Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 90 references

Data-driven approach for extracting tidal information from neutron star binary mergers observed with the Einstein Telescope

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that combining the 100 loudest binary neutron star mergers from a mock year of Einstein Telescope data, Bayesian inference on a pseudo-9PN waveform with six free tidal coefficients recovers the tidal phase function P(x)…

desk verdict Data-driven tidal HOC calibration is a genuine proof-of-principle, but the common-P(x) assumption means the headline tightening is about an effective phase, not necessarily the true tidal phase. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10272 v2 pith:IGBRWM6V submitted 2025-01-17 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Adrian Abac , Anna Puecher , Jonathan Gair , Tim Dietrich This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryneutronstarmergerstidaldeformabilityEinsteinTelescopewaveformmodelingBayesianparameterestimationhigher-ordercoefficientsequationofstate
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 proposes building gravitational-wave models of neutron star mergers directly from observed data, rather than relying only on post-Newtonian expansions and numerical-relativity simulations. Its central case is that about one year of Einstein Telescope operation, represented by the 100 highest-signal-to-noise binary neutron star events from a mock catalog, is enough to reconstruct the tidal phase curve P(x) that governs finite-size effects in the waveform. The reconstruction treats six higher-order tidal coefficients as free parameters and infers them with Bayesian parameter estimation; multiplying prior-normalised posteriors across events and across the two stars yields 90% confidence bands that contain the injected NRTidalv3 model and narrow as more events are combined. If the approach works on real data, it gives a complementary, data-driven route to waveform models and would sharpen measurements of neutron star deformability and the equation of state.

What carries the argument

The central object is the reduced tidal phase function $P(x)$, defined through $\psi_T(x) = -c^{A}_{\mathrm{Newt}}\kappa_A(x)x^{5/2}P_A(x)+[A\leftrightarrow B]$, with $x=(\pi M f)^{2/3}$ the post-Newtonian frequency parameter and $\kappa_A(x)$ the dynamical tidal parameter. The paper represents $P(x)$ by a pseudo-9PN polynomial, $P^{9PN}(x; c_3,c_{7/2},c_4) = 1 + c_1 x + c_{3/2}x^{3/2} + c_2 x^2 + c_{5/2}x^{5/2} + c_3 x^3 + c_{7/2}x^{7/2} + c_4 x^4$, whose three highest coefficients per star are left free and inferred from the data. Multiplying prior-normalised posteriors over events and over both stars implements the assumption that $P(x)$ is common across the population, which is what turns many noisy single-event measurements into a single data-informed waveform model.

