The reliability of the low-latency estimation of binary neutron star chirp mass

Carl-Johan Haster; Salvatore Vitale; Sylvia Biscoveanu

The reliability of the low-latency estimation of binary neutron star chirp mass

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Low-latency chirp-mass estimates for binary neutron stars are accurate enough to guide electromagnetic follow-up.

desk verdict A careful, honest simulation study showing low-latency BNS chirp mass biases are tiny; the main caveat (noiseless max-overlap vs real search output) is real but acknowledged and does not sink the conclusion. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03592 v2 pith:6QOP3NJ4 submitted 2019-08-09 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Sylvia Biscoveanu , Salvatore Vitale , Carl-Johan Haster This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc

keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryneutronstarschirpmasslow-latencyalertstemplatebankelectromagneticfollow-upmatchedfilteringparameterestimationbiases

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Gravitational-wave alerts for neutron-star mergers currently give a sky map and a distance, but not the masses, even though the chirp mass would help telescopes decide which merger to chase. This paper asks whether the chirp-mass value a quick search can produce is trustworthy, given that search templates ignore large or tilted spins and tidal deformation and have finite resolution. It simulates mergers with those unmodeled features and finds that the bias, the difference between the template's chirp mass and the true value, is always below a few parts in a thousand of a solar mass. That is far smaller than the roughly 0.08 solar-mass bins proposed for prioritizing follow-up, so releasing the number would not misdirect telescopes. The mass ratio and effective spin can be strongly biased, but the paper's point is that the follow-up strategy does not need them.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on a fixed template bank: a discrete grid of 14,975 aligned-spin point-particle templates with dimensionless spins of magnitude at most 0.05 and no tidal terms. For each simulated signal, the analysis selects the single template with the largest noise-weighted overlap, and that template's parameters are taken as the point estimate a low-latency search would issue. The physical mechanism that keeps the chirp mass stable is the degeneracy between chirp mass and effective inspiral spin: an unmodeled positive effective spin lengthens the waveform, and the bank compensates by choosing a template with a slightly smaller chirp mass, bounding the chirp-mass bias while pushing the residual bias into the poorly measured mass ratio.

What would settle it

Run the actual multi-detector low-latency search over the same injected signals embedded in real detector noise and compare each triggered template's chirp mass with the injection: a single GW170817-like signal for which the search point estimate is off by more than about $2\times10^{-3}$ solar masses would settle against the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the chirp-mass point estimate produced in low latency by current gravitational-wave search template banks is accurate enough for electromagnetic follow-up. For simulated binary neutron stars with detector-frame chirp masses near 1.0, 1.15, and 1.35 solar masses, mass ratios of 1.0 and 0.8, dimensionless spins from 0.05 to 0.2, spin tilt angles up to 90 degrees, and optionally tidal deformation, it compares the true parameters with those of the bank template having the highest matched-filter overlap. In every case the chirp-mass offset is below a few times $10^{-3}$ solar masses and usually below $5\times10^{-4}$ solar masses; the total-mass offset is below 6 percent. Larger offsets appear only for the mass ratio and the effective inspiral spin, which are degenerate with the unmodeled spins. The paper concludes that the low-latency chirp-mass estimate is adequate for the follow-up prioritization scheme proposed in the literature.

Load-bearing premise

The paper treats the single template with the highest overlap in clean, noiseless data as the point estimate a real search would issue; if real noise, multi-detector coincidence, or ranking statistics select a different template, the true bias could be larger.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A low-latency alert can safely include a chirp-mass estimate without moving sources across the roughly 0.08 solar-mass bins proposed for follow-up prioritization.
Total mass is also usable for follow-up decisions, with biases below 6 percent, provided the estimate is converted from detector-frame to source-frame mass using the distance information.
Mass ratio and effective inspiral spin from the search point estimate should not be used for follow-up decisions; their biases can be large.
For biases caused by missing physics, waiting for higher-latency parameter estimation will not remove the problem, because the same systematic mechanism enters both the search and the later estimation.
The conclusions are stable against inclination choice: rerunning at an 85-degree inclination selects the same best-matching template and the same offsets.

