Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 79 references

Ensemble-Based Residual Tests of GW231123 across Waveform Models

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims GW231123's residuals are consistent with noise under all five waveform models, so the models' parameter disagreements are too small to show up in the measured strain.

desk verdict Solid ensemble-based residual analysis; the residual-consistency result holds, but the detectability threshold leans on a frozen proxy the authors already acknowledge. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06627 v1 pith:V3XMA33O submitted 2026-08-06 gr-qc

Dicong Liang , Hai-Tian Wang , Junlin Qin , Zhan-Feng Mai , Tong Jiang , Yingjie Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w95.85.Sz
keywords GW231123residualtestwaveformsystematicsq-transformgoodness-of-fitgravitationalwavebinaryblackholeinjection
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 asks whether the large disagreements between five waveform models over the source parameters of GW231123 are visible in the measured strain. It constructs residuals by subtracting not just the single best waveform but the 100 highest-likelihood waveforms from each model, then tests whether the leftover power is noise-like using three goodness-of-fit tests on q-transformed energies. The residuals are consistent with noise for all five models, and injection tests show that the differences between models would need to be amplified by roughly a factor of a few before any test reaches $5\sigma$ significance. The result matters because it separates a parameter-level modeling problem from a strain-level detection problem: current sensitivity cannot yet tell the models apart.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is an ensemble of the 100 highest-likelihood waveforms per model, subtracted from the data to form 100 residual time series instead of one. Each residual is whitened with the 4096-second noise segment and transformed with the q-transform; normalized q-transformed energies of white noise are expected to be exponentially distributed, so the KS, AD, and chi-squared statistics measure deviations from that distribution. A second element is the injection test, where the difference between the NRSur7dq4 best-fit waveform and another model's best-fit waveform is treated as a signal-template difference, scaled by a factor $\alpha$, and added to 200 glitch-free noise samples to map when the residual tests become sensitive. The identity that carries the argument is the exponential distribution of normalized q-transform energies under the noise hypothesis.

What would settle it

Re-run the residual tests after sampling the posterior with a method that explores secondary modes, or after including all posterior samples above a likelihood threshold rather than the top 100; if any subtracted waveform yields a KS, AD, or chi-squared p-value below $2.87\times10^{-7}$, the claim that residuals are consistent with noise for that model is false. Alternatively, perform a full Bayesian reanalysis of a GW231123-like NRSur7dq4 injection with the other four models and check whether the optimized residuals become significant without artificial amplification.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using the 100 highest-likelihood posterior waveforms from each of the five models (NRSur7dq4, an interpolated numerical-relativity surrogate; SEOBNRv5PHM, an effective-one-body model; and the phenomenological models IMRPhenomXPHM, IMRPhenomTPHM, and IMRPhenomXO4a), the authors subtract each waveform from the strain data, whiten the residuals, and map them with the q-transform, whose normalized energies for pure noise follow an exponential distribution. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, and chi-squared tests applied to 100 residuals per model per detector return p-values that remain well above significance thresholds, with the smallest value 0.004. The overlapping morphology of the residual q-transforms and the agreement between maximum-likelihood and median residuals show that the conclusion does not depend on which high-likelihood waveform is chosen. Injection experiments that add a scaled version of the cross-model waveform difference, $\alpha\Delta^M h$, into 200 nearby noise samples show the p-value falls below the $5\sigma$ threshold ($2.87\times10^{-7}$) only once $\alpha$ reaches roughly a few. The paper therefore concludes that the current signal-template differences in GW231123 are too small to be detected directly by residual tests.

