Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 162 references

Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Simulation-based inference can deliver gravitational-wave posteriors thousands of times faster than Markov chain Monte Carlo, this review argues, but its model dependence, prior inflexibility, and narrow validation block routine adoption.

desk verdict A useful, honest survey of SBI for gravitational waves, but the abstract overstates accuracy parity and a few technical slips need fixing before it can be trusted as a reference. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11192 v3 pith:ACHR4LMT submitted 2025-07-15 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMcs.LGstat.ML

Bo Liang , He Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMcs.LGstat.ML
keywords simulation-basedinferencegravitationalwaveparameterestimationnormalizingflowsneuralposteriorBayesianLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAmachinelearningflowmatching
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

Simulation-based inference trains a neural network on simulated gravitational-wave signals and their source parameters, so that once trained it can return a full posterior distribution for a new event almost instantly. This review argues that the approach is genuinely fast, with reported speedups of $10^2$ to $10^3$ compared to Markov chain Monte Carlo and binary neutron star posteriors delivered in under a second, and that in the tested cases accuracy is comparable to conventional methods. The same review warns that these gains are conditional: the network bakes in a particular waveform model, prior, and noise assumption at training time, so waveform updates or prior changes force retraining, and validation has mostly been localized comparisons against MCMC rather than broad coverage tests. A fair reading is that SBI is a promising accelerator for real-time astronomy, population studies, and overlapping-signal analysis, but not yet a drop-in replacement for traditional Bayesian inference.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is amortized neural posterior estimation. A conditional density estimator $q_\phi(\theta|x)$, usually a normalizing flow that maps a simple base distribution to a complex posterior through an invertible transformation with a Jacobian determinant, is trained on simulation pairs $(\theta, x)$ by minimizing $L_{\mathrm{NPE}} = -\mathbb{E}_{\theta\sim p(\theta), x\sim p(x|\theta)}\log q_\phi(\theta|x)$. After training, the expensive waveform and likelihood evaluations are paid once offline, and inference for a new event is a single GPU forward pass that produces thousands of posterior samples. The review also surveys the alternatives: neural ratio estimation trains a classifier to estimate the likelihood-to-evidence ratio, neural likelihood estimation learns $p(x|\theta)$ and then samples with MCMC, flow matching learns a vector field whose ODE transports a base distribution to the posterior, and consistency-model posterior estimation distills the probability-flow ODE for few-step sampling. The applications that carry the review's positive claims are mostly normalizing-flow neural posterior estimation and truncated marginal ratio estimation.

What would settle it

Run a trained SBI network, for example the DINGO framework, on a blinded catalog of simulated binary black hole and neutron star signals with parameter values and noise power spectral densities deliberately outside its training distribution, and compare its posterior credible intervals to those from LALInference or BILBY: if the neural posteriors show systematic bias or coverage violations, such as fewer than 90% of true values inside the 90% credible interval, the claim of accuracy comparable to conventional methods is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a family of neural density estimators, including normalizing flows, ratio estimators, likelihood emulators, flow matching, and consistency models, can learn the mapping from detector data to source parameters directly from simulations, bypassing the explicit likelihood. The flagship results come from flow-based neural posterior estimation: a network reproduces the posterior for GW150914 and other events in seconds rather than hours, a binary neutron star variant produces full posteriors in under a second, and an importance-sampling extension corrects the learned posterior and estimates the Bayesian evidence. The same logic has been extended to overlapping signals, where MCMC becomes biased; to population and cosmological inference, including a Hubble constant estimate built from 42 binary black hole events; and to ringdown tests of general relativity. The review's own caveat is that these demonstrations are controlled and localized: accuracy similar to conventional methods has not been established across the full parameter space and real noise conditions, and the model-dependent, prior-sensitive design is a barrier to adoption.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the published head-to-head comparisons, such as flow-based posterior estimation against LALInference and the binary neutron star pipeline against LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA analyses, are representative of real detector noise and of the full parameter ranges future detectors will see; if those comparisons are not representative, the review's conclusion that SBI accuracy is comparable to conventional methods does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the accuracy claims hold, low-latency electromagnetic follow-up of binary neutron star mergers becomes routine, since full posteriors including sky location and tidal deformability can be produced in under a second instead of hours.
  • Population-level and cosmological inference from hundreds to thousands of events, such as the Hubble constant from standard sirens, becomes computationally tractable with amortized networks.
  • For third-generation ground-based and space-based detectors, where overlapping signals make standard MCMC biased or computationally prohibitive, SBI offers a practical route to joint parameter estimation.
  • The hybrid paradigm the review endorses, where AI proposals are refined and validated by MCMC or nested sampling, would allow the field to keep the speed without fully trusting the neural posterior.
  • Until validation protocols are systematized, the review implies that SBI results should be cross-checked with traditional methods in high-precision settings such as tests of general relativity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper stops short of saying this, but its own methodological-limitations section implies that a standardized benchmark with fixed coverage diagnostics, blinded injections, and noise-condition sweeps would do more for the field than any single new architecture.
  • A natural extension of the retraining bottleneck is to make the network conditional on the waveform model and power spectral density at inference time, so that updates do not force full retraining; the review mentions noise-shift adaptation and dynamic-prior architectures as steps, but does not propose this as a general design principle.
  • Because flow matching and consistency models have not yet been applied to gravitational-wave data, the review's favorable results for normalizing flows do not tell us whether those newer estimators will scale better to the high-dimensional, multimodal posteriors of third-generation detectors.
  • The review's emphasis on space-based detectors and extreme-mass-ratio inspirals suggests that SBI may prove essential for LISA- and Taiji-scale data volumes, where millions of overlapping signals make traditional sampling untenable; the paper notes similar approaches are in use but does not develop this as a prediction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. This review surveys simulation-based inference (SBI) methods for gravitational-wave data analysis. It introduces the technical machinery of neural posterior estimation, neural ratio estimation, neural likelihood estimation, flow matching, and consistency-model posterior estimation, then catalogues applications to single-event parameter estimation, overlapping signals, population studies, tests of general relativity, and cosmology. The authors argue that SBI achieves large speedups in controlled settings but that model dependence, prior inflexibility, and sensitivity to noise and validation gaps currently hinder adoption, and they state that SBI accuracy is similar to conventional methods pending broader validation.

