Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 89 references

The G347.3-0.5 outlier from O3: a follow-up case study for continuous gravitational-wave candidates

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Three independent pipelines confirm a gravitational-wave outlier in O3 data and find no trace of it in O4, disfavouring a long-lived signal.

desk verdict A solid, well-scoped multi-pipeline follow-up that confirms the O3 outlier and finds no O4 signal; the negative claim is strong within the standard CW model, and the paper is honest about its limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07662 v1 pith:B4ZMZDWE submitted 2026-08-07 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

L. Mirasola , F. Amicucci , M. Carrio , D. H. T. Cheung , M. A. Ferrer-Martinez , E. Goetz , D. Keitel , A. M. Knee
show 26 more authors
P. Leaci C. Palomba K. Pham O. J. Piccinni M. Pitkin I. Prohens K. Riles S. Safi-Harb G. Woan Z. Zhang M. Bejger A. Calafat R. Jaume D. I. Jones A. Krolak I. La Rosa A. Melatos J. R. Mérou A. Nemmani B. Rajbhandari C. Salvadore A. M. Sintes R. Tenorio K. Wette J. T. Whelan T. S. Yamamoto
This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM PACS 04.30.-w04.80.Nn95.55.Ym
keywords continuousgravitationalwavesgravitational-waveoutlierfollow-upsearchF-statisticBayesianinferenceLIGOO4datasupernovaremnantG347.3-0.5signalversusnoise
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 tests whether a persistent continuous gravitational-wave (CW) candidate reported toward the young supernova remnant G347.3-0.5 is a real signal or a noise artifact. Three independent search pipelines, using different detection statistics and sampling methods, all consistently recover the candidate in the third observing run (O3) of the LIGO detectors, with parameters matching the original report. When the search is extended to the first and second parts of the fourth observing run (O4a and O4b), none of the three pipelines finds any evidence of a phase-coherent signal at the extrapolated parameters; the loudest statistics are fully consistent with Gaussian noise. The paper argues that this absence of a clear O4 recovery disfavours a long-lived, phase-coherent CW source under the standard signal model, while leaving room for more exotic scenarios such as a large glitch or timing noise. The value of the study is procedural: it is a test case for how the field can independently corroborate or refute CW candidates before a first detection is claimed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the standard continuous-wave signal model: a slow frequency evolution f(t)=f0+fdot0(t-tref)+... truncated at second order, combined with the detector-response model that folds in Doppler and relativistic phase shifts. Against this model, the paper deploys three matched-filtering engines that share the same signal hypothesis but differ in inference: a time-domain Bayesian heterodyne with nested sampling, a grid-based fully coherent F-statistic search using a metric-template lattice, and a stochastic-sampling F-statistic search. The F-statistic analytically maximises over the four amplitude parameters, leaving a search over frequency-evolution parameters, and the semi-coherent averaged statistic 2Fhat is used for combined-run searches. The consistent absence of any high-statistic excess in O4, compared with injection-controlled expectations, is what carries the negative conclusion.