Load-bearing premise

The test assumes the 100 highest-likelihood posterior samples from each model faithfully represent the local high-likelihood waveform manifold, including any separate modes; if a sampler missed a mode, the residual test could miss a real waveform mismatch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All five waveform models pass the ensemble residual test for GW231123, so none of them is singled out as an inadequate description of the strain at current sensitivity.
  • Because the conclusion survives substituting any of the 100 highest-likelihood waveforms, the residual test result is not an artifact of a single maximum-likelihood sample.
  • The injection curves predict that a GW231123-like event with an effective signal-to-noise ratio larger by a factor of a few would make cross-model differences detectable as non-noise residuals.
  • Residual tests of this kind do not choose among models or validate their parameters; passing means only that strain-level differences are below the noise floor.
  • The low computational cost of the framework makes it practical to run the full ensemble and injection battery, so the same procedure can be extended to future high-mass, high-spin events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would use the spread of p-values across the 100 residuals as a quantitative stability metric for each model, something the paper displays but does not define as a statistic.
  • If a future sampler finds a separate high-likelihood posterior mode for GW231123, the ensemble test would need to include it; the paper's conclusion is conditional on the 100 samples covering the local high-likelihood manifold.
  • The injection scaling factor $\alpha$ is an upper bound on detectability, because in a real higher-SNR observation parameters would be re-optimized and absorb part of the discrepancy; a fully Bayesian reanalysis of injected signals is the natural next step to tighten that bound.
  • The same ensemble-subtraction logic could be applied to eccentric, lensed, or modified-gravity waveforms, where model mismatch might be concentrated in a different time-frequency region than the merger.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an ensemble-based residual analysis of the gravitational-wave event GW231123, using the 100 highest-likelihood waveforms from each of five waveform models (NRSur7dq4, SEOBNRv5PHM, IMRPhenomXPHM, IMRPhenomTPHM, IMRPhenomXO4a) and three goodness-of-fit tests (Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, and Pearson's chi-squared) applied to q-transformed residuals. The main result is that, for all five models and both LIGO detectors, the residuals are statistically consistent with noise, with only a few p-values below 0.004. The authors further perform injection tests by adding scaled cross-model waveform differences to 200 noise samples, and conclude that the current waveform differences would need to be amplified by roughly a factor of a few to become detectable at 5-sigma significance.

