Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Early Warning From Eccentric Compact Binaries: Template Initialization And Sub-dominant Mode Effects

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Starting gravitational-wave templates at periastron shrinks sky area and buys warning time for eccentric mergers.

desk verdict Solid forecasting study; the periastron-initialization recommendation is sensible, but headline gains are Fisher-based best cases and the IC1/IC2 comparison is not fully controlled. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07021 v1 pith:S3DFY6QD submitted 2025-07-09 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Priyanka Sinha , R. Prasad , Mukesh Kumar Singh , Prayush Kumar , Akash Maurya , Kaushik Paul This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE MSC 83C3583C57 PACS 04.30.-w04.80.Nn95.85.Sz
keywords eccentriccompactbinariesgravitational-waveearlywarningskylocalizationsubdominantmodestemplateinitializationFishermatrixNSBH/BNSmergersthird-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

The paper asks where to begin a waveform template for an eccentric compact binary, whose instantaneous frequency oscillates and re-enters the detector band multiple times. It shows that starting a template at the periastron frequency (the moment of highest in-orbit frequency) rather than at the orbit-averaged entry frequency yields higher signal-to-noise ratio and smaller sky-localization areas for NSBH and BNS signals across the O5, Voyager, and 3G detector networks. It further shows that adding subdominant modes — (2,1), (3,3), and (4,4) — alongside the dominant (2,2) mode tightens sky localization, with up to 70–98% area reduction for NSBH systems at favorable orientation. These gains translate into extra early-warning time for electromagnetic follow-up: for a fiducial (10,1.4) solar-mass NSBH with e=0.3, starting from periastron instead of orbit-averaged frequency buys roughly 7.8 s, 13.5 s, and 185 s before the source reaches 1000 square degrees in O5, Voyager, and 3G, respectively.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing choice is the template initial condition for eccentric binaries: whether waveform generation starts from the orbit-averaged frequency (IC1) or from the periastron frequency (IC2), meaning the mean anomaly is fixed to its periastron value and the initial eccentricity and instantaneous periastron frequency are specified. This choice controls which in-band cycles enter the SNR and timing-bandwidth integrals, and the paper shows IC2 consistently yields higher SNR and smaller Fisher-matrix sky areas, with time gains of 7.8–185 s at 1000 square degrees for a fiducial NSBH. The localization computation itself is the timing-only Fisher-matrix method built from frequency moments, and the waveforms come from the eccentric spinning time-domain model ESIGMAHM, restricted in the analysis to the (2,1), (2,2), (3,3), and (4,4) modes.

What would settle it

Run a full injection-recovery study on eccentric NSBH signals with e=0.3–0.4 in O5, Voyager, and 3G noise, using a matched-filter early-warning pipeline with templates started at periastron versus orbit-averaged frequency, and measure the 90% credible sky area as a function of time to merger; if the periastron-start templates do not yield consistently smaller areas or earlier trigger times, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the standard template initialization for eccentric binaries — starting when the orbit-averaged gravitational-wave frequency crosses the low-frequency band edge — systematically omits earlier in-band cycles, because the instantaneous frequency peaks at each periastron passage long before the averaged frequency enters the band. Re-initializing templates at a specified periastron frequency, with the mean anomaly fixed at periastron, recovers those cycles, raising SNR and shrinking the 90% credible sky area at every time before merger. Adding the (2,1), (3,3), and (4,4) multipoles to (2,2) reduces sky area further, especially for asymmetric NSBH binaries; the improvement grows with eccentricity and detector sensitivity, while primary spin has only a weak effect.

