Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Fusing common-source mass posteriors with waveform features raises lensed gravitational-wave detection efficiency from 20.8% to 35.2% against unrelated multiple-merger events.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 23:15 UTC pith:VQKBK6UW

load-bearing objection Solid physics-informed fusion ranker with real held-out gains; the abstract’s 20.8%→35.2% / 45.3→33.5 numbers are measured at a nominal 1% threshold that the same section shows is not 1% under the quoted population. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03885 v1 pith:VQKBK6UW submitted 2026-07-04 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-ph

Identifying lensed gravitational waves with physics-informed posterior learning

Tian-Yang Sun , Xiao Guo , Jing-Fei Zhang , Xin Zhang This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMhep-ph
keywords gravitational-wave lensingbinary black holesneural posterior estimationsource consistencymulti-image signalsunrelated mergersmachine learning classification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves can probe compact lenses, dark-matter substructure, and cosmological distances, but the first practical barrier is ranking true multi-image lensed signals against chance overlaps of unrelated binary mergers in the same short analysis window. This paper builds a ranking method around a geometric-optics fact: lensing may change amplitudes, arrival times, and Morse phase offsets, yet the images must still share one intrinsic source phase evolution. It trains a neural posterior estimator on the two mass parameters that control that phase evolution, then fuses finite posterior samples with direct waveform features in an attention-gated classifier. Trained only on generic multi-image simulations and tested on held-out physical lens families, the fusion ranker, for an observationally motivated binary-black-hole population, raises detection efficiency at a 1% reference false-positive threshold from 20.8% to 35.2% and lowers the network signal-to-noise ratio needed for 50% efficiency from 45.3 to 33.5—a 1.35-fold larger SNR-equivalent distance scale. A sympathetic reader cares because source consistency can become an explicit guiding principle for machine-learning searches in the denser catalogs next-generation detectors will produce.

Core claim

A fusion classifier that combines a simulation-trained approximate posterior over the common detector-frame chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio with direct waveform features improves ranking of lensed multi-image signals against unrelated multiple-merger events relative to waveform morphology alone, even though training never sees the physical lens families used at test time.

What carries the argument

Physics-informed posterior fusion: a neural posterior estimator supplies unordered samples of the shared phase-consistency parameters (log Mc,z, η); those samples are attention-gated with frozen waveform features so source consistency can re-rank events that morphology alone leaves ambiguous.

Load-bearing premise

A false-positive threshold that is 1% on the paper’s simulated unrelated-merger sample will still mean roughly 1% once the real catalog’s mass distribution, overlap rate, and noise are used.

What would settle it

Inject the same fusion and direct classifiers into a catalog-matched set whose unrelated multiple-merger population follows the observed mass and rate distribution, calibrate a true 1% empirical false-positive threshold on that population, and check whether fusion still lowers the 50%-efficiency network SNR from roughly 45 to 33.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At a 1% reference false-positive threshold calibrated on the matching unrelated-merger sample, detection efficiency for an observationally motivated BBH population rises from 20.8% to 35.2%.
  • The network SNR needed for 50% detection efficiency falls from 45.3 to 33.5, corresponding to a 1.35 times larger SNR-equivalent distance scale.
  • The ranking gain holds on held-out point-mass, SIS, SIE, and SIE-plus-shear lenses never used as training labels.
  • Low false-positive performance remains controlled by loud, temporally compact, partly source-consistent unrelated overlaps, so any real search must rebuild the unrelated-merger population for its own catalog.
  • Extending the same common-source idea to sky response becomes more informative as detector networks grow beyond two sites.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Catalog pipelines that already emit mass posteriors could graft a lighter fusion head onto existing features without retraining a full residual waveform network from scratch.
  • If wave-optics or substructure effects break pure geometric-optics phase preservation, the posterior target would need diffraction-aware parameters rather than mass-plane consistency alone.
  • The 1.35 distance-scale gain implies that intermediate-SNR events now discarded as ambiguous overlaps may become usable for lensing cosmology once consistency ranking is applied.
  • Spinning or neutron-star binaries would require enlarging the phase-consistency target to the next leading coefficients that control their frequency evolution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a physics-informed ranking method for distinguishing lensed multi-image gravitational-wave signals from unrelated multiple-merger events in the same analysis window. It trains a neural posterior estimator for the common-source phase-consistency parameters (log Mc,z, η), then fuses finite posterior samples with a residual waveform classifier via attention gating. Training uses generic multi-image injections without lens-family labels; evaluation is held out on PM, SIS, SIE, and SIE+Shear lenses with O4 H1/L1 backgrounds. Averaged over held-out families the fusion model improves ROC-AUC from 0.785 to 0.844. For an observationally motivated BBH population the authors report detection efficiency rising from 20.8% to 35.2% at a nominal 1% FPR threshold, and the SNR for 50% efficiency falling from 45.3 to 33.5 (1.35× SNR-equivalent distance scale).