What would settle it

Whether the negative conclusion is right can be settled by the next data release: if a standard phase-coherent signal with the O3 parameters exists, the fully coherent F-statistic in O4 should grow to the predicted values of about 91 for O4a and about 222 for O4ab and appear as a clear excess over the Gaussian-noise template distribution. Repeating the grid or stochastic searches on O4c data, expected in December 2026, and finding either no excess or an excess at the wrong parameters would confirm the paper's verdict; finding the predicted excess would refute it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Grounded in the standard CW signal model, a Taylor expansion of the signal frequency with up to second-order spin-down and Doppler/relativistic phase corrections, the paper finds that the G347.3-0.5 outlier is a consistent feature of O3 data but does not persist into O4a or O4b. In O3, the time-domain Bayesian analysis returns a log10 Bayes factor of 3.9 in favour of a coherent signal over noise, the grid-based F-statistic search recovers 2Fmax=74.6 with local pfa approximately 1e-8, and the stochastic F-statistic analysis recovers 2F approximately 78 with local pfa approximately 6e-6; all agree with the original candidate parameters, including a small sky offset reproduced by injection. In O4a and O4b, the same pipelines find loudest statistics (2F in the range of roughly 31-50, and 2Fhat approximately 33 for the semi-coherent search) that track the Gaussian-noise expectation instead of the predicted values of 2F approximately 91 for O4a and approximately 222 for O4ab, and Bayesian evidence shifts to disfavour the signal, with log10 Bayes factors around -0.2 to -0.5. The conclusion is that the candidate is not consistent with a standard CW signal persisting across the full available data, though no known instrumental artifact or correlated noise can be blamed either.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion rests on the assumption that a real signal from the same source would follow the standard CW model and lie within the enlarged parameter ranges searched in O4; a sufficiently large glitch or prolonged post-glitch recovery could make a genuine astrophysical signal undetectable in these follow-ups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, the G347.3-0.5 outlier should not be treated as a candidate CW source: no long-lived phase-coherent signal exists at those parameters in the available data.
  • CW candidates should require consistent recovery in later observing runs, not only in the discovery run, before being considered astrophysical.
  • Multi-pipeline cross-checks, combining Bayesian time-domain inference, grid-based F-statistics, and stochastic F-statistics, can produce a convergent verdict on a single candidate.
  • No known instrumental line or correlated detector noise explains the O3 outlier, so its origin remains unidentified.
  • For a genuine persistent signal, adding data should raise the detection statistic and evidence; the observed decrease is itself a discriminating test.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The pattern of a strong O3 recovery and an O4 absence is exactly what a transient noise event, or a signal whose phase changed between runs, would look like; the paper's glitch tests are not conclusive but point in that direction.
  • If the candidate is eventually classed as noise, search pipelines can still produce false-alarm survivors at the roughly ten-percent level, and only multi-run disfavouring can retire them; this argues for building follow-up protocols around later observing runs.
  • A testable extension is to hunt specifically for a glitched version of this signal in O4c data, using glitch-epoch priors informed by the paper's O3+O4a posteriors rather than only a standard signal model.
  • The candidate's implied braking index of about 19 is far outside standard expectations of n=3 or n=5, which independently weakens the astrophysical interpretation of the O3 outlier.
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

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a multi-pipeline follow-up of the continuous-gravitational-wave outlier identified by the Einstein@Home directed search toward the supernova remnant G347.3-0.5. The authors analyze O3, O4a, and the newly released O4b data from the LIGO H1 and L1 detectors, after extensive data-quality investigations that include spectral artifact identification, auxiliary-channel coherence checks with Fscan and STAMP-PEM, and inter-detector coherence studies with Stochmon. Three independent analysis pipelines are used: CWInPy (time-domain Bayesian), Weave (grid-based F-statistic), and PyFstat (stochastic F-statistic). In O3 data, all three pipelines recover the outlier with parameters consistent with the original report and with local false-alarm probabilities of order 10^-8 to 10^-6. In O4a and O4b, the maximum recovered 2F lies in the range 31-50, far below the value of about 222 predicted from the O3 parameters, and the observed template statistics are consistent with Gaussian noise; injection tests confirm that the pipelines would have recovered a signal of the O3 amplitude. The paper concludes that the outlier is not consistent with a long-lived, phase-coherent continuous wave under the standard signal model, while explicitly leaving open non-standard scenarios such as large glitches or post-glitch recovery.