Significance. If its claims were fully supported, this would be a useful roadmap for a fast-moving field, particularly because it collects recent results (DINGO-BNS, flow matching, consistency models) and candidly lists methodological limitations. The paper does not provide independent benchmarks or a quantified meta-analysis; its value is organizational rather than evidential. Strengths include broad coverage, citation of reproducible open-source frameworks (DINGO, Peregrine, CosmoFlow), and explicit discussion of pitfalls such as retraining costs, localized validation, and noise robustness. The central accuracy claim, however, needs to be brought into line with the review's own caveats before the survey can serve as a reliable reference.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; §2.6; §4.3] The abstract states without qualification that SBI methods' accuracy 'is similar to that of conventional methods,' but §2.6 says existing validation protocols 'predominantly rely on localized comparisons with traditional MCMC results' and 'lack systematic evaluation metrics for high-dimensional parameter spaces,' and §4.3 reports that posteriors 'often lack robustness across different noise realizations' and that even identical methods can give inconsistent results on real data. Since the accuracy-parity assertion is load-bearing for the paper's overall evaluation, either supply aggregated coverage or bias statistics from the cited validation studies or rephrase the claim as 'comparable accuracy in the specific comparisons reviewed, with robustness across broader conditions unestablished.'
  2. [§2.4, Eqs. (14)–(15)] Equation (14) samples θ1 from p(θ) and x from p(x|θ1), which is correct for prior predictive sampling, but the following sentence says 'θ ∼ p(θ) represents the true posterior distribution for sampling θ'; this contradicts Eq. (1), where p(θ) is the prior. In addition, θ0 in Eq. (15) is not defined. Please correct the mislabel and define θ0 (presumably the base-distribution sample) and the interpolation path.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1.2] The claim to be the 'first systematic attempt' to explore generative models for gravitational-wave parameter estimation is unsupported and should be qualified or removed, since earlier surveys (e.g., Refs. [11,13]) and prior SBI applications (Refs. [14,15]) already cover substantial parts of this ground.
  2. [§2.5, Eq. (16)] In the consistency-model mapping, the argument of Fϕ is written as θ rather than θt; the consistency function should act on the time-dependent sample θt.
  3. [§3.1] The statement that Gabbard et al. achieved inference speeds '4–5 orders of magnitude faster' than traditional sampling would benefit from a specification of the comparison hardware and wall-clock time, since such factors strongly affect the reported speedup.
  4. [§5.2] The phrase 'AI-driven SBI methods have enabled groundbreaking discoveries' overstates the cited demonstrations, which validate methodology on real events rather than reporting new astrophysical discoveries; rephrasing as 'enabled new analysis capabilities' would be more accurate.
  5. [§3.2; §5.1] Several quantitative claims lack citations: the estimate of 10^5 to 10^6 overlapping signals in LISA data and the approximately 10^40 waveform evaluations quoted for traditional EMRI analyses should either be attributed to specific references or explicitly presented as rough estimates.
  6. [References] References [118] and [119] are duplicates of the same work, and Refs. [98] and [147] describe the same Peregrine method; consolidating these entries would improve the bibliography.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the review's central claims rest on external validation studies and its own explicit caveats; the few self-citations are peripheral and not load-bearing.

full rationale

This manuscript is a review, not an original derivation; it introduces no fitted parameters, derives no predictive claim from a fitted input, and invokes no uniqueness theorem. Its central assessment—SBI achieves large speedups but faces model dependence, prior sensitivity, and validation gaps—is supported by external literature (DINGO vs LALInference [73], DINGO-BNS vs LVK [78], CosmoFlow H0 from 42 BBH events [116]) and by the paper's own limitations sections. Section 2.6 concedes that 'existing validation protocols predominantly rely on localized comparisons with traditional MCMC results' and lack 'systematic evaluation metrics for high-dimensional parameter spaces'; Section 4.3 adds that posteriors 'often lack robustness across different noise realizations' and that 'even identical methods applied to the same underlying data can produce inconsistent results when exposed to real observational data.' These statements temper the abstract's unqualified phrase 'accuracy, which is similar to that of conventional methods,' but they are honest limitations, not circular inputs. The only self-citations ([101], [112], [113], [152], [153]) appear in peripheral application statements about Taiji/LISA studies and EMRI prior-range reduction, and in an internal robustness caveat; none is used as a load-bearing premise that forces the review's conclusion. The review's conclusions are not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

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

This review introduces no new free parameters or invented entities. It depends on the standard Bayesian and normalizing flow formalism, on the reliability of the cited primary literature, and on the representativeness of MCMC validation studies. The review's own Section 2.6 highlights gaps in validation, which supports the classification of these as domain assumptions rather than established facts.

assumptions (3)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and the Gaussian likelihood model (Eqs. 1 and 2) correctly describe gravitational wave parameter estimation.
    The review builds its entire framework on these equations without proof.
  • domain assumption The primary literature cited in the review is accurately reported and its results are correct.
    The review draws all factual claims about SBI performance from cited papers, without independent verification.
  • domain assumption Validation against MCMC in the cited studies provides a reliable benchmark for SBI accuracy.
    The review's positive statements about accuracy rely on these comparisons, even as Section 2.6 notes limitations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ACHR4LMT

@misc{pith2026250711192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ACHR4LMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11192}
}
read the original abstract

The detection of gravitational waves by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration has ushered in a new era of observational astronomy, emphasizing the need for rapid and detailed parameter estimation and population-level analyses. Traditional Bayesian inference methods, particularly Markov chain Monte Carlo, face significant computational challenges when dealing with the high-dimensional parameter spaces and complex noise characteristics inherent in gravitational wave data. This review examines the emerging role of simulation-based inference methods in gravitational wave astronomy, with a focus on approaches that leverage machine-learning techniques such as normalizing flows and neural posterior estimation. We provide a comprehensive overview of the theoretical foundations underlying various simulation-based inference methods, including neural posterior estimation, neural ratio estimation, neural likelihood estimation, flow matching, and consistency models. We explore the applications of these methods across diverse gravitational wave data processing scenarios, from single-source parameter estimation and overlapping signal analysis to testing general relativity and conducting population studies. Although these techniques demonstrate speed improvements over traditional methods in controlled studies, their model-dependent nature and sensitivity to prior assumptions are barriers to their widespread adoption. Their accuracy, which is similar to that of conventional methods, requires further validation across broader parameter spaces and noise conditions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of five SBI methods—NPE, NRE, NLE, FMPE, and CMPE—designed for efficient Bayesian parameter estimation. Each method includes distinct training and inference stages. NPE trains a neural network to directly approximate the posterior from simulated data. NRE and NLE estimate the likelihood ratio and likelihood function, respectively, and integrate with MCMC for posterior sampling. FMPE uses an ODE solver guide… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The DINGO-BNS algorithm can estimate the parameters for BNS systems within one second (orange), yielding results consistent with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA analyses (black) while operating three orders of magnitude faster than traditional methods. (Reproduced from Ref. [78]) different sources, posing unprecedented chal￾lenges for data processing and analysis. Early work by Langendorff et al. [110] demonstrated that CNFs can a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the marginalized posterior distributions for event GW150914 obtained using DINGO (orange) versus LALInference MCMC (blue), underscoring the efficiency and accuracy of the DINGO framework in real￾time gravitational wave parameter estimation. (Adapted from Ref. [73]) 3.2. Overlapping Signals The analysis of overlapping gravitational wave signals presents unique challenges because of the increased complex… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of posterior distributions for overlapping gravitational wave signals obtained by the approach of Langendorff et al. [110] and the method presented in Ref. [146]. Langendorff et al.’s posteriors are generally broader but consistently encapsulate the injected…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 3.4. Testing General Relativity and Cosmology One of the foremost scientific objectives of gravitational wave data analysis is to achieve scientific discovery through precise parame￾ter estimation. In particular, tests of gen￾eral relativity and the inference cosmologi…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Data dimensionality reduction using embedding networks and conditioning within an NF framework. The initial data, with dimensions of nsub × npost × 3, is compressed to 128 dimensions. Notably, the embedding network remains consistent across all gravitational wave event…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Combined posterior distribution of the Hubble constant H0 estimated from 42 BBH events, illustrating how the CosmoFlow framework combines likelihoods from multiple events to produce a robust posterior estimate under the assumption of a flat prior. (Adapted from Ref. [1…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

