Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 107 references

A $\chi^2$ statistic for the identification of strongly lensed gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A template-based chi-squared test separates lensed gravitational-wave pairs from unlensed ones by projecting the weaker event's data onto the space orthogonal to the louder event's template neighborhood, reaching an AUC of 0.93 on a…

desk verdict A fast, interpretable chi-squared discriminator for lensed GW pairs with a solid derivation and promising empirical ROC, but the central-chi2 claim needs a direct check of the containment assumption. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00844 v2 pith:XVA7OZ37 submitted 2025-02-02 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM

Sudhir Gholap , Kanchan Soni , Shasvath J. Kapadia , Sanjeev Dhurandhar This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IM
keywords gravitationallensingwavescompactbinarycoalescencechi-squaredstatisticmatchedfilteringphase-evolutionconsistencytemplatebankgravitational-wavedetectors
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

The paper proposes a fast, template-based statistic, $\chi^2_{\mathrm{lens}}$, for deciding whether two detected gravitational-wave events are strongly lensed copies of the same source or unrelated coincidences. The test exploits the phase-evolution consistency that lensed copies share: it projects the weaker event's data onto a vector orthogonal to the space spanned by the louder event's trigger template and its neighboring templates in the search bank. In stationary Gaussian noise, a lensed pair produces a central chi-square with two degrees of freedom, while an unlensed pair produces a non-central chi-square whose mean grows with the weaker signal's SNR squared and with the mismatch between the two signals. Because the statistic's noise distribution is known analytically, thresholds can be set without training data, and evaluating it takes a fraction of a second per pair. On a realistic dataset of lensed and unlensed injections, the paper reports an AUC of 0.93, comparable to the Bayesian posterior-overlap benchmark at 0.91 and better than a single-detector machine-learning classifier at 0.81.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-dimensional orthogonal projection $\widehat{\Delta h} = \Delta h / \|\Delta h\|$, with $\Delta h = \hat{h}_{t_2}^0 - \sum_\alpha (\hat{v}_\alpha, \hat{h}_{t_2}^0)\, \hat{v}_\alpha$, where $\{\hat{v}_\alpha\}$ is an orthonormal basis of the neighborhood space $V$. $V$ is built from the louder event's trigger template and all template-bank templates whose match with it is at least 0.97, then compressed by singular value decomposition to keep 99.9% of the Frobenius norm of the whitened template matrix. The statistic $\chi^2_{\mathrm{lens}}$ is the squared modulus of the complex projection of the weaker event's strain data onto this vector, which amounts to two real degrees of freedom. This construction does the work of translating "the two signals have the same phase evolution" into a number that is near zero for a lensed pair and grows with the weaker signal's squared SNR for an unlensed pair.