Significance. If the ranking gains survive proper threshold recalibration, the work is a useful methodological contribution: it encodes geometric-optics source consistency as a learnable intermediate representation and demonstrates held-out lens-family generalization without training on physical lens labels. Strengths include the explicit train/test lens-family separation, HPD/PIT posterior diagnostics, controlled mass-plane rejection maps, condition-bootstrap intervals, and an honest population-shift test that flags the calibration problem. The approach is a concrete step toward physics-guided ML searches in dense GW catalogs and is of clear interest to the lensing and multi-messenger communities.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and §III.C / Fig. 9: the headline claim that fusion raises efficiency from 20.8% to 35.2% and lowers ρ_net(50%) from 45.3 to 33.5 at a “1% reference FPR threshold” for the observationally motivated BBH population is not supported as stated. In the same section the authors show that thresholds calibrated on the original reference unrelated sample yield empirical FARs of 0.125 (direct) and 0.260 (fusion) on that population. The reported efficiencies are therefore measured at operating points that are no longer 1% FPR under the population for which they are quoted. The load-bearing quantitative claim requires re-setting the threshold so that the empirical FPR on the observationally motivated unrelated sample is truly 1% (and likewise for 0.1%), then re-reporting efficiency and D50. If the gain collapses after recalibration, the central numbers must be revised or removed from the ab
  2. §II.B and Table I: the unrelated multiple-merger class is constructed by superposing 2–5 independent BBHs with coalescence times drawn from the same ~0.6 s window and SNR rescaled into 8–48. The paper itself notes that for a realistic detected rate R the expected number of additional mergers in such a window is only RΔt ≪ 1. The difficult tail that controls low-FPR performance is therefore an artificial high-multiplicity, high-SNR construction. The authors should either (i) reweight or re-sample the unrelated class to a rate-consistent prior before quoting search-like FPR operating points, or (ii) clearly demote all fixed-FPR recalls to diagnostic status and lead with ROC-AUC / population-recalibrated metrics only.
minor comments (4)
  1. Table II vs. abstract: averaged R@1% FPR is 0.136 (direct) / 0.155 (fusion), while the abstract quotes 20.8% / 35.2% for the observationally motivated population. A short clarifying sentence in the abstract or §III.A would prevent readers from conflating the two numbers.
  2. Fig. 2 and Fig. 7: error bands or condition-bootstrap intervals on the SNR-dependent efficiency curves would make the intermediate-SNR gain easier to assess visually; the text already reports bootstrap intervals for the averages.
  3. §II.A: the Morse-phase convention (nj = 0, 1/2, 1 vs. integer Nj) is stated twice; a single consistent notation would reduce clutter.
  4. Data availability: the statement that processed data “will be made publicly available upon acceptance” is fine, but providing a temporary review link or DOI for the evaluation tables would aid reproducibility checks.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: empirical ML ranking gains are measured on held-out simulations, not forced by construction from training labels or self-cited uniqueness.