Significance. If the main result holds, it demonstrates that despite significant parameter-level disagreements among waveform models for GW231123, the strain-level reconstructions are all consistent with the data, so the waveform systematics are not yet detectable as residual power. This is a valuable contribution because it directly connects the large posterior discrepancies to an observable (residuals) and shows that the ensemble approach is computationally feasible. The paper uses public data, provides a detailed description of the method, and supports the conclusion with p-value distributions over 100 waveforms and injection tests over 200 noise samples. The main caveat is that the injection-based detectability threshold is based on a frozen waveform-difference proxy that has not been validated against full Bayesian re-inference, so the quantitative 'factor of a few' should be interpreted cautiously.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. 3.3, Eq. (3.4), Fig. 10] The injection test injects alpha times the frozen difference Delta_M h between the maximum-likelihood NRSur7dq4 waveform and the maximum-likelihood waveform of each other model. At higher SNR, the best-fit parameters of each model would shift and part of the discrepancy could be absorbed by parameter re-optimization, so the true residual shape and amplitude would differ from alpha Delta_M h. The manuscript acknowledges this and calls the result an upper bound, but the abstract and conclusions still state that the discrepancies 'would need to be amplified by roughly a few' before becoming detectable. Because this quantitative threshold is derived from the unvalidated proxy, it is an assumption rather than a measured sensitivity statement. I recommend either validating the proxy with full Bayesian re-inference for at least a subset of injected signals (e.g., a few alpha values and models), or systematically reframing the Fig. 10 results as being under the frozen-difference approximation throughout the abstract, conclusions, and main text.
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Figs. 7 and 8] The p-values of the KS, AD, and chi-squared tests are computed assuming that the q-transformed energies of white noise follow an exponential distribution and that the test statistics have their standard null distributions. However, the q-transform produces correlated time-frequency pixels, so the effective number of independent samples entering the tests may be smaller than the nominal number of pixels, and the null distributions may be inaccurate. The injection tests at alpha=0 could serve as a calibration check, but the paper does not report the distribution of p-values under the null (e.g., whether they are uniform). To support the central claim that residuals are consistent with noise, the authors should either justify that the standard null distributions are valid for their choice of q-transform parameters (a direct citation to the validation in Ref. [64] may be sufficient) or include a noise-only calibration study showing that the p-values are uniform.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. 3.3] The injection tests use only the maximum-likelihood waveform difference, not the ensemble of differences; since the paper emphasizes the ensemble approach, extending the injection studies to the 100 high-likelihood waveforms would provide a distribution of detectability thresholds rather than a single curve.
  2. [Fig. 10] The y-axis is labeled 'p-value' but the curves show median p-values over the 200 noise samples; this should be stated explicitly in the axis label or figure caption.
  3. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.4)] The number of bins n_b used in the chi-squared test is not specified; please state the binning choice (e.g., number of bins or bin width) used in the analysis.
  4. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.1)] The phrase 'C_100^2 = 4950' should be written as 'C(100,2) = 4950' or 'the number of pairs is 4950' for clarity.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrase 'the large parameter-level waveform systematics do not immediately translate into large differences in the observed detector-frame waveform' is repeated several times; consider tightening to avoid unnecessary redundancy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the residual consistency result is a direct goodness-of-fit measurement, and the injection-test detectability statement is explicitly presented as an upper-bound proxy rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central residual consistency claim (Sec. 3.2) is self-contained: residuals are formed by subtracting 100 high-likelihood waveforms from public GWOSC strain data, the q-transformed energies are compared with the exponential null distribution via the KS, AD, and chi-squared tests, and the resulting p-values are reported directly. No parameter is fitted to the residuals to force the noise-like conclusion; the 100-waveform ensemble propagates posterior-sample uncertainty rather than defining the test outcome. The injection test in Sec. 3.3 uses Eq. (3.4), Ri = alpha * Delta^M h + n_i, but the paper explicitly states that for a louder source the optimized difference would not generally equal alpha*Delta^M h, that part of the discrepancy could be absorbed by parameter re-optimization, and that the injection study should be regarded as an upper-bound estimate. It also lists full Bayesian re-inference as future work, so the detectability curve in Fig. 10 is not presented as a fitted prediction or as a derived consequence of the residual test itself. The only self-citations are Refs. [63] and [64], which supply the residual-test methodology; those tests are standard textbook statistics, and the application to GW231123 is independent of whether those references are removed. No step reduces to its input by definition, and no external benchmark is needed for the paper's main claim to stand. The score of 1 reflects the minor self-citation and the acknowledged approximation in the injection proxy, not any load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters in the sense of fitted constants; the numbers it chooses, such as N=100, the time window, and the frequency band, are analysis choices rather than fitted. The key assumptions are standard GW noise statistics, the reliability of public posterior samples, and the acknowledged proxy approximation in the injection test.

free parameters (4)
  • Number of top-likelihood waveforms (N_top) = 100
    The ensemble residual test uses 100 highest likelihood posterior samples per model. The choice is arbitrary; the central claim of robustness across the manifold depends on this number. No sensitivity scan over N_top is shown.
  • Residual analysis time window = [-0.4 s, +0.1 s] around merger
    Residuals are evaluated only in this window. Discrepancies outside it, such as in the early inspiral, are not tested. The window is chosen by hand.
  • Frequency band = 20 Hz to 256 Hz
    The frequency range is chosen to contain most of the signal power. Residuals outside this band are ignored.
  • Number of bins in chi-squared test = not stated
    The binning for the chi-squared test is not specified in the paper; the result could depend mildly on this choice.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Q-transformed energies of stationary white noise follow the exponential distribution F(y)=1-exp(-y).
    Standard result in GW literature (Refs. [70,72]); all p-values in Sec. 3.2 rely on it.
  • domain assumption The GWOSC posterior samples for GW231123 are reliable and cover the high-likelihood regions of each waveform model.
    The ensemble residual test selects the top 100 samples from these chains; if the chains miss modes, the test could be blind.
  • domain assumption Each waveform model is accurate enough that subtracting its best-fit waveform removes the signal, leaving only noise.
    This is the premise under test; the residual test checks it.
  • ad hoc to paper The best-fit waveform difference between NRSur7dq4 and the other models serves as a proxy for the true signal-template discrepancy in injection tests.
    Acknowledged approximation in Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 4; not validated by full Bayesian re-inference.
  • domain assumption The 200 nearby noise samples are stationary, Gaussian, and glitch-free.
    If the noise samples are not representative, the injection p-values would be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ensemble-Based Residual Tests of GW231123 across Waveform Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3XMA33O

