Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Null Stream Based Third-generation-ready Glitch Mitigation for Gravitational Wave Measurements

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that Einstein Telescope's null stream can erase overlapping glitches without harming parameter estimation.

desk verdict Clean proof-of-principle that ET's null stream can protect parameter estimation from overlapping glitches, but the paper overclaims robustness and misses a key baseline; worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15506 v2 pith:HNADV4P4 submitted 2024-11-23 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

Harsh Narola , Thibeau Wouters , Luca Negri , Melissa Lopez , Tom Dooney , Francesco Cireddu , Milan Wils , Isaac C. F. Wong
show 5 more authors
Peter T. H. Pang Justin Janquart Anuradha Samajdar Chris Van Den Broeck Tjonnie G. F. Li
This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesEinsteinTelescopenullstreamglitchmitigationBayesWaveparameterestimationblipglitchesthird-generationdetectors
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

This paper argues that Einstein Telescope's planned triangular configuration (ET-Δ) has a built-in 'null stream': summing the three detector outputs cancels the gravitational-wave signal exactly, leaving only whatever instrumental glitch is present plus noise. The authors feed that null stream to BayesWave, a glitch-characterization tool, reconstruct the glitch in isolation, subtract it from the contaminated detector, and then estimate source parameters from the cleaned data. On simulated binary black-hole signals with blip glitches overlapping at the merger, the recovered distance and sky location match a no-glitch benchmark; the same analysis without a null stream, in the proposed ET-2L design, yields biased extrinsic parameters. The paper also claims this route is roughly ten times cheaper than simultaneous signal-plus-glitch modeling, because the signal model and its parameters no longer enter the glitch reconstruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the null stream relation (Eq. 2), $\vec{d}_{\mathrm{null}} = (\vec{d}_1+\vec{d}_2+\vec{d}_3)/\sqrt{3}$, together with the geometric cancellation $\sum_{i=1}^3 \vec{h}_i = 0$. It converts the hard two-component inference problem of separating an unknown glitch from a known-but-correlated signal into a one-component inference problem on the glitch alone, eliminating the need for a signal waveform during glitch reconstruction and cutting the model's dimensionality by the eleven or more signal parameters. The glitch is represented by a sum of sine-Gaussian wavelets whose number and parameters are explored with a trans-dimensional Markov chain, and the median reconstruction is then subtracted from the raw detector stream before standard parameter estimation.

What would settle it

Simulate an ET-Δ binary-black-hole injection with a blip glitch while imposing a small calibration error on one detector—say a 1% amplitude scale or a 1 ms timing offset—and test whether the null-stream subtraction still yields 90% credible intervals that contain the true luminosity distance and sky location.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the null stream of ET-Δ, defined by $\vec{d}_{\mathrm{null}} = (\vec{d}_1 + \vec{d}_2 + \vec{d}_3)/\sqrt{3}$, contains no gravitational-wave signal because the geometry of the three triangular detectors makes $\sum_i \vec{h}_i = 0$. A blip glitch overlapping a loud binary-black-hole signal can therefore be reconstructed from the null stream alone, subtracted from the affected detector, and the source parameters measured as though no glitch had occurred. In the simulations this holds for glitches whose onset coincides with merger as well as for offsets up to roughly 100 ms, while the alternative ET-2L layout, which has no null stream, produces posterior distributions for luminosity distance and sky location that exclude the true values. The extra benefit is computational: glitch-only inference on a lower-dimensional model runs about ten times faster than joint signal-plus-glitch inference.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the geometric cancellation being exact: the three ET-Δ detectors must be identical in response and orientation so that their summed signals vanish, and any real-world asymmetry would leak gravitational-wave signal into the null stream used for glitch reconstruction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, glitches that land exactly on a merger no longer degrade measurements of luminosity distance and sky location for ET-Δ events.
  • The order-of-magnitude speed-up means glitch mitigation for third-generation detectors can be applied to the large expected event rate without the cost scaling with the duration and loudness of overlapping signals.
  • Because the null stream removes the need for a signal model, the method should also protect parameter estimation for poorly modeled sources such as core-collapse supernovae, binary neutron-star post-merger signals, or environments with microlensing or eccentricity.
  • The comparison implies the ET-Δ triangular design has a decisive practical advantage over the ET-2L two-interferometer design for precision science cases such as dark-siren cosmology and tests of general relativity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves open is the tolerance analysis: quantifying how much calibration mismatch or arm-length inequality between the three ET-Δ detectors can be allowed before signal leakage into the null stream starts biasing the posterior; a dedicated injection campaign with controlled detector offsets would settle this.
  • The same glitch-isolation trick could be used with any future sky-position-independent null stream, so the results give a concrete design criterion: a triangular detector network is not just more sensitive but materially easier to clean.
  • Since the null stream also contains no signal, it could serve as a diagnostic channel for detector status and noise characterization in real time, a use the authors do not explicitly develop.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a glitch mitigation strategy for the Einstein Telescope's triangular configuration (ET-Δ). The authors exploit the sky-position-independent null stream, which cancels the gravitational-wave signal when the three detector streams are summed, to reconstruct an overlapping glitch with BayesWave using no signal model. The reconstructed glitch is subtracted from the affected detector, and parameter estimation is performed on the cleaned data. Through injections of a high-SNR BBH signal with a simulated blip glitch, the authors report that ET-Δ posteriors closely match a no-glitch benchmark, while an ET-2L configuration with simultaneous signal-plus-glitch modeling shows biased extrinsic parameters. They also claim an order-of-magnitude computational speed-up for the null-stream approach.

