Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 No new gravitational-wave bursts found in first eight months of O4

desk verdict Solid O4a null burst search; the no-detection claim holds up, but the factor 2–10 sensitivity gains lean on ML classifiers trained only on WNB injections—worth a caveat, not a rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12374 v2 pith:MFUAZJW6 submitted 2025-07-16 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

LIGO Scientific Collaboration , Virgo Collaboration , KAGRA Collaboration This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesburstsearchLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAO4observingrunCoherentWavecore-collapsesupernovaeneutronstarglitchesfalsealarmrate
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 reports a search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the first eight months of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run (O4a), using 126.4 days of dual-coincident LIGO data in the 16-4096 Hz band. The central claim is that, after removing binary black hole merger candidates already flagged by low-latency analyses, no other transient gravitational-wave signal is statistically significant at a false-alarm threshold of 1 per 100 years. The search therefore extends the null result of earlier runs while improving strain sensitivity by factors of 2 to 10 for representative waveforms and improving 90% confidence rate-density upper limits by a similar margin. The authors also show that the most energetic core-collapse supernova models would have been detectable throughout the Milky Way, and that a Vela-like glitching pulsar would need a fractional frequency change near $2$ to $6 \times 10^{-5}$ to be seen.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Coherent WaveBurst (cWB) algorithm, an unmodeled time-frequency excess-power search, run in two updated variants (cWB-2G and cWB-XP) and paired with two classifiers: XGBoost, a decision-tree algorithm, and a Gaussian mixture model. cWB builds multi-resolution time-frequency maps, aggregates pixels into triggers, and ranks them with a network likelihood statistic whose significance is calibrated against time-shifted background; the machine-learning classifiers re-rank triggers using summary statistics chosen to be independent of signal morphology. The detection threshold is an inverse false alarm rate of 100 years, and sensitivity is quoted as the injected root-sum-squared strain $h_{rss}$ giving 50% detection efficiency.

What would settle it

Re-run the three pipelines on O4a data with a holdout set of sine-Gaussian waveforms at frequencies and quality factors far outside the white-noise-burst training distribution, for example $f_0=36$ Hz and $Q=100$; if the measured 50% detection efficiency is more than a factor of two worse than the paper's quoted $h_{rss}^{50\%}$, the classifier-generalization assumption supporting the sensitivity claims would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is an extended null result: the O4a burst search, built from three pipelines derived from the Coherent WaveBurst algorithm with machine-learning classification, finds no statistically significant non-CBC transient. All four analyses recover many known compact-binary candidates, and the most significant remaining candidate has an inverse false alarm rate of 1.75 years, consistent with background. The paper claims that the strain sensitivity $h_{rss}^{50\%}$ and the 90% confidence rate-density limits are 2 to 10 times better than the O3 search, and that for two core-collapse supernova models the fraction of Galactic sources detectable is about 90% or higher, while for low-energy models it is below 0.1%. For neutron-star f-mode bursts associated with pulsar glitches, a Vela-like source would be detectable only if the fractional glitch size is about $2$ to $6 \times 10^{-5}$.

Load-bearing premise

The machine-learning classifiers are trained only on white-noise burst injections, and the search's quoted sensitivity to sine-Gaussian, Gaussian, core-collapse supernova, and glitch signals assumes those classifiers respond to those waveforms at least as well as they do to white-noise bursts.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The absence of significant non-CBC bursts in O4a tightens the implied rate limits for generic short-duration sources, including magnetar flares and cosmic string bursts, across the 16-4096 Hz band.
  • The measured sensitivity improvements mean the full O4 dataset, now including Virgo and later KAGRA, should probe a larger accessible volume than any previous burst search.
  • The high Galactic coverage for the m39 and 35OC models implies that a Milky Way core-collapse supernova with those properties during O4a would very likely have been detected.
  • The glitch sensitivity of about $2$ to $6 \times 10^{-5}$ means the search could serve as a discovery channel for nearby EM-dark pulsars with large glitches, even though Vela's own glitches remain below threshold.
  • The factor of 2 to 10 improvement in sensitivity indicates that unmodeled burst searches remain competitive with modeled searches for exotic or unmodeled merger waveforms.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the classifier-generalization assumption holds, the same pipelines can be applied directly to the second half of O4, where the three-detector network should improve sky localization and further lower rate limits.
  • Because the low-energy core-collapse models predict essentially zero Galactic coverage, a future Galactic supernova detection or non-detection would mainly discriminate among the high-energy rotating-progenitor models, not the low-energy ones.
  • The strong pipeline independence among low-significance candidates suggests that an ensemble coincidence strategy could reduce background in future searches without sacrificing much sensitivity to signals only one pipeline sees.
  • A natural blind test of the claimed sensitivity would be to inject loud non-WNB signals, such as sine-Gaussians at $f_0=36$ Hz with high quality factor, into O4a data and verify that the recovery rate matches the quoted $h_{rss}^{50\%}$.
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

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper reports an all-sky search for short-duration gravitational-wave bursts in the first eight months (O4a) of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, using data from the two LIGO detectors. Three cWB-based pipelines (2G+XGB, XP+XGB, 2G+GMM) are combined into four analyses covering 16-4096 Hz. After removing binary-black-hole merger candidates already identified by low-latency searches, the authors find no statistically significant non-CBC burst; the most significant candidate has an inverse false alarm rate of 1.75 years. Sensitivity is measured with end-to-end injections of Gaussian pulses, sine-Gaussians, white-noise bursts, seven core-collapse supernova models, and damped sinusoids for neutron-star f-modes, yielding factors of 2-10 improvement over the O3 search in h_rss and rate-density upper limits. The paper also estimates Galactic CCSN coverage and minimum detectable pulsar-glitch sizes.