Load-bearing premise

The sky-area and time-gain numbers rest on a timing-only Fisher-matrix model that assumes stationary Gaussian noise and high SNR, evaluated at a fixed inclination and optimal sky location, so the quoted improvements may shrink in real low-SNR early-warning conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Early-warning template banks for eccentric binaries should grid over periastron frequency and initial eccentricity rather than orbit-averaged frequency; the paper states this directly and demonstrates the gain in both SNR and sky area.
  • Including subdominant modes in low-latency searches will sharpen localization for NSBH systems, with sky-area reductions reaching 70–98% and extra early-warning times of 27–54 s in O5/Voyager and 11.6 minutes in 3G for e=0.4 at 1000 square degrees.
  • With periastron initialization, eccentricity itself becomes an aid: at early times an eccentric NSBH (e=0.4) localizes to roughly 1/14 to 1/72 the sky area of a circular binary, depending on the detector scenario.
  • Primary spin has a weak effect on localization (less than 12% sky-area change in O5), suggesting that spin uncertainty will not dominate early-warning localization for these binaries.
  • For BNS systems, orbital eccentricity improves localization substantially, while subdominant modes contribute little (under 3–20%), so eccentricity-aware templates matter more than higher modes for BNS early warning.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted improvements are derived from a timing-only Fisher matrix at fixed inclination and optimal sky location; a full Bayesian parameter-estimation or injection-recovery study in the low-SNR early-warning regime would likely show smaller absolute gains, so the reported numbers should be read as upper-end estimates.
  • If the periastron initialization is adopted, the search parameter space expands to include periastron frequency and eccentricity, which will increase template-bank size and computational cost; the paper notes current banks fix a reference frequency, so this is a concrete practical step for follow-up work.
  • The time-gain metric could be repurposed as a trigger design tool: a network could require a minimum SNR or maximum sky area at a fixed time before merger, and the periastron-vs-averaged comparison quantifies how much earlier such a trigger can fire for eccentric sources.
  • The strong sensitivity of the localization gain to detector low-frequency cutoff suggests that the 3G-era numbers depend on the assumed 2.5–5 Hz band; if 3G detectors realize an even lower noise floor, the eccentricity and subdominant-mode benefits could grow beyond the values reported here.
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 studies early-warning capabilities for eccentric NSBH and BNS binaries and makes two main claims. First, it compares two template-initialization strategies for eccentric signals: starting when the orbit-averaged frequency enters the detector band (IC1) versus starting when the periastron frequency enters the band (IC2). Using frequency moments of the ESIGMAHM waveform and a timing-only Fisher-matrix localization estimate, the authors report that IC2 yields consistently higher accumulated SNR and smaller sky-localization areas, with time gains of 7.8 s, 13.5 s, and 185 s to reach 1000 square degrees for a fiducial (10, 1.4) solar-mass NSBH in O5, Voyager, and 3G networks. Second, the paper quantifies the effect of adding subdominant modes (2,1), (3,3), and (4,4) to the dominant (2,2) mode, reporting up to 70--98% sky-area reductions for NSBH systems at a fixed favorable inclination. The parameter space covers primary mass m1 in [1.4, 15] solar masses, primary spin up to 0.8, and eccentricity up to 0.4, across O5, Voyager, and 3G noise curves.

Significance. If the quantitative conclusions survive close scrutiny, this paper identifies a practical and physically motivated template-bank design choice for eccentric early warning: starting templates at the periastron frequency rather than the orbit-averaged frequency captures in-band cycles that would otherwise be lost, and this directly improves low-latency localization. The qualitative IC2-versus-IC1 effect is robust because it follows from including more in-band signal energy, not from fitted parameters of the waveform model. The paper also provides concrete, falsifiable predictions for time gains at fixed sky-area thresholds and uses an openly available waveform code (esigmapy), which strengthens reproducibility. However, the headline percentages and time gains rest on a timing-only Fisher approximation evaluated at low SNR and on a single inclination chosen to enhance subdominant modes; they should therefore be understood as indicative upper limits until confirmed with more realistic parameter-estimation or injection-recovery studies.

major comments (3)
  1. [III A, Eqs. (4)--(6) and (11)] The IC1-versus-IC2 comparison uses asymmetric frequency-integration limits. For IC1 the text says the likelihood is integrated between the lower and upper limits of the detector band, whereas for IC2 the upper limit is chosen as the interpolated periastron frequency at the stop time tc. A time-truncated waveform has a high-frequency spectral-leakage tail, and the f^2 weighting in Eq. (4) amplifies this tail, inflating the effective bandwidth sigma_f in Eq. (5) and therefore the sky area in Eq. (11). Capping the IC2 integral at the periastron frequency removes that leakage contribution above the cap while IC1 retains it up to fhigh, so the reported time gains (7.8 s, 13.5 s, 185 s) may be partly an artifact of unequal integration ranges rather than purely the physical advantage of starting at periastron. Please recompute the comparison with the same upper integration limit for both strategies (for example, using the common detector fhigh for both, or applying the same spectral-windowing procedure to both) and report how the time gains change.
  2. [II D and III B, Figs. 5--10] The subdominant-mode improvements are computed at a single inclination iota = 60 deg and at the sky position chosen to maximize network sensitivity. This configuration is favorable for higher-order modes, so statements such as "subdominant modes contribute up to 70% (94%) reduction" or "up to 98%" describe upper limits under a favorable orientation, not typical or marginalized improvements. The paper should either vary the inclination and report the dependence of the sky-area reductions and time gains on iota, or explicitly and consistently label these numbers as maximum-possible values at a favorable viewing geometry. As it stands, the abstract and conclusions present these orientation-specific results without sufficient qualification.
  3. [II B and III A] The sky areas and threshold-crossing times are derived from a timing-only Fisher matrix that assumes stationary Gaussian noise and high SNR. In the early-warning regime quoted in the paper, with sky areas of hundreds to thousands of square degrees and SNRs of 45--381, Fisher forecasts are known to overstate localization precision because the posterior is not well approximated by a Gaussian at moderate SNR. This limitation does not by itself invalidate the qualitative IC2-versus-IC1 conclusion, but it is load-bearing for the absolute time gains in seconds. I request either a validation study, such as injection-recovery or a full Bayesian parameter-estimation analysis for a subset of the fiducial binaries, or a prominent discussion of how the Fisher approximation is expected to affect the reported numbers.
minor comments (4)
  1. [III A] There are minor typos: "likehood" should be "likelihood" and "deprecation" should be "degradation" in the sentence about neglect of extra cycles.
  2. [II B, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) writes p(T_i) as the prior, but the posterior should use the joint prior p(\vec{T}); as written the product over detectors is missing from the proportionality.
  3. [Table I and III A] The notation e5 and e2.5 is used for eccentricity defined at 5 Hz and 2.5 Hz, respectively, but this is not explicitly defined in the text near Fig. 4; a brief definition in Table I or in Sec. II D would improve clarity.
  4. [II D] The choice iota = 60 deg is stated in the text but it would help to repeat it in the captions of Figs. 5--10, which are the figures where subdominant-mode effects are most strongly emphasized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sky-localization and early-warning gains are computed from a published, externally benchmarked waveform model and a standard Fisher timing formalism, not from quantities fitted to the reported improvements.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are (i) initializing eccentric templates at the periastron frequency rather than the orbit-averaged frequency improves SNR and sky localization, and (ii) including subdominant modes (2,1), (3,3), (4,4) alongside (2,2) further reduces sky area. These are direct outputs of Eqs. (3)-(11), which combine the ESIGMAHM waveform [99] with the Fairhurst timing-only Fisher-matrix localization formalism. The waveform model is a cited prior work by overlapping authors, but it is a published, PN/NR-benchmarked tool; the predicted sky areas and time gains are not among its fitted or calibration targets, and the model does not encode the conclusion that IC2 beats IC1 or that subdominant modes improve localization. The qualitative direction of the IC2 result is unsurprising because IC2 by definition includes additional in-band cycles, but the quantitative sky-area curves and the reported time gains require the frequency-moment calculation and are not tautological. The only notable methodological point is that IC2 caps the upper frequency integral at the interpolated periastron frequency while IC1 integrates to the detector-band upper limit (Sec. III A), which is an asymmetric comparison and a potential bias; however, this is a correctness and robustness caveat, not circularity, because neither the start condition nor the integration limit is defined in terms of the claimed sky-area improvement. The subdominant-mode hierarchy is established in Sec. II A using the same model, but the mode selection does not force the computed sky-area reductions. Overall the derivation chain is self-contained against an external benchmark model, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Score 2 reflects only the presence of self-citations for the waveform model and earlier sky-localization methodology, which are not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on the Fisher-matrix timing approximation, the fidelity of the ESIGMAHM eccentric waveform model, and the chosen fiducial configuration. None of these are derived in this paper; they are inputs from prior literature or modeling choices. The hand-chosen values that materially shape the headline percentages are the inclination angle, the fiducial distance, and the eccentricity grids.