Significance. This is a useful and well-executed case study for the continuous-wave follow-up workflow. Its strengths are the three independent pipelines with consistent conclusions, the injection tests that calibrate the O4 null result, the off-source noise distributions used for false-alarm estimation, and the explicit falsifiable prediction of the expected O4 detection statistic. The O4 null result is meaningful because the expected statistic is much larger than what is observed. The paper is appropriately cautious about restricting its conclusion to the standard continuous-wave model, but the boundary of the claim (no coverage for large glitches or post-glitch exponential recovery) is stated only in Section 5.2 and should be carried into the abstract. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful template for adjudicating future continuous-wave candidates.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6 (with Section 5.2)] The central negative claim is explicitly conditional on the standard continuous-wave signal model and on the searched parameter ranges, but the abstract and title do not carry that qualifier. The O4 searches cover finite ranges: Weave uses Delta f0 = ±1e-4 Hz, Delta fdot = ±1.5e-12 Hz/s, and Delta fddot = ±2e-20 Hz/s^2 (Section 5.2); PyFstat's third-derivative prior has sigma = 4e-29 Hz/s^3 (Section 5.3); and the CWInPy glitch analysis is limited to O3+O4a and models phase jumps rather than a post-glitch exponential recovery (Section 5.1 and Appendix A). As the authors themselves state in Section 5.2, a sufficiently large glitch or a prolonged post-glitch recovery could keep an astrophysical signal undetected. Because the published version will be read through its abstract, I request that the abstract and the first paragraph of Section 6 state explicitly that the null result applies to the standard, phase-coherent continuous-wave model and does not exclude large-glitch or post-glitch-recovery scenarios.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4.4] The local false-alarm probabilities quoted for O3 (Weave ~1e-8, PyFstat ~6e-6) are not corrected for the multiple pipelines, prior configurations, or earlier search stages; the paper states this, but the abstract phrase "robustly recover the outlier" could be read as implying a global significance, so I suggest using wording such as "recover the outlier with parameters consistent with those of the original search" instead.
  2. [Section 5.2] The statement that the local pfa for each O4 search is "approximately unity" is correct only after accounting for the very large number of templates searched; I recommend adding the template count or a one-sentence explanation so that the reader does not infer that a 2F value near 46 is itself a small statistic.
  3. [Figure 2] The y-axis labels in the text version contain placeholder boxes for the power-of-ten exponents; please check the final rendering of the superscripts.
  4. [Sections 5.3 and 5.4] The predicted O4ab 2F value of about 222 is mentioned only in Section 5.4; reporting it alongside the observed maxima in Section 5.3 would make the falsification more immediate for the reader.
  5. [Section 4.1] The reported Bayes factor of 3.9 depends on the reweighting lower bound of 10^-33; since the flat-prior value is 0.11, a brief statement on the sensitivity of the Bayes factors to this bound would help the reader judge the strength of the evidence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the O4 null result is an independent falsifiable test of O3-derived predictions against new data, with scope limitations explicitly acknowledged.