full rationale

The paper is a controlled simulation study of a classifier architecture, not a first-principles derivation of a physical law. The NPE is trained solely on lensed multi-image examples to approximate q_phi(vartheta_ph|x) over (log Mc,z, eta); the fusion and posterior-set classifiers are then trained on generic multi-image injections (no physical lens-family labels) and evaluated on independently generated PM/SIS/SIE/SIE+Shear held-out sets plus an observationally motivated BBH population. Reported ROC-AUC, fixed-FPR recalls, and the 20.8%->35.2% / 45.3->33.5 numbers are ordinary operating-point measurements on those held-out samples after a threshold is set on the negative class; they are not algebraic rearrangements of the training objective or of a fitted parameter re-labeled as a prediction. Geometric-optics source consistency (Eq. 1-3) is standard external physics, not an author-derived uniqueness theorem. Self-citations to the authors' prior cosmology and ML papers appear only as background context and do not underwrite the ranking gains. The acknowledged population-shift miscalibration of the nominal 1% FPR threshold is a validity/operating-point caveat, not a circular reduction of the efficiency claim to its own inputs. Hence the derivation chain is self-contained against the paper's own benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central ranking claim rests on standard geometric-optics lensing, a deliberately reduced two-parameter source-consistency target, simulation priors for generic multi-image and unrelated-overlap classes, and architectural/training choices. No new physical entities are postulated; free parameters are the usual simulation and network hyperparameters that define the training distribution and model capacity.

free parameters (4)
  • NPE conditioning embedding dim / spline-flow width / number of transforms
    16-dim embedding, 9 invertible transforms, hidden width 4096 chosen by architecture search; they control posterior capacity and therefore the quality of the source-consistency features fed to the fusion classifier.
  • Number of posterior samples K at train/eval
    K=4 during low-memory training, K=32 at evaluation; finite-sample approximation to the set classifier input.
  • Generic multi-image prior ranges (Nimg 2–5, |μ|^{1/2} 1–20, Δt ∈ [−0.3,0.3] s, Morse indices)
    Hand-chosen envelope that defines the training distribution of the lensed class; not derived from a physical lens population rate model.
  • SNR rescaling range 8–48 and 1%/0.1% FPR operating points
    Evaluation thresholds and injection SNR grid are chosen by the authors; reported efficiencies are defined relative to these choices.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption In the geometric-optics limit, lensing multiplies each image by |μ_j|^{1/2} exp(2πifΔt_j − iπ n_j) while leaving the intrinsic source waveform phase evolution unchanged (Eq. 1).
    Standard macrolensing result used as the physical justification for the common-source (log Mc,z, η) target; wave-optics and substructure effects are explicitly out of scope.
  • ad hoc to paper Detector-frame chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio form a sufficient low-dimensional phase-consistency diagnostic for the controlled nonspinning BBH study on H1/L1 O4 data.
    Stated in §II.A; spins, higher modes, and full source vector are deferred to future extensions.
  • domain assumption Unrelated multiple-merger events can be simulated by superposing 2–5 independent unlensed BBHs with coalescence times drawn inside the same analysis window.
    Defines the negative class against which FPR thresholds are calibrated (§II.B).
  • domain assumption Neural spline flow NPE trained by negative log-likelihood on lensed simulations yields a usable approximate posterior under the simulation model (diagnostics in Fig. 6).
    Standard simulation-based inference assumption; coverage is checked but only under the training prior.
invented entities (1)
  • Physics-informed posterior fusion classifier (attention-gated combination of frozen waveform ResNet features and NPE posterior tokens) no independent evidence
    purpose: Ranking statistic that injects source-consistency information into a morphology-based score.
    Architectural construct of the paper; no claim of a new physical object, only a new computational intermediate representation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 30048 in / 3241 out tokens · 26811 ms · 2026-07-11T23:15:00.923452+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Gravitational lensing of gravitational waves can probe compact lenses, dark matter substructure, and cosmological distances, but identifying lensed events is difficult when unrelated binary mergers overlap in the same analysis window. We develop physics-informed posterior learning for ranking lensed multi-image signals against unrelated multiple-merger events. The method exploits the geometric-optics consistency that lensing can change amplitudes, arrival times, and Morse phase offsets while preserving the intrinsic phase evolution of the source. We infer a simulation-trained approximate posterior for the common detector-frame chirp mass and symmetric mass ratio, and fuse posterior samples with direct waveform features. Training uses generic multi-image simulations, while point-mass, singular-isothermal-sphere, singular-isothermal-ellipsoid, and shear-perturbed lenses are reserved for held-out lens-family evaluation. For the observationally motivated binary-black-hole population, the fusion ranking raises the detection efficiency from $20.8\%$ to $35.2\%$ at a $1\%$ reference false-positive-rate threshold calibrated on the corresponding unrelated multiple-merger sample. It lowers the network signal-to-noise ratio needed for $50\%$ detection efficiency from 45.3 to 33.5, which corresponds to a 1.35 times larger signal-to-noise-ratio-equivalent distance scale. The gain is limited by loud unrelated multiple-merger events that are partly source consistent, and by the need to calibrate the unrelated multiple-merger population. These results suggest that physical consistency can become a guiding principle for machine learning searches in dense gravitational-wave catalogs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03885 by Jing-Fei Zhang, Tian-Yang Sun, Xiao Guo, Xin Zhang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Architecture of the physics-informed posterior learning pipeline. (A) The direct branch ranks events from waveform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. SNR-dependent detection efficiency averaged over the four physical lens families. (a) Efficiency at the 1% reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Source-consistency posterior examples. (a) Lensed validation event in the (log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Controlled source-consistency tests. (a,b) Correct rejection fraction for two unrelated BBHs at a threshold that gives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Controlled posterior contours for unrelated multiple-merger events. The orange regions show the 68.3% and 95.5% [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Reliability diagnostics for the source-posterior estimator on 256 validation events. (a) Joint coverage test for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Curve-based held-out lens-family performance for the SNR-matched evaluation. (a) ROC-AUC for different physical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Population efficiency as a function of network SNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Direct-classifier diagnostic for the nonmonotonic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Timing-only Fisher estimate for detector-network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Search for strong lensing of gravitational waves in the binary black hole events from O1-O4a