Significance. If the method is robust in realistic conditions, it offers a practical and conceptually clean way to handle signal-overlapping glitches in third-generation detectors, directly supporting precision cosmology and fundamental-physics goals for ET. A notable strength is that the demonstration uses standard, reproducible analysis tools (gengli, BayesWave, Bilby, IMRPhenomD) and compares against a no-glitch benchmark, which makes the central mechanism easy to check. The work is not circular: glitch parameters are estimated from the null stream, while the no-glitch benchmark and injected true values serve as external references, and no fitted constants are tuned to produce the headline result. The main risk is that the entire pipeline rests on the exactness of the null-stream cancellation, which is assumed but not tested under realistic calibration and response asymmetries.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The central premise that the null stream contains no gravitational-wave signal depends on the exact equality Σ_i h_i = 0. This holds only for three identical, perfectly calibrated detectors with exactly matched antenna responses and no frequency-dependent calibration errors. In reality, calibration amplitude and phase errors and small geometric asymmetries will leak signal power into the null stream. Because BayesWave is run on the null stream with no signal model, any leaked signal will be absorbed into the reconstructed glitch and subsequently subtracted from ET1, removing a real component of the GW signal and biasing the parameter estimates. The paper contains no robustness test of this premise: all simulations use identical ET-D PSDs, perfect calibration, and the same waveform projection. I request an explicit injection study with realistic per-detector calibration errors (e.g., 1% amplitude and a few degrees of phase error, or frequency-dependent analogs) and slightly unequal detector responses, reporting the resulting bias in D_L and Ω relative to the no-glitch benchmark. Without this test, the claim that the null-stream approach "fully prevents contamination" is unsupported.
  2. [Section VI and Figs. 3-4] No no-glitch baseline is shown for the ET-2L configuration. The red ET-2L posteriors are compared only against the ET-Δ no-glitch benchmark, but the comparison that isolates the effect of glitch mismodeling is the ET-2L posterior with the glitch versus the ET-2L posterior without the glitch. A two-interferometer network can have intrinsically weaker or biased sky localization and distance measurements even in the absence of any glitch. If the red posteriors are similar to an ET-2L no-glitch baseline, then the claimed "significant biases due to mismodeling of glitches" would be primarily a geometric effect, not evidence against simultaneous modeling. I request adding an ET-2L no-glitch benchmark to Figs. 3 and 4, or otherwise quantifying the glitch-induced degradation relative to the appropriate baseline.
  3. [Section VII, Results] The claim of an "order of magnitude computational speed-up" is not supported by any measurement. The paper reports no wall-clock times, no likelihood-evaluation counts, and no convergence diagnostics for either the null-stream BayesWave run or the simultaneous ET-2L run. The dimensionality argument (fewer parameters without a signal model) is plausible, but it does not by itself establish a tenfold speed-up for the full glitch-reconstruction and parameter-estimation pipeline. I request either actual timing measurements with the same hardware and convergence criteria, or a reduction of the claim to a qualitative statement about reduced model dimensionality.