free parameters (3)
  • Inclination angle iota = 60 degrees
    Chosen explicitly to enhance the contribution of subdominant modes (Sec. II D). All quoted sky-area reduction percentages for subdominant modes reflect this favorable orientation, not an orientation-averaged source population.
  • Fiducial luminosity distance d_L = 40 Mpc
    Assumed for all BNS and NSBH sources. It sets absolute SNR values and absolute sky areas, although the eccentric-vs-circular and HM-vs-dominant ratios are less sensitive to it.
  • Initial eccentricity definition frequency and grid = e5 in {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4} for O5/Voyager, e2.5 in {0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4} for 3G
    The reference frequency at which eccentricity is defined (5 Hz or 2.5 Hz) and the eccentricity grid are chosen by hand; they control how early the eccentric cycles enter the detector band and thus shape the early-warning time gains.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Stationary Gaussian noise and high-SNR Fisher-matrix approximation for sky localization
    Sky areas are computed from the timing-only Fisher matrix in Eqs. (9)-(11), which assumes a Gaussian posterior and high SNR. Early-warning sky areas of hundreds to thousands of square degrees are in a regime where Fisher forecasts are known to be optimistic.
  • domain assumption ESIGMAHM waveform model accuracy for eccentric inspirals with e up to 0.4
    The model combines PN eccentric inspiral with a quasi-circular NR surrogate for merger, requiring the binary to nearly circularize before merger. Its validity across the surveyed mass, spin, and eccentricity range is assumed rather than validated here.
  • domain assumption Timing-only network localization captures the essential sky-area information
    The Fairhurst method uses time-of-arrival differences across detectors and neglects amplitude and phase information from the signal. This is a standard approximation for network localization but is itself an idealization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Early Warning From Eccentric Compact Binaries: Template Initialization And Sub-dominant Mode Effects." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S3DFY6QD

@misc{pith2026250707021,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Early Warning From Eccentric Compact Binaries: Template Initialization And Sub-dominant Mode Effects},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S3DFY6QD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07021}
}
abstract