What would settle it

Inject a simulated lensed pair in Gaussian noise whose weaker signal's intrinsic parameters place it just outside the 0.97-match neighborhood of the louder event's trigger template, at signal-to-noise ratios typical of upcoming observing runs, and measure the empirical mean of $\chi^2_{\mathrm{lens}}$; if it moves appreciably above 2, the central chi-square null used to set thresholds is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that $\chi^2_{\mathrm{lens}} = |(x_2, \widehat{\Delta h})|^2$ separates lensed from unlensed pairs under stationary Gaussian noise. Here $x_2$ is the strain data containing the weaker event, and $\widehat{\Delta h}$ is the unit vector obtained by taking the weaker event's zero-phase trigger template and subtracting its projection onto the space $V$ spanned by the louder event's trigger template and every bank template within match $\mu \ge 0.97$ of it, after an SVD compression retaining 99.9% of the Frobenius norm. For a genuinely lensed pair, the weaker signal lies in $V$ to good approximation, so the projection vanishes and the statistic follows a central $\chi^2$ with two degrees of freedom, mean 2. For an unlensed pair, the projection does not vanish, and the statistic follows a non-central $\chi^2$ with mean $|A_2|^2 \|\Delta h\|^2 + 2$, where $A_2$ is the weaker signal's amplitude and $\|\Delta h\|$ measures how far the weaker event's template lies from the louder event's template neighborhood. A mismatch bound controls the deviation when the weaker signal sits close to its trigger template. On the paper's dataset, this construction reaches an AUC of 0.93, slightly above the posterior-overlap benchmark's 0.91 and clearly above the single-detector machine-learning classifier's 0.81.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the weaker signal in a genuinely lensed pair lies inside the template-neighborhood space $V$ built from the louder event's trigger template; if the true signal falls outside that space, the projection no longer vanishes and the analytic chi-square threshold and false-alarm rate stop holding.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Candidate pairs can be pre-filtered in matched-filter pipelines, sparing the expensive Bayesian parameter-estimation runs for only the few pairs the statistic cannot dismiss.
  • Thresholds for a desired false-alarm rate follow directly from the central chi-square distribution, so no injection-based calibration or training set is needed in stationary Gaussian noise.
  • The statistic's discrimination improves with the SNR of the pair and with the in-band duration of the signals, meaning the most reliable lensing identifications will come from long, loud events.
  • Because the test is single-detector, it can be applied to subthreshold counterparts of loud events, giving a low-latency way to flag candidate lensed pairs before a full network analysis.
  • The known failure mode for Type II images with significant higher-mode content is explicit, so the method's applicability to a given candidate can be assessed rather than assumed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same construction could be reused as a general phase-consistency filter for other waveform families, provided the neighborhood space $V$ is expanded to cover eccentric, precessing, or higher-mode waveforms.
  • Inference: on real non-Gaussian detector noise the analytic central chi-square calibration is likely to be violated, so an empirical null constructed from time-shifted unlensed pairs would be a prudent companion before deployment on observational data.
  • Inference: the systematic elevation of $\chi^2_{\mathrm{lens}}$ for Type II images with higher modes could be turned into a diagnostic for mode content rather than treated purely as a failure mode.
  • Inference: combining the statistic with a localization-sky-area test, which the paper notes is natural for machine-learning methods, should compound the discrimination gain because the two tests probe largely independent information.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new discriminator, chi2_lens, for separating strongly lensed pairs of gravitational-wave events from unlensed pairs. The statistic projects the weaker event's data onto a normalized vector orthogonal to the space V spanned by the louder event's trigger template and the bank templates within match 0.97 of that trigger. In stationary Gaussian noise the authors derive a central chi2 distribution with two degrees of freedom for lensed pairs and a non-central chi2 for unlensed pairs whose mean grows with the weaker signal's amplitude. They test the method on the DST dataset with roughly 300 lensed and half a million unlensed pairs, reporting AUC 0.93, comparable to the posterior-overlap statistic (0.91) and better than a single-detector machine-learning classifier (0.81). The paper positions the statistic as a rapid, interpretable alternative to Bayesian lensing searches.