162 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [101]

    Detection is truncation: studying source populations with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation, 2022

    Noemi Anau Montel and Christoph Weniger. Detection is truncation: studying source populations with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [112]

    Conditional noise deep learning for parameter estimation of gravitational wave events

    Han-Shiang Kuo and Feng-Li Lin. Conditional noise deep learning for parameter estimation of gravitational wave events. Phys. Rev. D , 105:044016, Feb 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [113]

    Pre- merger detection and characterization of inspiraling binary neutron stars derived from neural posterior estimation, 2024

    Wouter van Straalen, Alex Kolmus, Justin Janquart, and Chris Van Den Broeck. Pre- merger detection and characterization of inspiraling binary neutron stars derived from neural posterior estimation, 2024

    work page 2024

  4. [152]

    Peregrine: Sequential simulation- based inference for gravitational wave signals, 4 2023

    Uddipta Bhardwaj, James Alvey, Benjamin Kurt Miller, Samaya Nissanke, and Christoph Weniger. Peregrine: Sequential simulation- based inference for gravitational wave signals, 4 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [153]

    Sopuerta

    Iv´ an Mart ´ ın V ´ ılchez and Carlos F. Sopuerta. Efficient massive black hole binary parameter estimation for lisa using sequential neural likelihood, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [1]

    Schmitt et al

    Function Fϕ(θ, t, x) builds a score-based diffusion model structure to achieve this mapping. Schmitt et al. extended the unconditional training objective from Song by introducing the conditioning variable x to cater to the SBI setting [42] as follows: LCM P E(ϕ, ϕ−) = E [λ(ti)k] , (17) where k = d(u(ϕ, ti+1, x), u(ϕ−, ti, x)), λ(t) is a weighting function...

  7. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Gwtc-1: A gravitational-wave transient catalog of compact binary mergers observed by ligo and virgo during the first and second observing runs. Phys. Rev. X , 9:031040, Sep 2019

    2019

  8. [3]

    holy grail

    Applications and Implications In the field of gravitational wave data anal- ysis, SBI methods have received widespread attention for their efficiency and flexibility in dealing with complex Bayesian inference prob- lems. However, SBI methods also face a se- ries of challenges in practical applications, such as how to achieve fast and accurate parame- ter ...

    2018

Show all 162 references
  1. [4]

    black boxes

    Limitations and Future Directions Although machine-learning approaches have shown great promise for gravitational wave data analysis, several important limitations and challenges remain to be addressed. Recent work has highlighted several key areas requiring further developmen...

  2. [5]

    Discussion: The Future of AI in Gravitational Wave Data Analysis The rapid advancements in SBI and ML techniques, as outlined in this review, have undeniably transformed gravity wave data analysis. Methods such as NPE, NRE, and FMPE have demonstrated unprecedented computationa...

  3. [6]

    2021YFC2203004), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant Nos

    Contribution He Wang is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2021YFC2203004), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) (Grant Nos. 12405076, 12247187, 12147103), the National Astronomical Data Center (Grant No. NADC2...

  4. [7]

    Obser- vation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger

    Benjamin P Abbott, Richard Abbott, TD Ab- bott, MR Abernathy, Fausto Acernese, Kendall Ackley, Carl Adams, Thomas Adams, Paolo Addesso, RX Adhikari, et al. Obser- vation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger. Physical review letters , 116(6):061102, 2016

    2016

  5. [8]

    Gwtc-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run

    R Abbott et al. Gwtc-2: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run. Phys. Rev. X, 11:021053, Jun 2021

    2021

  6. [9]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Gwtc-2.1: Deep extended cata- log of compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run. Phys. Rev. D , 109:022001, Jan 2024

    2024

  7. [10]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. Gwtc-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the second part of the third observing run. Phys. Rev. X , 13:041039, Dec 2023

    2023

  8. [11]

    Bernard F. Schutz. Gravitational wave sources: An overview. AIP Conference Proceedings , 686(1):3–29, 10 2003

    2003

  9. [12]

    Gravita- tional waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform? Phys- ical Review D , 49(6):2658, 1994

    Curt Cutler and Eanna E Flanagan. Gravita- tional waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral waveform? Phys- ical Review D , 49(6):2658, 1994

    1994

  10. [13]

    Parame- ter estimation with gravitational waves

    Nelson Christensen and Renate Meyer. Parame- ter estimation with gravitational waves. Rev. Mod. Phys., 94:025001, Apr 2022

    2022

  11. [14]

    An introduction to bayesian inference in gravitational-wave as- tronomy: parameter estimation, model selec- tion, and hierarchical models

    Eric Thrane and Colm Talbot. An introduction to bayesian inference in gravitational-wave as- tronomy: parameter estimation, model selec- tion, and hierarchical models. Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 36:e010, 2019

    2019

  12. [15]

    Ai for science: an emerging agenda

    Philipp Berens, Kyle Cranmer, Neil D Lawrence, Ulrike von Luxburg, and Jessica Montgomery. Ai for science: an emerging agenda. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.04217, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [16]

    Enhancing gravitational- wave science with machine learning

    Elena Cuoco, Jade Powell, Marco Cavagli` a, Kendall Ackley, Micha l Bejger, Chayan Chat- terjee, Michael Coughlin, Scott Coughlin, Paul Easter, Reed Essick, Hunter Gabbard, Timo- thy Gebhard, Shaon Ghosh, Le ¨ ıla Haegel, Al- berto Iess, David Keitel, Zsuzsa M´ arka, Sz- abolc...

    2020

  14. [17]

    Review of artificial intelligence applications in astronom- ical data processing

    Hailong Zhang, Jie Wang, Yazhou Zhang, Xu Du, Han Wu, and Ting Zhang. Review of artificial intelligence applications in astronom- ical data processing. Astronomical Techniques and Instruments , 1(1):1–15, 2024

    2024

  15. [18]

    Ap- plications of machine learning in gravitational wave research with current interferometric de- tectors, 2024

    Elena Cuoco, Marco Cavagli` a, Ik Siong Heng, David Keitel, and Christopher Messenger. Ap- plications of machine learning in gravitational wave research with current interferometric de- tectors, 2024

    2024

  16. [19]

    Alvin J. K. Chua and Michele Vallisneri. Learn- ing bayesian posteriors with neural networks for gravitational-wave inference. Phys. Rev. Lett., 124:041102, Jan 2020

    2020

  17. [20]

    Bayesian parameter estima- tion using conditional variational autoencoders for gravitational-wave astronomy

    Hunter Gabbard, Chris Messenger, Ik Siong Heng, Francesco Tonolini, and Roderick Murray-Smith. Bayesian parameter estima- tion using conditional variational autoencoders for gravitational-wave astronomy. Nature Physics, 18(1):112–117, 2022