@misc{pith2026260806627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ensemble-Based Residual Tests of GW231123 across Waveform Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3XMA33O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06627}
}
read the original abstract

GW231123 is an exceptional gravitational wave event for which different waveform models yield significantly different inferred source parameters. Residual tests provide a direct way to assess whether each waveform model gives an adequate description of the observed signal. In this work, we extend the conventional residual-test methods by subtracting the 100 highest likelihood waveforms, rather than only the maximum likelihood waveform for each model, thereby propagating waveform reconstruction uncertainty into the residual analysis. This ensemble-based approach turns the residual test from a single waveform diagnostic into a robustness test over the local high likelihood waveform manifold. We further perform injection tests to quantify the detectability of cross-model waveform discrepancies in realistic detector noise. The large-scale implementation of these analyses is made possible by the high speed and low computational cost of our residual testing framework, which is based on three goodness-of-fit tests: the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test, and Pearson's chi-squared test.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [64]

    Liang, N

    D. Liang, N. Dai, and Y. Yang, JCAP04, 022 (2026), arXiv:2509.14924 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  2. [1]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, Astrophysical Journal887, 53 (2019), arXiv:1910.12874 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2019

  4. [3]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L31 (2021), arXiv:2103.07933 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [4]

    Croon, D

    D. Croon, D. Gerosa, and J. Sakstein, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.546, stag073 (2026), arXiv:2508.10088 [astro-ph.HE] . – 18 –

    arXiv 2026

  6. [5]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, D. Issa, S. E. Li, M. Renzo, and M. Isi, Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L54 (2025), arXiv:2508.15887 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    S. A. Popa and S. E. de Mink, Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L76 (2025), arXiv:2509.00154 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  8. [7]

    Tanikawa, S

    A. Tanikawa, S. Liu, W. Wu, M. S. Fujii, and L. Wang, Astrophys. J.1003, 80 (2026), arXiv:2508.01135 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2026

Show all 79 references
  1. [8]

    Li, S.-P

    Y.-J. Li, S.-P. Tang, L.-Q. Xue, and Y.-Z. Fan, Astrophys. J.999, 127 (2026), arXiv:2507.17551 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  2. [9]

    Stegmann, A

    J. Stegmann, A. Olejak, and S. E. de Mink, Astrophys. J. Lett.992, L26 (2025), arXiv:2507.15967 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  3. [10]

    Li and X.-L

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2509.08298 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Paiella, C

    L. Paiella, C. Ugolini, M. Spera, M. Branchesi, and M. A. Sedda, Astrophys. J. Lett. 994, L54 (2025), arXiv:2509.10609 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Passenger, S

    L. Passenger, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, A. Borchers, M. Fishbach, and C. S. Ye, Astrophys. J.999, 236 (2026), arXiv:2510.14363 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  6. [13]

    S. Liu, L. Wang, A. Tanikawa, W. Wu, and M. S. Fujii, Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L30 (2025), arXiv:2510.05634 [astro-ph.GA]

    2025

  7. [14]

    Liu and D

    B. Liu and D. Lai, (2025), arXiv:2511.13820 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu, Phys. Rev. D112, L081306 (2025), arXiv:2507.15701 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  9. [16]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 201401 (2026), arXiv:2508.09965 [astro-ph.CO]

    2026 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J.1003, 20 (2026), arXiv:2512.19077 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  11. [18]

    J. C. L. Chan, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, J. Bowman, L. Maga˜ na Zertuche, and L. Vujeva, (2025), arXiv:2512.16916 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [19]

    A. Ray, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, (2025), arXiv:2510.07228 [gr-qc]

    2025

  13. [20]

    Bartos and Z

    I. Bartos and Z. Haiman, Astrophys. J. Lett.996, L44 (2026), arXiv:2508.08558 [astro-ph.HE]

    2026

  14. [21]

    Kıro˘ glu, K

    F. Kıro˘ glu, K. Kremer, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L37 (2025), arXiv:2509.05415 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  15. [22]

    Caputo, G

    A. Caputo, G. Franciolini, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D113, 083031 (2026), arXiv:2507.21788 [hep-ph]