What would settle it

Take the same 100-event mock catalog but inject signals with an independent tidal model or a different equation of state, then recover with the pseudo-9PN model and check whether the injected P(x) stays inside the combined 90% band; a systematic miss, or a band that shifts when the BBH baseline is swapped for an EOB-based model, would show that the extraction depends on the very models it is meant to replace.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the tidal phase of a binary neutron star signal can be written as $\psi_T(x) = -c^{A}_{\mathrm{Newt}}\kappa_A(x)x^{5/2}P_A(x) + [A\leftrightarrow B]$, and the unknown function $P(x)$ can be learned from detections. Injecting IMRPhenomXAS NRTidalv3 signals and recovering them with a pseudo-9PN tidal extension, whose polynomial $P^{9PN}(x; c_3,c_{7/2},c_4)$ has six free higher-order coefficients, the authors obtain posterior distributions for $P_A(x)$ and $P_B(x)$ for each event. After normalising each posterior by its prior and multiplying over events, and combining the two stars into $P_{A\cap B}(x)$, the resulting 90% band contains the injected NRTidalv3 curves for a single event and becomes tighter, especially at large $x$, as all 100 events are included. The paper further reports that the recovered pseudo-9PN phase beats the analytic 7.5PN tidal phase at low frequencies and agrees with NRTidalv3 better than NRTidalv2 or KyotoTidal in the late inspiral.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the binary black hole baseline waveform (IMRPhenomXAS) is accurate enough at Einstein Telescope sensitivity that every residual phase error is captured by the six free tidal coefficients; if the baseline carries unmodeled systematics, the extracted P(x) will be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With one year of ET data, the recovered tidal phase is precise enough to compete with analytic models: the 90% band for the 9PN phase matches NRTidalv3 better than NRTidalv2 or KyotoTidal in the late inspiral.
  • Adding more events tightens the $P(x)$ bands, so the extraction improves as the detector accumulates observations.
  • At low frequencies ($x<0.06$), the data-driven phase achieves smaller error than the analytic 7.5PN tidal expression, so the method can probe the validity of the PN expansion of tidal effects.
  • Improved tidal phase models translate into more accurate parameter estimation, yielding tighter constraints on tidal deformabilities and the neutron star equation of state.
  • Combining ET with a Cosmic Explorer-like network reduces uncertainties but introduces biases from waveform systematics, indicating that the required pseudo-PN order grows with detector sensitivity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The common-$P(x)$ assumption may be the first thing to break when the real population spans a wide range of masses or equations of state; a hierarchical model that lets $P$ depend on mass or compactness would test this directly.
  • The same data-driven calibration could be applied to other poorly modelled sectors, such as higher-order multipoles or spin-tidal couplings, whenever the baseline waveform is trusted.
  • Because the method only constrains $P(x)$ up to the lowest merger frequency among the combined events, extending the reconstruction to the late inspiral and merger requires a separate treatment of the cutoff.
  • A natural stress test is to inject with a stiff and a soft equation of state and check whether the combined 90% bands still overlap; if not, the extracted $P(x)$ is population-dependent in a way the current analysis does not capture.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a data-driven method for constructing BNS waveform models by treating the higher-order coefficients (HOCs) of a pseudo-9PN tidal phase as free parameters and inferring them via Bayesian parameter estimation from simulated ET observations. Using one year of mock ET data (the 100 highest-SNR events from a catalog of 1000 BNS mergers), the authors show that the inferred tidal phase function P(x) has 90% credible bands that contain the NRTidalv3 injection for a single event and that these bands tighten as events are combined. They further compare the inferred phase against NRTidalv2 and KyotoTidal, and against known PN orders, and present supplementary validation of the multibanding likelihood and the adequacy of the 9PN truncation.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the method offers a complementary route to traditional NR-calibrated waveform modeling, with the potential to probe the PN expansion of tidal effects using realistic future observations. The paper is careful in several respects: it validates the multibanding likelihood to O(10^-5), tests the 9PN truncation against 8PN and 8.5PN alternatives, and presents injection-recovery checks for multiple detector configurations. However, the demonstrated result is a self-consistency test on mock data produced with the same model family used for recovery, so the headline claim that the method 'extracts' tidal information is only established for the model-dependent effective P(x), not for the true tidal phase of a realistic population.