Early warning of gravitational waves (GWs) is essential for multi-messenger observations of binary neutron star and black hole-neutron star merger events. In this study, we investigate early warning prospects from eccentric compact binaries, whose mergers are expected to comprise a significant fraction of detected GW events in the future. Eccentric binaries exhibit oscillatory frequency evolution, causing GW frequencies to recur multiple times through their coalescence. Consequently, generating eccentric waveform templates for early warning requires specification of initial conditions. While the standard approach involves initiating waveform generation when the orbit-averaged frequency enters the detector band, we compare this with an alternative approach that uses the periastron frequency as the starting point. Our analysis shows that initializing at the periastron frequency yields an improved signal-to-noise ratio and sky localization. Additionally, including subdominant modes alongside the dominant $(2,2)$ mode leads to further improvements in sky localization. We explore the parameter space of primary mass $m_1 \in [1.4, 15] \, M_\odot$, spin $\chi_1 \in [0, 0.8]$, and eccentricity $e \leq 0.4$ across three detector configurations: O5, Voyager, and 3G. We find that in the O5 (Voyager) configuration, including eccentricity and subdominant modes, the sky localization area can be reduced by $2-80\% (2-85\%)$ at 1000 sq. deg. with increasing eccentricity from $e_5 = 0.1$ to $e_5 = 0.4$, yielding up to $41$ seconds (1 minute) of extra early warning time. For NSBH systems, subdominant modes contribute up to $70$ $(94)\%$ reduction for O5 (Voyager) scenario. In the 3G detector scenario, the sky area reduction due to eccentricity reaches $80\%$ (from $e_{2.5} = 0.1$ to $e_{2.5} = 0.4$) at 100 sq. deg., and subdominant modes enhance the reduction up to $98\%$ for NSBH systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07021 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Amplitude of the dominant and subdominant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. SNR ratio of subdominant mode relative to dominant (2,2) mode for parameter space of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left Panel: Frequency evolution of the (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left Column: Sky area and SNR as functions of time to coalescence for a binary with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sky localization area as a function of time to coalescence for different initial eccentricities, shown for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fractional reduction of sky area due to eccentricity, given by Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Fractional reduction of sky area due to eccentricity, computed using subdominant modes along with dominant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Ω(22+HM,e) Ω(22,e) for a range of primary BH’s mass (m1) while keeping m2 = 1.4 M⊙ at different eccentricity value, for O5 and Voyager scenario. exhibited a very weak dependence on black hole spin, we see a similar trend here. With increasing spin, the impact of subdom…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Ω(22+HM,e) Ω(22,e) for a range of primary BH’s mass (m1) while keeping m2 = 1.4 M⊙ at different eccentricity value, for 3G scenario. (a) is for NSBH bianry system while (b) is for BNS system. spin is approximately 6% with and without subdominant mode. Therefore, we ca…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Row shows Ω22+HM,e/Ω22,e the coloums are for three different tc value=[-90, -60, -45] sec for O5 scenario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Row shows Ω22+HM,e/Ω22+HM,e=0 and the coloums are for three different tc value=[-90, -60, -45] sec for O5 scenario. third-generation (3G) detectors. A key question we addressed concerns the optimal initial starting point for generating eccentric waveform templates for…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Sky area ratio of 22+HM to 22 mode as a function of primary spin and time to merger, for different eccentricity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Sky area ratio of spinning to non-spinning for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Impact of eccentricity and higher-modes on neutron star-black hole parameter estimation

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

    Eccentric NSBH signals like GW200105 contain much more information about masses, mass ratio, and effective spin per unit SNR than circular signals, but not about sky position or distance.

  2. Improving low-latency multi-messenger follow-up of neutron star-black hole mergers with mode-by-mode filtering

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Mode-by-mode filtering of higher-order modes enables low-latency marginalization over mode information in NSBH gravitational-wave signals, tightening constraints on distance, inclination, and secondary mass.

  3. Eccentric and unbound compact binaries in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog: parameter estimation and waveform systematics with SEOBNRv6EHM

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    SEOBNRv6EHM reduces parameter biases for eccentric binaries versus prior models and shows mild support for eccentricity in five catalog events plus comparable unbound fits for three high-mass events.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

139 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  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.(VIRGO), Class

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

    arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys

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

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

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

    arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari,et al., Physical review letters116, 131103 (2016)

    2016

  8. [8]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya,et al., Physical review letters119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

Show all 139 references
  1. [9]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys

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

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya,et al., Physical review letters121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  3. [11]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, and A. Vuorinen, Physical review letters120, 172703 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Dietrich, M

    T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science370, 1450 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), Nature551, 85 (2017)

    2017

  6. [14]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, Nature562, 545 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    Giacomazzo, R

    B. Giacomazzo, R. Perna, L. Rezzolla, E. Troja, and D. Lazzati, The Astrophysical Journal Letters762, L18 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    Foucart, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 7, 46 (2020)

    F. Foucart, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 7, 46 (2020)

    2020

  9. [17]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, E. Quataert, D. Issa, T. Mar- tineau, F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, The Astrophysical Journal Letters958, L33 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    O. Just, A. Bauswein, R. A. Pulpillo, S. Goriely, and H.-T. Janka, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society448, 541 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    B. D. Metzger, Living reviews in relativity20, 3 (2017)

    2017

  12. [20]

    Rosswog and O

    S. Rosswog and O. Korobkin, Annalen der Physik536, 2200306 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, et al., Astrophysical Journal Letters848(2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ack- ley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya,et al., Physical review letters123, 011102 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Shappee, J

    B. Shappee, J. Simon, M. Drout, A. Piro, N. Morrell, J. Prieto, D. Kasen, T.-S. Holoien, J. Kollmeier, D. Kel- son,et al., Science358, 1574 (2017)