    gr-qc 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    Posterior Overlap 2.0 finds no lensed BBH pairs in O1–O4a (p_L < 0.6% for all pairs) and sets a 90% upper bound of 1.4% on the strong-lensing fraction.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

186 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    It is used as the primary baseline be- cause it measures the performance available from wave- form morphology alone

    Direct waveform classifier The direct classifier is a one-dimensional residual net- work that maps the whitened H1–L1 time series directly to a binary label. It is used as the primary baseline be- cause it measures the performance available from wave- form morphology alone. The backbone begins with a one- dimensional convolution with kernel size 7 and str...

    2048

  2. [2]

    It consists of a residual waveform encoder and a neural spline flow decoder

    Neural posterior estimator The posterior estimator maps the same inputx to a simulation-trained approximate common-source conditional density over the two-dimensional phase- consistency parameterϑ ph, qϕ(ϑph|x)≃p(ϑ ph|x,H common).(5) HereH common denotes the low-dimensional common- source hypothesis under the simulation prior. It consists of a residual wa...

  3. [3]

    ,ϑ(K) ph },ϑ (k) ph ∼q ϕ(ϑph|x).(7) The posterior-set classifier treatsS K as an unordered set

    Posterior-set classifier For each input waveform, the posterior estimator gen- eratesKsamples, SK(x) ={ϑ (1) ph , . . . ,ϑ(K) ph },ϑ (k) ph ∼q ϕ(ϑph|x).(7) The posterior-set classifier treatsS K as an unordered set. Each posterior sample is first passed through a point- wise multilayer perceptron 2→128→256→512, with batch normalization and ReLU activation...

  4. [4]

    Posterior samples are em- bedded as tokens, refined by four-head self-attention, and combined with the direct waveform feature through four- head cross-attention

    Attention-gated fusion classifier The fusion classifier combines the frozen 2048- dimensional waveform feature with posterior samples from the frozen estimator. Posterior samples are em- bedded as tokens, refined by four-head self-attention, and combined with the direct waveform feature through four- head cross-attention. The projected waveform feature, c...