    2022

  18. [21]

    Green, Christine Simpson, and Jonathan Gair

    Stephen R. Green, Christine Simpson, and Jonathan Gair. Gravitational-wave parameter estimation with autoregressive neural network flows. Phys. Rev. D , 102:104057, Nov 2020

    2020

  19. [22]

    Complete parameter inference for gw150914 using deep learning

    Stephen R Green and Jonathan Gair. Complete parameter inference for gw150914 using deep learning. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2(3):03LT01, jun 2021

    2021

  20. [24]

    Ashley Villar, and Joshua S

    Bingjie Wang, Joel Leja, V. Ashley Villar, and Joshua S. Speagle. Sbi++: Flexible, ultra- fast likelihood-free inference customized for astronomical applications. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 952(1):L10, jul 2023

    2023

  21. [25]

    Gon¸ calves, David S

    Alvaro Tejero-Cantero, Jan Boelts, Michael Deistler, Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Conor Durkan, Pedro J. Gon¸ calves, David S. Green- berg, and Jakob H. Macke. sbi: A toolkit for simulation-based inference. Journal of Open Source Software, 5(52):2505, 2020. Recent Advances in Simula...

    2020

  22. [26]

    Veitch, V

    J. Veitch, V. Raymond, B. Farr, W. Farr, P. Graff, S. Vitale, B. Aylott, K. Blackburn, N. Christensen, M. Coughlin, W. Del Pozzo, F. Feroz, J. Gair, C.-J. Haster, V. Kalogera, T. Littenberg, I. Mandel, R. O’Shaughnessy, M. Pitkin, C. Rodriguez, C. R¨ over, T. Sidery, R. Smith,...

    2015

  23. [27]

    Lasky, Colm Talbot, Kendall Ackley, Sylvia Bis- coveanu, Qi Chu, Atul Divakarla, Paul J

    Gregory Ashton, Moritz H¨ ubner, Paul D. Lasky, Colm Talbot, Kendall Ackley, Sylvia Bis- coveanu, Qi Chu, Atul Divakarla, Paul J. Easter, Boris Goncharov, Francisco Hernan- dez Vivanco, Jan Harms, Marcus E. Lower, Grant D. Meadors, Denyz Melchor, Ethan Payne, Matthew D. Pitkin...

    2019

  24. [28]

    Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and application to the first ligo–virgo gravitational- wave transient catalogue

    I M Romero-Shaw, C Talbot, S Biscoveanu, V D’Emilio, G Ashton, C P L Berry, S Coughlin, S Galaudage, C Hoy, M H¨ ubner, K S Phukon, M Pitkin, M Rizzo, N Sarin, R Smith, S Stevenson, A Vajpeyi, M Ar` ene, K Athar, S Banagiri, N Bose, M Carney, K Chatziioannou, J A Clark, M Coll...

    2020

  25. [29]

    dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences

    Joshua S Speagle. dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating bayesian posteriors and evidences. Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 493(3):3132–3158, February 2020

    2020

  26. [30]

    Katz, Sylvain Marsat, Alvin J

    Michael L. Katz, Sylvain Marsat, Alvin J. K. Chua, Stanislav Babak, and Shane L. Larson. Gpu-accelerated massive black hole binary parameter estimation with lisa. Phys. Rev. D, 102:023033, Jul 2020

    2020

  27. [31]

    Michael L. Katz. Fully automated end-to-end pipeline for massive black hole binary signal extraction from lisa data. Physical Review D , 105(4), February 2022

    2022

  28. [32]

    Blum, Oscar E

    Katalin Csill´ ery, Michael G.B. Blum, Oscar E. Gaggiotti, and Olivier Fran¸ cois. Approxi- mate bayesian computation (abc) in practice. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 25(7):410–418, 2010

    2010

  29. [33]

    Varia- tional inference with normalizing flows

    Danilo Rezende and Shakir Mohamed. Varia- tional inference with normalizing flows. In International conference on machine learning , pages 1530–1538. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  30. [35]

    Likelihood-free inference with emulator net- works

    Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Giacomo Bassetto, Theofanis Karaletsos, and Jakob H Macke. Likelihood-free inference with emulator net- works. In Symposium on Advances in Approxi- mate Bayesian Inference, pages 32–53. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  31. [36]

    Flexible statis- tical inference for mechanistic models of neu- ral dynamics

    Jan-Matthis Lueckmann, Pedro J Goncalves, Gi- acomo Bassetto, Kaan ¨Ocal, Marcel Nonnen- macher, and Jakob H Macke. Flexible statis- tical inference for mechanistic models of neu- ral dynamics. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  32. [37]

    Automatic posterior transfor- mation for likelihood-free inference

    David Greenberg, Marcel Nonnenmacher, and Jakob Macke. Automatic posterior transfor- mation for likelihood-free inference. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning , pages 2404–2414. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  33. [38]

    Approximating likelihood ratios with cal- ibrated discriminative classifiers

    Kyle Cranmer, Juan Pavez, and Gilles Louppe. Approximating likelihood ratios with cal- ibrated discriminative classifiers. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02169, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  34. [39]

    Likelihood-free inference by ratio estimation

    Owen Thomas, Ritabrata Dutta, Jukka Coran- der, Samuel Kaski, and Michael U Gutmann. Likelihood-free inference by ratio estimation. Bayesian Analysis, 17(1):1–31, 2022

    2022

  35. [40]

    Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 25 approximate ratio estimators

    Joeri Hermans, Volodimir Begy, and Gilles Louppe. Likelihood-free mcmc with amortized Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 25 approximate ratio estimators. In International conference on machine learning , pages 4239–

  36. [41]

    On contrastive learning for likelihood-free inference

    Conor Durkan, Iain Murray, and George Pa- pamakarios. On contrastive learning for likelihood-free inference. In International con- ference on machine learning, pages 2771–2781. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  37. [42]

    Contrastive neural ratio estimation

    Benjamin K Miller, Christoph Weniger, and Patrick Forr´ e. Contrastive neural ratio estimation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:3262–3278, 2022

    2022

  38. [43]

    Bayesian synthetic likelihood

    Leah F Price, Christopher C Drovandi, Anthony Lee, and David J Nott. Bayesian synthetic likelihood. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 27(1):1–11, 2018

    2018

  39. [44]

    Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows

    George Papamakarios, David Sterratt, and Iain Murray. Sequential neural likelihood: Fast likelihood-free inference with autoregressive flows. In The 22nd international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics , pages 837–848. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  40. [45]

    Bayesian in- ference using synthetic likelihood: asymp- totics and adjustments

    David T Frazier, David J Nott, Christopher Drovandi, and Robert Kohn. Bayesian in- ference using synthetic likelihood: asymp- totics and adjustments. Journal of the Amer- ican Statistical Association , 118(544):2821– 2832, 2023

    2023

  41. [46]

    Macke, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf

    Jonas Bernhard Wildberger, Maximilian Dax, Si- mon Buchholz, Stephen R Green, Jakob H. Macke, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Flow match- ing for scalable simulation-based inference. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 2023

    2023

  42. [47]

    Marvin Schmitt, Valentin Pratz, Ullrich K¨ othe, Paul-Christian B¨ urkner, and Stefan T. Radev. Consistency models for scalable and fast simulation-based inference. In A. Globerson, L. Mackey, D. Belgrave, A. Fan, U. Paquet, J. Tomczak, and C. Zhang, editors, Advances in Neura...