Significance. If the claimed statistical properties are validated, the method would be a practically useful and computationally cheap lensing discriminator, easy to embed in low-latency pipelines. The construction is transparent, the comparison on a realistic injection set is a genuine strength, and the paper correctly identifies known limitations such as Type-II-image higher-mode exceptions. However, the central chi2 null distribution, which is the paper's main interpretability selling point, rests on a containment assumption that is not directly checked in the present analysis, and there is a concrete algebraic error in the dismissal condition in Eq. (25). These issues are fixable, but they are load-bearing for the paper's strongest claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.C, Eq. (21)–(24); §III.D] The claim that chi2_lens follows a central chi2 with two degrees of freedom for lensed pairs requires that the weaker signal bhs2 lie (almost) in the space V. But V is constructed from bht1, the trigger template of the louder event, and from bank templates with match >= 0.97 to bht1, not from the actual signal bhs1. The weaker lensed signal equals bhs1 up to amplitude and Morse phase, and bhs1 is not guaranteed to be close to V: the trigger template bht1 can be mismatched to bhs1, and the bank template nearest to bhs1 need not be within 0.97 match of bht1. Section III.D bounds only the mismatch between bhs2 and its own trigger template bht2_0; it does not bound the distance between bhs1 and V. In addition, the SVD truncation at zeta = 99.9% in Eq. (16) introduces a further unquantified residual even for signals lying in the full neighborhood span. Consequently, the noncentrality parameter for lensed pairs can be (A2)^2 ||Delta h||^2 with non-negligible ||Delta h||, which would invalidate the false-alarm threshold in Eq. (24). The authors should provide a direct empirical check: report the distribution of ||Delta h||, or of chi2_lens for the lensed DST injections, compared with the central chi2_2 distribution, and ideally give a bound involving the louder signal's mismatch to the template bank.
  2. [§III.C, Eq. (25) and Fig. 1] Equation (25) is missing a square on ||Delta h||. From Eq. (21), lambda = |A2|^2 ||Delta h||^2, so the dismissal condition should read |A2|^2 > (chi2_crit - 2)/||Delta h||^2, not |A2|^2 > (chi2_crit - 2)/||Delta h||. This error propagates into the right panel of Fig. 1 and into any quantitative use of the dismissal criterion. The left panel caption also appears to reverse the inequality: under the central-chi2 null for lensed pairs, a pair with chi2_lens > chi2_crit should be classified as unlensed, not chi2_lens <= chi2_crit.
  3. [§IV, Fig. 6] The ROC comparison demonstrates discrimination but does not validate the claimed null distribution. A high AUC can persist even if the lensed-pair distribution is shifted away from central chi2_2, because the unlensed distribution can be shifted even more. The authors should add a calibration check for the lensed pair chi2_lens values, such as a quantile-quantile plot against the central chi2_2 CDF or a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Without this, the abstract and Section V statements that the statistics of chi2_lens are 'fully understood' are stronger than what is shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§III.B, Eq. (16)] The text defines ||M||_Frob as the sum of squared singular values, whereas the conventional Frobenius norm is the square root of that sum. The notation should be corrected to avoid confusion with the standard definition.
  2. [Abstract/keywords] The keyword 'Graviational Waves' contains a typo and should be 'Gravitational Waves'.
  3. [References] References [74] and [84] appear to cite the same work (arXiv:2412.01278) and should be merged into a single entry.
  4. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions] The captions quote sets of three numbers (e.g., '1.02, 5.23, 7.34') without explaining which quantity each number corresponds to; please define these values explicitly.
  5. [§III.D, Eq. (30)] The upper bound in Eq. (30) is an upper bound on the absolute mean for any pair, but for unlensed pairs the quantity of interest is how large the mean is; the paper would benefit from a sentence clarifying that this bound is used for the lensed/mismatch case rather than as a statement about unlensed separation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lensed-pair central chi2 distribution is derived from the projection construction and noise assumptions, not fitted, and the self-cited unified chi2 framework is not load-bearing for the lensing claim.