Reading between the lines

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

If the maximum-overlap logic survives real noise, the practical error budget for follow-up may be dominated by converting detector-frame to source-frame chirp mass using a redshift, so future work should target distance uncertainty rather than bank resolution.
Because the bias compensation couples chirp mass to effective spin, changing the bank to allow larger spins could redistribute the mismatch among parameters; the quoted bias should be rechecked with the next generation of template banks.
The same methodology could be applied to neutron star-black hole binaries, but the conclusions should not be assumed to carry over, since their shorter in-band signals and sparser bank regions behave differently.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this paper's main number is believable. For simulated BNS signals with spins up to 0.2, tilts up to 90 degrees, and tidal effects, the O2 PyCBC template bank recovers chirp mass within a few x 10^-3 Msun, usually much less. The authors do this honestly, using the public template bank and no fitted constants, and they compare with full PE posteriors to show the bias is comparable to or smaller than statistical uncertainties. That directly addresses Margalit and Metzger's suggestion about releasing chirp mass in low-latency alerts.

What's new: the parameter-space coverage is wider than Berry et al. (2016), and the explicit focus on the operational question is welcome. The methodological choices are sound for the stated scope: isolate template-bank biases from missing physics. The consistency check with a different waveform family and the inclination-angle robustness test are good touches. The paper does not oversell; it says chirp mass is fine, total mass is okay-ish, mass ratio and effective spin are biased.

The soft spot is the one the authors themselves flag: the noiseless, single-detector maximum-overlap template is not exactly what the low-latency pipeline outputs. Real searches use multi-detector coincidence and ranking statistics under noise realizations, and that could pick a different template. The authors argue this would affect PE similarly, which is plausible but unproven. The stress-test note suggests this could be load-bearing for the operational claim. I think that's slightly too harsh: the paper explicitly scopes itself to template-bank biases, and the caveat is stated in Sec. 3. Still, for the alert-use case, it would be nice to see one validation on the actual PyCBC search with noise injection. That's a minor-to-moderate gap, not a reason to reject.

The finite grid (two mass ratios, three chirp masses, few tilts) is a limitation but reasonable for a first systematic study. The PE comparison only uses the same waveform family for both injection and recovery, which is ideal, but the banksim results are robust there.

Bottom line: this is a careful, useful paper that will help the LVC decide whether to release chirp mass in low-latency. It deserves a serious referee and, after minor revisions, acceptance. I'd take it to reading group and would cite it if I were working on follow-up prioritization.