    2026

  16. [23]

    Siegel, N

    H. Siegel, N. M. Khusid, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, (2025), arXiv:2511.02691 [gr-qc]

    2025

  17. [24]

    Lai, Q.-Y

    Q. Lai, Q.-Y. Lan, Z.-H. Wang, and Y.-S. Piao, (2026), arXiv:2602.01615 [gr-qc]

    2026

  18. [25]

    Angeloni, K

    F. Angeloni, K. Kritos, R. Schneider, E. Berti, L. Graziani, S. Torniamenti, M. Mapelli, and A. Tanikawa, Astron. Astrophys.710, L14 (2026), arXiv:2604.18709 [astro-ph.GA]

    2026 arXiv

  19. [26]

    T. Liu, C. Shao, and K. Liao, (2026), arXiv:2605.16425 [astro-ph.HE] . – 19 –

    2026 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Wang, S.-P

    H.-T. Wang, S.-P. Tang, P.-C. Li, and Y.-Z. Fan, (2025), arXiv:2509.02047 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Varma, S

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

    2019 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estell´ es, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Colleoni, F

    M. Colleoni, F. A. R. Vidal, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Ak¸ cay, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104019 (2025), arXiv:2412.16721 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Estell´ es, M

    H. Estell´ es, M. Colleoni, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, S. Husa, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, M. d. L. Planas, and A. Ramos-Buades, Phys. Rev. D105, 084040 (2022), arXiv:2105.05872 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D109, 063012 (2024), arXiv:2312.10025 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Blackman, S

    J. Blackman, S. E. Field, C. R. Galley, B. Szil´ agyi, M. A. Scheel, M. Tiglio, and D. A. Hemberger, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 121102 (2015), arXiv:1502.07758 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Blackman, S

    J. Blackman, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, C. R. Galley, D. A. Hemberger, P. Schmidt, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D95, 104023 (2017), arXiv:1701.00550 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Blackman, S

    J. Blackman, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, C. R. Galley, C. D. Ott, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and B. Szil´ agyi, Phys. Rev. D96, 024058 (2017), arXiv:1705.07089 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, A. Taracchini, L. E. Kidder, A. H. Mrou´ e, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szil´ agyi, Phys. Rev. D89, 084006 (2014), arXiv:1307.6232 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [37]

    P¨ urrer, Class

    M. P¨ urrer, Class. Quant. Grav.31, 195010 (2014), arXiv:1402.4146 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  31. [38]

    P¨ urrer, Phys

    M. P¨ urrer, Phys. Rev. D93, 064041 (2016), arXiv:1512.02248 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Babak, A

    S. Babak, A. Taracchini, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D95, 024010 (2017), arXiv:1607.05661 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Boh´ eet al., Phys

    A. Boh´ eet al., Phys. Rev. D95, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1611.03703 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Cotesta, A

    R. Cotesta, A. Buonanno, A. Boh´ e, A. Taracchini, I. Hinder, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D98, 084028 (2018), arXiv:1803.10701 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Ajithet al., Class

    P. Ajithet al., Class. Quant. Grav.24, S689 (2007), arXiv:0704.3764 [gr-qc]

    2007 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Ajithet al., Phys

    P. Ajithet al., Phys. Rev. D77, 104017 (2008), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 79, 129901 (2009)], arXiv:0710.2335 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Hannam, P

    M. Hannam, P. Schmidt, A. Boh´ e, L. Haegel, S. Husa, F. Ohme, G. Pratten, and M. P¨ urrer, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 151101 (2014), arXiv:1308.3271 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D91, 024043 (2015), arXiv:1408.1810 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  39. [46]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, X. Jim´ enez Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Phys. Rev. D93, 044007 (2016), arXiv:1508.07253 [gr-qc] . – 20 –

    2016 arXiv

  40. [47]

    S. Khan, K. Chatziioannou, M. Hannam, and F. Ohme, Phys. Rev. D100, 024059 (2019), arXiv:1809.10113 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  41. [48]

    S. Khan, F. Ohme, K. Chatziioannou, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D101, 024056 (2020), arXiv:1911.06050 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Estell´ es, A