Significance. If the sensitivity claims hold, this is the most sensitive all-sky short-burst search for the O4a period, with broader astrophysical reach than previous runs. The central null result is well supported by the IFAR distributions in Figure 3 after CBC excision, and the rate-limit formalism in Eqs. (4)-(5) is sound. Strengths include the use of end-to-end injection-based efficiency measurements, explicit excision of known CBC candidates, and transparent disclosure of limitations (e.g., the omission of calibration uncertainties in Table I and the footnote that IMBH/eccentric mergers are not evaluated). The main risk is that the machine-learning classifiers are trained only on white-noise bursts; if their decision boundary does not generalize to the other waveform families used for sensitivity claims, the quoted h50, rate limits, CCSN coverage, and glitch thresholds could be biased, although the no-detection result itself would remain valid.

major comments (2)
  1. [III B 1, V, VI] The XGBoost and GMM classifiers are trained with white-noise bursts as the only signal class, and the text states that the selected features "do not depend directly on the morphological characteristics of anticipated signals" (Section III B 1). The sensitivity numbers in Table I, Table II, Table III, and Section VI B are obtained by end-to-end injections, so they are internally consistent measurements for these pipelines. However, the paper's broader claim to be a generic, unmodeled burst search, and the astrophysical reach statements (e.g., "the search could have detected gravitational waves from stellar core-collapse throughout the Milky Way" for some models), depend on the untested premise that the WNB-learned decision boundary ranks non-WNB signals correctly relative to noise. No cross-family validation is reported (e.g., classifier score distributions for injected SG/GA/CCSN/glitch waveforms versus WNB, or a comparison of h50 with and without the ML stage). If the boundary is morphology-dependent, the quoted h50, EGW, Galactic coverage, and glitch thresholds could be biased. Please either add a cross-family validation or explicitly restate the sensitivity claims as conditional on the WNB-trained classifier's generalization.
  2. [V, Fig. 4] The 90% confidence upper limits are presented as "the best of the three low-frequency analyses, on a waveform-by-waveform basis." Taking the minimum of three upper limits (even if the selection is based on injection-based h50 rather than on the observed candidates) does not yield a 90% frequentist upper limit for the selected analysis unless a trials factor or a combined-analysis calibration is applied. Please clarify the statistical procedure, for example by stating that the quoted confidence applies to a pre-specified analysis and that the best-of selection is a sensitivity statement rather than a calibrated 90% limit, or calibrate the coverage via simulation and adjust the quoted limits accordingly.
minor comments (6)
  1. [V] The sentence "We note that the calibration uncertainties (Sec. II B) are not taken into account here" should be accompanied by a quantitative estimate of the induced systematic error on h50 and on the R90 limits in Eq. (5), since the latter scale as the inverse cube of the strain amplitude; even a rough bound would clarify the robustness of the quoted factors of 2-10.
  2. [VI B] The phrase "optimistic asumptions" should read "optimistic assumptions."
  3. [IV] The notation for inverse false alarm rate is inconsistent ("IF AR" vs "IFAR"); please standardize it throughout the manuscript.
  4. [Table I] O3 comparison values are given only for the sine-Gaussian family; adding O3 columns for Gaussian pulses and white-noise bursts would make the claimed improvements (e.g., "at least 6 times better" for Gaussian pulses) directly verifiable from the table.
  5. [VI A] The model name "40 NR(Pan+21 40NRfrom [81])" has a formatting error; please fix the spacing and italics.
  6. [VI, footnote 80] The scope note that IMBH and eccentric mergers are not evaluated is useful; consider moving it to the Introduction so that readers learn the coverage boundary earlier in the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the search results and sensitivity numbers are direct end-to-end measurements, not fitted inputs renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central results—no significant non-CBC burst candidates, the h50 sensitivity values, the rate-density upper limits, the CCSN Galactic coverage, and the Vela-referenced glitch thresholds—are all obtained by running the three pipelines over O4a data and by end-to-end software injections of the relevant waveform families. The rate limits in Eq. (5) follow arithmetically from measured efficiencies, not from any parameter fitted to the data and then called a prediction. The XGBoost and GMM classifiers are trained on WNB injections and background triggers, and Table I does report WNB sensitivity, so the WNB rows are in-distribution measurements rather than out-of-sample predictions; however, the paper does not derive those h50 values from the training data—they are measured by injecting WNB signals into the data and applying the full detection threshold of IFAR >= 100 yr. The SG, GA, CCSN, and f-mode sensitivities are likewise measured by direct injection, so any concern about morphological generalization is an external validity assumption, not a circular reduction. No uniqueness theorem, fitted physical constant, or load-bearing self-citation carries the derivation. The absence of cross-family validation is a limitation of the genericity claim, but it does not make any stated result equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free physical parameters are introduced beyond the standard injection setup. The search depends on standard time-shifted background estimation, morphology-independent ML features, and the decision to neglect calibration uncertainties, all of which are domain assumptions rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (1)
  • Detection threshold IFAR >= 100 years = 100 years
    All quoted h50 and rate-limit sensitivities are evaluated at this chosen false-alarm threshold. It is not fitted to data but is a hand-selected analysis setting inherited from O3 comparisons.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Time-shifted data provide an unbiased estimate of the false-alarm distribution for the cWB ranking statistic.
    Section III: the IFAR of each trigger is computed against a background built by shifting one detector in time, which breaks astrophysical coherence. This assumes detector noise is uncorrelated between sites and sufficiently stationary across the run.
  • domain assumption The XGBoost and GMM summary features are independent enough of signal morphology that classifiers trained on white-noise bursts generalize to sine-Gaussians, Gaussian pulses, CCSN waveforms, and damped sinusoids.
    Section III B 1 states the features are chosen to avoid direct morphological dependence; the sensitivity estimates for non-WNB families rely on this generalization. If it fails, quoted h50 values and reach estimates for those families would be unreliable.
  • domain assumption Calibration uncertainty, quoted at 2 to 10 percent in amplitude, can be neglected when comparing sensitivity across runs.
    Explicitly stated in Section V: "the calibration uncertainties are not taken into account here." The quoted factors of 2 to 10 improvement ignore this systematic, which is small compared to the improvement but not included in the tables.
  • domain assumption CBC candidates selected for excision, with IFAR larger than one month in low-latency searches, are correctly identified and do not hide unmodeled burst signals.
    Section IV: all known CBC candidates are excised before evaluating the remaining background. If a non-CBC burst overlapped with a CBC alert, it would be removed from the reported candidate list.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MFUAZJW6