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses whether the chirp mass estimate produced by low-latency CBC search algorithms for binary neutron stars is sufficiently accurate to inform electromagnetic follow-up, as proposed by Margalit & Metzger (2019). The authors inject simulated BNS signals with features absent from the search template bank (spins larger than 0.05, spin misalignment up to 90 degrees, and tidal effects), recover them with the public O2 PyCBC template bank using a noiseless banksim analysis, and compare the selected template parameters with the true values. They also run full Bayesian parameter estimation with bilby on the same injections to place the template-bank offsets in the context of statistical uncertainties. The central findings are that the chirp mass bias is always below a few x 10^-3 solar masses, the total mass bias is below 6%, while the mass ratio and effective inspiral spin can show larger offsets. The authors conclude that the low-latency chirp mass point estimate is reliable enough for the proposed EM follow-up prioritization.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a concrete, falsifiable validation for a practical proposal that could change how LVC public alerts are used by electromagnetic observers. The study's strengths include the use of the actual O2 PyCBC template bank, the isolation of missing-physics effects from noise effects, the explicit comparison of biases with statistical uncertainties from full parameter estimation, and a physical explanation of the observed trends. The paper uses public codes and data, making the analysis reproducible. The conclusion is directly relevant to the multi-messenger community and to the ongoing discussion on low-latency parameter estimation.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Sec. 2.1, Fig. 3] The abstract states that chirp mass biases are 'larger than ∼ 10−3 M⊙' cannot be introduced, but the largest measured offset in Fig. 3 (spin magnitude 0.2, small tilt angles) is about 2 × 10−3 M⊙, as correctly stated in the body text. The abstract should be updated to 'a few × 10−3 M⊙' or equivalent to match the reported results.
[Sec. 2.1 and Sec. 4 (Discussion)] The simulated spin tilt angles cover only 0° to 90°, i.e., non-negative values of the effective inspiral spin χ_eff. Since the bias mechanism in Sec. 2.1 is driven by the sign and magnitude of χ_eff, anti-aligned spins (tilt > 90°) are not tested; a sentence acknowledging this limitation or a symmetry argument would make the scope of the claim precise.
[Sec. 3, caveat paragraph] The argument that a specific noise realization would affect the search and the parameter-estimation step 'in a similar way' is plausible but not quantitatively demonstrated; the cited Berry et al. (2016) study uses a different pipeline (GstLAL) and different data conditions. A brief discussion of the residual risk for the PyCBC O2 configuration would strengthen the operational conclusion.
[Sec. 2.1, Eq. for q] The definition of the mass ratio q ≡ m2/m1 with m2 ≤ m1 is clear, but the notation for the chirp mass formula could be made more explicit by defining (m1, m2) before the equation, to avoid any ambiguity with the preceding definition of q.
[Fig. 4 caption] The caption does not state that the marker is the posterior median and the error bars are the 90% credible interval; adding this to the caption would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the chirp-mass biases are measured directly against known injections using a fixed public template bank, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central claim—that low-latency template-bank estimates of BNS chirp mass are biased by less than roughly 10^-3 Msun even when spins, misalignment, and tides are absent from the bank—is established by direct simulation. The paper injects signals with known (M, q, spins, tides), filters them with the publicly archived PyCBC O2 bank via the banksim routine, and compares the maximum-overlap template parameters to the injection values (Sec. 2.1, Figs. 1 and 3). No parameter is fitted to the target quantity and then renamed a prediction; the template bank is fixed and external, and the true values are known by construction. The secondary comparison to bilby posteriors uses the same waveform family for injection and recovery, but that is a controlled check of whether bank biases are subdominant to statistical uncertainty, not an input recycled into the bias measurement. The Sec. 3 caveat that real searches use multi-detector coincidence and noise realizations that can select a different template is an acknowledged idealization about external validity; it does not make any step definitionally circular, since the measured bank bias remains an independently defined quantity. The cited Berry et al. (2016) consistency check is not load-bearing for the paper's own measurement. No self-definitional, fitted-input, self-citation, uniqueness-import, ansatz-smuggling, or renaming pattern is present.

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

The central claim is an empirical bias measurement from simulations. It rests on the fidelity of the injected waveform model, the identification of the maximum-overlap template with the search point estimate, and the representativeness of the finite parameter grid. These are stated in the paper, and the first is partially checked by TaylorF2-injection tests.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The injected waveform model IMRPhenomPv2 NRTidal faithfully represents real binary neutron star signals, including tidal effects and spin precession.
Used to generate all simulated signals; if the model is inaccurate, the measured template-bank biases may not reflect true biases. The paper checks robustness with TaylorF2 injections in Sec. 2.1.
domain assumption The maximum-overlap template in a noiseless single-detector analysis is representative of the point estimate produced by the real low-latency search pipeline.
Stated in Sec. 3 caveats; real searches have multi-detector coincidence, chi-square vetoes, and noise that can change the selected template.
domain assumption The tested parameter grid is representative of the astrophysical BNS population relevant to EM follow-up.
The claim that no limitations can introduce biases larger than the stated bounds generalizes from a finite grid; the ranges are consistent with Margalit and Metzger (2019) and observed BNS systems.
domain assumption The O2 PyCBC template bank is representative of the low-latency search template banks in use when chirp mass would be released.
The study uses the publicly available O2 bank (PyCBC 2018); later observing runs may use different banks, which could alter the specific bias values.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The reliability of the low-latency estimation of binary neutron star chirp mass." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6QOP3NJ4