  4. [Section VI, Simulations] Across all nine Δt instances, the signal and glitch morphologies and the noise realizations remain identical; only the glitch onset time changes. This means the headline result is established for one signal, one glitch morphology, and one noise realization. For a "third-generation-ready" claim, I request at least a small ensemble with different noise realizations and a second glitch morphology (e.g., a longer-duration or scattered-light glitch) to verify that the green posteriors consistently align with the no-glitch benchmark and that the ET-2L bias pattern is not particular to this single realization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There are several typos: "trinagular" should be "triangular," "complexiteis" should be "complexities," "conincides" should be "coincides," and "appraoch" should be "approach."
  2. [Section VI, Simulations] The sentence "This consists of instance where the glitch onset conincides with the merger time..." is missing an article and should read "This consists of an instance where..." or "These consist of instances where...".
  3. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption states that blue shows "the measurements when no glitch is introduced," but it would be helpful to state explicitly that this benchmark is for ET-Δ and to clarify whether the blue curves are also used for the ET-2L panels (see major comment 2).
  4. [Section VII, Results] The phrase "For all parameters shown" could be made more precise by listing the parameters: it appears that only M_total, D_L, and sky localization are shown, while other parameters such as mass ratio and spins are not reported; the discussion of "quality of parameter measurements" should state which parameters were checked.
  5. [General] No mention is made of data or code availability. Given that the methods rely on public tools, a statement about reproducibility (e.g., a repository with the injection scripts and configuration files) would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null-stream glitch mitigation pipeline is self-contained, benchmarked against no-glitch injections, and does not fit any parameter to the quantities it later 'predicts'.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The null stream is constructed from the geometric property that the sum of the three ET-Delta signal projections vanishes (Eq. (2), Section III), an externally grounded fact about the triangular detector configuration, not a conclusion derived from the paper's own results. The glitch is then reconstructed from the null stream using BayesWave without a signal model (Eq. (7), Section V), so the glitch model parameters are nuisance parameters estimated from the null stream alone. The cleaned parameter estimates are obtained by subtracting the reconstructed glitch from ET1 and running standard Bilby parameter estimation, with the no-glitch result and the true injected values as external benchmarks. No fitted constant or tuned parameter is used to make the parameter estimates match the true values; the favorable results in Figs. 3 and 4 are comparisons against an independent benchmark. The paper's load-bearing idealization that the three detectors are identical and perfectly calibrated is a robustness concern, not a circularity: it is an assumption of the simulation, not an input that is later relabeled as an output. Self-citations to prior null-stream and BayesWave work provide background methodology and do not carry the central claim by themselves. Therefore the analysis reduces to no circular step, and the appropriate score is 0.