full rationale

This paper is an observational follow-up rather than a derivation chain. The central negative claim—that the G347.3−0.5 outlier does not persist as a standard continuous-wave (CW) signal in O4—is tested by extrapolating O3 maximum-likelihood parameters to predict the expected detection statistic in O4a and O4ab (2F≈91 and ≈222, respectively; Section 5.4), then comparing those predictions with observed maxima (≈31–50) and with noise and injection distributions. The prediction is not fitted to O4 data: the O4 searches use enlarged parameter ranges relative to O3 posteriors (e.g., Weave ranges Δf0=±1e−4 Hz, Δfdot=±1.5e−12 Hz/s, Δfddot=±2e−20 Hz/s^2 in Section 5.2) and their sensitivity is demonstrated by injections, so the null result is not forced by construction. The paper explicitly restricts its conclusion to 'the assumptions adopted in this analysis' (Section 6) and acknowledges in Section 5.2 that a sufficiently large glitch or post-glitch exponential recovery could hide an astrophysical signal; this is a scope limitation, not circularity. Self-citations appear for software, recommended sampler settings, and collaboration data-quality tools, but none is load-bearing: the multi-pipeline consistency and injection-based sensitivity checks provide independent support. No step reduces, by definition or by self-citation, to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard isolated-neutron-star CW signal model, stationary Gaussian noise in the LIGO data after vetoes, and the sufficiency of the O4 search ranges. No new physical entities are introduced. The only fitted numerical values are calibration and p-value fits and hand-chosen prior widths, none of which set the astrophysical parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • O4 search prior widening factors = CWInPy: 10x O3 priors; Weave: f0 +/-1e-4, fdot +/-1.5e-12, fddot +/-2e-20; PyFstat: 2x sigma
    Hand-chosen to cover plausible spin evolution or small glitches; the O4 negative conclusion depends on these ranges being adequate.
  • Bayes factor reweighting bounds = log-uniform [1e-33, 1e-20] over h0
    Chosen to mitigate prior-volume effects; switching from flat to log-uniform changes log10 BF from about 0.11 to 3.9 in O3, so the evidence values are prior-dependent.
  • Gumbel fit parameters for off-source 2F = not quoted in text
    Fitted to 100 off-source noise runs to estimate local pfa; affects reported pfa values but not the astrophysical parameters.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Under stationary Gaussian noise, 2\hat{F} times Nseg follows a chi-squared distribution with 4 Nseg degrees of freedom; with a signal, a non-central chi-squared with non-centrality rho^2.
    Used for pfa estimates, noise-template histograms, and injection comparisons (Section 2.1, Eq. 3).
  • domain assumption A CW from an isolated NS is described by Eq. 1 (Taylor expansion in frequency) and Eq. 2 (rotating-star amplitude model), with fixed sky position.
    All searches and interpretations assume this model; binary, proper motion, free precession, and r-mode scenarios are only partially considered.
  • domain assumption The LIGO H1/L1 data in the candidate band are Gaussian after removing known artifacts; no unmodeled correlated noise is present in the band.
    Supported by ASD, Fscan, STAMP-PEM, and Stochmon checks in Section 3.1.1, but residual instrumental artifacts cannot be fully excluded.
  • ad hoc to paper O4 prior and template ranges are wide enough to recover a standard CW signal from the same source if present.
    The authors explicitly limit this in Section 5.2 for large glitches or post-glitch relaxation; if the source deviated strongly, the O4 non-recovery would not disprove an astrophysical origin.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The G347.3-0.5 outlier from O3: a follow-up case study for continuous gravitational-wave candidates." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B4ZMZDWE

@misc{pith2026260807662,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The G347.3-0.5 outlier from O3: a follow-up case study for continuous gravitational-wave candidates},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B4ZMZDWE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07662}
}
read the original abstract