@misc{pith2026250712374,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MFUAZJW6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12374}
}
abstract

We present a search for short-duration gravitational-wave transients in data from the first eight months of Advanced LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's fourth observing run, denoted O4a. We use four analyses which are sensitive to a wide range of potential signals lasting up to a few seconds in the 16-4096 Hz band. Excluding binary black hole merger candidates that were already identified by low-latency analyses, we find no statistically significant evidence for other gravitational-wave transients. We measure the sensitivity of the search for representative signals, including sine-Gaussians, Gaussian pulses, and white-noise bursts with different frequencies and durations, adopting a false alarm rate of 1 per 100 years as detection threshold. Depending on signal type, we find improvements over previous searches by factors of 2 to 10 in terms of sensitivity to strain amplitude and of 90% confidence upper limit on the rate density of sources. We also evaluate a variety of core-collapse supernova models and find that, for some models, the search could have detected gravitational waves from stellar core-collapse throughout the Milky Way. Finally, we consider neutron star f-modes associated with pulsar glitches and find that, assuming a source similar to the Vela Pulsar, the search could have detected a gravitational-wave signal from a glitch with fractional frequency change as small as $\sim 2$ to $6 \times 10^{-5}$ depending on the neutron star mass.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12374 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The improvement at low frequencies is due to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. A comparison of GW detector noise between observatories and observing runs. Top: amplitude spectral densities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The GW burst search reported in this paper uses two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Each panel of that figure shows the cumulative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png]
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Cumulative number of candidate events versus IFAR found in the low-frequency analyses by 2G+XGB (top left), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Rate density upper limits (at 90% confidence) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Sensitivity of the all-sky GW search to core-collapse [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Sensitivity of the high-frequency 2G+XGB analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.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. Detectability of Gravitational-wave counterparts of EP-FXTs observed during the O4b LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

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

    No gravitational-wave counterpart is statistically associated with any of 47 Einstein Probe fast X-ray transients in the O4b run; 90% exclusion distances of ~178 Mpc (BNS) and ~349 Mpc (NSBH) disfavor nearby compact-b...

  2. All-sky search for long-duration gravitational-wave transients in the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing run

    gr-qc 2025-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    No long-duration gravitational-wave transients were found in O4a data; 50% efficiency amplitude limits improved by about 30% over O3, and eccentric CBC rate limits improved by factors of 2-7.

  3. An Unsupervised Search for Novel Instrumental Glitches in LIGO O4a: Multi-Scale Sensitization, Empirical Physical Vetoes, and Rate Upper Limits

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    After native-background recalibration and empirical physical vetoes, DANTE V3 finds zero coincident novel glitch morphologies in LIGO O4a, with per-detector 90% upper limits of 5.63–5.83 yr-1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Data Quality Vetoes Detector data quality varies during observing-mode time and occasionally is poor; these periods can some- times be identified and vetoed. In O4a, two categories of data quality (DQ) vetoes are applied [45]: category 1 vetoes flag time intervals with such severe issues that data taken during these times are not used by search pipelines,...