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

The paper is a simulation study whose conclusions depend on idealized assumptions: perfect null-stream cancellation, single-detector glitches, Gaussian noise, and wavelet-representable glitches. These are standard for a proof-of-concept but should be stated as limits to generality.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The three ET-Δ detector responses have equal sensitivity and the geometry is exactly equilateral so that the sum of signal projections vanishes.
    Invoked in Section III, Eq. (2), defining the null stream; real calibration mismatches or asymmetries would break the cancellation.
  • domain assumption The glitch appears in only one detector (ET1 or the Sardinia interferometer); the other detectors are glitch-free.
    Stated in Eq. (1) as the simulation setup; coincident glitches are deferred to future work in Section VIII.
  • domain assumption The detector noise is stationary and Gaussian with known PSDs (ET-D sensitivity curve).
    Assumed throughout Sections IV-VI for likelihood computations; real detector noise is non-stationary and non-Gaussian.
  • domain assumption The blip glitch can be accurately represented by a sum of sine-Gaussian wavelets.
    The BayesWave-style glitch model in Eq. (6) is assumed adequate; adequacy for other glitch morphologies is not tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Null Stream Based Third-generation-ready Glitch Mitigation for Gravitational Wave Measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNADV4P4

@misc{pith2026241115506,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Null Stream Based Third-generation-ready Glitch Mitigation for Gravitational Wave Measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNADV4P4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15506}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational Wave (GW) detectors routinely encounter transient noise bursts, known as glitches, which are caused by either instrumental or environmental factors. Due to their high occurrence rate, glitches can overlap with GW signals, as in the notable case of GW170817, the first detection of a binary neutron star merger. Accurate reconstruction and subtraction of these glitches is a challenging problem that must be addressed to ensure that scientific conclusions drawn from the data are reliable. This problem will intensify with third-generation observatories like the Einstein Telescope (ET) due to their higher detection rates of GWs and the longer duration of signals within the sensitivity band of the detectors. Robust glitch mitigation algorithms are, therefore, crucial for maximizing the scientific output of next-generation GW observatories. For the first time, we demonstrate how the null stream inherent in ET's unique triangular configuration can be leveraged by state-of-the-art glitch characterization methodology to essentially undo the effect of glitches for the purpose of estimating the parameters of the source. The null stream based approach enables characterization and subtraction of glitches that occur arbitrarily close to the peak of the signal without any significant effect on the quality of parameter measurements, and achieves an order of magnitude computational speed-up compared to when the null stream is not available. By contrast, without the null stream, significant biases can occur in the glitch reconstruction, which deteriorate the quality of subsequent measurements of the source parameters. This demonstrates a clear edge which the null stream can offer for precision GW science in the ET era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15506 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Measurement of detector-frame total mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. A comparison of the credible level of the true parameter value [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 82 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

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

    arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Acerneseet al

    F. Acerneseet al. (VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    benchmark

    The normalization factor 1/ √ 3 ensures that the noise’s power spectral density equals theaverageofthoseoftheindividualdetectors. Sincethenull streamcontainsnoGWsignal,itenablesglitchreconstruction without the possibility of signal contamination. As shown in Fig. 1, we can construct the null stream for a data segment using Eq. (2), resulting in a null str...

  4. [4]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro-ph.CO]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    (KAGRA,VIRGO,LIGOScientific),Phys.Rev

    R.Abbott etal. (KAGRA,VIRGO,LIGOScientific),Phys.Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2023), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2023), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

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

    arXiv 2019

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

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

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Narolaet al., (2023), arXiv:2308.12140 [gr-qc]

    H. Narolaet al., (2023), arXiv:2308.12140 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    (LIGOScientific,Virgo),Class.Quant.Grav

    B.P.Abbott etal. (LIGOScientific,Virgo),Class.Quant.Grav. 37, 055002 (2020), arXiv:1908.11170 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    (LIGOScientific,Virgo),Class.Quant.Grav

    B.P.Abbott etal. (LIGOScientific,Virgo),Class.Quant.Grav. 35, 065010 (2018), arXiv:1710.02185 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Daviset al.(LIGO), Class

    D. Daviset al.(LIGO), Class. Quant. Grav.38, 135014 (2021), arXiv:2101.11673 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Acerneseet al.(Virgo), (2022), arXiv:2205.01555 [gr-qc]

    F. Acerneseet al.(Virgo), (2022), arXiv:2205.01555 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    (LIGO), (2024),arXiv:2409.02831[astro-ph.IM]

    S.Soni etal. (LIGO), (2024),arXiv:2409.02831[astro-ph.IM]

    2024

  8. [16]

    S.SoniandothersLIGOScientificCollaboration,Classicaland Quantum Gravity38, 025016 (2021), arXiv:2007.14876 [astro- ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Cabero et al., Class

    M. Cabero et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 15 (2019), arXiv:1901.05093 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Pankow et al