major comments (3)
  1. [Methodology (after Eq. 1), Fig. 7] The assumption of a single common P(x) across all events is load-bearing for the multi-event combination. The paper states that the variation of P(x) from the population spread is smaller than the measurement uncertainty, but the relevant comparison is against the combined 100-event uncertainty, which shrinks as events are added. Since NRTidalv3 P(x) depends on mass ratio and spin (as the supplemental validation explicitly removes this dependence), multiplying posteriors yields an effective average that need not contain the true P(x) of any individual event. The 90% band for 100 events is therefore not demonstrated to contain the true tidal phase of the population.
  2. [Results, Fig. 7 (middle and right panels)] The ET+CE configuration shows a visible bias of the inferred P(x) band relative to the injected NRTidalv3 curves, as acknowledged in the text. The clean validation in the right panel removes dynamical tides, spins, and mass-ratio dependence of the PN coefficients; this establishes that the bias is indeed due to model disagreement and population dependence, but it also means the validation does not support the headline claim for the realistic catalog that includes those effects. The paper's own results thus demonstrate that the method can provide tight but biased constraints when the common-P(x) assumption is violated.
  3. [Methodology, 'BBH baseline' paragraph] The assumption that the BBH baseline IMRPhenomXAS is sufficiently accurate at ET sensitivity is critical to the interpretation of the inferred HOCs as tidal information. The paper justifies this with a plausibility argument (BBH waveforms are calibrated to NR), but no quantitative test is provided for the impact of unmodeled BBH phase systematics on the extracted P(x) at the high SNRs considered here. Without such a test, the claim that the method extracts tidal information rather than absorbing BBH systematics is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 1 caption and text] The text refers to 'the bottom panel of Fig. 1' when justifying the common-P(x) assumption, but the bottom panel of the three-panel figure shows the 100-event posterior, not a measure of population spread; the relevant comparison (population spread vs. combined uncertainty) is not displayed.
  2. [Supplemental Material, Eq. (4)] The polynomial P^{9PN}_A is written with coefficients c_1, c_{3/2}, c_2, c_{5/2}, c_3, c_{7/2}, c_4; the text says 'six additional free parameters (c_{A,B}^3, c_{A,B}^{7/2}, c_{A,B}^4)', but the polynomial has eight coefficients, two of which (c_1, c_{3/2}, c_2, c_{5/2}) are presumably fixed to PN values; this should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Introduction, 'Pad` e approximant'] The phrase 'Pad` e approximant' in the Methodology contains a stray backtick and should be corrected to 'Padé approximant' (also in the Supplemental Material).
  4. [Outlook, 'higher-order modes'] The statement about including higher-order modes 'by rescaling the inspiral part proportional to the m-mode' is vague; a concrete prescription or reference would help the reader understand the proposed extension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the extracted P(x) is an openly fitted quantity, and the agreement with the injected NRTidalv3 curve is an injection-recovery consistency check, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an injection-recovery study: it injects IMRPhenomXAS NRTidalv3, recovers with IMRPhenomXAS 9PNTidal whose six higher-order coefficients are free parameters, and reports posteriors on the pseudo-9PN P(x). The recovered P(x) matching the injection is therefore a measure of how well the flexible 9PN ansatz can represent NRTidalv3 within ET sensitivity, not a prediction of an external quantity from independent data. The paper explicitly labels the HOCs as inferred and the procedure as calibration, so this is not a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The only overlapping-author citation used as a benchmark, NRTidalv3 [48], is a publicly released NR-calibrated model and does not load-bear on the logical derivation. The common-P(x) assumption used to combine events is a substantive modeling assumption that could bias the combined bands if P(x) varies strongly with source parameters; the paper acknowledges residual biases and performs a restricted validation without mass-ratio dependence. That is a correctness and systematic-risk concern, not a circularity. No equation reduces to another by construction, and no uniqueness claim is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central demonstration reduces to fitting six HOCs to mock data, with the common-P(x) and BBH-baseline assumptions as load-bearing domain assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are the fitted HOCs and the hand-chosen 9PN truncation.

free parameters (2)
  • Six HOCs (c_{A,B,3}, c_{A,B,7/2}, c_{A,B,4}) = Posteriors inferred via PE, no numeric point values reported
    Eq. (4) defines the 9PN polynomial with six free coefficients (three per star), inferred from the mock data through Bayesian parameter estimation. The recovered P(x) is constructed directly from these fitted values.
  • Pseudo-PN truncation order = 9
    The 9PN order is chosen by hand as a balance between accuracy and computational efficiency (supplementary material, Fig. 5). This modeling choice determines how many HOCs are fitted and affects the flexibility of the recovery model.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BBH baseline waveform (IMRPhenomXAS) is accurate enough at ET sensitivity that all residual phase uncertainty is captured by the tidal extension.
    Stated in Methodology: 'we assume that the BBH baseline is well-modeled and sufficiently accurate'. The justification is that BBH waveforms are already calibrated with NR simulations, but this is not proven for ET sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The spread in the true tidal phase P(x) across the astrophysical population is smaller than the measurement uncertainty, justifying a common P(x) when combining events.
    Methodology: 'Assuming that the variation of P(x) from the spread in the modeled population is smaller than the uncertainty of the measurement, we consider a common P(x)'. This assumption is needed for the multi-event combination to be unbiased.
  • ad hoc to paper The injection model IMRPhenomXAS NRTidalv3 represents the true gravitational-wave signal.
    The mock data are generated with NRTidalv3, while the recovery model is a 9PN approximation. The paper's validation is a self-consistency test against this injected model, not a test against independent physical truth.
  • domain assumption Tidal effects are dominated by the (2,2) mode and spins are aligned.
    Outlook: 'we assume ... that the tidal contributions are dominated by the (2,2)-mode'. The catalog uses aligned spins, so the recovery model does not handle generic spins or higher modes.
  • standard math Bayesian inference with the multibanding likelihood approximation is valid.
    The paper uses bilby and dynesty, and the supplement validates the multibanding approximation to relative error O(10^-5) for the likelihood, so this is standard and supported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Data-driven approach for extracting tidal information from neutron star binary mergers observed with the Einstein Telescope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IGBRWM6V