  2. [2]

    The most deleterious class of noise transients for this work areblip glitches[49]

    Other Transient Noise Despite the efforts to isolate the LIGO detectors from noise, they are still subject to occasional noise transients of both known and unknown origin. The most deleterious class of noise transients for this work areblip glitches[49]. Like many of the GW waveforms studied herein, blip glitches are short-duration, large-bandwidth transi...

  3. [3]

    The cWB-2G algorithm improves on the selection of TF pixels that form trig- ger candidates to improve the sensitivity to low SNR events

    Coherent WaveBurst 2G The cWB-2G algorithm computes the TF representa- tion with the Wilson-Daubechies-Meyer wavelet trans- form [54], using multiple TF resolutions to adapt to different signal morphologies. The cWB-2G algorithm improves on the selection of TF pixels that form trig- ger candidates to improve the sensitivity to low SNR events. After select...

  4. [4]

    Coherent WaveBurst Cross Power The cWB-XP algorithm implements two major changes with respect to the cWB version used in the O3 search [36]. First, the Wilson-Daubechies-Meyer wavelet transform is replaced with the multi-resolution WaveS- can transform based on Gabor wavelets [55] in order to reduce temporal and spectral leakage in the TF repre- sentation...

  5. [5]

    Decision tree learning with XGBoost XGBoost is a supervised decision tree learning algo- rithm [62] employed to classify cWB-2G and cWB-XP triggers between a noise class and a signal class. XG- Boost receives as input tabular values from the two la- belled classes and, during the training process, builds a multi-dimensional model which outputs a number ra...

  6. [6]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration),

    Gaussian mixture model An alternative supervised machine-learning approach, GMM, is applied to cWB-2G triggers in the 2G+GMM pipeline. GMM learns to model multi-dimensional dis- tributions as superpositions of Gaussians. The appli- cation of GMM to enhance GW burst searches is de- scribed in Refs. [66–68]. GMM constructs two dis- tinct models, one for the...

    2023

  7. [7]

    Aasi et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Acernese et al

    F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 114 references
  1. [9]

    Abbott et al

    B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Ob- served by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Sec- ond Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended cat- alog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. H. Nitz, C. Capano, A. B. Nielsen, S. Reyes, R. White, D. A. Brown, and B. Krishnan, 1-OGC: The First Open Gravitational-wave Catalog of Binary Merg- ers from Analysis of Public Advanced LIGO Data, As- trophys. J. 872, 195 (2019), arXiv:1811.01921 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. H. Nitz, T. Dent, G. S. Davies, S. Kumar, C. D. Capano, I. Harry, S. Mozzon, L. Nuttall, A. Lundgren, and M. T´ apai, 2-OGC: Open Gravitational-wave Cata- log of Binary Mergers from Analysis of Public Advanced LIGO and Virgo Data, Astrophys. J. 891, 123 (2020), arXiv:1910.0...

    2020 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and M. Cabero, 3-OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Compact-binary Mergers, Astrophys. J. 922, 76 (2021), arXiv:2105.09151 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, 4- OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Com- pact Binary Mergers, Astrophys. J. 946, 59 (2023), arXiv:2112.06878 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Venumadhav, B

    T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the second observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083030 (2020), arXiv:1904.07214 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Zackay, L

    B. Zackay, L. Dai, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, and M. Zaldarriaga, Detecting gravitational waves with 26 disparate detector responses: Two new binary black hole mergers, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063030 (2021), arXiv:1910.09528 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Olsen, T

    S. Olsen, T. Venumadhav, J. Mushkin, J. Roulet, B. Za- ckay, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole merg- ers in the LIGO-Virgo O3a data, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043009 (2022), arXiv:2201.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A. K. Mehta, S. Olsen, D. Wadekar, J. Roulet, T. Venu- madhav, J. Mushkin, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, New binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3b data, Phys. Rev. D 111, 024049 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Wadekar, J

    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 harmonics, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2312.06631 (2023), arXiv:2312.0663...

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gravitational-Wave Candidate Event Database (GraceDB), https://gracedb.ligo.org/ superevents/public/O4/

  14. [22]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction his- tory, PTEP 2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  15. [23]

    Iyer et al

    B. Iyer et al. , LIGO-India, Proposal of the Consortium for Indian Initiative in Gravitational-wave Observations (IndIGO), Tech. Report M1100296 (LIGO-India, 2011) https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-M1100296/public

    2011

  16. [24]

    Saleem, J

    M. Saleem, J. Rana, V. Gayathri, A. Vijayku- mar, S. Goyal, S. Sachdev, J. Suresh, S. Sudhagar, A. Mukherjee, G. Gaur, B. Sathyaprakash, A. Pai, R. X. Adhikari, P. Ajith, and S. Bose, The science case for LIGO-India, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.0...