    2017

  16. [24]

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration,et al., Physical review letters121, 161101 (2018)

    2018

  17. [25]

    Creminelli and F

    P. Creminelli and F. Vernizzi, Physical review letters 119, 251302 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalac´ arregui, Physical review letters119, 251304 (2017)

    2017

  19. [27]

    Goldstein, P

    A. Goldstein, P. Veres, E. Burns, M. Briggs, R. Hamburg, D. Kocevski, C. Wilson-Hodge, R. Preece, S. Poolakkil, O. Roberts,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 848, L14 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    Savchenko, C

    V. Savchenko, C. Ferrigno, E. Kuulkers, A. Bazzano, E. Bozzo, S. Brandt, J. Chenevez, T.-L. Courvoisier, R. Diehl, A. Domingo,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L15 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    Coulter, R

    D. Coulter, R. Foley, C. Kilpatrick, M. Drout, A. Piro, B. Shappee, M. Siebert, J. Simon, N. Ulloa, D. Kasen, et al., Science358, 1556 (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    Valenti, J

    S. Valenti, J. David, S. Yang, E. Cappellaro, L. Tartaglia, A. Corsi, S. W. Jha, D. E. Reichart, J. Haislip, and V. Kouprianov, The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L24 (2017)

    2017

  23. [31]

    Tanvir, A

    N. Tanvir, A. J. Levan, A. Fruchter, J. Hjorth, R. Houn- sell, K. Wiersema, and R. Tunnicliffe, Nature500, 547 (2013). 21

    2013

  24. [32]

    Lipunov, E

    V. Lipunov, E. Gorbovskoy, V. Kornilov, N. Tyurina, P. Balanutsa, A. Kuznetsov, D. Vlasenko, D. Kuvshi- nov, I. Gorbunov, D. Buckley,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters850, L1 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    Arcavi, C

    I. Arcavi, C. McCully, G. Hosseinzadeh, D. A. How- ell, S. Vasylyev, D. Poznanski, M. Zaltzman, D. Maoz, L. Singer, S. Valenti,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L33 (2017)

    2017

  26. [34]

    P. A. Evans, S. Cenko, J. Kennea, S. Emery, N. Kuin, O. Korobkin, R. T. Wollaeger, C. L. Fryer, K. Madsen, F. Harrison,et al., Science358, 1565 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    M. M. Kasliwal, D. Kasen, R. M. Lau, D. A. Perley, S. Rosswog, E. O. Ofek, K. Hotokezaka, R.-R. Chary, J. Sollerman, A. Goobar,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters510, L7 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Troja, L

    E. Troja, L. Piro, H. van Eerten, R. Wollaeger, M. Im, O. Fox, N. Butler, S. Cenko, T. Sakamoto, C. Fryer, et al., Nature551, 71 (2017)

    2017

  29. [37]

    Hallinan, A

    G. Hallinan, A. Corsi, K. Mooley, K. Hotokezaka, E. Nakar, M. Kasliwal, D. Kaplan, D. Frail, S. Myers, T. Murphy,et al., Science358, 1579 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Ac- ernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., The Astrophysical Journal892, L3 (2020)

    2020

  31. [39]

    M. W. Coughlin, T. Ahumada, S. Anand, K. De, M. J. Hankins, M. M. Kasliwal, L. P. Singer, E. C. Bellm, I. An- dreoni, S. B. Cenko,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters885, L19 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    Paterson, M

    K. Paterson, M. Lundquist, J. Rastinejad, W. Fong, D. Sand, J. Andrews, R. Amaro, O. Eskandari, S. Wy- att, P. Daly,et al., The Astrophysical Journal912, 128 (2021)

    2021

  33. [41]

    O. M. Boersma, J. van Leeuwen, E. A. Adams, B. Ade- bahr, A. Kutkin, T. Oosterloo, W. De Blok, R. Van Den Brink, A. Coolen, L. Connor,et al., Astronomy & Astrophysics650, A131 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Coulter, C

    D. Coulter, C. Kilpatrick, D. Jones, R. Foley, A. Fil- ippenko, W. Zheng, J. Swift, G. Rahman, H. Stacey, A. Piro,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.15441 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, R. Adhikari, V. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., The Astrophysical journal letters915, L5 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Paschalidis, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 084002 (2017)

    V. Paschalidis, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 084002 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Hosseinzadeh, P

    G. Hosseinzadeh, P. S. Cowperthwaite, S. Gomez, V. A. Villar, M. Nicholl, R. Margutti, E. Berger, R. Chornock, K. Paterson, W.-f. Fong,et al., The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters880, L4 (2019)

    2019

  38. [46]

    Lundquist, K

    M. Lundquist, K. Paterson, W. Fong, D. Sand, J. An- drews, I. Shivaei, P. Daly, S. Valenti, S. Yang, E. Chris- tensen,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters881, L26 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    B. P. Gompertz, R. Cutter, D. Steeghs, D. Galloway, J. Lyman, K. Ulaczyk, M. Dyer, K. Ackley, V. S. Dhillon, P. O’Brien,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society497, 726 (2020)