    H. Estell´ es, A. Ramos-Buades, S. Husa, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, M. Colleoni, L. Haegel, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D103, 124060 (2021), arXiv:2004.08302 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Estell´ es, S

    H. Estell´ es, S. Husa, M. Colleoni, D. Keitel, M. Mateu-Lucena, C. Garc ´ ıa-Quir´ os, A. Ramos-Buades, and A. Borchers, Phys. Rev. D105, 084039 (2022), arXiv:2012.11923 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Hamilton, L

    E. Hamilton, L. London, J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, M. Hannam, C. Kalaghatgi, S. Khan, F. Pannarale, and A. Vano-Vinuales, Phys. Rev. D104, 124027 (2021), arXiv:2107.08876 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Ghosh, P

    S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D109, 024061 (2024), arXiv:2310.16980 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Q. Hu, H. Narola, J. Heynen, M. Wright, J. Veitch, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, Astrophys. J.1003, 187 (2026), arXiv:2512.17550 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  47. [54]

    A. Jan, S. Nicolella, D. Shoemaker, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D113, 084052 (2026), arXiv:2512.20060 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  48. [55]

    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]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [56]

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

    2019 arXiv

  50. [57]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  51. [58]

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

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

    2025 arXiv

  52. [59]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  53. [60]

    M. A. Green and J. W. Moffat, Phys. Lett. B784, 312 (2018), arXiv:1711.00347 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [61]

    A. B. Nielsen, A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, and D. A. Brown, JCAP02, 019 (2019), arXiv:1811.04071 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [62]

    Marcoccia, F

    P. Marcoccia, F. Fredriksson, A. B. Nielsen, and G. Nardini, JCAP11, 043 (2020), arXiv:2008.12663 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  56. [63]

    Residuals for Binary Black Hole Events in GWTC-1 Using Chi-squared Tests,

    D. Liang, J. Kanner, A. J. Weinstein, S. Ghonge, and Y. Gong, “Residuals for Binary Black Hole Events in GWTC-1 Using Chi-squared Tests,” (2020), LIGO-P2000464

    2020

  57. [65]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 135012 (2015), arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc] . – 21 –

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D91, 084034 (2015), arXiv:1410.3852 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    N. J. Cornish, T. B. Littenberg, B. B´ ecsy, K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, S. Ghonge, and M. Millhouse, Phys. Rev. D103, 044006 (2021), arXiv:2011.09494 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. M. Macleod, J. S. Areeda, S. B. Coughlin, T. J. Massinger, and A. L. Urban, SoftwareX13, 100657 (2021)

    2021

  61. [69]

    Chatterji, L

    S. Chatterji, L. Blackburn, G. Martin, and E. Katsavounidis, Class. Quant. Grav.21, S1809 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0412119

    2004 arXiv

  62. [70]

    S. K. Chatterji,The search for gravitational wave bursts in data from the second LIGO science run, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2005)

    2005

  63. [71]

    Blackburnet al., Class

    L. Blackburnet al., Class. Quant. Grav.25, 184004 (2008), arXiv:0804.0800 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Vazsonyi and D

    L. Vazsonyi and D. Davis, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 035008 (2023), arXiv:2208.12338 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [73]

    An, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att4, 89 (1933)

    K. An, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att4, 89 (1933)

    1933

  66. [74]

    Smirnov, The annals of mathematical statistics19, 279 (1948)

    N. Smirnov, The annals of mathematical statistics19, 279 (1948)

    1948

  67. [75]

    T. W. Anderson and D. A. Darling, Journal of the American statistical association49, 765 (1954)

    1954

  68. [76]

    Pearson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science50, 157 (1900)

    K. Pearson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science50, 157 (1900)

    1900

  69. [77]

    Trovato (Ligo Scientific, Virgo), PoSAsterics2019, 082 (2020)

    A. Trovato (Ligo Scientific, Virgo), PoSAsterics2019, 082 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    S. Bini, K. Kr´ ol, K. Chatziioannou, and M. Isi, Phys. Rev. D113, 083036 (2026), arXiv:2601.09678 [gr-qc] . – 22 –

    2026 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.