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Branchesi, M

    M. Branchesi, M. Maggiore, D. Alonso, et al. , Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs, J. Cos. Astroparticle Phys. 2023, 068 (2023), arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Evans et al

    M. Evans et al. , A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community , Document CE-P2100003 (Cosmic Explorer Consortium, 2021) https://dcc.cosmicexplorer.org/CE-P2100003/public

    2021

  19. [27]

    Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence 62, 407 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]

    H.-T. Janka, Explosion Mechanisms of Core-Collapse Supernovae, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Sci- ence 62, 407 (2012), arXiv:1206.2503 [astro-ph.SR]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    S. E. Gossan, P. Sutton, A. Stuver, M. Zanolin, K. Gill, and C. D. Ott, Observing gravitational waves from core- collapse supernovae in the advanced detector era, Phys. Rev. D 93, 042002 (2016)

    2016

  21. [29]

    Abdikamalov, G

    E. Abdikamalov, G. Pagliaroli, and D. Radice, Gravita- tional waves from core-collapse supernovae, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy , edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer Nature Singapore, Singapore, 2022) pp. 909–945

    2022

  22. [30]

    M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, J. M. Antelis, M. Benjamin, M. Cavagli` a, D. Gondek-Rosi´ nska, T. Hansen, S. Kli- menko, M. D. Morales, C. Moreno, S. Mukherjee, G. Nurbek, J. Powell, N. Singh, S. Sitmukhambetov, P. Szewczyk, O. Valdez, G. Vedovato, J. Westhouse, M. Zanolin, and Y. Zhe...

    2021

  23. [31]

    Mezzacappa and M

    A. Mezzacappa and M. Zanolin, Gravitational waves from neutrino-driven core collapse supernovae: Pre- dictions, detection, and parameter estimation (2024), arXiv:2401.11635 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Nazari and M

    E. Nazari and M. Roshan, Gravitational radiation by magnetic field: application to millisecond magnetars, MNRAS 498, 110 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    Contopoulos, D

    I. Contopoulos, D. Kazanas, and D. B. Papadopou- los, Gravitational waves from the pulsar magnetosphere, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society527, 11198 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Kouvaris, Gravitational waves from magnetars, In- ternational Journal of Modern Physics D 34, 2550037 (2025), arXiv:2406.03513 [astro-ph.HE]

    C. Kouvaris, Gravitational waves from magnetars, In- ternational Journal of Modern Physics D 34, 2550037 (2025), arXiv:2406.03513 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  27. [35]

    A. L. Watts and T. E. Strohmayer, Neutron star oscillations and QPOs during magnetar flares, Ad- vances in Space Research 40, 1446 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0612252 [astro-ph]

    2007

  28. [36]

    Giliberti and G

    E. Giliberti and G. Cambiotti, Starquakes in millisecond pulsars and gravitational waves emission, MNRAS 511, 3365 (2022), arXiv:2102.02540 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Ebersold and S

    M. Ebersold and S. Tiwari, Search for nonlinear memory from subsolar mass compact binary mergers, Phys. Rev. D 101, 104041 (2020), arXiv:2005.03306 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Bini, S. Tiwari, Y. Xu, L. Smith, M. Ebersold, G. Principe, M. Haney, P. Jetzer, and G. A. Prodi, Search for hyperbolic encounters of compact objects in the third LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, Phys. Rev. D 109, 042009 (2024), arXiv:2311.06630 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Gravitational Wave Bursts from Cosmic Strings, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3761 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0004075 [gr-qc]

    2000 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Gravitational wave bursts from cusps and kinks on cosmic strings, Phys. Rev. D 64, 064008 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0104026 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. Vilenkin, Gravitational radiation from cosmic (super)strings: Bursts, stochastic back- ground, and observational windows, Phys. Rev. D 71, 063510 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0410222 [hep-th]

    2005 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration), All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the third Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo run, Phys. Rev. D 104, 122004 (2021), arXiv:2107.03701 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collabora- tion), All-sky search for long-duration gravitational- wave bursts in the third Advanced LIGO and Ad- vanced Virgo run, Phys. Rev. D 104, 102001 (2021), arXiv:2107.13796 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO-VIRGO-KAGRA Collabora- tion), Search for intermediate mass black hole bina- ries in the third observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Astron. Astrophys. 659, A84 (2022), arXiv:2105.15120 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration), Search for Eccentric Black Hole Coalescences during the Third Observing Run of LIGO and Virgo, Astrophys. J. 973, 132 (2024)

    2024

  38. [46]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collabora- tion), All-sky search for long-duration gravitational- wave transients in the first part of the fourth LIGO- Virgo-KAGRA Observing run, arXiv e-print 2507.12282 (2025), arXiv:2507.12282 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Klimenko, G

    S. Klimenko, G. Vedovato, M. Drago, F. Salemi, V. Ti- wari, G. Prodi, C. Lazzaro, K. Ackley, S. Tiwari, C. Da Silva, et al. , Method for detection and recon- 27 struction of gravitational wave transients with networks of advanced detectors, Phys. Rev. D 93, 042004 (2016)

    2016

  40. [48]

    Drago, S

    M. Drago, S. Klimenko, C. Lazzaro, E. Milotti, G. Mit- selmakher, V. Necula, B. O’Brian, G. A. Prodi, F. Salemi, M. Szczepanczyk, et al., coherent WaveBurst, a pipeline for unmodeled gravitational-wave data anal- ysis, SoftwareX 14, 100678 (2021)