    2020

  40. [48]

    Oates, F

    S. Oates, F. Marshall, A. Breeveld, N. Kuin, P. Brown, M. De Pasquale, P. Evans, A. Fenney, C. Gronwall, J. Kennea,et al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society507, 1296 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    D. A. Goldstein, I. Andreoni, P. E. Nugent, M. M. Kasli- wal, M. W. Coughlin, S. Anand, J. S. Bloom, J. Martinez- Palomera, K. Zhang, T. Ahumada,et al., The Astrophys- ical Journal Letters881, L7 (2019)

    2019

  42. [50]

    Gourdji, A

    K. Gourdji, A. Rowlinson, R. Wijers, J. Broderick, and A. Shulevski, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society523, 4748 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Anand, M

    S. Anand, M. W. Coughlin, M. M. Kasliwal, M. Bulla, T. Ahumada, A. Sagu´ es Carracedo, M. Almualla, I. An- dreoni, R. Stein, F. Foucart,et al., Nature Astronomy5, 46 (2021)

    2021

  44. [52]

    Dichiara, R

    S. Dichiara, R. Becerra, E. A. Chase, E. Troja, W. Lee, A. Watson, N. Butler, B. O’Connor, M. Pereyra, K. Lopez,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters923, L32 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Lazzati, A

    D. Lazzati, A. Deich, B. J. Morsony, and J. C. Workman, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society471, 1652 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Lazzati, R

    D. Lazzati, R. Perna, B. J. Morsony, D. Lopez-Camara, M. Cantiello, R. Ciolfi, B. Giacomazzo, and J. C. Work- man, Physical Review Letters120, 241103 (2018)

    2018

  47. [55]

    K. A. Postnov and L. R. Yungelson, Living Rev. Rel.17, 3 (2014), arXiv:1403.4754 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Mapelli, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 7, 38 (2020)

    M. Mapelli, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 7, 38 (2020)

    2020

  49. [57]

    D. Park, C. Kim, H. M. Lee, Y.-B. Bae, and K. Belczyn- ski, Monthly Notices of The Royal Astronomical Society 469, 4665 (2017)

    2017

  50. [58]

    Gr¨ obner, W

    M. Gr¨ obner, W. Ishibashi, S. Tiwari, M. Haney, and P. Jetzer, Astronomy & Astrophysics638, A119 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    K. S. Ford and B. McKernan, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society517, 5827 (2022)

    2022

  52. [60]

    J. M. Antognini, B. J. Shappee, T. A. Thompson, and P. Amaro-Seoane, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society439, 1079 (2014)

    2014

  53. [61]

    Petrovich and F

    C. Petrovich and F. Antonini, The Astrophysical Journal 846, 146 (2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Antonini, M

    F. Antonini, M. Gieles, F. Dosopoulou, and D. Chat- topadhyay, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, 466 (2023), arXiv:2208.01081 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Romero-Shaw, P

    I. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, The Astrophysical Journal940, 171 (2022)

    2022

  56. [64]

    Gupte, A

    N. Gupte, A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, J. Gair, M. C. Miller, M. Dax, S. R. Green, M. P¨ urrer, J. Wildberger, J. Macke,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.14286 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    M. d. L. Planas, A. Ramos-Buades, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, and M. Haney, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.15833 (2025)

    2025

  58. [66]

    Romero-Shaw, P

    I. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, The Astrophysical Journal Letters921, L31 (2021)

    2021

  59. [67]

    Gayathri, J

    V. Gayathri, J. Healy, J. Lange, B. O’Brien, M. Szczep- anczyk, I. Bartos, M. Campanelli, S. Klimenko, C. O. Lousto, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Nature Astron.6, 344 (2022), arXiv:2009.05461 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Morras, G

    G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, (2025), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  61. [69]

    Punturo, M

    M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. An- dersson, K. Arun, F. Barone, B. Barr, M. Barsuglia, M. Beker,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  62. [70]

    Hild, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 124006 (2012)

    S. Hild, Classical and Quantum Gravity29, 124006 (2012). 22

    2012

  63. [71]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

    2017 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Reitze, R

    D. Reitze, R. X. Adhikari, S. Ballmer, B. Barish, L. Bar- sotti, G. Billingsley, D. A. Brown, Y. Chen, D. Coyne, R. Eisenstein,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.04833 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Bailes, B

    M. Bailes, B. K. Berger, P. Brady, M. Branchesi, K. Danz- mann, M. Evans, K. Holley-Bockelmann, B. Iyer, T. Ka- jita, S. Katsanevas,et al., Nature Reviews Physics3, 344 (2021)

    2021

  66. [74]

    Borhanian and B

    S. Borhanian and B. Sathyaprakash, Physical Review D 110, 083040 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    W. H. Lee, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and G. Van de Ven, The Astrophysical Journal720, 953 (2010)

    2010

  68. [76]

    Hoang, S

    B.-M. Hoang, S. Naoz, and K. Kremer, The Astrophysi- cal Journal903, 8 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Dhurkunde and A

    R. Dhurkunde and A. H. Nitz, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.00242 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  70. [78]