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: chi2_lens is constructed by projecting the weaker event's data onto dDelta_h, the normalized component of the second trigger template orthogonal to the space V spanned by the louder trigger template and templates with match >= 0.97 (Eqs. 11-14). For lensed pairs, the claim of a central chi2 distribution with two degrees of freedom follows from the conditional assumption that the second signal lies in V, so the projection mean vanishes; in stationary Gaussian noise the projected noise is a unit-variance complex Gaussian. This is a direct derivation from the construction and the noise model, not a fit of the result to data. For unlensed pairs, the non-central chi2 mean |A2|^2 ||Delta_h||^2 + 2 is likewise derived from the projection mean (Eq. 21), not fitted. The reported AUC of 0.93 is measured on fixed DST injections against independent benchmarks (posterior overlap and ML classifiers) and does not feed the derived distribution back as an input. The only overlap with prior work is the generalized chi2 framework of Dhurandhar et al. [1], which shares an author with the present paper; however, the lensing application, the SVD-neighborhood construction, and the injection tests are new and independent of the target claim. The paper transparently flags its key assumptions: the weaker signal's proximity to the trigger template in Section III.D, and exceptions to phase-evolution consistency for Type II higher-mode images in Section V. These are validity limitations, not circular reductions. No equation is fitted or renamed, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no ansatz is smuggled via citation. The score of 2 reflects one minor self-citation to the unified chi2 framework, which is not load-bearing for the paper's central lensing claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central statistic relies on the standard matched-filter Hilbert space formalism from Dhurandhar et al. [1], the assumption that lensed GW images have identical phase evolution, the restriction to non-spinning dominant-mode circular binaries, and stationary Gaussian noise. The only tuned inputs are the neighborhood match threshold and the SVD truncation fraction. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Neighborhood match threshold mu = 0.97
    Defines which templates are included in the neighborhood V around the louder event's trigger template (Eq. 11). The paper states this value is the optimal match criterion for the population model used, meaning it was tuned on the evaluation dataset.
  • SVD truncation energy fraction zeta = 99.9%
    The number of singular vectors retained to form V is chosen so that the retained singular values contain zeta=99.9% of the Frobenius norm of the template matrix (Eq. 16). This is a hand-set hyperparameter that affects the projection and the resulting chi2 distribution.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Waveforms are restricted to non-spinning, circular, dominant quadrupole mode CBC signals; no eccentricity or spin precession.
    Section III A footnote states: 'In this work, we consider non-spinning CBC sources that emit dominant-mode signals. For simplicity, we also neglect the effects of eccentricity and spin-orbit precession.' This assumption is needed for phase-evolution consistency and for the template family used.
  • domain assumption Lensed images in the geometric optics regime have identical phase evolution apart from a constant Morse phase.
    Used in the introduction and Section III A to justify that the weaker signal lies in the space spanned by the louder signal's template neighborhood. The paper itself notes that Type II images with higher-mode content violate this assumption (Section V).
  • domain assumption Noise is stationary and Gaussian with known PSD.
    The claimed chi2 distributions, central for lensed and non-central for unlensed pairs, are derived under stationary Gaussian noise, and all simulations inject Gaussian noise with a design-sensitivity PSD.
  • domain assumption The weaker signal of a lensed pair is contained, to good approximation, in the space spanned by the trigger template and neighborhood templates with match greater than or equal to mu.
    This is the load-bearing premise of the statistic: if false, the projection onto the orthogonal space has non-zero mean and the central chi2 threshold (Eq. 24) is invalid. It enters in Eq. (11) and Section III D's mismatch bound.
  • domain assumption The template bank and waveform approximant (IMRPhenomD, 3.5PN geometric bank) faithfully cover the signal parameter space.
    The matched-filter triggers and neighborhood definitions assume the true signal is close to a bank template; the mismatch parameter epsilon is assumed small.
  • domain assumption Unlensed pairs can be modeled as random pairings of independent injections.
    The evaluation background uses all pairwise combinations of 1000 unrelated injections; this assumes no selection or correlation effects from real search pipelines.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A $\chi^2$ statistic for the identification of strongly lensed gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XVA7OZ37