    2021

  41. [49]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collab- oration), Search for Gravitational Waves Emitted from SN 2023ixf, Astrophys. J. 985, 183 (2025), arXiv:2410.16565 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Capote, W

    E. Capote, W. Jia, N. Aritomi, M. Nakano, V. Xu,et al., Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth ob- serving run, Phys. Rev. D 111, 062002 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Soni et al

    S. Soni et al. , LIGO Detector Characterization in the First Half of the Fourth Observing Run, Classical and Quantum Gravity 42, 085016 (2025), arXiv:2409.02831 [astro-ph.IM]

    2025

  44. [52]

    Ganapathy et al

    D. Ganapathy et al. (LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Broadband Quantum Enhancement of the LIGO De- tectors with Frequency-Dependent Squeezing, Physical Review X 13, 041021 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Sun et al., Characterization of systematic error in Ad- vanced LIGO calibration, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 37, 225008 (2020), arXiv:2005.02531 [astro-ph.IM]

    L. Sun et al., Characterization of systematic error in Ad- vanced LIGO calibration, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 37, 225008 (2020), arXiv:2005.02531 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Sun et al., Characterization of systematic error in Ad- vanced LIGO calibration in the second half of O3, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2107.00129 (2021), arXiv:2107.00129 [astro-ph.IM]

    L. Sun et al., Characterization of systematic error in Ad- vanced LIGO calibration in the second half of O3, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2107.00129 (2021), arXiv:2107.00129 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Cabero, A

    M. Cabero, A. Lundgren, A. H. Nitz, T. Dent, D. Barker, E. Goetz, J. S. Kissel, L. K. Nuttall, P. Schale, R. Schofield, and D. Davis, Blip glitches in Advanced LIGO data, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 155010 (2019), arXiv:1901.05093 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Y. Wu, M. Zevin, C. P. L. Berry, K. Crowston, C. Østerlund, Z. Doctor, S. Banagiri, C. B. Jack- son, V. Kalogera, and A. K. Katsaggelos, Advancing Glitch Classification in Gravity Spy: Multi-view Fu- sion with Attention-based Machine Learning for Ad- vanced LIGO’s Fourth Obser...

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Davis et al

    D. Davis et al. (LIGO O3 Detector Collaboration), LIGO detector characterization in the second and third observing runs, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 135014 (2021), arXiv:2101.11673 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Soni et al

    S. Soni et al. , Reducing scattered light in LIGO’s third observing run, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 025016 (2021), arXiv:2007.14876 [astro-ph.IM]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Coherent WaveBurst, https://gwburst.gitlab.io/

  52. [60]

    Necula, S

    V. Necula, S. Klimenko, and G. Mitselmakher, Tran- sient analysis with fast Wilson-Daubechies time- frequency transform, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 363 (IOP Publishing, 2012) p. 012032

    2012

  53. [61]

    Klimenko, Wavescan: multiresolution regression of gravitational-wave data, arXiv e-print 2201.01096 (2022), arXiv:2201.01096 [physics.data-an]

    S. Klimenko, Wavescan: multiresolution regression of gravitational-wave data, arXiv e-print 2201.01096 (2022), arXiv:2201.01096 [physics.data-an]

    2022 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Klimenko, S

    S. Klimenko, S. Mohanty, M. Rakhmanov, and G. Mit- selmakher, Constraint likelihood analysis for a network of gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D72, 122002 (2005)

    2005

  55. [63]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the first Advanced LIGO run, Phys. Rev. D 95, 042003 (2017)

    2017

  56. [64]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), All-sky search for long-duration gravitational wave transients in the first Advanced LIGO observing run, Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 065009 (2018)

    2018

  57. [65]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), All-sky search for short gravitational-wave bursts in the second Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo run, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024017 (2019)

    2019

  58. [66]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), All-sky search for long-duration gravitational-wave transients in the second Advanced LIGO observing run, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104033 (2019)

    2019

  59. [67]

    Mishra, S

    T. Mishra, S. Bhaumik, V. Gayathri, M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, I. Bartos, and S. Klimenko, Gravitational waves detected by a burst search in LIGO/Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023054 (2025)

    2025

  60. [68]

    Chen and C

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system, in Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining (2016) pp. 785–794

    2016

  61. [69]

    M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, F. Salemi, S. Bini, T. Mishra, G. Vedovato, V. Gayathri, I. Bartos, S. Bhaumik, M. Drago, O. Halim, C. Lazzaro, A. Miani, E. Milotti, G. A. Prodi, S. Tiwari, and S. Klimenko, Search for gravitational-wave bursts in the third Advanced LIGO- Virgo run with ...

    2023

  62. [70]

    Mishra, B

    T. Mishra, B. O’Brien, M. Szczepa´ nczyk, G. Ve- dovato, S. Bhaumik, V. Gayathri, G. Prodi, F. Salemi, E. Milotti, I. Bartos, and S. Klimenko, Search for bi- nary black hole mergers in the third observing run of Advanced LIGO-Virgo using coherent WaveBurst enhanced with machin...