@misc{pith2026250110272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Data-driven approach for extracting tidal information from neutron star binary mergers observed with the Einstein Telescope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IGBRWM6V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10272}
}
read the original abstract

The recent breakthroughs regarding the detection of compact binary mergers via gravitational waves opened up a new window to the Universe. Gravitational-wave models have been essential to this success since they are necessary to infer the properties of the compact binary system from the observational data. Next-generation detectors, such as the Einstein Telescope, will allow for more observations of binary neutron star mergers with higher precision, making accurate waveform models crucial in describing these systems. In this article, we propose a novel approach for constructing phenomenological waveform models informed by observational data. Using mock data representing a one-year operation of the Einstein Telescope as our baseline, we demonstrate how the results improve as more events are included in the calibration. This method offers a new and complementary approach for developing sophisticated gravitational-wave models compared to classical techniques that employ analytical computations and numerical-relativity simulations. Improved waveform models will then yield more accurate parameter estimation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10272 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The absolute error between the inferred [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

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

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Aasi et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Acernese et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRA WITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAAS- TRO, VINROUGE, MASTER...

    arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    J. C. Rastinejad et al. , Nature 612, 223 (2022), arXiv:2204.10864 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    ¨Ozel and P

    F. ¨Ozel and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016), arXiv:1603.02698 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Huth et al., Nature 606, 276 (2022), arXiv:2107.06229 [nucl-th]

    S. Huth et al., Nature 606, 276 (2022), arXiv:2107.06229 [nucl-th]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 90 references
  1. [9]

    G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. G. Alford, L. Brodie, A. Haber, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C 106, 055804 (2022), arXiv:2205.10283 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Z. Zhu, A. Li, J. Hu, and H. Shen, (2023), arXiv:2305.16058 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Koehn et al

    H. Koehn et al. , Phys. Rev. X 15, 021014 (2025), arXiv:2402.04172 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cum- bres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), Nature 551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Rosswog, J

    S. Rosswog, J. Sollerman, U. Feindt, A. Goobar, O. Ko- robkin, R. Wollaeger, C. Fremling, and M. M. Kasliwal, Astron. Astrophys. 615, A132 (2018), arXiv:1710.05445 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Watson et al

    D. Watson et al. , Nature 574, 497 (2019), arXiv:1910.10510 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019

  9. [17]

    Vines, E

    J. Vines, E. E. Flanagan, and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084051 (2011), arXiv:1101.1673 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Damour, A

    T. Damour, A. Nagar, and L. Villain, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123007 (2012), arXiv:1203.4352 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Blanchet, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Rel. 17, 2 (2014), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Henry, G

    Q. Henry, G. Faye, and L. Blanchet, Phys. Rev. D 102, 044033 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 108, 089901 (2023)], arXiv:2005.13367 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Narikawa, Phys

    T. Narikawa, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063029 (2023), arXiv:2307.02033 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

