REVIEW 5 minor 97 references
New LIGO limits on continuous waves from Sco X-1 fall below the torque-balance level for 50–200 Hz, independent of spin inclination, arguing against equilibrium for a hadronic neutron star.
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 →
T0 review · grok-4.5
2026-07-10 18:45 UTC pith:J5GVXFKN
load-bearing objection Solid O4a CrossCorr result: first inclination-independent sub-torque-balance limits on Sco X-1 over 50–200 Hz, with the astrophysical caveat already flagged by the authors.
Sub-Torque-Balance Upper Limits on Continuous Gravitational Waves from Scorpius X-1
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The search sets 95 % upper limits on continuous-wave amplitude from Sco X-1 that lie below the standard torque-balance benchmark for every spin inclination angle across 50 Hz ≲ f₀ ≲ 200 Hz. The paper therefore argues against torque-balance equilibrium in this frequency window for a neutron star described by a hadronic equation of state.
What carries the argument
The resampling cross-correlation statistic with a fixed 24-hour coherence time: detector data are resampled into the neutron-star frame so that long-duration Fourier transforms replace short Fourier-transform pairs, yielding deeper sensitivity at modest computational cost.
Load-bearing premise
The torque-balance amplitude used as the benchmark assumes the accretion lever arm sits exactly at the stellar surface (10 km) and that the observed X-ray flux faithfully traces the mass-accretion rate; any larger lever arm or softer equation of state can push the predicted amplitude above the reported limits.
What would settle it
A confirmed continuous-wave detection from Sco X-1 whose amplitude exceeds the torque-balance curve at any frequency between 50 and 200 Hz, or a revised electromagnetic measurement that places the accretion lever arm well above the stellar surface so that the predicted torque-balance amplitude rises above the new upper limits.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper reports a continuous-wave search for Scorpius X-1 in LIGO O4a data using the resampling cross-correlation pipeline with fixed T_max = 24 h over 25–200 Hz. After hierarchical follow-up (including single-detector and known-line vetoes) and an independent O4b check that eliminates the most interesting outlier, no detections remain. Bayesian upper limits calibrated by injections fall below the standard torque-balance amplitude (Eq. 7) for every inclination over 50–200 Hz, corresponding to a sensitivity depth of ~70–75 Hz^{-1/2}. The authors convert the limits into ellipticity and r-mode amplitude bounds and argue that, under the usual lever-arm and hadronic-EoS assumptions, torque balance is disfavored in this spin range, while carefully noting the modelling uncertainties that limit the strength of that inference.
Significance. This is the first search to place continuous-wave upper limits from Sco X-1 below the canonical torque-balance curve independent of inclination. The improvement in sensitivity depth over O2/O3 CrossCorr analyses, the careful hierarchical follow-up that recovers the expected S/N scaling on injections, and the explicit O4b veto of the 129.20 Hz candidate constitute a solid observational advance. The astrophysical claim is appropriately caveated (lever arm, EoS compactness, intermittent torques), so the result is a useful constraint rather than an overstated exclusion. The work is of clear interest to both the continuous-wave and LMXB communities.
minor comments (5)
- §3 and Table 2: the choice of T_sft values is motivated by a correction to Whelan et al. (2015) Fig. 4, but the corrected formula or numerical values used to recompute the optimal T_sft are not given. A short appendix or inline expression would aid reproducibility.
- Fig. 4 and Table 4: the 129.20 Hz candidate is the only one that reaches ρ_lvl3 ≈ 11.7; a brief quantitative statement of the expected ρ distribution under pure noise (or the false-alarm probability after the full follow-up chain) would help the reader gauge how unusual this residual is before the O4b veto.
- Eq. (12): the spin-wandering loss estimate uses fiducial |ḟ|_drift and T_drift from Messenger et al. (2015). A one-sentence comparison with the lower levels inferred from F_X variability (Mukherjee et al. 2018) would clarify why the authors still regard the search as sensitive.
- Fig. 5 caption: the grey band for torque balance is described as depending on inclination, yet the right-hand panel already marginalizes over ι. Clarifying that the band is the range of h0(ι) for the fixed F_X and r = R_* assumptions would avoid minor confusion.