    2022

  63. [71]

    Mishra, B

    T. Mishra, B. O’Brien, V. Gayathri, M. Szczepa´ nczyk, S. Bhaumik, I. Bartos, and S. Klimenko, Optimization of model independent gravitational wave search for bi- nary black hole mergers using machine learning, Phys. Rev. D 104, 023014 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    Gayathri, D

    V. Gayathri, D. Lopez, R. Pranjal, I. S. Heng, A. Pai, and C. Messenger, Enhancing the sensitivity of tran- sient gravitational wave searches with Gaussian Mixture Models, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104023 (2020)

    2020

  65. [73]

    Lopez, V

    D. Lopez, V. Gayathri, A. Pai, I. S. Heng, C. Messen- ger, and S. K. Gupta, Utilizing gaussian mixture models in all-sky searches for short-duration gravitational wave bursts, Phys. Rev. D 105, 063024 (2022)

    2022

  66. [74]

    Smith, S

    L. Smith, S. Ghosh, J. Sun, V. Gayathri, I. S. Heng, and A. Pai, Enhancing search pipelines for short gravitational-wave transients with Gaussian mixture modeling, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083032 (2024)

    2024

  67. [75]

    Tsukada et al

    L. Tsukada et al. , Improved ranking statistics of the GstLAL inspiral search for compact binary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043004 (2023), arXiv:2305.06286 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Ewing et al., Performance of the low-latency GstLAL inspiral search towards LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth observing run, Phys

    B. Ewing et al., Performance of the low-latency GstLAL inspiral search towards LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA’s fourth observing run, Phys. Rev. D 109, 042008 (2024), arXiv:2305.05625 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Dal Canton, A

    T. Dal Canton, A. H. Nitz, B. Gadre, G. S. Cabourn Davies, V. Villa-Ortega, T. Dent, I. Harry, and L. Xiao, Real-time Search for Compact Binary Merg- 28 ers in Advanced LIGO and Virgo’s Third Observing Run Using PyCBC Live, Astrophys. J. 923, 254 (2021), arXiv:2008.07494 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Chu et al

    Q. Chu et al. , SPIIR online coherent pipeline to search for gravitational waves from compact bi- nary coalescences, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024023 (2022), arXiv:2011.06787 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [79]

    All´ en´ e, F

    C. All´ en´ e, F. Aubin, I. Bentara, D. Buskulic, G. M. Guidi, V. Juste, M. Lethuillier, F. Marion, L. Mo- bilia, B. Mours, A. Ouzriat, T. Sainrat, and V. Sordini, The MBTA pipeline for detecting compact binary coa- lescences in the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, Class...

    2025 arXiv

  72. [80]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration), GW231123: a Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190-265 M⊙, arXiv e-print 2507.08219 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    gwosc.org

    The CBC candidates excised from this search will be published in the next update to the L VK Gravitational- Wave Transient Catalog (GWTC) and online in the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center, http://www. gwosc.org

  74. [82]

    Helmling-Cornell, P

    A. Helmling-Cornell, P. Nguyen, R. Schofield, and R. Frey, Automated evaluation of environmental cou- pling for Advanced LIGO gravitational wave de- tections, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 145003 (2024), arXiv:2312.00735 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Nguyen, R

    P. Nguyen, R. Schofield, A. Effler, C. Austin, V. Adya, M. Ball, S. Banagiri, K. Banowetz, C. Billman, C. Blair, et al., Environmental noise in advanced LIGO detectors, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 145001 (2021)

    2021

  76. [84]

    Abadie et al

    J. Abadie et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), All-sky search for gravitational- wave bursts in the second joint LIGO-Virgo run, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122007 (2012), arXiv:1202.2788 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  77. [85]

    P. J. Sutton, A Rule of Thumb for the Detectability of Gravitational-Wave Bursts, arXiv e-print 1304.0210 (2013), arXiv:1304.0210 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  78. [86]

    This all-sky search also could, in principle, detect IMBH mergers or highly eccentric binary mergers, but we do not evaluate those signal classes in this paper, instead leaving them for future dedicated analyses

  79. [87]

    K.-C. Pan, M. Liebend¨ orfer, S. M. Couch, and F.- K. Thielemann, Stellar mass black hole formation and multimessenger signals from three-dimensional rotating core-collapse supernova simulations, Astrophys. J. 914, 140 (2021)

    2021

  80. [88]

    J. M. Blondin, A. Mezzacappa, and C. DeMarino, Sta- bility of standing accretion shocks, with an eye toward core-collapse supernovae, Astrophys. J 584, 971 (2003)

    2003

  81. [89]

    J. M. Blondin and A. Mezzacappa, The Spherical Accre- tion Shock Instability in the Linear Regime, Astrophys. J 642, 401 (2006)

    2006

  82. [90]

    Foglizzo, P

    T. Foglizzo, P. Galletti, L. Scheck, and H.-T. Janka, Instability of a Stalled Accretion Shock: Evidence for the Advective-Acoustic Cycle, Astrophys. J 654, 1006 (2007)

    2007

  83. [91]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Three-dimensional core- collapse supernova simulations of massive and rotating progenitors, MNRAS 494, 4665 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Radice, V