    2048

  5. [5]

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

    1986

  6. [6]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), Nature551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Wang, X.-N

    L.-F. Wang, X.-N. Zhang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Lett. B782, 87 (2018), arXiv:1802.04720 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Zhang, L.-F

    X.-N. Zhang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D99, 063510 (2019), arXiv:1804.08379 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  12. [12]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    Zhang, H.-Y

    J.-F. Zhang, H.-Y. Dong, J.-Z. Qi, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 217 (2020), arXiv:1906.07504 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Zhang, M

    J.-F. Zhang, M. Zhang, S.-J. Jin, J.-Z. Qi, and X. Zhang, JCAP09, 068 (2019), arXiv:1907.03238 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Wang, Z.-W

    L.-F. Wang, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP11, 012 (2020), arXiv:1907.01838 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  16. [16]

    Zhao, L.-F

    Z.-W. Zhao, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. Bull.65, 1340 (2020), arXiv:1912.11629 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    Jin, D.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, D.-Z. He, Y. Xu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP03, 051 (2020), arXiv:2001.05393 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Biscoveanu, M

    S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, S. Vitale, and V. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171103 (2021), arXiv:2007.09156 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Roulet, H

    J. Roulet, H. S. Chia, S. Olsen, L. Dai, T. Venumad- hav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D104, 083010 (2021), arXiv:2105.10580 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  21. [21]

    Jin, L.-F

    S.-J. Jin, L.-F. Wang, P.-J. Wu, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D104, 103507 (2021), arXiv:2106.01859 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    C. Gong, T. Zhu, R. Niu, Q. Wu, J.-L. Cui, X. Zhang, W. Zhao, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D105, 044034 (2022), arXiv:2112.06446 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Biscoveanu, T

    S. Biscoveanu, T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.932, L19 (2022), arXiv:2204.01578 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Fishbach, C

    M. Fishbach, C. Kimball, and V. Kalogera, Astro- phys. J. Lett.935, L26 (2022), arXiv:2207.02924 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    T. A. Callister, S. J. Miller, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.937, L13 (2022), arXiv:2205.08574 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    H. Tong, S. Galaudage, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103019 (2022), arXiv:2209.02206 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J.949, 76 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Jin, T.-N

    S.-J. Jin, T.-N. Li, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, JCAP 08, 070 (2023), arXiv:2202.11882 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Song, L.-F

    J.-Y. Song, L.-F. Wang, Y. Li, Z.-W. Zhao, J.-F. Zhang, W. Zhao, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 230411 (2024), arXiv:2212.00531 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  31. [31]

    Jin, Y.-Z

    S.-J. Jin, Y.-Z. Zhang, J.-Y. Song, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67, 220412 (2024), arXiv:2305.19714 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  32. [32]

    B. Sun, J. An, and Z. Cao, Phys. Lett. B848, 138350 (2024), arXiv:2308.00233 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Song, J.-Z

    J.-Y. Song, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Astro- phys. J. Lett.985, L44 (2025), arXiv:2503.10346 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Jin, J.-Y

    S.-J. Jin, J.-Y. Song, T.-Y. Sun, S.-R. Xiao, H. Wang, L.-F. Wang, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 220401 (2026), arXiv:2507.12965 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Song, G.-H

    J.-Y. Song, G.-H. Du, T.-N. Li, L.-F. Wang, J.-Z. Qi, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. 15 Astron.69, 240413 (2026), arXiv:2511.12017 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Du, J.-Y

    Y.-N. Du, J.-Y. Song, Y. Li, S.-J. Jin, L.-F. Wang, J.- F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D113, 083519 (2026), arXiv:2510.21521 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Song, Y.-Y

    J.-Y. Song, Y.-Y. Dong, S.-J. Jin, S.-R. Xiao, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2603.13080 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  39. [39]

    Xiong, J.-Y

    E.-Y. Xiong, J.-Y. Song, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.03634 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Song, Y.-N

    J.-Y. Song, Y.-N. Du, Y.-Y. Dong, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.15844 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Du, J.-Y

    Y.-N. Du, J.-Y. Song, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, (2026), arXiv:2606.17617 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggioreet al.(ET), JCAP03, 050 (2020), arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  43. [43]

    Barausseet al., Gen

    E. Barausseet al., Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 81 (2020), arXiv:2001.09793 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020), arXiv:1807.09495 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Luoet al., Living Rev

    J. Luoet al., Living Rev. Rel.29, 1 (2026), arXiv:2502.20138 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [47]

    Sereno, A

    M. Sereno, A. Sesana, A. Bleuler, P. Jetzer, M. Volon- teri, and M. C. Begelman, Phys. Rev. Lett.105, 251101 (2010), arXiv:1011.5238 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  48. [48]