@misc{pith2026250200844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A $\chi^2$ statistic for the identification of strongly lensed gravitational waves from compact binary coalescences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XVA7OZ37}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00844}
}
abstract

Gravitational waves (GWs) emanated by stellar mass compact binary coalescences (CBCs), and lensed by galaxy- or cluster-scale lenses, will produce two or more copies of the GW signal. These will have identical phase evolution but differing amplitudes. Such lensing signatures are expected to be detected by the end of the LIGO-Virgo-Kagra's (LVK's) fifth observing run (O5). In this work, we propose a novel $\chi_{\mathrm{lens}}^2$ statistic to segregate pairs of detected GW events as either lensed or unlensed, using templates typically used in GW searches. The statistic is an application of the generalized $\chi^2$ discriminator described in \citet{dhurandhar2017}, tailored to probe the similarity (or lack thereof) between the phase evolutions of two CBC signals. We assess the performance of $\chi_{\mathrm{lens}}^2$ on a realistic astrophysical dataset of lensed and unlensed CBCs detectable in O4, assuming a single LIGO-like detector at design sensitivity. We find that we can correctly identify lensed events with efficiencies comparable to existing Bayesian and machine learning methods. Evaluating $\chi_{\mathrm{lens}}^2$ is orders of magnitude faster than Bayesian methods. Moreover, the statistics of $\chi_{\mathrm{lens}}^2$, in stationary Gaussian noise, are fully understood, in contrast to machine learning methods. $\chi_{\mathrm{lens}}^2$ can, therefore, be used to rapidly and accurately weed out the vast majority of unlensed candidate pairs and identify lensed pairs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00844 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (Left) Confidence c% vs. χ 2 crit. Any pair of events having χ 2 lens ≤ χ 2 crit|c% could be classified as unlensed with c% confidence, assuming χ 2 lens for lensed cases is a central χ 2 (λ = 0) distribution. (Right) The minimum amplitude (A2) required to classify a truly unlensed pair as unlensed vs. ∥∆h∥ for varying c%. Smaller projection of the template hˆt2 0 onto the orthogonal space results in ∥∆h∥ approachin… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A visual representation of the bound presented [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The |∆C(t)| time-series for the lensed (top left) and unlensed case (bottom left) with/without noise when ∆h ⊥ hbt1 . We observe a sharp dip at the merger time t = 0 sec for the lensed case and a peak for the unlensed case. Due to an error in locating the signal merger time from matched filtering, we end up observing |∆C|observed(purple) instead of |∆C|true(teal). It should also be noted that |∆C|true in both lensed… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The |∆C(t)| time-series for the lensed (top left) and unlensed case (bottom left) with/without noise when ∆h ⊥ V. We observe a broader flattening of the correlation parameter time-series around the merger time t = 0 sec for the lensed case and a slight depreciation of …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Chirp-time coordinates (τ0 and τ3) of unlensed injections (left) and lensed injections (right) taken from the DST data set used in [53]. The same coordinates pertaining to the templates in the bank are also plotted. 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 log10 ( 2 lens) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Left) The histograms of log10 χ 2 lens computed for lensed and un-lensed signals in the DST dataset. (Right) ROC curves for χ 2 lens statistic tested on DST dataset (green), the m1, m2 B L U statistic (orange) from [73] and single detector machine learning classifier…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Chirp-time coordinates of lensed and unlensed injections for testing the performance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ROC curves for the χ 2 lens statistic tested for performance across different rescaled optimal SNR combinations for the signals when (A1, A2) are (8, 7) (left), (12, 9) (middle) and (15, 12) (right), which are further tested across different τ0 bins. As a measure of th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

107 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    For a general data vectorx ∈ D, we have χ2(x) = ∥xS ∥2 = pX α=1 |(x|eα)|2 . (7)

  2. [2]

    Clearly, χ2(h) = 0 because the projection of h onto the subspaceS is zero, i.e.,hS = 0

  3. [3]

    at- tached

    Now, the noise n is taken to be stationary and Gaussian, with PSDSn(f ) and mean zero. There- fore, the following relation is valid: χ2(n) = ∥nS ∥2 = pX α=1 |(n|eα)|2 . (8) The random variables (n|eα) are independent and Gaussian distributed, with zero mean and unit variance. This is because ⟨(eα|n)(n|eβ)⟩ = (eα|eβ) = δαβ, where the angular brackets de- n...

  4. [4]

    Dhurandhar, A

    S. Dhurandhar, A. Gupta, B. Gadre, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. D96, 103018 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    Aasi et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Acernese et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, M. Schäfer, R. Dhurkunde, and M. Cabero, The Astrophysical Journal922, 76 (2021)

    2021

Show all 107 references
  1. [9]

    Olsen, T

    S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043009 (2022)

    2022

  2. [10]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Schäfer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, The Astrophysical Journal946, 59 (2023)

    2023

  3. [11]

    New binary black hole mergers in the ligo- virgo o3b data,

    A. K. Mehta, S. Olsen, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zal- darriaga, “New binary black hole mergers in the ligo- virgo o3b data,” (2024), arXiv:2311.06061 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    New black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order har- monics,

    D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, A. K. Mehta, B. Zackay, J. Mushkin, S. Olsen, and M. Zaldarriaga, “New black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order har- monics,” (2023), arXiv:2312.06631 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Vallisneri, J