We report a multi-pipeline follow-up study of the continuous gravitational-wave (CW) outlier identified by the Ming et al. Einstein@Home directed search for the young supernova remnant G347.3-0.5 (containing the central compact object RXJ1713.7-3946). The outlier was initially identified in LIGO data from the O3a observing run and followed up with the addition of O3b and O4a data by the Einstein@Home pipeline, with O4a producing weaker evidence. Here, we show extended data quality checks and results from three pipelines that have independently investigated this outlier, including the newly released O4b data set. We can robustly recover the outlier in O3, while we find no evidence for a related standard CW signal in O4a (consistent with Ming et al.) and O4b data. This work serves as a useful test case for future multi-pipeline follow-ups of CW candidates that aim to investigate their astrophysical or noise nature, and it is therefore an important step in preparation for the first CW detection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07662 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. shows the expected frequency evolution in O3 and O4ab data using the parameters reported in this section. Jan 2019 Jan 2020 Jan 2021 Jan 2022 Jan 2023 Jan 2024 Jan 2025 Date 31.63 31.64 31.65 31.66 31.67 31.68 31.69 31.70 Frequency [Hz] O3a O3b O4a O4b O3 observed O3 intrinsic O4ab observed O4ab intrinsic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. High-resolution amplitude spectral densities (ASDs) of H1 and L1 strain data between 31.6–31.8 Hz, averaged over the O3 (left panel) or O4a+b (right panel) runs. Markers show either vetted (blue circles) or unvetted (yellow triangles) narrow spectral artifacts. The grey bands show the range of detector-frame frequencies spanned by the G347.3−0.5 candidate in O3 and O4a+b, assuming the nominal parameter values in [P… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Measured coherence between H1 and L1 from 30–33 Hz, using O4a+b data. The frequency bin resolution is 1/256 Hz. The dashed horizontal line is a coherence threshold for identifying outlier frequency bins. The grey bands show the range of detector-frame frequencies spanned by the G347.3−0.5 candidate during O4a+b, assuming the nominal parameter values in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: O3 average ASDs, computed every 7200 s, of the three detectors around the frequency of the outlier. Differences from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: CWInPy posteriors obtained by coherently combining O3 data from H1 and L1. The solid orange vertical lines highlight the outlier parameters from [11], while the vertical dashed blue lines show the 68th percentile of the posteriors. In the left panel, we show posteriors…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: compares the resulting sky maps obtained for the search around the reported outlier parameters and for the injected signal. The F-statistic is filtered using the requirement 2FL1 > 2FH1, since the L1 ASD is lower than the H1 ASD ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p01…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: PyFstat results obtained for the O3 joint-detector analysis including ... f 0 while keeping the sky position fixed to that of G347.3−0.5. The panels show the posterior distributions of the parameter offsets, ∆f0, ∆ ˙f0, ∆f¨ 0, and ∆ ... f 0 , relative to the candidate …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Signal-consistency tests for the PyFstat O3 analysis including ... f 0 with a fixed sky position. Left: distribution of the maximum 2F statistics recovered from 100 off-sourced MCMC runs on the original data (used as a proxy for noise realisations, with a Gumbel distri…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: CWInPy posteriors on signal amplitude and the source inclination using O4a (left) and O4ab (right) data for the single-detector and joint analyses. The orange vertical line highlights the outlier’s amplitude h0 as reported by [11] (see Section 2), while the green dash-…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Distributions of per-template 2F results from the Weave searches around the G347.3−0.5 outlier. Panels show (a) the fully coherent O4a search, (b) the fully coherent O4b search, and (c) the two-segment semi-coherent O4ab search. The histograms show the 2F values of th…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Distributions of per-template 2F results from the Weave searches at 31.85 Hz without (blue) and with (orange) an injected signal (h0 = 6.8 × 10−26). Panels show (a) the fully coherent O4a search, (b) the fully coherent O4b search, and (c) the two-segment semi-coherent…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as in the left panel of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Full CWInPy posteriors using the combined O3+O4a data; see the discussion in Section 5.1 for more information. In addition to the standard CW parameters introduced in Section 2.1, we here infer the phase of a possible glitch between O3 and O4a (ϕ O3−O4a gl ), the phas…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rel.263 (Preprint2206.06447)

    Riles K 2023Living Rev. Rel.263 (Preprint2206.06447)

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    Jones D I and Riles K 2025Class. Quant. Grav.42033001 (Preprint2403.02066)

    arXiv

  3. [3]

    Owen B J 2026Rev. Mod. Phys.98011002 (Preprint2512.22945)

    work page arXiv

  4. [4]

    J.1291993 (Preprint astro-ph/0412641)

    Manchester R N, Hobbs G B, Teoh A and Hobbs M 2005Astron. J.1291993 (Preprint astro-ph/0412641)

    arXiv

  5. [5]

    Modeling the Galactic Neutron Star Population for Use in Continuous Gravitational Wave Searches

    Reed B T, Deibel A and Horowitz C J 2021Astrophys. J.92189 (Preprint2104.00771) 19 Authors’ preprint (2026): G347.3−0.5 follow-up case study L. Mirasolaet al

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Wette Ket al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration) 2008Class. Quant. Grav.25235011 (Preprint 0802.3332)

    work page Pith review arXiv

  7. [7]

    Space Res.491313–1319 (Preprint1202.0245)