    B. C. Stephens, W. E. East, and F. Pretorius, The Astrophysical Journal Letters737, L5 (2011)

    2011

  71. [79]

    W. E. East, F. Pretorius, and B. C. Stephens, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 85, 124009 (2012)

    2012

  72. [80]

    W. E. East, V. Paschalidis, and F. Pretorius, The As- trophysical Journal Letters807, L3 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    Zenati, M

    Y. Zenati, M. Rozner, J. H. Krolik, and E. R. Most, arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05391 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  74. [82]

    Tsang, J

    D. Tsang, J. S. Read, T. Hinderer, A. L. Piro, and R. Bondarescu, Physical Review Letters108, 011102 (2012)

    2012

  75. [83]

    Hotokezaka, K

    K. Hotokezaka, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, T. Muranushi, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 88, 044026 (2013)

    2013

  76. [84]

    Douchin and P

    F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astronomy & Astrophysics 380, 151 (2001)

    2001

  77. [85]

    Arcavi, The Astrophysical Journal Letters855, L23 (2018)

    I. Arcavi, The Astrophysical Journal Letters855, L23 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    P. S. Cowperthwaite, E. Berger, V. Villar, B. Metzger, M. Nicholl, R. Chornock, P. Blanchard, W.-f. Fong, R. Margutti, M. Soares-Santos,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters848, L17 (2017)

    2017

  79. [87]

    S. J. Kapadia, M. K. Singh, M. A. Shaikh, D. Chatterjee, and P. Ajith, The Astrophysical Journal Letters898, L39 (2020)

    2020

  80. [88]

    M. K. Singh, S. J. Kapadia, M. A. Shaikh, D. Chatterjee, and P. Ajith, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502, 1612 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    M. K. Singh, Divyajyoti, S. J. Kapadia, M. A. Shaikh, and P. Ajith, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society513, 3798 (2022)

    2022

  82. [90]

    Tsutsui, A

    T. Tsutsui, A. Nishizawa, and S. Morisaki, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 3878 (2022), arXiv:2107.12531 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  83. [91]

    J. D. Creighton and W. G. Anderson,Gravitational- wave physics and astronomy: An introduction to theory, experiment and data analysis(John Wiley & Sons, 2012)

    2012

  84. [92]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash, Physical Review D50, R7111 (1994)

    1994

  85. [93]

    Kyutoku and N

    K. Kyutoku and N. Seto, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society441, 1934 (2014)

    2014

  86. [94]

    Yang, R.-G

    T. Yang, R.-G. Cai, Z. Cao, and H. M. Lee, Physical Review D109, 104041 (2024)

    2024

  87. [95]

    Yang, R.-G

    T. Yang, R.-G. Cai, Z. Cao, and H. M. Lee, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20664 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  88. [96]

    Yunes, K

    N. Yunes, K. Arun, E. Berti, and C. M. Will, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology 80, 084001 (2009)

    2009

  89. [97]

    Huerta, P

    E. Huerta, P. Kumar, S. T. McWilliams, R. O’Shaughnessy, and N. Yunes, Physical Review D 90, 084016 (2014)

    2014

  90. [98]

    Pal, (2025), arXiv:2501.11601 [gr-qc]

    S. Pal, (2025), arXiv:2501.11601 [gr-qc]

    2025

  91. [99]

    K. Paul, A. Maurya, Q. Henry, K. Sharma, P. Satheesh, Divyajyoti, P. Kumar, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D 111, 084074 (2025), arXiv:2409.13866 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  92. [100]

    M. A. Shaikh, V. Varma, H. P. Pfeiffer, A. Ramos-Buades, and M. van de Meent, Phys. Rev. D108, 104007 (2023), arXiv:2302.11257 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Sachdevet al., Astrophys

    S. Sachdevet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.905, L25 (2020), arXiv:2008.04288 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [102]

    Magee, D

    R. Magee, D. Chatterjee, L. P. Singer, S. Sachdev, M. Ko- valam, G. Mo, S. Anderson, P. Brady, P. Brockill, K. Can- non,et al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters910, L21 (2021)

    2021

  95. [103]

    B. J. Owen, Physical Review D53, 6749 (1996)

    1996

  96. [104]

    Babak, R

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

    2006

  97. [105]

    Ajith, S

    P. Ajith, S. Babak, Y. Chen, M. Hewitson, B. Krish- nan, A. Sintes, J. T. Whelan, B. Bruegmann, P. Diener, N. Dorband,et al., Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Gravitation, and Cosmology77, 104017 (2008)

    2008

  98. [106]

    Kovalam, M

    M. Kovalam, M. A. K. Patwary, A. K. Sreekumar, L. Wen, F. H. Panther, and Q. Chu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters927, L9 (2022)

    2022

  99. [107]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Living Rev. Rel. 12, 2 (2009), arXiv:0903.0338 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  100. [108]

    E. T. Newman and R. Penrose, Journal of Mathematical Physics7, 863 (1966)

    1966

  101. [109]

    K. S. Thorne, Reviews of Modern Physics52, 299 (1980)

    1980

  102. [110]