    M. Vallisneri, J. Kanner, R. Williams, A. Weinstein, andB.Stephens,JournalofPhysics: ConferenceSeries 610, 012021 (2015)

    2015

  6. [14]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), SoftwareX 13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    2017 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Abbott et al

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

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abbottet al

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

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [20]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett. 900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020

  14. [22]

    Ghosh et al

    A. Ghosh et al. , Phys. Rev. D 94, 021101 (2016), arXiv:1602.02453 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Ghosh, N

    A. Ghosh, N. K. Johnson-Mcdaniel, A. Ghosh, C. K. Mishra, P. Ajith, W. Del Pozzo, C. P. L. Berry, A. B. Nielsen, and L. London, Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 014002 (2018), arXiv:1704.06784 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Blanchet and B

    L. Blanchet and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1067 (1995)

    1995

  17. [25]

    Blanchet and B

    L. Blanchet and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Classical and Quantum Gravity11, 2807 (1994)

    1994

  18. [26]

    K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D74, 024006 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604067

    2006 arXiv

  19. [27]

    K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Class. Quant. Grav.23, L37 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0604018

    2006 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Yunes and F

    N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D80, 122003 (2009), arXiv:0909.3328 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  21. [29]

    C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064010 (2010), arXiv:1005.0304 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  22. [30]

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

    2012 arXiv

  23. [31]

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, S. Vitale, C. Van Den Broeck, M. Agathos, J. Veitch, K. Grover, T. Sidery, R. Sturani, and A. Vecchio, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 363, 012028 (2012), arXiv:1111.5274 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  24. [32]

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

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D57, 2061 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9709011

    1998

  26. [34]

    K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 023012 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society476, 2220 (2018). 15

    2018

  28. [36]

    Oguri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 3842 (2018)

    M. Oguri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 480, 3842 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    G. P. Smith, M. Jauzac, J. Veitch, W. M. Farr, R. Massey, and J. Richard, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society475, 3823 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    R. J. Smith, G. Ashton, A. Vajpeyi, and C. Talbot, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 498, 4492 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    G. P. Smith, A. Robertson, M. Bianconi, and M. Jauzac (LSST), (2019), arXiv:1902.05140 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Robertson, G

    A. Robertson, G. P. Smith, R. Massey, V. Eke, M. Jauzac, M. Bianconi, and D. Ryczanowski, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 495, 3727 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    Ryczanowski, G

    D. Ryczanowski, G. P. Smith, M. Bianconi, R. Massey, A. Robertson, and M. Jauzac, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society495, 1666 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Y. Wang, A. Stebbins, and E. L. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 2875 (1996)

    1996

  35. [43]

    Dai and T

    L. Dai and T. Venumadhav, (2017), arXiv:1702.04724 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, D. E. Holz, W. Hu, M. Lagos, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D103, 064047 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Deguchi and W

    S. Deguchi and W. D. Watson, Phys. Rev. D34, 1708 (1986)

    1986

  38. [46]

    T. T. Nakamura, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 1138 (1998)

    1998

  39. [47]

    Takahashi and T

    R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, The Astrophysical Journal 595, 1039 (2003)

    2003

  40. [48]

    Cao, L.-F

    Z. Cao, L.-F. Li, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 90, 062003 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    K.-H. Lai, O. A. Hannuksela, A. Herrera-Martín, J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083005 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Christian, S

    P. Christian, S. Vitale, and A. Loeb, Phys. Rev. D 98, 103022 (2018)

    2018

  43. [51]

    Dai, S.-S

    L. Dai, S.-S. Li, B. Zackay, S. Mao, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D98, 104029 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    J. M. Diego, Phys. Rev. D101, 123512 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Baker and M

    T. Baker and M. Trodden, Phys. Rev. D95, 063512 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    T. E. Collett and D. Bacon, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 091101 (2017)

    2017

  47. [55]

    X.-L. Fan, K. Liao, M. Biesiada, A. Piórkowska- Kurpas, and Z.-H. Zhu, Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 091102 (2017)

    2017

  48. [56]