    2024

  43. [48]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. Advances in neural information processing systems , 27, 2014

    2014

  44. [49]

    Nice: Non-linear independent components estimation

    Laurent Dinh, David Krueger, and Yoshua Bengio. Nice: Non-linear independent components estimation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1410.8516, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  45. [50]

    Density estimation using real nvp

    Laurent Dinh, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, and Samy Bengio. Density estimation using real nvp. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.08803 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  46. [51]

    Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation

    George Papamakarios, Theo Pavlakou, and Iain Murray. Masked autoregressive flow for density estimation. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  47. [52]

    Neural autore- gressive flows

    Chin-Wei Huang, David Krueger, Alexandre La- coste, and Aaron Courville. Neural autore- gressive flows. In International conference on machine learning , pages 2078–2087. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  48. [53]

    Neural ordi- nary differential equations

    Ricky TQ Chen, Yulia Rubanova, Jesse Betten- court, and David K Duvenaud. Neural ordi- nary differential equations. Advances in neural information processing systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  49. [54]

    Sum-of-squares polynomial flow

    Priyank Jaini, Kira A Selby, and Yaoliang Yu. Sum-of-squares polynomial flow. In Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, pages 3009–3018. PMLR, 2019

    2019

  50. [55]

    Neural spline flows

    Conor Durkan, Artur Bekasov, Iain Murray, and George Papamakarios. Neural spline flows. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019

    2019

  51. [56]

    Uncon- strained monotonic neural networks

    Antoine Wehenkel and Gilles Louppe. Uncon- strained monotonic neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems , 32, 2019

    2019

  52. [57]

    Normalizing flows on tori and spheres

    Danilo Jimenez Rezende, George Papamakarios, S´ ebastien Racaniere, Michael Albergo, Gurtej Kanwar, Phiala Shanahan, and Kyle Cranmer. Normalizing flows on tori and spheres. In In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning , pages 8083–8092. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  53. [58]

    Deep transformation models: Tackling com- plex regression problems with neural network based transformation models

    Beate Sick, Torsten Hathorn, and Oliver D¨ urr. Deep transformation models: Tackling com- plex regression problems with neural network based transformation models. In 2020 25th In- ternational Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR), pages 2476–2481. IEEE, 2021

    2020

  54. [59]

    Gaussianization flows

    Chenlin Meng, Yang Song, Jiaming Song, and Stefano Ermon. Gaussianization flows. In International Conference on Artificial Intelli- gence and Statistics, pages 4336–4345. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  55. [60]

    Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and infer- Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 26 ence

    George Papamakarios, Eric Nalisnick, Danilo Jimenez Rezende, Shakir Mohamed, and Balaji Lakshminarayanan. Normalizing flows for probabilistic modeling and infer- Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 26 ence. Journal of Machine Lear...

    2021

  56. [61]

    Auto- encoding variational bayes, 2022

    Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling. Auto- encoding variational bayes, 2022

    2022

  57. [62]

    Variational autoencoders for efficient simulation-based inference

    Mayank Nautiyal, Andrey Shternshis, Andreas Hellander, and Prashant Singh. Variational autoencoders for efficient simulation-based inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14511 , 2024

    2024

  58. [63]

    Manuel Gloeckler, Michael Deistler, Chris- tian Dietrich Weilbach, Frank Wood, and Jakob H. Macke. All-in-one simulation- based inference. In Ruslan Salakhutdinov, Zico Kolter, Katherine Heller, Adrian Weller, Nuria Oliver, Jonathan Scarlett, and Fe- lix Berkenkamp, editors, P...

    2024

  59. [64]

    Yaron Lipman, Ricky T. Q. Chen, Heli Ben- Hamu, Maximilian Nickel, and Matthew Le. Flow matching for generative modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  60. [65]

    Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow

    Xingchao Liu, Chengyue Gong, and qiang liu. Flow straight and fast: Learning to generate and transfer data with rectified flow. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  61. [66]

    Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants

    Michael Samuel Albergo and Eric Vanden- Eijnden. Building normalizing flows with stochastic interpolants. In The Eleventh In- ternational Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2023

    2023

  62. [67]

    Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport

    Alexander Tong, Nikolay Malkin, Guillaume Huguet, Yanlei Zhang, Jarrid Rector-Brooks, Kilian F ATRAS, Guy Wolf, and Yoshua Ben- gio. Improving and generalizing flow-based generative models with minibatch optimal transport. In ICML Workshop on New Fron- tiers in Learning, Contr...

    2023

  63. [68]

    Albergo, Nicholas M

    Michael S. Albergo, Nicholas M. Boffi, and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Stochastic interpolants: A unifying framework for flows and diffusions, 2023

    2023

  64. [69]

    Score-based generative mod- eling through stochastic differential equations

    Yang Song, Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Diederik P Kingma, Abhishek Kumar, Stefano Ermon, and Ben Poole. Score-based generative mod- eling through stochastic differential equations. In International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2021

    2021

  65. [70]

    Improved techniques for training score-based generative models

    Yang Song and Stefano Ermon. Improved techniques for training score-based generative models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:12438–12448, 2020

    2020

  66. [71]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. Ad- vances in neural information processing sys- tems, 33:6840–6851, 2020

    2020

  67. [72]

    Maximum likelihood training of score-based diffusion models

    Yang Song, Conor Durkan, Iain Murray, and Stefano Ermon. Maximum likelihood training of score-based diffusion models. Advances in neural information processing systems , 34:1415–1428, 2021

    2021

  68. [73]

    Deep un- supervised learning using nonequilibrium ther- modynamics

    Jascha Sohl-Dickstein, Eric Weiss, Niru Mah- eswaranathan, and Surya Ganguli. Deep un- supervised learning using nonequilibrium ther- modynamics. In International conference on machine learning , pages 2256–2265. PMLR, 2015

    2015

  69. [75]

    Improved techniques for training consistency models

    Yang Song and Prafulla Dhariwal. Improved techniques for training consistency models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024

    2024

  70. [76]

    Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation

    George Papamakarios and Iain Murray. Fast ε-free inference of simulation models with bayesian conditional density estimation. Ad- vances in neural information processing sys- tems, 29, 2016

    2016

  71. [77]

    Truncated proposals for scal- able and hassle-free simulation-based infer- ence

    Michael Deistler, Pedro J Goncalves, and Jakob H Macke. Truncated proposals for scal- able and hassle-free simulation-based infer- ence. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 35:23135–23149, 2022

    2022

  72. [78]

    Green, Jonathan Gair, Jakob H

    Maximilian Dax, Stephen R. Green, Jonathan Gair, Jakob H. Macke, Alessandra Buonanno, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Real-time gravita- tional wave science with neural posterior es- timation. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 127:241103, Dec 2021

    2021

  73. [79]

    Green, Jonathan Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 27 Gair, Michael P¨ urrer, Jonas Wildberger, Jakob H

    Maximilian Dax, Stephen R. Green, Jonathan Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 27 Gair, Michael P¨ urrer, Jonas Wildberger, Jakob H. Macke, Alessandra Buonanno, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Neural importance sampling for rapid and re...