- Appendix A: the eccentricity mismatch (A9) is evaluated at the upper edge of the search (f0 = 200 Hz, asini = 3.25 lt-s). Adding the corresponding loss at the lower edge of the band would complete the argument that e ≲ 10^{-4} is negligible throughout.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: upper limits are data-driven and the torque-balance comparison is an external benchmark, not a fitted or self-defined quantity.
full rationale
The paper's central result is a set of 95% Bayesian upper limits on h0 (and heff0) obtained from the highest CrossCorr detection statistic ρ in each 0.05 Hz band after a blind search of O4a data, hierarchical follow-up that eliminates all outliers, and calibration via software injections (Sec. 5 and Fig. 5). The torque-balance amplitude (Eq. 7) is an independent astrophysical benchmark derived from the observed X-ray flux and the standard lever-arm assumption r = R∗ = 10 km; it is not fitted to the GW data, nor is any search parameter defined in terms of it. Self-citations are to prior CrossCorr pipeline papers (Whelan et al. 2015; Meadors et al. 2018; Abbott et al. 2017b, 2022a; Zhang et al. 2021) whose methods are re-validated by the present injection campaign; they do not supply the numerical upper limits or force the comparison. The authors themselves flag the modelling uncertainties that limit the strength of the astrophysical inference (abstract and Sec. 5). No step reduces a claimed prediction or first-principles result to its own inputs by construction.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (4)
- T_max =
86400 s
- metric mismatch =
0.25
- follow-up S/N thresholds =
7.2–7.6
- torque-balance lever arm r =
10 km
axioms (4)
- domain assumption GW signal is a non-precessing triaxial or r-mode continuous wave with phase determined by the binary orbit (circular, e ≲ 10^{-4}).
- domain assumption Torque-balance amplitude formula (Eq. 6–7) with F_X = 3.9×10^{-7} erg cm^{-2} s^{-1} and r = R_* = 10 km.
- domain assumption Spin wandering is mild enough that the 24 h coherence time does not destroy sensitivity (Eq. 12).
- standard math Gaussian-noise normalization of the CrossCorr statistic ρ plus empirical non-Gaussian tail handling via thresholds and vetoes.
read the original abstract
We present the results of a search for continuous gravitational waves from the low-mass X-ray binary Scorpius X-1 using LIGO data from the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run. By applying the resampling version of the cross-correlation pipeline to search for signal frequencies $f_0$ between $25$ and $200\un{Hz}$ (corresponding to neutron star spin frequencies of $12.5$ to $100\un{Hz}$ for GW due to triaxiality, or $\sim15-20$ to $\sim120-150\un{Hz}$ for GW due to $r$-modes), we set upper limits below the standard torque balance level, independent of neutron star spin inclination, for $50\un{Hz}\lesssim f_0\lesssim200\un{Hz}$. While uncertainties in the modelling of torque and equation of state limit the strength of our inference, our results nonetheless argue against torque balance in this spin range for a neutron star described by a hadronic equation of state. The most sensitive upper limits on the gravitational wave amplitude $h_0$, at the upper end of the frequency band searched, approach $5\times10^{-26}$ marginalized over inclination angle and $2\times10^{-26}$ assuming the most favorable inclination. The marginalized upper limits correspond to a sensitivity depth of $70-75\un{Hz}^{-1/2}$, improving sensitivity considerably over previous searches. Expressed as constraints on the triaxial deformation of the neutron star, the limits correspond to an ellipticity of $3\times10^{-5}$ if the GW frequency $f_0$ is $75\un{Hz}$ and $3\times10^{-6}$ if $f_0=200\un{Hz}$, approaching deformations which could be supported by ordinary nuclear matter. Outliers from the search were ruled out as potential signals by a combination of hierarchical followup and analysis of additional data from later in the observing run.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2014, PhRvD, 90, 062010, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.062010 —. 2015a, PhRvD, 91, 062008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.062008 15 —. 2015b, CQGra, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001
-
[2]
Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.17487, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.17487 —. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18079, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18079
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.17487
-
[3]
Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2011, PhRvL, 107, 271102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.271102
-
[4]
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, PhRvL, 118, 121102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.121102 —. 2017b, ApJ, 847, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa86f0 —. 2017c, PhRvD, 95, 122003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.122003 —. 2019a, PhRvD, 100, 062001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.062001 —. 2019b, PhRvD, 100, 122002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.122002
-
[5]
Abbott, B. P., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 022005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022005
-
[6]
P., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al
Abbott, B. P., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2022a, ApJL, 941, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca1b0 —. 2022b, PhRvD, 106, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.062002
-
[7]
Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al
Abbott, B. Abbott, R., Adhikari, R., et al. 2007a, PhRvD, 76, 082001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082001 —. 2007b, PhRvD, 76, 082003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.082003
-
[8]
2015, CQGra, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001
Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, CQGra, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001
-
[9]
2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol
Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Ain, A., et al. 2023, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 2429, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012039, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2429/1/012039