    Goyal, K

    S. Goyal, K. Haris, A. K. Mehta, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D103, 024038 (2021)

    2021

  49. [57]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacárregui, Phys. Rev. D 102, 124048 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Sereno, P

    M. Sereno, P. Jetzer, A. Sesana, and M. Volonteri, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 415, 2773 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Liao, X.-L

    K. Liao, X.-L. Fan, X. Ding, M. Biesiada, and Z.-H. Zhu, Nature Communications8, 1148 (2017)

    2017

  52. [60]

    S. Cao, J. Qi, Z. Cao, M. Biesiada, J. Li, Y. Pan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Scientific Reports9, 11608 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Y. Li, X. Fan, and L. Gou, The Astrophysical Journal 873, 37 (2019)

    2019

  54. [62]

    O. A. Hannuksela, T. E. Collett, M. Çalışkan, and T. G. Li, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 498, 3395 (2020)

    2020

  55. [63]

    S. Jana, S. J. Kapadia, T. Venumadhav, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261401 (2023)

    2023

  56. [64]

    S. Jana, S. J. Kapadia, T. Venumadhav, S. More, and P. Ajith, (2024), arXiv:2408.05290 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Magare, S

    S. Magare, S. J. Kapadia, A. More, M. K. Singh, P. Ajith, and A. N. Ramprakash, Astrophys. J. Lett. 955, L31 (2023), arXiv:2302.02916 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Basak, A

    S. Basak, A. Ganguly, K. Haris, S. Kapadia, A. K. Mehta, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J.926, L28 (2022), arXiv:2109.06456 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Barsode, S

    A. Barsode, S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, (2024), arXiv:2405.15878 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    S. Jana, S. J. Kapadia, T. Venumadhav, S. More, and P. Ajith, (2024), arXiv:2405.17805 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    U. Deka, S. Chakraborty, S. J. Kapadia, M. A. Shaikh, and P. Ajith, (2024), arXiv:2401.06553 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Basak, A

    S. Basak, A. K. Sharma, S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J. Lett.942, L31 (2023), arXiv:2205.00022 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Kumar, A. K. Mehta, D. Keitel, T. G. F. Li, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J. Lett.874, L2 (2019), arXiv:1901.02674 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astro- phys. J.923, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Abbottet al

    R. Abbottet al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.970, 191 (2024), arXiv:2304.08393 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. R. A. Wierda, E. Wempe, O. A. Hannuksela, L. V. Koopmans, and C. Van Den Broeck, The Astrophys- ical Journal921, 154 (2021)

    2021

  67. [75]

    F. Xu, J. M. Ezquiaga, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. 929, 9 (2022), arXiv:2105.14390 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Haris, A

    K. Haris, A. K. Mehta, S. Kumar, T. Venumadhav, and P. Ajith, (2018), arXiv:1807.07062 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  69. [78]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. D., S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D104, 124057 (2021), arXiv:2106.12466 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [79]

    Magare, A

    S. Magare, A. More, and S. Choudary, (2024), arXiv:2403.02994 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Goyal, S

    S. Goyal, S. J. Kapadia, J.-R. Cudell, A. K. Y. Li, and J. C. L. Chan, Phys. Rev. D109, 023028 (2024), arXiv:2306.04397 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [81]

    J. M. Ezquiaga, W. Hu, and R. K. L. Lo, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103520 (2023), arXiv:2308.06616 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 532, 4842 (2024), arXiv:2403.03982 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  74. [83]

    X. Liu, I. M. Hernandez, and J. Creighton, The As- trophysical Journal908, 97 (2021)

    2021

  75. [84]

    Janquart, O

    J. Janquart, O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, and C. Van den Broeck, in 56th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation (2022) arXiv:2203.06444 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Janquart, K

    J. Janquart, K. Haris, O. A. Hannuksela, and C. Van Den Broeck, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 3088 (2023), arXiv:2304.12148 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  77. [86]

    R. K. L. Lo and I. Magaña Hernandez, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123015 (2023)

    2023

  78. [87]

    Barsode, S

    A. Barsode, S. Goyal, and P. Ajith, arXiv e-prints , 16 arXiv:2412.01278 (2024), arXiv:2412.01278 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  79. [88]