@misc{pith2026190803592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The reliability of the low-latency estimation of binary neutron star chirp mass},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6QOP3NJ4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03592}
}

abstract

The LIGO and Virgo Collaborations currently conduct searches for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences in real-time. For promising candidate events, a sky map and distance estimation are released in low-latency, to facilitate their electromagnetic follow-up. Currently, no information is released about the masses of the compact objects. Recently, Margalit and Metzger (2019) have suggested that knowledge of the chirp mass of the detected binary neutron stars could be useful to prioritize the electromagnetic follow-up effort, and have urged the LIGO-Virgo collaboration to release chirp mass information in low-latency. One might worry that low-latency searches for compact binaries make simplifying assumptions that could introduce biases in the mass parameters: neutron stars are treated as point particles with dimensionless spins below $0.05$ and perfectly aligned with the orbital angular momentum. Furthermore, the template bank used to search for them has a finite resolution. In this paper we show that none of these limitations can introduce chirp mass biases larger than $\sim 10^{-3}~M_\odot$. Even the total mass is usually accurately estimated, with biases smaller than 6%. The mass ratio and effective inspiral spins, on the other hand, can suffer from more severe biases.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03592 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Difference between the value of parameters measured by the template bank and the true value, as a function of the spin tilt angle. An artificial offset in tilt angle is introduced for the equal-mass sources for clarity. The simulated BNSs have no tides and dimensionless spin a = 0.05. The values of the true chirp mass and mass ratio are given in the legend. These results can be seen as the bias due to missing phys… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Correlation between the mass ratio and χeff biases. The true value of the spin tilt angle is given in the color bar. The size of the markers is representative of the chirp mass, from M = 1 M for the smallest markers to M = 1.35 M for the largest ones. The simulated BNSs have no tides and dimensionless spin a = 0.05. Virgo are not very sensitive. Given that the results are basically identical, we do not show plots fo… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Difference between the median of the posterior from parameter estimation and the true value, as a function of the spin tilt angle. The simulated BNS have no tides, q = 1, and dimensionless spin a = 0.05. The error bars show the statistical 90% credible intervals, while…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 64 canonical work pages

[1]

P., Abbott, R., et al

Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001

work page 2015
[2]

2014, Class

Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001

work page 2014
[3]

2016, Class

Adams, T., Buskulic, D., Germain, V., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 175012

work page 2016
[4]

2014, Phys

Ajith, P., Fotopoulos, N., Privitera, S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 084041

work page 2014
[5]

R., & Ravenhall, D

Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 58, 1804

1998
[6]

Creighton, J. D. E. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 122006

work page 2012
[7]

A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G

Apostolatos, T. A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G. J., & Thorne, K. S. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 6274

1994
[8]

A., et al

Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64 EP

work page 2017

Show all 78 references

[9]

D., et al

Ashton, G., Hbner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl. S., 241, 27

2019
[10]

2013, PRD, 87, 024035

Baird, E., Fairhurst, S., Hannam, M., & Murphy, P. 2013, PRD, 87, 024035

2013
[11]

Berry, C. P. L., Farr, B., Farr, W. M., et al. 2016, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 716, 012031

2016
[12]

1992, ApJ, 400, 175

Bildsten, L., & Cutler, C. 1992, ApJ, 400, 175

1992
[13]

2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2

Blanchet, L. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2

2014
[14]

2003, Phys

Buonanno, A., Chen, Y., & Vallisneri, M. 2003, Phys. Rev. D, 67, 104025

2003
[15]

Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 084043

2009
[16]

O., & Zlochower, Y

Campanelli, M., Lousto, C. O., & Zlochower, Y. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 041501

2006
[17]

2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1504.04632

Cannon, K., Hanna, C., & Peoples, J. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1504.04632

2015 arXiv
[18]

2012, Astrophys

Cannon, K., Cariou, R., Chapman, A., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J., 748, 136

2012
[19]

2016, Phys

Capano, C., Harry, I., Privitera, S., & Buonanno, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 124007

2016
[20]

2018, Phys

Chatziioannou, K., Haster, C.-J., & Zimmerman, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 104036

2018
[21]

2019, Phys

Chen, H.-Y., Vitale, S., & Narayan, R. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031028

2019
[22]

2017, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, doi:10.4225/23/5987feb0a789c

