform into zero-noise data and multiple independent Gaussian noise realizations drawn from detector PSDs. Parameter recovery in these simulations directly tests pipeline stability and reproduces observed systematics without reducing any claim to a fitted input renamed as prediction, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation. The headline result—that high mass and spin inferences remain stable—follows from consistency across independent external simulations and is self-contained against numerical-relativity benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions in gravitational wave data analysis without introducing new free parameters or entities.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Detector noise is Gaussian and stationary
    Used in simulating data with different noise realizations.
  • domain assumption NRSur7dq4 accurately models the waveform for this system
    Central to reproducing the systematics and using it as truth.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5591 in / 1119 out tokens · 30351 ms · 2026-05-16T14:28:59.301090+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 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Investigating the formation channel of GW231123: Population III stars or hierarchical mergers?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 conditional novelty 6.0

    GW231123 most likely formed through hierarchical mergers of black holes in metal-poor globular clusters, with isolated binary channels failing to match the observed merger redshift and masses.

  2. Ringdown Analysis of GW250114 with Orthonormal Modes

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Orthonormal QNM analysis of GW250114 raises the significance of the first overtone of the ℓ=m=2 mode from 82.5% to 99.9% and detects no significant deviation from Kerr predictions.

  3. Agnostically decoding gravitational wave model deficiencies in GWTC-3

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for a mass-scale dependent model deficiency is found in the highest-SNR GWTC-3 events.

  4. Investigating the formation channel of GW231123: Population III stars or hierarchical mergers?

    astro-ph.GA 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Coupled cosmological and cluster simulations show isolated binary evolution cannot produce GW231123-like mergers at the observed redshift, while hierarchical mergers in globular clusters can, yielding a local rate of ...

  5. Mitigating Systematic Errors in Parameter Estimation of Binary Black Hole Mergers in O1-O3 LIGO-Virgo Data

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Parametric models incorporating waveform phase and amplitude uncertainties mitigate systematic errors in gravitational wave parameter estimation, producing consistent results across models and raw/deglitched data for ...

  6. Mitigating Systematic Errors in Parameter Estimation of Binary Black Hole Mergers in O1-O3 LIGO-Virgo Data

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Reanalysis of flagged LVK events with waveform uncertainty models produces consistent spin and precession inferences across raw/deglitched data and multiple waveform approximants.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Arxiv (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Advanced LIGO

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KA- GRA), arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18080 (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    A. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Ad- hicary, D. Adhikari, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, S. Afroz, et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18081 (2025)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    A. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Adhikari, N. Ad- hikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, et al. , arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.18082 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, Astrophys. J. 887, 53 (2019), arXiv:1910.12874 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. Lett. 912, L31 (2021), arXiv:2103.07933 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    D. D. Hendriks, L. A. C. van Son, M. Renzo, R. G. Izzard, and R. Farmer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 4130 (2023), arXiv:2309.09339 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  9. [9]

    Belczynski et al

    K. Belczynski et al. , Astron. Astrophys. 636, A104 (2020), arXiv:1706.07053 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Y. Qin, T. Fragos, G. Meynet, J. Andrews, M. Sørensen, and H. F. Song, Astron. Astrophys. 616, A28 (2018), arXiv:1802.05738 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Fuller and L

    J. Fuller and L. Ma, Astrophys. J. Lett. 881, L1 (2019), arXiv:1907.03714 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

    L. A. C. van Son, S. E. de Mink, F. S. Broekgaarden, M. Renzo, S. Justham, E. Laplace, J. Moran-Fraile, D. D. Hendriks, and R. Farmer, Astrophys. J. 897, 100 (2020), 17 Parameter LIGO Hanford LIGO Livingston Both source-frame primary mass ( M⊙) 114 +34 −25 135+21 −16 128+16 −16 source-frame secondary mass ( M⊙) 76 +71 −25 114+43 −22 108+16 −20 source-fram...

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Nature Astron. 5, 749 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Delfavero, S

    V. Delfavero, S. Ray, H. Cook, K. Nathaniel, B. McK- ernan, K. Ford, J. Postiglione, E. McPike, and R. O’Shaughnessy, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.13412 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.10609

    L. Paiella, C. Ugolini, M. Spera, M. Branchesi, and M. A. Sedda, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10609 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Passenger, S

    L. Passenger, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, A. Borchers, M. Fishbach, and C. S. Ye, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.14363 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, D. Issa, S. E. Li, M. Renzo, and M. Isi, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15887 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Croon, J

    D. Croon, J. Sakstein, and D. Gerosa, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10088 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    S. A. Popa and S. E. de Mink, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.00154 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    GW231123: A Possible Primordial Black Hole Origin

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.09965 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, Physical Review D 112, L081306 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    S. Liu, L. Wang, A. Tanikawa, W. Wu, and M. S. Fujii, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 993, L30 (2025)

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    GW231123 Formation from Population III Stars: Isolated Binary Evolution

    A. Tanikawa, S. Liu, W. Wu, M. S. Fujii, and L. Wang, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01135 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Bartos and Z

    I. Bartos and Z. Haiman, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.08558 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Kıro˘ glu, K

    F. Kıro˘ glu, K. Kremer, and F. A. Rasio, arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.05415 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Cuceu, M