    Ferrand G and Safi-Harb S 2012Adv. Space Res.491313–1319 (Preprint1202.0245)

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Phys.153102880 [Erratum: Astropart.Phys

    Wette K 2023Astropart. Phys.153102880 [Erratum: Astropart.Phys. 179, 103229 (2026)] (Preprint2305.07106)

    arXiv 2026

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Tenorio R, Keitel D and Sintes A M 2021Universe7474 (Preprint2111.12575)

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Aasi Jet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration) 2015Class. Quant. Grav.32074001 (Preprint 1411.4547)

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    J.100465 (Preprint2512.15672)

    Ming J, Papa M A, Eggenstein H B, Machenschalk B, Martins J, Steltner B, McGloughlin B, Dergachev V, Prix R and Bensch M 2026Astrophys. J.100465 (Preprint2512.15672)

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    J.92180 (Preprint2105.11641)

    Abbott Ret al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2021Astrophys. J.92180 (Preprint2105.11641)

  5. [13]

    J.1004204 (Preprint2603.25808)

    Abac A Get al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2026Astrophys. J.1004204 (Preprint2603.25808)

    arXiv

  6. [14]

    Acernese Fet al.(Virgo Collaboration) 2015Class. Quant. Grav.32024001 (Preprint1408. 3978)

  7. [15]

    Akutsu Tet al.(KAGRA Collaboration) 2021PTEP202105A101 (Preprint2005.05574)

  8. [16]

    Abbott Ret al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2023Astrophys. J. Suppl. 26729 (Preprint2302.03676)

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    J.1004232 (Preprint2508.18079)

    Abac A Get al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2026Astrophys. J.1004232 (Preprint2508.18079)

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Abac A Get al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2026arXiv e-prints(Preprint 2605.27090)

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Pitkin M 2022Journal of Open Source Software74568 URLhttps://doi.org/10.21105/ joss.04568

  12. [20]

    Wette K, Walsh S, Prix R and Papa M A 2018Phys. Rev. D97123016 (Preprint1804.03392)

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Ashton G and Prix R 2018Phys. Rev. D97103020 (Preprint1802.05450)

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    Open Source Softw.63000 (Preprint2101

    Keitel D, Tenorio R, Ashton G and Prix R 2021J. Open Source Softw.63000 (Preprint2101. 10915)

  15. [23]

    Ashton G, Keitel D, Prix R, Tenorio R and Ferrer M A 2025 PyFstat URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.5281/zenodo.3967045

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Antonopoulou D, Haskell B and Espinoza C M 2022Rept. Prog. Phys.85126901

  17. [25]

    Ashton G, Prix R and Jones D I 2017Phys. Rev. D96063004 (Preprint1704.00742)

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    JaranowskiP,KrolakAandSchutzBF1998Phys. Rev. D58063001(Preprintgr-qc/9804014)

  19. [27]

    Brady P R, Creighton T, Cutler C and Schutz B F 1998Phys. Rev. D572101–2116 (Preprint gr-qc/9702050)

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Brady P R and Creighton T 2000Phys. Rev. D61082001 (Preprintgr-qc/9812014)

  21. [29]

    Pletsch H J 2008Phys. Rev. D78102005 (Preprint0807.1324)

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Pletsch H J and Allen B 2009Phys. Rev. Lett.103181102 (Preprint0906.0023)

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pletsch H J 2010Phys. Rev. D82042002 (Preprint1005.0395)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Keitel D, Prix R, Papa M A, Leaci P and Siddiqi M 2014Phys. Rev. D89064023 (Preprint 1311.5738)

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Keitel D 2016Phys. Rev. D93084024 (Preprint1509.02398) 20 Authors’ preprint (2026): G347.3−0.5 follow-up case study L. Mirasolaet al

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Cutler C and Schutz B F 2005Phys. Rev. D72063006 (Preprintgr-qc/0504011)

  27. [35]