Chu, Q. 2017, PhD thesis, The University of Western Australia, doi:10.4225/23/5987feb0a789c

2017 doi
[23]

W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B

Coughlin, M. W., Dietrich, T., Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 489, L91

2019
[24]

A., Foley, R

Coulter, D. A., Foley, R. J., Kilpatrick, C. D., et al. 2017, Science, 358, 1556

2017
[25]

Cutler, C., & Flanagan, E. E. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 2658 Dal Canton, T., & Harry, I. W. 2017, arXiv:1705.01845

1994 arXiv
[26]

2012, Phys

Damour, T., Nagar, A., & Villain, L. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 123007

2012
[27]

2017, Phys

Dietrich, T., Bernuzzi, S., & Tichy, W. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 121501

2017
[28]

2019, Phys

Dietrich, T., Khan, S., Dudi, R., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 024029

2019
[29]

D., & Zlochower, Y

Duez, M. D., & Zlochower, Y. 2019, Rept. Prog. Phys., 82, 016902

2019
[30]

Eichler, D., Livio, M., Piran, T., & Schramm, D. N. 1989, Nature, 340, 126 10

1989
[31]

Farr, B., Berry, C. P. L., Farr, W. M., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 825, 116 Fern´ andez, R., & Metzger, B. D. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 502 Fern´ andez, R., Tchekhovskoy, A., Quataert, E., Foucart, F., & Kasen, D. 2018, MNRAS, 482, 3373

2016
[32]

E., & Hinderer, T

Flanagan, E. E., & Hinderer, T. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 021502

2008
[33]

2018, Phys

Foucart, F., Hinderer, T., & Nissanke, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 081501

2018
[34]

2017, Astrophys

Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L14

2017
[35]

Harry, I. W. 2013, Astrophys. J., 766, L14

2013
[36]

2014, Phys

Hannam, M., Schmidt, P., Boh´ e, A., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 151101

2014
[37]

Harry, G. M. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084006

2010
[38]

2016, Phys

Harry, I., Privitera, S., Boh´ e, A., & Buonanno, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 024012

2016
[39]

W., Allen, B., & Sathyaprakash, B

Harry, I. W., Allen, B., & Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 104014

2009
[40]

D., Lang, R

Hinderer, T., Lackey, B. D., Lang, R. N., & Read, J. S. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 123016

2010
[41]

J., Caudill, S., Creighton, J

Kapadia, S. J., Caudill, S., Creighton, J. D. E., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1903.06881

2019 arXiv
[42]

Kochanek, C. S. 1992, Astrophys. J., 398, 234

1992
[43]

2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.10457

Lange, J., O’Shaughnessy, R., & Rizzo, M. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1805.10457

2018 arXiv
[44]

1998, Astrophys

Li, L.-X., & Paczy´ nski, B. 1998, Astrophys. J., 507, L59

1998
[45]

2011, Astrophys

Lo, K.-W., & Lin, L.-M. 2011, Astrophys. J., 728, 12

2011
[46]

Lorimer, D. R. 2008, Living Rev. Relativ., 11, 8

2008
[47]

2008, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments, Gravitational Waves (OUP Oxford)

Maggiore, M. 2008, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments, Gravitational Waves (OUP Oxford)

2008
[48]

Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 880, L15

2019
[49]

2017, Phys

Messick, C., Blackburn, K., Brady, P., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 042001

2017
[50]

Metzger, B. D. 2019, private communication

2019
[51]

D., Thompson, T

Metzger, B. D., Thompson, T. A., & Quataert, E. 2008, Astrophys. J., 676, 1130

2008
[52]

2018, arXiv:1812.05121

Mukherjee, D., Caudill, S., Magee, R., et al. 2018, arXiv:1812.05121

2018 arXiv
[53]

Ng, K. K. Y., Vitale, S., Zimmerman, A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083007

2018
[54]

2019, gwastro/pycbc: PyCBC Release v1.14.1, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3265452

Nitz, A., Harry, I., Brown, D., et al. 2019, gwastro/pycbc: PyCBC Release v1.14.1, doi:10.5281/zenodo.3265452