    M. K. Mandal, P. Mastrolia, R. Patil, and J. Steinhoff, (2024), arXiv:2412.01706 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Dones, Q

    E. Dones, Q. Henry, and L. Bernard, (2024), arXiv:2412.14249 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9811091

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Buonanno and T

    A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001013

    2000 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Nagar, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 162, 211 (2011), arXiv:0906.1769 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Boh´ e et al

    A. Boh´ e et al. , Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, H. Okawa, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064060 (2015), arXiv:1502.03457 [gr- qc]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hinderer et al., Phys

    T. Hinderer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 181101 (2016), arXiv:1602.00599 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Steinhoff, T

    J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, A. Buonanno, and A. Tarac- chini, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104028 (2016), arXiv:1608.01907 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Akcay, S

    S. Akcay, S. Bernuzzi, F. Messina, A. Nagar, N. Or- tiz, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044051 (2019), arXiv:1812.02744 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nagar, F

    A. Nagar, F. Messina, P. Rettegno, D. Bini, T. Damour, A. Geralico, S. Akcay, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 99, 044007 (2019), arXiv:1812.07923 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, T. Dietrich, and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 161103 (2015), arXiv:1412.4553 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Dietrich and T

    T. Dietrich and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124006 (2017), arXiv:1702.02053 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Nagar and P

    A. Nagar and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D 99, 021501 (2019), arXiv:1805.03891 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Gamba et al., (2023), arXiv:2307.15125 [gr-qc]

    R. Gamba et al., (2023), arXiv:2307.15125 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Gamba and S

    R. Gamba and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044014 (2023), arXiv:2207.13106 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    B. D. Lackey, S. Bernuzzi, C. R. Galley, J. Meidam, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104036 (2017), arXiv:1610.04742 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    B. D. Lackey, M. P¨ urrer, A. Taracchini, and S. Marsat, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024002 (2019), arXiv:1812.08643 [gr- qc]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    P¨ urrer, Class

    M. P¨ urrer, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 195010 (2014), arXiv:1402.4146 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  33. [41]

    D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, A. Buonanno, and A. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124087 (2021), arXiv:2105.06983 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Tissino, G

    J. Tissino, G. Carullo, M. Breschi, R. Gamba, S. Schmidt, and S. Bernuzzi, Phys. Rev. D 107, 084037 (2023), arXiv:2210.15684 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Gamba, S

    R. Gamba, S. Bernuzzi, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084058 (2021), arXiv:2012.00027 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Kawaguchi, K

    K. Kawaguchi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044044 (2018), arXiv:1802.06518 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Dietrich, S

    T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 96, 121501 (2017), arXiv:1706.02969 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Dietrich et al., Phys

    T. Dietrich et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 024029 (2019), arXiv:1804.02235 [gr-qc]. 6

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dietrich, A

    T. Dietrich, A. Samajdar, S. Khan, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, R. Dudi, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 100, 044003 (2019), arXiv:1905.06011 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. Abac, T. Dietrich, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and M. Ujevic, Phys. Rev. D 109, 024062 (2024), arXiv:2311.07456 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Colleoni, F

    M. Colleoni, F. A. Ramis Vidal, N. K. Johnson- McDaniel, T. Dietrich, M. Haney, and G. Pratten, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064025 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Williams, P

    N. Williams, P. Schmidt, and G. Pratten, Phys. Rev. D 110, 104013 (2024), arXiv:2407.08538 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kiuchi, K

    K. Kiuchi, K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 101, 084006 (2020), arXiv:1907.03790 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Foucart et al., Phys

    F. Foucart et al., Phys. Rev. D 99, 044008 (2019), arXiv:1812.06988 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Dietrich, D

    T. Dietrich, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, F. Zappa, A. Perego, B. Br¨ ugmann, S. V. Chaurasia, R. Dudi, W. Tichy, and M. Ujevic, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 24LT01 (2018), arXiv:1806.01625 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Ujevic, A

    M. Ujevic, A. Rashti, H. Gieg, W. Tichy, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023029 (2022), arXiv:2202.09343 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Gonzalez et al., Class