    Dai and T

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [49]

    S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 2220 (2018), arXiv:1802.05089 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 023012 (2018), arXiv:1703.06319 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  51. [51]

    K.-H. Lai, O. A. Hannuksela, A. Herrera-Mart´ ın, J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D 98, 083005 (2018), arXiv:1801.07840 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    B. Liu, Z. Li, and Z.-H. Zhu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.487, 1980 (2019), arXiv:1904.11751 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1980

  53. [53]

    S. Cao, J. Qi, Z. Cao, M. Biesiada, J. Li, Y. Pan, and Z.-H. Zhu, Sci. Rep.9, 11608 (2019), arXiv:1910.10365 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    J. Gais, K. K. Y. Ng, E. Seo, K. W. K. Wong, and T. G. F. Li, Astrophys. J. Lett.932, L4 (2022), arXiv:2201.01817 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  55. [55]

    Guo and Y

    X. Guo and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D106, 023018 (2022), arXiv:2207.00325 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  57. [57]

    Wang, J.-H

    L.-F. Wang, J.-H. Zhang, D.-Z. He, J.-F. Zhang, and X. Zhang, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 1433 (2022), arXiv:2102.09331 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  58. [58]

    Liu, Z.-H

    X.-H. Liu, Z.-H. Li, J.-Z. Qi, and X. Zhang, Astrophys. J.927, 28 (2022), arXiv:2109.02291 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    S. Cao, J. Qi, Z. Cao, M. Biesiada, W. Cheng, and Z.-H. Zhu, Astron. Astrophys.659, L5 (2022), arXiv:2202.08714 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    Huang, Y.-M

    S.-J. Huang, Y.-M. Hu, X. Chen, J.-d. Zhang, E.-K. Li, Z. Gao, and X.-Y. Lin, JCAP08, 003 (2023), arXiv:2304.10435 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Tambalo, M

    G. Tambalo, M. Zumalac´ arregui, L. Dai, and M. H.-Y. Cheung, Phys. Rev. D108, 103529 (2023), arXiv:2212.11960 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  62. [62]

    A. K. Meena, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.532, 3568 (2024), arXiv:2305.02880 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    M. H.-Y. Cheung, K. K. Y. Ng, M. Zumalac´ arregui, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D109, 124020 (2024), arXiv:2403.13876 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    G. P. Smithet al., Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A383, 20240134 (2025), arXiv:2503.19973 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Z. Chen, Q. Yu, Y. Lu, and X. Guo, Astrophys. J. Lett. 993, L57 (2025), arXiv:2510.12470 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    H. Wu, T. Liu, and K. Liao, (2026), arXiv:2606.12792 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Ando, (2026), arXiv:2603.04267 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Ando, (2026), arXiv:2603.04267 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    Ando, (2026), arXiv:2606.21519 [astro-ph.CO]

    S. Ando, (2026), arXiv:2606.21519 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Haris, A

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  70. [70]

    Janquart, O

    J. Janquart, O. A. Hannuksela, H. K., and C. Van Den Broeck, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506, 5430 (2021), arXiv:2105.04536 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.923, 14 (2021), arXiv:2105.06384 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    R. K. L. Lo and I. Magana Hernandez, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123015 (2023), arXiv:2104.09339 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Janquartet al., Mon

    J. Janquartet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526, 3832 (2023), arXiv:2306.03827 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    C ¸ alı¸ skan, J

    M. C ¸ alı¸ skan, J. M. Ezquiaga, O. A. Hannuksela, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D107, 063023 (2023), arXiv:2201.04619 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  75. [75]

    A. Liu, I. C. F. Wong, S. H. W. Leong, A. More, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525, 4149 (2023), arXiv:2302.09870 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  76. [76]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [77]

    Goyal, S

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    Barsode, S

    A. Barsode, S. Goyal, and P. Ajith, Astrophys. J.980, 258 (2025), arXiv:2412.01278 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    X. Shan, B. Hu, X. Chen, and R.-G. Cai, Nature As- tron.9, 916 (2025), arXiv:2301.06117 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Z. Su, X. Shan, Z. Lyu, J. Zhang, Y. Liu, S. Mao, and H. Yang, (2025), arXiv:2510.17125 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.