-
[10]
2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125
Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125
-
[11]
2025, CQGra, 42, 145008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adecd7
Amicucci, F., Leaci, P., Astone, P., et al. 2025, CQGra, 42, 145008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adecd7
-
[12]
Andersson, N., Glampedakis, K., Haskell, B., & Watts, A. L. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1153, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09167.x
-
[13]
2010, CQGra, 27, 194016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194016
Astone, P., D’Antonio, S., Frasca, S., & Palomba, C. 2010, CQGra, 27, 194016, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194016
-
[14]
Ballmer, S. W. 2006, CQGra, 23, S179
work page 2006
-
[15]
Behnke, B., Papa, M. A., & Prix, R. 2015, Physical Review D, 91, 064007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064007
-
[16]
1998, ApJL, 501, L89, doi: 10.1086/311440
Bildsten, L. 1998, ApJL, 501, L89, doi: 10.1086/311440
-
[17]
Bildsten, L., Chakrabarty, D., Chiu, J., et al. 1997, Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser., 113, 367, doi: 10.1086/313060
-
[18]
Bondarescu, R., Teukolsky, S. A., & Wasserman, I. 2007, PhRvD, 76, 064019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.064019 —. 2009, PhRvD, 79, 104003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.104003
-
[19]
Bradshaw, C. F., Fomalont, E. B., & Geldzahler, B. J. 1999, ApJL, 512, L121, doi: 10.1086/311889
-
[20]
2025, PhRvD, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002
Capote, E., Jia, W., Aritomi, N., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002
-
[21]
Carlin, J. B., & Melatos, A. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 083016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083016
-
[22]
Chakrabarty, D., Morgan, E. H., Muno, M. P., et al. 2003, Nature, 424, 42, doi: 10.1038/nature01732
-
[23]
Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823, doi: 10.1086/173934
-
[24]
B., Effler, A., Goetz, E., et al
Covas, P. B., Effler, A., Goetz, E., et al. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 082002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.082002
-
[25]
2025, Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches, LIGO Document T2400003-v3
Davis, D., Neunzert, A., Goetz, E., et al. 2025, Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches, LIGO Document T2400003-v3. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2400003/public
work page 2025
-
[26]
Whelan, J. T. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 082001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.082001
-
[27]
2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf033
Dong, W., & Melatos, A. 2025, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 537, 650, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staf033
-
[28]
2018, Physical Review D, 98, 084058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084058 Ertan, ¨U., & Alpar, M
Dreissigacker, C., Prix, R., & Wette, K. 2018, Physical Review D, 98, 084058, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084058 Ertan, ¨U., & Alpar, M. A. 2021, MNRAS, 505, L112, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slab060
-
[29]
Fomalont, E. B., Geldzahler, B. J., & Bradshaw, C. F. 2001, ApJ, 558, 283
work page 2001
-
[30]
2023, ApJ, 944, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0d3
Ghosh, S., Pathak, D., & Chatterjee, D. 2023, ApJ, 944, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb0d3
-
[31]
2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad1c35
Gittins, F. 2024, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 043001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad1c35
-
[32]
2019, MNRAS, 488, 99, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1719
Gittins, F., & Andersson, N. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 99, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1719
-
[33]
Glampedakis, K., & Suvorov, A. G. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 2399, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2689
-
[34]
2025, O4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data, LIGO Document T2400204-v2
Goetz, E., Neunzert, A., Knee, A., et al. 2025, O4a lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data, LIGO Document T2400204-v2. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2400204/public
work page 2025
-
[35]
2011, CQGra, 28, 215006, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215006 16
Goetz, E., & Riles, K. 2011, CQGra, 28, 215006, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/28/21/215006 16
-
[36]
Goetz, E., Neunzert, A., Knee, A. M., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2606.05959, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.05959 Gondek-Rosi´ nska, D., Gourgoulhon, E., & Haensel, P. 2003, A&A, 412, 777, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20031431
-
[37]
Gulminelli, F., & Raduta, A. R. 2015, PhRvC, 92, 055803, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.92.055803
work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1103/physrevc.92.055803 2015
-
[38]
Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
-
[39]
2015, MNRAS, 450, 2393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv726
Haskell, B., Priymak, M., Patruno, A., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 2393, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv726
-
[40]
Haskell, B., Zdunik, J. L., Fortin, M., et al. 2018, A&A, 620, A69, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833521
-
[41]
Hunter, J. D. 2007, CSE, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55
-
[42]
Idrisy, A., Owen, B. J., & Jones, D. I. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 024001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.024001
-
[43]
Jaranowski, P., Krolak, A., & Schutz, B. F. 1998, PhRvD, 58, 063001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.063001
-
[44]
Johnson-McDaniel, N. K., & Owen, B. J. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 044004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.044004
-
[45]
2022, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.123011