    2023

  74. [80]

    Green, Jonathan Gair, Michael P¨ urrer, Jakob H

    Jonas Wildberger, Maximilian Dax, Stephen R. Green, Jonathan Gair, Michael P¨ urrer, Jakob H. Macke, Alessandra Buonanno, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Adapting to noise distri- bution shifts in flow-based gravitational-wave inference. Phys. Rev. D , 107:084046, Apr 2023

    2023

  75. [81]

    Green, Alexan- dre Toubiana, and Jonathan Gair

    Konstantin Leyde, Stephen R. Green, Alexan- dre Toubiana, and Jonathan Gair. Gravita- tional wave populations and cosmology with neural posterior estimation. Phys. Rev. D , 109:064056, Mar 2024

    2024

  76. [82]

    Coleman Miller, Maximilian Dax, Stephen R

    Nihar Gupte, Antoni Ramos-Buades, Alessandra Buonanno, Jonathan Gair, M. Coleman Miller, Maximilian Dax, Stephen R. Green, Michael P¨ urrer, Jonas Wildberger, Jakob Macke, Isobel M. Romero-Shaw, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary bl...

    2024

  77. [83]

    Green, Jonathan Gair, Nihar Gupte, Michael P¨ urrer, Vivien Raymond, Jonas Wildberger, Jakob H

    Maximilian Dax, Stephen R. Green, Jonathan Gair, Nihar Gupte, Michael P¨ urrer, Vivien Raymond, Jonas Wildberger, Jakob H. Macke, Alessandra Buonanno, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Real-time inference for binary neu- tron star mergers using machine learning. Na- ture, 639(8053):49...

    2025

  78. [84]

    Statistically-informed deep learning for gravitational wave parameter estimation

    Hongyu Shen, E A Huerta, Eamonn O’Shea, Prayush Kumar, and Zhizhen Zhao. Statistically-informed deep learning for gravitational wave parameter estimation. Machine Learning: Science and Technology , 3(1):015007, nov 2021

    2021

  79. [85]

    Premerger sky localization of gravitational waves from bi- nary neutron star mergers using deep learn- ing

    Chayan Chatterjee and Linqing Wen. Premerger sky localization of gravitational waves from bi- nary neutron star mergers using deep learn- ing. The Astrophysical Journal, 959(2):76, dec 2023

    2023

  80. [86]

    Rapid localization of gravitational wave sources from compact binary coalescences using deep learning

    Chayan Chatterjee, Manoj Kovalam, Linqing Wen, Damon Beveridge, Foivos Diakogiannis, and Kevin Vinsen. Rapid localization of gravitational wave sources from compact binary coalescences using deep learning. The Astrophysical Journal, 959(1):42, dec 2023

    2023

  81. [87]

    Deep learning to detect gravitational waves from binary close encounters: Fast parameter estimation using normalizing flows

    Federico De Santi, Massimiliano Razzano, Francesco Fidecaro, Luca Muccillo, Lucia Pa- palini, and Barbara Patricelli. Deep learning to detect gravitational waves from binary close encounters: Fast parameter estimation using normalizing flows. Phys. Rev. D , 109:102004, May 2024

    2024

  82. [88]

    Robust inference of gravita- tional wave source parameters in the presence of noise transients using normalizing flows, 2024

    Chun-Yu Xiong, Tian-Yang Sun, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang. Robust inference of gravita- tional wave source parameters in the presence of noise transients using normalizing flows, 2024

    2024

  83. [89]

    Efficient parameter inference for gravitational wave signals in the presence of transient noises using temporal and time- spectral fusion normalizing flow*

    Tian-Yang Sun, Chun-Yu Xiong, Shang-Jie Jin, Yu-Xin Wang, Jing-Fei Zhang, and Xin Zhang. Efficient parameter inference for gravitational wave signals in the presence of transient noises using temporal and time- spectral fusion normalizing flow*. Chinese Physics C , 48(4):04510...

    2024

  84. [90]

    Simulation-based inference for gravitational-waves from intermediate- mass binary black holes in real noise, 2024

    Vivien Raymond, Sama Al-Shammari, and Alexandre G¨ ottel. Simulation-based inference for gravitational-waves from intermediate- mass binary black holes in real noise, 2024

    2024

  85. [91]

    Kaze W. K. Wong, Maximiliano Isi, and Thomas D. P. Edwards. Fast gravitational-wave parameter estimation without compromises. The Astrophysical Journal , 958(2):129, nov 2023

    2023

  86. [92]

    Thibeau Wouters, Peter T. H. Pang, Tim Di- etrich, and Chris Van Den Broeck. Robust parameter estimation within minutes on grav- itational wave signals from binary neutron star inspirals. Phys. Rev. D, 110:083033, Oct 2024

    2024

  87. [93]

    Williams, John Veitch, and Chris Messenger

    Michael J. Williams, John Veitch, and Chris Messenger. Nested sampling with normalizing flows for gravitational-wave inference. Phys. Rev. D, 103:103006, May 2021

    2021

  88. [94]

    Fast marginalization algorithm for optimizing gravitational wave detection, parameter estimation, and sky localization

    Javier Roulet, Jonathan Mushkin, Digvijay Wadekar, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga. Fast marginalization algorithm for optimizing gravitational wave detection, parameter estimation, and sky localization. Phys. Rev. D , 110:044010, Aug 2024

    2024

  89. [95]

    Johannes U. Lange. Nautilus: boosting bayesian importance nested sampling with deep learning, 2023

    2023

  90. [96]

    Thomas D. P. Edwards, Kaze W. K. Wong, Kelvin K. H. Lam, Adam Coogan, Daniel Foreman-Mackey, Maximiliano Isi, and Aaron Zimmerman. Differentiable and hardware- accelerated waveforms for gravitational wave Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Dat...

    2024

  91. [97]

    Trun- cated marginal neural ratio estimation

    Benjamin K Miller, Alex Cole, Patrick Forr´ e, Gilles Louppe, and Christoph Weniger. Trun- cated marginal neural ratio estimation. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 34:129–143, 2021

    2021

  92. [98]

    Estimating the warm dark mat- ter mass from strong lensing images with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation

    Noemi Anau Montel, Adam Coogan, Camila Correa, Konstantin Karchev, and Christoph Weniger. Estimating the warm dark mat- ter mass from strong lensing images with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical So- ciety, 518(2):2746–2760, 2023

    2023

  93. [99]

    Sicret: Supernova ia cos- mology with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation

    Konstantin Karchev, Roberto Trotta, and Christoph Weniger. Sicret: Supernova ia cos- mology with truncated marginal neural ratio estimation. Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomical Society, 520(1):1056–1072, 2023

    2023

  94. [100]

    The effect of the perturber population on subhalo measure- ments in strong gravitational lenses