    Joshi, R

    P. Joshi, R. Dhurkunde, S. Dhurandhar, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044035 (2021), arXiv:2006.12901 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  80. [89]

    J.D.E.CreightonandW.G.Anderson, Gravitational- wave physics and astronomy: An introduction to the- ory, experiment and data analysis (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2011)

    2011

  81. [90]

    Allen, Phys

    B. Allen, Phys. Rev.D71, 062001 (2005), arXiv:gr- qc/0405045 [gr-qc]

    2005

  82. [91]

    Babak, R

    S. Babak, R. Balasubramanian, D. Churches, T. Coke- laer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Classical and Quantum Gravity 23, 5477 (2006)

    2006

  83. [92]

    gwastro/pycbc: v2.0.4 release of pycbc,

    A. Nitz, I. Harry, D. Brown, C. M. Biwer, J. Willis, T. D. Canton, C. Capano, T. Dent, L. Pekowsky, A. R. Williamson, S. De, M. Cabero, B. Machen- schalk, D. Macleod, P. Kumar, S. Reyes, F. Pannar- ale, G. S. C. Davies, dfinstad, S. Kumar, M. Tápai, L. Singer, S. Khan, S. Fair...

    2022

  84. [93]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. Pürrer, F. Ohme, X. J. Forteza, and A. Bohé, Physical Review D93, 044006 (2016)

    2016

  85. [94]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. Pürrer, X. J. Forteza, and A. Bohé, Physical Review D93, 044007 (2016)

    2016

  86. [95]

    A. K. Y. Li, R. K. L. Lo, S. Sachdev, J. C. L. Chan, E. T. Lin, T. G. F. Li, and A. J. Weinstein (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D107, 123014 (2023), arXiv:1904.06020 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  87. [96]

    A. K. Y. Li, J. C. L. Chan, H. Fong, A. H. Y. Chong, A. J. Weinstein, and J. M. Ezquiaga, (2023), arXiv:2311.06416 [gr-qc]

    2023

  88. [97]

    Y. Wang, R. K. Lo, A. K. Li, and Y. Chen, Physical Review D103, 104055 (2021)

    2021

  89. [98]

    Janquart, E

    J. Janquart, E. Seo, O. A. Hannuksela, T. G. Li, and C. Van Den Broeck, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 923, L1 (2021)

    2021

  90. [99]

    Vijaykumar, A

    A. Vijaykumar, A. K. Mehta, and A. Ganguly, Phys. Rev. D108, 043036 (2023), arXiv:2202.06334 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  91. [100]

    Taylor, D

    K. Taylor, D. Davis, and R. K. L. Lo, (2024), arXiv:2412.15148 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  92. [101]

    Çalışkan, J

    M. Çalışkan, J. M. Ezquiaga, O. A. Hannuksela, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063023 (2023), arXiv:2201.04619 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  93. [102]

    More and S

    A. More and S. More, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society515, 1044 (2022)

    2022

  94. [103]

    van der Walt, S

    S. van der Walt, S. C. Colbert, and G. Varoquaux, Comput. Sci. Eng. 13, 22 (2011), arXiv:1102.1523 [cs.MS]

    2011 arXiv

  95. [104]

    Virtanen et al

    P. Virtanen et al. , Nature Meth. (2020), 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2, arXiv:1907.10121 [cs.MS]

    2020 arXiv

  96. [105]

    T.P.Robitaille et al.,Astronomy&amp; Astrophysics 558, A33 (2013)

    2013

  97. [106]

    A. M. Price-Whelanet al., The Astronomical Journal 156, 123 (2018)

    2018

  98. [107]

    J. D. Hunter, Computing in Science & Engineering9, 90 (2007)

    2007

  99. [108]

    Kluyver, B

    T. Kluyver, B. Ragan-Kelley, F. Pérez, B. Granger, M. Bussonnier, J. Frederic, K. Kelley, J. Hamrick, J. Grout, S. Corlay, P. Ivanov, D. Avila, S. Abdalla, C. Willing, and J. development team, inPositioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas , edited...

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.