Jones, D., Sun, L., Carlin, J., et al. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.106.123011
-
[46]
Galloway, D. K. 2023, MNRAS, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad366
-
[47]
Lange, C., Camilo, F., Wex, N., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 274, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04606.x
-
[48]
2015, PhRvD, 91, 102003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.102003
Leaci, P., & Prix, R. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 102003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.91.102003
-
[49]
1999, ApJ, 517, 328, doi: 10.1086/307196 LIGO Scientific Collaboration
Levin, Y. 1999, ApJ, 517, 328, doi: 10.1086/307196 LIGO Scientific Collaboration. 2018, LIGO Algorithm Library - LALSuite, free software (GPL), doi: 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16
-
[50]
Lindblom, L., Owen, B. J., & Morsink, S. M. 1998, Phys. Rev. Lett., 80, 4843, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4843
-
[51]
Low, N. K. Y., & Melatos, A. 2025, submitted to PhRvD LVK. 2025, LIGO Virgo KAGRA Calibration Uncertainty (O4), LIGO Document T2500288-v5. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2500288/public
work page 2025
-
[52]
Meadors, G. D., Goetz, E., & Riles, K. 2016, CQGra, 33, 105017, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/33/10/105017
-
[53]
2017, PhRvD, 95, 042005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042005
Robinet, F. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 042005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042005
-
[54]
Meadors, G. D., Krishnan, B., Papa, M. A., Whelan, J. T., & Zhang, Y. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 044017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044017
-
[55]
2021, PhRvD, 104, 042003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.042003
Melatos, A., Clearwater, P., Suvorova, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 042003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.042003
-
[56]
Melatos, A., O’Neill, N. J., Meyers, P. M., & O’Leary, J. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 944, 64, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acab5a
-
[57]
Melatos, A., & Payne, D. J. B. 2005, ApJ, 623, 1044, doi: 10.1086/428600
-
[58]
2011, PhRvD, 84, 083003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083003
Messenger, C. 2011, PhRvD, 84, 083003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.083003
-
[59]
2007, CQGra, 24, S469, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S10
Messenger, C., & Woan, G. 2007, CQGra, 24, S469, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S10
-
[60]
Messenger, C., Bulten, H. J., Crowder, S. G., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 92, 023006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023006
-
[61]
2018, PhRvD, 97, 043016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043016
Mukherjee, A., Messenger, C., & Riles, K. 2018, PhRvD, 97, 043016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043016
-
[62]
2023, PhRvD, 107, 062005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.062005
Mukherjee, A., Prix, R., & Wette, K. 2023, PhRvD, 107, 062005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.062005
-
[63]
Osborne, E. L., & Jones, D. I. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 2839, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa858
-
[64]
Owen, B. J. 2010, PhRvD, 82, 104002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.104002 —. 2026, Reviews of Modern Physics, 98, 011002, doi: 10.1103/jdlt-7czp
-
[65]
J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al
Owen, B. J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al. 1998, Physical Review D, 58, 084020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084020
-
[66]
Owen, B. J., & Rajbhandari, B. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2512.22938, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.22938
-
[67]
Pagliaro, G., Papa, M. A., Ming, J., & Misra, D. 2025, Sco X-1 as a continuous gravitational waves source: modelling the secular evolution using MESA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21529
-
[68]
Papaloizou, J., & Pringle, J. E. 1978, MNRAS, 184, 501, doi: 10.1093/mnras/184.3.501
-
[69]
2017, ApJ, 850, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a
Patruno, A., Haskell, B., & Andersson, N. 2017, ApJ, 850, 106, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa927a
-
[70]
2012, ApJ, 746, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/9
Patruno, A., Haskell, B., & D’Angelo, C. 2012, ApJ, 746, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/9
-
[71]
Patruno, A., & Watts, A. L. 2021, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 461, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. T. M. Belloni, M. M´ endez, & C. Zhang, 143–208, doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-62110-3 4
- [72]
-
[73]
Prix, R., & Whelan, J. T. 2007, CQGra, 24, S565, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S19
-
[74]
Priymak, M., Melatos, A., & Payne, D. J. B. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 417, 2696–2713, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19431.x
-
[75]
Rezzolla, L., Lamb, F. K., & Shapiro, S. L. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 531, L139, doi: 10.1086/312539
-
[76]
2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-023-00044-3 17
Riles, K. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-023-00044-3 17
-
[77]
2014, PhRvD, 89, 043001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043001
Sammut, L., Messenger, C., Melatos, A., & Owen, B. 2014, PhRvD, 89, 043001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.043001
-
[78]
2020, MNRAS, 493, 3866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa442
Singh, N., Haskell, B., Mukherjee, D., & Bulik, T. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 3866, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa442
-
[79]
2019, CQGra, 36, 205015, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab4367
Singhal, A., Leaci, P., Astone, P., et al. 2019, CQGra, 36, 205015, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab4367
-
[80]
Soni, S., Berger, B. K., Davis, D., et al. 2025, CQGra, 42, 085016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adc4b6
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.