    Adam Coogan, Noemi Anau Montel, Konstantin Karchev, Meiert W Grootes, Francesco Nat- tino, and Christoph Weniger. The effect of the perturber population on subhalo measure- ments in strong gravitational lenses. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 527(1):66–78, 09 2023

    2023

  95. [102]

    Debiasing standard siren inference of the hubble constant with marginal neural ratio estimation

    Samuel Gagnon-Hartman, John Ruan, and Daryl Haggard. Debiasing standard siren inference of the hubble constant with marginal neural ratio estimation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 520(1):1–13, 2023

    2023

  96. [103]

    Sequential simulation-based infer- ence for gravitational wave signals

    Uddipta Bhardwaj, James Alvey, Benjamin Kurt Miller, Samaya Nissanke, and Christoph Weniger. Sequential simulation-based infer- ence for gravitational wave signals. Phys. Rev. D, 108:042004, Aug 2023

    2023

  97. [104]

    Albatross: a scalable simulation- based inference pipeline for analysing stellar streams in the milky way

    James Alvey, Mathis Gerdes, and Christoph Weniger. Albatross: a scalable simulation- based inference pipeline for analysing stellar streams in the milky way. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 525(3):3662– 3681, 2023

    2023

  98. [105]

    Green, Jakob H

    Maximilian Dax, Jonas Wildberger, Simon Buchholz, Stephen R. Green, Jakob H. Macke, and Bernhard Sch¨ olkopf. Flow matching for scalable simulation-based inference, 2023

    2023

  99. [106]

    Rapid parameter estimation for merging massive black hole binaries using continuous normalizing flows

    Bo Liang, Minghui Du, He Wang, Yuxiang Xu, Chang Liu, Xiaotong Wei, Peng Xu, Li e Qiang, and Ziren Luo. Rapid parameter estimation for merging massive black hole binaries using continuous normalizing flows. Machine Learning: Science and Technology , 5(4):045040, nov 2024

    2024

  100. [107]

    Consistency models

    Yang Song, Prafulla Dhariwal, Mark Chen, and Ilya Sutskever. Consistency models. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonathan Scarlett, editors, Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 202...

    2023

  101. [108]

    Simplifying, stabi- lizing and scaling continuous-time consistency models

    Cheng Lu and Yang Song. Simplifying, stabi- lizing and scaling continuous-time consistency models. In The Thirteenth International Con- ference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  102. [109]

    Consistency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ODE trajectory of diffusion

    Dongjun Kim, Chieh-Hsin Lai, Wei-Hsiang Liao, Naoki Murata, Yuhta Takida, Toshimitsu Ue- saka, Yutong He, Yuki Mitsufuji, and Ste- fano Ermon. Consistency trajectory models: Learning probability flow ODE trajectory of diffusion. In The Twelfth International Con- ference on Lea...

    2024

  103. [110]

    Consistency models made easy

    Zhengyang Geng, Ashwini Pokle, Weijian Luo, Justin Lin, and J Zico Kolter. Consistency models made easy. In The Thirteenth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2025

    2025

  104. [111]

    Importance nested sampling with normalising flows

    Michael J Williams, John Veitch, and Chris Messenger. Importance nested sampling with normalising flows. Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 4(3):035011, jul 2023

    2023

  105. [114]

    Williams, and Ik Siong Heng

    Jordan McGinn, Arunava Mukherjee, Jessica Irwin, Christopher Messenger, Michael J. Williams, and Ik Siong Heng. Rapid neutron star equation of state inference with normalis- ing flows, 2024

    2024

  106. [115]

    Normaliz- Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 29 ing flows as an avenue to studying overlapping gravitational wave signals

    Jurriaan Langendorff, Alex Kolmus, Justin Jan- quart, and Chris Van Den Broeck. Normaliz- Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 29 ing flows as an avenue to studying overlapping gravitational wave signals. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 130:171...

    2023

  107. [116]

    What to do when things get crowded? scalable joint anal- ysis of overlapping gravitational wave signals, 2023

    James Alvey, Uddipta Bhardwaj, Samaya Nis- sanke, and Christoph Weniger. What to do when things get crowded? scalable joint anal- ysis of overlapping gravitational wave signals, 2023

    2023

  108. [117]

    Parameter inference for coalescing massive black hole binaries using deep learning

    Wenhong Ruan, He Wang, Chang Liu, and Zongkuan Guo. Parameter inference for coalescing massive black hole binaries using deep learning. Universe, 9(9), 2023

    2023

  109. [118]

    Advancing space-based gravitational wave astronomy: Rapid parameter estimation via normalizing flows

    Minghui Du, Bo Liang, He Wang, Peng Xu, Ziren Luo, and Yueliang Wu. Advancing space-based gravitational wave astronomy: Rapid parameter estimation via normalizing flows. Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 67(3):230412, 2024

    2024

  110. [119]

    Neural posterior estima- tion with guaranteed exact coverage: The ring- down of gw150914

    Marco Crisostomi, Kallol Dey, Enrico Barausse, and Roberto Trotta. Neural posterior estima- tion with guaranteed exact coverage: The ring- down of gw150914. Phys. Rev. D, 108:044029, Aug 2023

    2023

  111. [120]

    Simulation-based inference of black hole ringdowns in the time domain

    Costantino Pacilio, Swetha Bhagwat, and Roberto Cotesta. Simulation-based inference of black hole ringdowns in the time domain. Phys. Rev. D , 110:083010, Oct 2024

    2024

  112. [121]

    Cosmological inference using gravitational waves and normalizing flows

    Federico Stachurski, Christopher Messenger, and Martin Hendry. Cosmological inference using gravitational waves and normalizing flows. Phys. Rev. D , 109:123547, Jun 2024

    2024

  113. [122]

    Normalizing flows for random fields in cosmology, 2021

    Adam Rouhiainen, Utkarsh Giri, and Moritz M¨ unchmeyer. Normalizing flows for random fields in cosmology, 2021

    2021

  114. [123]

    Kaze W. K. Wong, Gabriella Contardo, and Shirley Ho. Gravitational-wave population inference with deep flow-based generative network. Physical Review D , 101(12), June 2020

    2020

  115. [124]

    Kaze W. K. Wong, Gabriella Contardo, and Shirley Ho. Gravitational-wave population inference with deep flow-based generative network. Phys. Rev. D, 101:123005, Jun 2020

    2020

  116. [125]

    Margherita Fasano, Kaze W. K. Wong, Andrea Maselli, Emanuele Berti, Valeria Ferrari, and B. S. Sathyaprakash. Distinguishing double neutron star from neutron star-black hole binary populations with gravitational wave observations. Phys. Rev. D , 102:023025, Jul 2020

    2020

  117. [126]

    Matthew Mould, Davide Gerosa, and Stephen R. Taylor. Deep learning and bayesian inference of gravitational-wave populations: Hierarchi- cal black-hole mergers. Physical Review D , 106(10), November 2022

    2022

  118. [127]

    Normalizing flows for hierarchical bayesian analysis: A gravitational wave population study, 2022

    David Ruhe, Kaze Wong, Miles Cranmer, and Patrick Forr´ e. Normalizing flows for hierarchical bayesian analysis: A gravitational wave population study, 2022

    2022

  119. [128]

    Nonparametric inference of the population of compact binaries from gravitational-wave observations using binned gaussian processes

    Anarya Ray, Ignacio Maga˜ na Hernandez, Sid- dharth Mohite, Jolien Creighton, and Shas- vath Kapadia. Nonparametric inference of the population of compact binaries from gravitational-wave observations using binned gaussian processes. The Astrophysical Jour- nal, 957(1):37, Oct...