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

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Payne et al

    E. Payne et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 104017 (2022), arXiv:2206.11932 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Udallet al., (2024), arXiv:2409.03912 [gr-qc]

    R. Udallet al., (2024), arXiv:2409.03912 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Guptaet al., (2024), arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    A. Guptaet al., (2024), arXiv:2405.02197 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    (KAGRA,VIRGO,LIGOScientific),Phys.Rev

    R.Abbott etal. (KAGRA,VIRGO,LIGOScientific),Phys.Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  15. [23]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Chatziioannou et al., Phys

    K. Chatziioannou et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 044013 (2021), arXiv:2101.01200 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  20. [28]

    Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

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

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hild et al., Class

    S. Hild et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Maggioreet al., JCAP 03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

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

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Reitze et al., Bull

    D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Branchesiet al., (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Aasiet al.(VIRGO), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.29, 155002 (2012), arXiv:1203.5613 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  26. [34]

    L. K. Nuttall, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A376, 20170286 (2018), arXiv:1804.07592 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Davis and M

    D. Davis and M. Walker, Galaxies10, 12 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Hourihane et al., Phys

    S. Hourihane et al., Phys. Rev. D 106, 042006 (2022), arXiv:2205.13580 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ghongeet al., (2023), arXiv:2311.09159 [gr-qc]

    S. Ghongeet al., (2023), arXiv:2311.09159 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    1999 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Husa et al

    S. Husa et al. , Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016), arXiv:1508.07250 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Boyle et al., Class

    M. Boyle et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 195006 (2019), arXiv:1904.04831 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Lopez, G

    M. Lopez, G. Caneva, A. Martins, S. Schmidt, J. Schop- pink, W. van Straalen, C. Capano, and S. Caudill, (2024), arXiv:2412.17169 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024

  34. [42]

    Samajdar et al., Phys

    A. Samajdar et al., Phys. Rev. D 104, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2102.07544 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Pizzati et al

    E. Pizzati et al. , Phys. Rev. D 105, 104016 (2022), arXiv:2102.07692 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Antonelli, O

    A. Antonelli, O. Burke, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 507, 5069 (2021), arXiv:2104.01897 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    523,1699(2023), arXiv:2211.01304 [gr-qc]

    J.Janquart etal.,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 523,1699(2023), arXiv:2211.01304 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Relton and V

    P. Relton and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D104, 084039 (2021), arXiv:2103.16225 [gr-qc]. 7

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D101, 084002 (2020), arXiv:1908.03584 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    López Portilla et al., Phys

    M. López Portilla et al., Phys. Rev. D103, 063011 (2021), arXiv:2011.13733 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. J. Szczepańczyket al., Phys. Rev. D110, 042007 (2024), arXiv:2305.16146 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Dietrich, T

    T. Dietrich, T. Hinderer, and A. Samajdar, Gen. Rel. Grav.53, 27 (2021), arXiv:2004.02527 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Roy and R

    S. Roy and R. Vicente, (2024), arXiv:2410.16388 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    S. H. W. Leong et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 124079 (2023), arXiv:2308.03250 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    M.WrightandM.Hendry, (2021),10.3847/1538-4357/ac7ec2, arXiv:2112.07012 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gupteet al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    N. Gupteet al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Einstein telescope: Science case, design study and feasibility report,

    Einstein Telescope Steering Committee, “Einstein telescope: Science case, design study and feasibility report,” https: //apps.et-gw.eu/tds/ql/?c=15662

  48. [56]

    Steltner et al

    B. Steltner et al. , Astrophys. J. 952, 55 (2023), arXiv:2303.04109 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Steltner, M

    B. Steltner, M. A. Papa, and H. B. Eggenstein, Phys. Rev. D 105, 022005 (2022), arXiv:2105.09933 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Davis et al., Class

    D. Davis et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 055011 (2019), arXiv:1809.05348 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    (LIGOScientific),Phys.Rev.D 99,042001 (2019), arXiv:1806.00532 [astro-ph.IM]

    J.C.Driggers etal. (LIGOScientific),Phys.Rev.D 99,042001 (2019), arXiv:1806.00532 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Lopez et al