    Wette K, Dunn L, Clearwater P and Melatos A 2021Phys. Rev. D103083020 (Preprint 2103.12976)

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Astrophys.651A40 (Preprint2106.00700)

    Mayer M G F and Becker W 2021Astron. Astrophys.651A40 (Preprint2106.00700)

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    physics.umanitoba.ca/

    SNRcat - high energy observations of galactic supernova remnants URLhttp://snrcat. physics.umanitoba.ca/

  30. [38]

    Wang Z R, Qu Q Y and Chen Y 1997Astronomy and Astrophysics318L59–L61

  31. [39]

    Astrophys

    Mignani R P, Zaggia S, De Luca A, Perna R, Bassan N and Caraveo P A 2008Astron. Astrophys. 484457 (Preprint0803.3722)

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ashok A, Covas P B, Prix R and Papa M A 2024Phys. Rev. D109104002 (Preprint2401. 17025)

  33. [41]

    Salvadore C, La Rosa I, Leaci P, Amicucci F, Astone P, D’Antonio S, D’Onofrio L, Palomba C, Pierini L and Safai Tehrani F 2025Phys. Rev. D112083051 (Preprint2507.15027)

  34. [42]

    J.998205 (Preprint2508.20073)

    McGloughlin B, Steltner B, Martins J, Papa M A, Eggenstein H B, Ming J, Machenschalk B, Prix R and Bensch M 2026Astrophys. J.998205 (Preprint2508.20073)

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    J.977154 (Preprint2408.14573)

    Ming J, Papa M A, Eggenstein H B, Beheshtipour B, Machenschalk B, Prix R, Allen B and Bensch M 2024Astrophys. J.977154 (Preprint2408.14573)

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Abbott Ret al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2022Phys. Rev. D106102008 (Preprint2201.00697)

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    Abac A Get al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2026arXiv e-prints(Preprint 2603.14168)

  38. [46]

    Martins J, Papa M A, Steltner B, Prix R and Covas P B 2026Phys. Rev. D113023041 (Preprint 2508.18204)

  39. [47]

    Dergachev V and Papa M A 2026Phys. Rev. D113042001 (Preprint2507.12161)

    arXiv

  40. [48]

    Leaci P and Prix R 2015Phys. Rev. D91102003 (Preprint1502.00914)

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Covas P B 2020Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.5005167–5176 (Preprint2008.00983)

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Parthasarathy Aet al.2019Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4893810–3826 (Preprint1908.11709)

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    J.76558 (Preprint1301.2717)

    Gotthelf E V, Halpern J P and Alford J 2013Astrophys. J.76558 (Preprint1301.2717)

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Buikema Aet al.(aLIGO Collaboration) 2020Phys. Rev. D102062003 (Preprint2008.01301)

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    Acernese Fet al.(Virgo Collaboration) 2019Phys. Rev. Lett.123231108

  46. [54]

    Sun Let al.2020Class. Quant. Grav.37225008 (Preprint2005.02531)

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    Sun Let al.2021arXiv e-prints(Preprint2107.00129)

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    Acernese Fet al.(Virgo Collaboration) 2022Class. Quant. Grav.39045006 (Preprint2107. 03294)

  49. [57]

    Ganapathy Det al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration) 2023Phys. Rev. X13041021

  50. [58]

    Jia Wet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration) 2024Science3851318 (Preprint2404.14569)

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Capote Eet al.2025Phys. Rev. D111062002 (Preprint2411.14607)

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Soni Set al.(LIGO Collaboration) 2025Class. Quant. Grav.42085016 (Preprint2409.02831)

  53. [61]

    Goetz Eet al.(O4 LIGO Detector Team) 2026arXiv e-prints(Preprint2606.05959)

  54. [62]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration 2025 LIGO data management plan URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/M1000066-v31/public

    2025

  55. [63]

    Mirasolaet al

    Acernese Fet al.(Virgo Collaboration) 2026 (Preprint2607.19273) 21 Authors’ preprint (2026): G347.3−0.5 follow-up case study L. Mirasolaet al