2019 doi
[55]

H., Dal Canton, T., Davis, D., & Reyes, S

Nitz, A. H., Dal Canton, T., Davis, D., & Reyes, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 024050

2018
[56]

Owen, B. J. 1996, Phys. Rev. D, 53, 6749

1996
[57]

J., & Sathyaprakash, B

Owen, B. J., & Sathyaprakash, B. S. 1999, Phys. Rev. D, 60, 022002

1999
[58]

A., et al

Pankow, C., Chatziioannou, K., Chase, E. A., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 084016

2018
[59]

M., et al

Perego, A., Rosswog, S., Cabez´ on, R. M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 443, 3134

2014
[60]

2017, Nature, 551, 67 EP

Pian, E., D’Avanzo, P., Benetti, S., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 67 EP

2017
[61]

Privitera, S., Mohapatra, S. R. P., Ajith, P., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 024003 P¨ urrer, M., Hannam, M., & Ohme, F. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 084042 PyCBC. 2018, PyCBC O2 Template Bank, https://raw.github.com/ligo-cbc/pycbc-conﬁg/ 7a437f481796ﬀa57a0cf73caa53a1ee641895ab/O2...

2014
[62]

2018, ApJ, 852, L29

Radice, D., Perego, A., Zappa, F., & Bernuzzi, S. 2018, ApJ, 852, L29

2018
[63]

S., Markakis, C., Shibata, M., et al

Read, J. S., Markakis, C., Shibata, M., et al. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 124033

2009
[64]

2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.08580

Sachdev, S., Caudill, S., Fong, H., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1901.08580

2019 arXiv
[65]

2018, Phys

Samajdar, A., & Dietrich, T. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 124030 —. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 024046

2018
[66]

2017, Astrophys

Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L15

2017
[67]

Schutz, B. F. 2011, Class. Quant. Grav., 28, 125023

2011
[68]

2017, Phys

Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123012

2017
[69]

M., & Metzger, B

Siegel, D. M., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 231102

2017
[70]

E., Blackburn, K., et al

Smith, R., Field, S. E., Blackburn, K., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 94, 044031

2016
[71]

E., Annis, J., et al

Soares-Santos, M., Holz, D. E., Annis, J., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L16

2017
[72]

Speagle, J. S. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1904.02180

2019 arXiv
[73]

R., Levan, A

Tanvir, N. R., Levan, A. J., Gonz´ alez-Fern´ andez, C., et al. 2017, Astrophys. J., 848, L27

2017
[74]

A., Nitz, A

Usman, S. A., Nitz, A. H., Harry, I. W., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 215004

2016
[75]

2015, Phys

Veitch, J., Raymond, V., Farr, B., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 042003

2015
[76]

E., & Hinderer, T

Vines, J., Flanagan, E. E., & Hinderer, T. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 084051

2011
[77]

2017, Phys

Vitale, S., Lynch, R., Raymond, V., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 064053

2017
[78]

2014, Phys

Vitale, S., Lynch, R., Veitch, J., Raymond, V., & Sturani, R. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 112, 251101

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P., Abbott, R., et al

Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001

work page 2015

[2] [2]

2014, Class

Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2014, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001

work page 2014

[3] [3]

2016, Class

Adams, T., Buskulic, D., Germain, V., et al. 2016, Class. Quant. Grav., 33, 175012

work page 2016

[4] [4]

2014, Phys

Ajith, P., Fotopoulos, N., Privitera, S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 084041

work page 2014

[5] [5]

R., & Ravenhall, D

Akmal, A., Pandharipande, V. R., & Ravenhall, D. G. 1998, Phys. Rev. C, 58, 1804

1998

[6] [6]

Creighton, J. D. E. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 122006

work page 2012

[7] [7]

A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G

Apostolatos, T. A., Cutler, C., Sussman, G. J., & Thorne, K. S. 1994, Phys. Rev. D, 49, 6274

1994

[8] [8]

A., et al

Arcavi, I., Hosseinzadeh, G., Howell, D. A., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 64 EP

work page 2017