    D. Radice, V. Morozova, A. Burrows, D. Vartanyan, and H. Nagakura, Characterizing the Gravitational Wave Signal from Core-collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J. Lett. 876, L9 (2019)

    2019

  85. [93]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Gravitational wave emission from 3D explosion models of core-collapse supernovae with low and normal explosion energies, MNRAS 487, 1178 (2019)

    2019

  86. [94]

    E. P. O’Connor and S. M. Couch, Exploring Funda- mentally Three-dimensional Phenomena in High-fidelity Simulations of Core-collapse Supernovae, Astrophys. J 865, 81 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    Obergaulinger and M

    M. Obergaulinger and M. ´A. Aloy, Magnetorotational core collapse of possible GRB progenitors - I. Explosion mechanisms, MNRAS 492, 4613 (2020)

    2020

  88. [96]

    Itagaki, Transient Discovery Report for 2023-05-19, Transient Name Server Discovery Report 2023-1158, 1 (2023)

    K. Itagaki, Transient Discovery Report for 2023-05-19, Transient Name Server Discovery Report 2023-1158, 1 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    N. Raza, J. McIver, G. D´ alya, and P. Raffai, Prospects for reconstructing the gravitational-wave signals from core-collapse supernovae with advanced ligo-virgo and the bayeswave algorithm, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063014 (2022)

    2022

  90. [98]

    P. J. McMillan, The mass distribution and gravitational potential of the Milky Way, MNRAS 465, 76 (2017)

    2017

  91. [99]

    Cautun, A

    M. Cautun, A. Ben ´ ıtez-Llambay, A. J. Deason, C. S. Frenk, A. Fattahi, F. A. G´ omez, R. J. J. Grand, K. A. Oman, J. F. Navarro, and C. M. Simpson, The Milky Way total mass profile as inferred from Gaia DR2, MN- RAS 494, 4291 (2020)

    2020

  92. [100]

    Lopez, S

    D. Lopez, S. Tiwari, M. Drago, D. Keitel, C. Laz- zaro, and G. A. Prodi, Prospects for detecting and localizing short-duration transient gravitational waves from glitching neutron stars without electromagnetic counterparts, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103037 (2022), arXiv:2206.14515 [as...

    2022 arXiv

  93. [101]

    Abadie et al

    J. Abadie et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Search for gravitational waves associated with the August 2006 timing glitch of the Vela pulsar, Phys. Rev. D83, 042001 (2011)

    2011

  94. [102]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration), Search for Gravitational-wave Transients Associated with Magnetar Bursts in Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo Data from the Third Observing Run, Astrophys. J. 966, 137 (2024)

    2024

  95. [103]

    W. C. G. Ho, D. I. Jones, N. Andersson, and C. M. Es- pinoza, Gravitational waves from transient neutron star f -mode oscillations, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103009 (2020)

    2020

  96. [104]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collabora- tion), Narrowband Searches for Continuous and Long- duration Transient Gravitational Waves from Known Pulsars in the LIGO-Virgo Third Observing Run, As- trophys. J. 932, 133 (2022)

    2022

  97. [105]

    Caraveo, A

    P. Caraveo, A. Luca, and R. Mignani, The Distance to the Vela Pulsar Gauged with Hubble Space Telescope Parallax Observations, Astrophys. J. 561, 930 (2001)

    2001

  98. [106]

    R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, VizieR Online Data Catalog: ATNF Pulsar Catalog (Manchester+, 2005), VizieR Online Data Catalog, VII/245 (2005)

    2005

  99. [107]

    Akmal, V

    A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron star structure, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998)

    1998

  100. [108]

    B. D. Lackey, M. Nayyar, and B. J. Owen, Observational constraints on hyperons in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024021 (2006). 29

    2006

  101. [109]

    D. D. Doneva, E. Gaertig, K. D. Kokkotas, and C. Kr¨ uger, Gravitational wave asteroseismology of fast rotating neutron stars with realistic equations of state, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044052 (2013)

    2013

  102. [110]

    L. Dunn, A. Melatos, C. M. Espinoza, D. Antonopoulou, and R. Dodson, A new small glitch in Vela discov- ered with a hidden Markov model, MNRAS 522, 5469 (2023)

    2023

  103. [111]

    R., Espinoza, C

    Fuentes, J. R., Espinoza, C. M., Reisenegger, A., Shaw, B., Stappers, B. W., and Lyne, A. G., The glitch activity of neutron stars, A&A 608, A131 (2017)

    2017

  104. [112]

    M. Yu, R. N. Manchester, G. Hobbs, S. Johnston, V. M. Kaspi, M. Keith, A. G. Lyne, G. J. Qiao, V. Ravi, J. M. Sarkissian, R. Shannon, and R. X. Xu, Detection of 107 glitches in 36 southern pulsars, MNRAS 429, 688 (2012)

    2012

  105. [113]

    C. M. Espinoza, A. G. Lyne, B. W. Stappers, and M. Kramer, A study of 315 glitches in the rotation of 102 pulsars, MNRAS 414, 1679 (2011)

    2011

  106. [114]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Col- laboration), Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Ad- vanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Reviews in Relativity 23, 3 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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