    2026 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Allen B, Goetz E, Keitel D, Landry M, Mendell G, Prix R, Riles K and Wette K 2025 SFT Data Format Version 2–3 Specification Tech. Rep. LIGO-T0900149-v3 LIGO Laboratory URL https://dcc.ligo.org/T0900149-v3/public

    2025

  57. [65]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration 2026 LVK Al- gorithm Library - LALSuite Free software (GPL) URLhttps://doi.org/10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

    2026 doi

  58. [66]

    Wade Met al.2025Class. Quant. Grav.42215016 (Preprint2508.08423)

  59. [67]

    Meyers P 2018Cross-correlation searches for persistent gravitational waves with Advanced LIGO and noise studies for current and future ground-based gravitational-wave detectorsPhd thesis University of Minnesota

  60. [68]

    Hernandez G and Thrane E 2023Stochmon: A LIGO Data Analysis ToolTech. Rep. T1400205 LSC URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400205/public

  61. [69]

    Piccinni O J, Astone P, D’Antonio S, Frasca S, Intini G, Leaci P, Mastrogiovanni S, Miller A, Palomba C and Singhal A 2019Classical Quantum Gravity36015008 (Preprint1811.04730)

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    D’Onofrio Let al.2025Class. Quant. Grav.42015005 (Preprint2406.09236)

    arXiv

  63. [71]

    Prix R 2015 The F-statistic and its implementation in ComputeFStatistic_v2 Tech. Rep. LIGO- T0900149 LIGO Laboratory URLhttps://dcc.ligo.org/T0900149/public

    2015

  64. [72]

    Dupuis R J and Woan G 2005Phys. Rev. D72102002 (Preprintgr-qc/0508096)

  65. [73]

    J.87910 [Erratum: Astrophys.J

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaborations) 2019Astrophys. J.87910 [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 899, 170 (2020)] (Preprint1902.08507)

    2020 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Pitkin M, Isi M, Veitch J and Woan G 2017arXiv e-prints(Preprint1705.08978)

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Proc.735395

    Skilling J 2004AIP Conf. Proc.735395

  68. [76]

    Skilling J 2006Bayesian Analysis1833–859

  69. [77]

    Speagle J S 2020Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4933132–3158 (Preprint1904.02180)

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Ashton Get al.2019Astrophys. J. Suppl.24127 (Preprint1811.02042)

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    J.83912 [Erratum: Astrophys.J

    Abbott B Pet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaborations) 2017Astrophys. J.83912 [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 851, 71 (2017)] (Preprint1701.07709)

    2017 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Isi M, Pitkin M and Weinstein A J 2017Phys. Rev. D96042001 (Preprint1703.07530)

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Wette K and Prix R 2013Phys. Rev. D88123005 (Preprint1310.5587)

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Wette K 2015Phys. Rev. D92082003 (Preprint1508.02372)

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Wette K 2014Phys. Rev. D90122010 (Preprint1410.6882)

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Tenorio R, Keitel D and Sintes A M 2021Phys. Rev. D104084012 (Preprint2105.13860)

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Vousden W D, Farr W M and Mandel I 2016Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4551919–1937 (Preprint1501.05823)

    1937 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Mirasola L and Tenorio R 2024Phys. Rev. D110124049 (Preprint2405.18934)

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    org/LIGO-P2600436

    Ferrer-Martinez M A and Keitel D 2026 Enabling new sampling strategies for continuous- wave analyses by integrating bilby into PyFstat (In preparation) URLhttps://dcc.ligo. org/LIGO-P2600436

    2026

  80. [88]

    J.98399 (Preprint2501.01495)

    Abac A Get al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA Collaborations) 2025Astrophys. J.98399 (Preprint2501.01495)

  81. [89]

    Owen B J and Rajbhandari B 2025arXiv e-prints(Preprint2512.22938) 22

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.