    I. Cuceu, M. A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, and M. Sakel- lariadou, Phys. Rev. D (2025), 10.1103/zd8m-tzxd

    work page doi:10.1103/zd8m-tzxd 2025

  27. [27]

    Fishbach, W

    M. Fishbach, W. M. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, L31 (2020), arXiv:1911.05882 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Mandel, The Astrophysical Journal996, L4 (2026), arXiv:2509.05885 [astro-ph.HE]

    I. Mandel, ArXiv (2025), arXiv:2509.05885 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024024 (2024), arXiv:2310.01544 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    S. J. Miller, M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, V. Varma, and S. Hourihane, arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.14573 (2025), arXiv:2505.14573 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Research. 1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Colleoni, F

    M. Colleoni, F. A. R. Vidal, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Ak¸ cay, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104019 (2025), arXiv:2412.16721 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2312.10025 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Estell´ eset al

    H. Estell´ es, M. Colleoni, C. Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Husa, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. d. L. Planas, and A. Ramos-Buades, Phys. Rev. D 105, 084040 (2022), arXiv:2105.05872 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estell´ es, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    A. Ray, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, ArXiv (2025), arXiv:2510.07228 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    A. Jan, S. Nicolella, D. Shoemaker, and R. O’Shaughnessy, ArXiv (2025), arXiv:2512.20060 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Nagar, R

    A. Nagar, R. Gamba, P. Rettegno, V. Fantini, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084001 (2024), arXiv:2404.05288 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  39. [39]

    Siegel, N

    H. Siegel, N. M. Khusid, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.02691 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    Q. Hu, H. Narola, J. Heynen, M. Wright, J. Veitch, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2512.17550 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, arXiv (2025), arXiv:2512.17631 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Physical Review D 49, 2658 (1994)

    work page 1994

  43. [43]

    LISA detections of massive black hole inspirals: parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms

    C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007), arXiv:0707.2982 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  44. [44]

    Vallisneri, Phys

    M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008), arXiv:gr- qc/0703086. 18

    work page arXiv 2008

  45. [45]

    Udall, S

    R. Udall, S. Bini, K. Chatziioannou, D. Davis, S. Houri- hane, Y. Lecoeuche, J. McIver, and S. Miller, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05029 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Branchesi, M

    M. Branchesi, M. Maggiore, D. Alonso, C. Badger, B. Banerjee, F. Beirnaert, E. Belgacem, S. Bhagwat, G. Boileau, S. Borhanian, et al. , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2023, 068 (2023)

    work page 2023

  47. [47]

    Model Waveform Accuracy Standards for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008), arXiv:0809.3844 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  48. [48]

    Miller, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation, and Cosmology 71, 104016 (2005)

    M. Miller, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravi- tation, and Cosmology 71, 104016 (2005)

    work page 2005

  49. [49]

    Gw231123: a binary black hole merger with total mass 190-265 m⊙ — data release,

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaboration, “Gw231123: a binary black hole merger with total mass 190-265 m⊙ — data release,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  50. [50]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 91, 084034 (2015), arXiv:1410.3852 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  51. [51]

    Mitigation of the instrumental noise transient in gravitational-wave data surrounding GW170817

    C. Pankow et al. , Phys. Rev. D 98, 084016 (2018), arXiv:1808.03619 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Exploring short gamma-ray bursts as gravitational-wave standard sirens

    S. Nissanke, D. E. Holz, S. A. Hughes, N. Dalal, and J. L. Sievers, Astrophys. J. 725, 496 (2010), arXiv:0904.1017 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  53. [53]

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

    G. Ashton et al. , Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Talbot et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11091 (2025)

    C. Talbot et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11091 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Lin, IEEE Trans

    J. Lin, IEEE Trans. Info. Theor. 37, 145 (1991)

    work page 1991

  57. [57]

    Biscoveanu, M

    S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, V. Varma, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103018 (2021), arXiv:2106.06492 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Xu and E

    Y. Xu and E. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. D 107, 103049 (2023), arXiv:2211.09561 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  59. [59]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  60. [60]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel. 20, 2 (2017), arXiv:1608.06889 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    Hoy, Phys

    C. Hoy, Phys. Rev. D 106, 083003 (2022), arXiv:2208.00106 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    C. Hoy, S. Ak¸ cay, J. Mac Uilliam, and J. E. Thompson, Nature Astronomy , 1 (2025)

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    Payne, S

    E. Payne, S. Hourihane, J. Golomb, R. Udall, D. Davis, and K. Chatziioannou, Physical Review D 106, 104017 (2022)

    work page 2022

  64. [64]

    Fritschel, K

    P. Fritschel, K. Kuns, J. Driggers, A. Effler, B. Lantz, D. Ottaway, S. Ballmer, K. Dooley, R. Adhikari, M. Evans, et al., LIGO Document 2200287, 6 (2022)

    work page 2022

  65. [65]

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

    M. Evans et al., ArXiv (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Science Case for the Einstein Telescope

    M. Maggiore et al. (ET), JCAP 03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [67]

    Kuns and P

    K. Kuns and P. Fritschel, LIGO Document T2300041- v1 (2024)

    work page 2024