    A. Gonzalez et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 085011 (2023), arXiv:2210.16366 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Hinderer, Astrophys

    T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008), arXiv:0711.2420 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  49. [57]

    E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D77, 021502 (2008), arXiv:0709.1915 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chatziioannou, H

    K. Chatziioannou, H. T. Cromartie, S. Gandolfi, I. Tews, D. Radice, A. W. Steiner, and A. L. Watts, (2024), arXiv:2407.11153 [nucl-th]

    2024

  51. [59]

    See Supplemental Material at URL-will-be-inserted- publisher for additional information

  52. [60]

    Baiotti, T

    L. Baiotti, T. Damour, B. Giacomazzo, A. Nagar, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 261101 (2010), arXiv:1009.0521 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Bernuzzi, A

    S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, M. Thierfelder, and B. Brug- mann, Phys. Rev. D 86, 044030 (2012), arXiv:1205.3403 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044001 (2013), arXiv:1301.3555 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kunert, P

    N. Kunert, P. T. H. Pang, I. Tews, M. W. Coughlin, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 105, L061301 (2022), arXiv:2110.11835 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Branchesi et al

    M. Branchesi et al. , JCAP 07, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Gamba, M

    R. Gamba, M. Breschi, S. Bernuzzi, M. Agathos, and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124015 (2021), arXiv:2009.08467 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Maggiore et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Einstein Telescope: Science Case, Design Study and Fea- sibility Report, Tech. Rep. (Einstein Telescope, 2020) code ET-0028A-20

    2020

  60. [68]

    ET design report update 2020, Tech. Rep. (2024) code ET-0007C-20

    2024

  61. [69]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  62. [70]

    R. E. Kalman, J. Basic Eng. 82, 35 (1960)

    1960

  63. [71]

    J. D. Meiss, Phys. Rev. E 72, 026226 (2005)

    2005

  64. [72]

    Danilishin and T

    S. Danilishin and T. Zhang, Einstein Telescope sensitiv- ity curves used for CoBA Science study, Tech. Rep. ET- 0304A-22 (Einstein Telescope Collaboration, 2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Hild et al., Class

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

    2011 arXiv

  66. [74]

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

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

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Cosmic Explorer Strain Sensitivity , Tech. Rep. CE- T2000017-v8 (Cosmic Explorer Project, 2020)

    2020

  68. [76]

    Landry and J

    P. Landry and J. S. Read, Astrophys. J. Lett. 921, L25 (2021), arXiv:2107.04559 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020), arXiv:2001.11412 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  70. [78]

    LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “LIGO Algorithm Li- brary - LALSuite,” free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  71. [79]

    Pratten, P

    G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, and N. Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 081102 (2022), arXiv:2109.07566 [astro- ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Boyle et al., Class

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

    2019 arXiv

  73. [81]

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Stu- rani, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 85, 082003 (2012), arXiv:1110.0530 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Agathos, W

    M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 89, 082001 (2014), arXiv:1311.0420 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Meidam et al., Phys

    J. Meidam et al., Phys. Rev. D 97, 044033 (2018), arXiv:1712.08772 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  76. [84]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sennett, and J. Steinhoff, Phys. Rev. D 107, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2203.13937 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [85]

    E. M. S¨ angeret al., (2024), arXiv:2406.03568 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  78. [86]

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

    2019 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

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

    2019 arXiv

  80. [88]

    R. J. E. Smith, G. Ashton, A. Vajpeyi, and C. Tal- bot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 4492 (2020), arXiv:1909.11873 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  81. [89]

    J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Morisaki, Phys

    S. Morisaki, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044062 (2021), arXiv:2104.07813 [gr-qc]. 7 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA TERIAL TO DA T A-DRIVEN APPROACH FOR EXTRACTING TIDAL INFORMA TION FROM NEUTRON ST AR BINAR Y MERGERS OBSER VED WITH THE EINSTEIN TELESCOPE I. EMPLOYED W A VEFORM MODELS The phase in t...

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.