    M. Lopez et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 023027 (2022), arXiv:2203.06494 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Lopezet al., (2022), arXiv:2205.09204 [astro-ph.IM]

    M. Lopezet al., (2022), arXiv:2205.09204 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Guersel and M

    Y. Guersel and M. Tinto, Phys. Rev. D40, 3884 (1989)

    1989

  55. [63]

    Freise et al., Class

    A. Freise et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 085012 (2009), arXiv:0804.1036 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  56. [64]

    P. J. Sutton et al., New J. Phys. 12, 053034 (2010), arXiv:0908.3665 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [65]

    P. T. H. Pang et al., Phys. Rev. D 101, 104055 (2020), arXiv:2003.07375 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    I. C. F. Wonget al., (2021), arXiv:2105.09485 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Goncharov, A

    B. Goncharov, A. H. Nitz, and J. Harms, Phys. Rev. D105, 122007 (2022), arXiv:2204.08533 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 135012 (2015), arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  61. [69]

    N. J. Cornish et al., Phys. Rev. D 103, 044006 (2021), arXiv:2011.09494 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Veitch and A

    J. Veitch and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D81, 062003 (2010), arXiv:0911.3820 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  63. [71]

    P. J. Green, Biometrika82, 711 (1995)

    1995

  64. [72]

    Khan et al

    S. Khan et al. , Phys. Rev. D 93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Belczynskiet al., Mon

    K. Belczynskiet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 4702 (2017), arXiv:1612.01524 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Oguri, Mon

    M. Oguri, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 480, 3842 (2018), arXiv:1807.02584 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  67. [75]

    gengli’s documentation,

    M. Lopez, “gengli’s documentation,” https://melissa. lopez.docs.ligo.org/gengli/index.htmll, [Accessed 06-11-2024]

    2024

  68. [76]

    B. F. Schutz, Nature323, 310 (1986)

    1986

  69. [77]

    C.L.MacLeodandC.J.Hogan,Phys.Rev.D 77,043512(2008), arXiv:0712.0618 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  70. [78]

    W.DelPozzo,Phys.Rev.D 86,043011(2012),arXiv:1108.1317 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  71. [79]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, Nature562, 545 (2018), arXiv:1712.06531 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Fishbachet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    M. Fishbachet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 871, L13 (2019), arXiv:1807.05667 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Gray et al

    R. Gray et al. , Phys. Rev. D 101, 122001 (2020), arXiv:1908.06050 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Soares-Santoset al.(DES, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astro- phys

    M. Soares-Santoset al.(DES, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astro- phys. J. Lett.876, L7 (2019), arXiv:1901.01540 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Palmeseet al.(DES), Astrophys

    A. Palmeseet al.(DES), Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L33 (2020), arXiv:2006.14961 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  76. [84]

    (LIGOScientific,Virgo,VIRGO),Astrophys

    B.P.Abbott etal. (LIGOScientific,Virgo,VIRGO),Astrophys. J. 909, 218 (2021), arXiv:1908.06060 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Finke, S

    A. Finke, S. Foffa, F. Iacovelli, M. Maggiore, and M. Mancar- ella, JCAP08, 026 (2021), arXiv:2101.12660 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Palmese, C

    A. Palmese, C. R. Bom, S. Mucesh, and W. G. Hartley, Astro- phys. J.943, 56 (2023), arXiv:2111.06445 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  79. [87]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129901 (2018)], arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  80. [88]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Narola, J

    H. Narola, J. Janquart, L. Haegel, K. Haris, O. A. Hannuksela, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D109, 084064 (2024), arXiv:2308.01709 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Gupta et al., Class

    I. Gupta et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  83. [91]

    A. H. Nitz and T. Dal Canton, Astrophys. J. Lett.917, L27 (2021), arXiv:2106.15259 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae,

    E. Abdikamalov, G. Pagliaroli, and D. Radice, “Gravitational waves from core-collapse supernovae,” inHandbook of Gravi- tational Wave Astronomy(Springer Singapore, 2021) p. 1–37

    2021

  85. [93]

    Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al., (2025), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.