    L. E. Kidder, Physical Review D—Particles, Fields, Grav- itation, and Cosmology77, 044016 (2008)

    2008

  103. [111]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Physical Review131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  104. [112]

    P. C. Peters, Physical Review136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  105. [113]

    LIGO-T0900288-v2: Calibra- tion of the Hanford iLIGO detectors for the fifth sci- ence run,

    L. S. Collaboration, “LIGO-T0900288-v2: Calibra- tion of the Hanford iLIGO detectors for the fifth sci- ence run,” https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T0900288-v2/ public(2009)

    2009

  106. [114]

    Cannon, S

    K. Cannon, S. Caudill, C. Chan, B. Cousins, J. D. Creighton, B. Ewing, H. Fong, P. Godwin, C. Hanna, S. Hooper,et al., SoftwareX14, 100680 (2021)

    2021

  107. [115]

    Sachdev, S

    S. Sachdev, S. Caudill, H. Fong, R. K. Lo, C. Messick, D. Mukherjee, R. Magee, L. Tsukada, K. Blackburn, P. Brady,et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08580 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  108. [116]

    W. Wei, E. A. Huerta, M. Yun, N. Loutrel, M. A. Shaikh, P. Kumar, R. Haas, and V. Kindratenko, Astrophys. J. 919, 82 (2021), arXiv:2012.03963 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  109. [117]

    Fairhurst, New Journal of Physics11, 123006 (2009)

    S. Fairhurst, New Journal of Physics11, 123006 (2009)

    2009

  110. [118]

    Fairhurst, Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 105021 (2011)

    S. Fairhurst, Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 105021 (2011)

    2011

  111. [119]

    E. A. Huertaet al., Phys. Rev. D95, 024038 (2017), arXiv:1609.05933 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  112. [120]

    Huerta, C

    E. Huerta, C. Moore, P. Kumar, D. George, A. J. Chua, 23 R. Haas, E. Wessel, D. Johnson, D. Glennon, A. Rebei, et al., Physical Review D97, 024031 (2018)

    2018

  113. [121]

    Z. Chen, E. Huerta, J. Adamo, R. Haas, E. O’Shea, P. Kumar, and C. Moore, Physical Review D103, 084018 (2021)

    2021

  114. [122]

    Blanchet, Living reviews in relativity17, 2 (2014)

    L. Blanchet, Living reviews in relativity17, 2 (2014)

    2014

  115. [123]

    Poisson, A

    E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, Living Rev. Rel.14, 7 (2011), arXiv:1102.0529 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  116. [124]

    Sasaki and H

    M. Sasaki and H. Tagoshi, Living Rev. Rel.6, 6 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0306120

    2003 arXiv

  117. [125]

    Hinder, F

    I. Hinder, F. Herrmann, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D82, 024033 (2010), arXiv:0806.1037 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  118. [126]

    Henry and M

    Q. Henry and M. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D108, 104016 (2023), arXiv:2308.13606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  119. [127]

    C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. D91, 084040 (2015), arXiv:1501.07096 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  120. [128]

    Paul and C

    K. Paul and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D108, 024023 (2023), arXiv:2211.04155 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  121. [129]

    Henry, S

    Q. Henry, S. Marsat, and M. Khalil, Phys. Rev. D106, 124018 (2022), arXiv:2209.00374 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  122. [130]

    Varma, S

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

    2019 arXiv

  123. [131]

    ESIGMAPy: a Python package to gener- ate ESIGMAHM waveforms,

    K. Paul, A. Maurya, K. Sharma, and P. Ku- mar, “ESIGMAPy: a Python package to gener- ate ESIGMAHM waveforms,” https://github.com/ gwnrtools/esigmapy(2025)

    2025

  124. [132]

    L. S. Collaboration,The A+ design curve, Technical Note T1800042 (LIGO Document Control Center, 2018)

    2018

  125. [133]

    In- strument science white paper 2018,

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, “In- strument science white paper 2018,” https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0151/T1800133/004/T1800133- instrument-science-white-v4.pdf (2018), accessed [Date you accessed the document]

    2018

  126. [134]

    Saleemet al., Class

    M. Saleemet al., Class. Quant. Grav.39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.01716 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  127. [135]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Ac- ernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos,et al., Living reviews in relativity23, 1 (2020)

    2020

  128. [136]

    Advanced ligo, advanced virgo and kagra observing run plans,

    KAGRA Collaboration, LIGO Scientific Collab- oration, and Virgo Collaboration, “Advanced ligo, advanced virgo and kagra observing run plans,” https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0161/P1900218/002/SummaryForObservers.pdf (2019b)

    2019

  129. [137]

    L. S. Collaboration,Instrument Science White Paper, Technical Report T1500290 (LIGO Document Control Center, 2015)

    2015

  130. [138]

    R. X. Adhikari, P. Ajith, Y. Chen, J. A. Clark, V. Der- gachev, N. V. Fotopoulos, S. E. Gossan, I. Mandel, M. Ok- ounkova, V. Raymond,et al., Classical and quantum gravity36, 245010 (2019)

    2019

  131. [139]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 044001 (2017)

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.