    2023

  120. [129]

    Green, Alexandre Toubiana, and Jonathan Gair

    Konstantin Leyde, Stephen R. Green, Alexandre Toubiana, and Jonathan Gair. Gravitational wave populations and cosmology with neural posterior estimation. Physical Review D , 109(6), March 2024

    2024

  121. [130]

    Vamana: modeling binary black hole population with minimal as- sumptions

    Vaibhav Tiwari. Vamana: modeling binary black hole population with minimal as- sumptions. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 38(15):155007, July 2021

    2021

  122. [131]

    Damon H. T. Cheung, Kaze W. K. Wong, Otto A. Hannuksela, Tjonnie G. F. Li, and Shirley Ho. Testing the robustness of simulation-based gravitational-wave popula- tion inference. Phys. Rev. D , 106:083014, Oct 2022

    2022

  123. [132]

    K Wong and Miles Cranmer

    Kaze W. K Wong and Miles Cranmer. Auto- mated discovery of interpretable gravitational- wave population models, 2022

    2022

  124. [133]

    Kaze W. K. Wong and Davide Gerosa. Machine- learning interpolation of population-synthesis simulations to interpret gravitational-wave observations: A case study. Phys. Rev. D , 100:083015, Oct 2019

    2019

  125. [134]

    The frontier of simulation-based in- ference

    Kyle Cranmer, Johann Brehmer, and Gilles Louppe. The frontier of simulation-based in- ference. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(48):30055–30062, 2020

    2020

  126. [135]

    Truncated proposals for scal- able and hassle-free simulation-based infer- ence

    Michael Deistler, Pedro J Goncalves, and Jakob H Macke. Truncated proposals for scal- able and hassle-free simulation-based infer- ence. In S. Koyejo, S. Mohamed, A. Agarwal, D. Belgrave, K. Cho, and A. Oh, editors, Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volume...

    2022

  127. [136]

    New search pipeline for gravitational waves with higher-order modes using mode-by-mode filtering

    Digvijay Wadekar, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Javier Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 30 Roulet, Ajit Kumar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, and Matias Zaldarriaga. New search pipeline for gravitational waves with higher-order mo...

    2024

  128. [137]

    New approach to template banks of gravitational waves with higher harmonics: Reducing matched-filtering cost by over an order of magnitude

    Digvijay Wadekar, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Ajit Kumar Mehta, Javier Roulet, Seth Olsen, Jonathan Mushkin, Barak Zackay, and Matias Zaldarriaga. New approach to template banks of gravitational waves with higher harmonics: Reducing matched-filtering cost by over an order of magnitude...

    2024

  129. [138]

    New black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics, 2023

    Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Tejaswi Venu- madhav, Ajit Kumar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, Seth Olsen, and Matias Zaldarriaga. New black hole mergers in the ligo-virgo o3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics, 2023

    2023

  130. [139]

    Daniel George and E. A. Huerta. Deep neural networks to enable real-time multimessenger astrophysics. Phys. Rev. D , 97:044039, Feb 2018

    2018

  131. [140]

    Matching matched filtering with deep networks for gravitational-wave astronomy

    Hunter Gabbard, Michael Williams, Fergus Hayes, and Chris Messenger. Matching matched filtering with deep networks for gravitational-wave astronomy. Phys. Rev. Lett., 120:141103, Apr 2018

    2018

  132. [141]

    Fast sky localization of gravitational waves using deep learning seeded importance sampling

    Alex Kolmus, Gr´ egory Baltus, Justin Janquart, Twan van Laarhoven, Sarah Caudill, and Tom Heskes. Fast sky localization of gravitational waves using deep learning seeded importance sampling. Phys. Rev. D, 106:023032, Jul 2022

    2022

  133. [142]

    Detection of binary black hole mergers from the signal-to-noise ratio time series using deep learning

    Damon Beveridge, Linqing Wen, and Andreas Wicenec. Detection of binary black hole mergers from the signal-to-noise ratio time series using deep learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08429, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  134. [143]

    Localization of gravitational waves using machine learning

    Seiya Sasaoka, Yilun Hou, Kentaro Somiya, and Hirotaka Takahashi. Localization of gravitational waves using machine learning. Phys. Rev. D , 105:103030, May 2022

    2022

  135. [144]

    Fre- itas, Jos´ e A

    Solange Nunes, Gabriel Escrig, Osvaldo G. Fre- itas, Jos´ e A. Font, Tiago Fernandes, Antonio Onofre, and Alejandro Torres-Forn´ e. Deep- learning classification and parameter inference of rotational core-collapse supernovae. Phys. Rev. D, 110:064037, Sep 2024

    2024

  136. [145]

    Fast bayesian gravitational wave parame- ter estimation using convolutional neural net- works

    M Andr´ es-Carcasona, M Mart ´ ınez, and Ll M Mir. Fast bayesian gravitational wave parame- ter estimation using convolutional neural net- works. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society, 527(2):2887–2894, 11 2023

    2023

  137. [146]

    Rapid mass parameter estimation of binary black hole coalescences using deep learning, 2022

    Alistair McLeod, Daniel Jacobs, Chayan Chat- terjee, Linqing Wen, and Fiona Panther. Rapid mass parameter estimation of binary black hole coalescences using deep learning, 2022

    2022

  138. [147]

    Sampling with prior knowledge for high-dimensional gravitational wave data analysis

    He Wang, Zhoujian Cao, Yue Zhou, Zong-Kuan Guo, and Zhixiang Ren. Sampling with prior knowledge for high-dimensional gravitational wave data analysis. Big Data Mining and Analytics, 5(1):53–63, 2021

    2021

  139. [148]

    Extracting overlapping gravitational-wave signals of galactic compact binaries: a mini review

    Rui Niu and Wen Zhao. Extracting overlapping gravitational-wave signals of galactic compact binaries: a mini review. Fundamental Research, 2024

    2024

  140. [149]

    Overview and progress on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission

    Jean-Baptiste Bayle, B´ eatrice Bonga, Chiara Caprini, Daniela Doneva, Martina Muratore, Antoine Petiteau, Elena Rossi, and Lijing Shao. Overview and progress on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission. Nature Astronomy, 6(12):1334–1338, December 2022

    2022

  141. [150]

    Renzini, and Jonathan R

    Lorenzo Speri, Nikolaos Karnesis, Arianna I. Renzini, and Jonathan R. Gair. A roadmap of gravitational wave data analysis. Nature Astronomy, 6(12):1356–1363, December 2022

    2022

  142. [151]

    Analyses of overlapping gravitational wave signals using hierarchical subtraction and joint parameter estimation

    Justin Janquart, Tomasz Baka, Anuradha Sama- jdar, Tim Dietrich, and Chris Van Den Broeck. Analyses of overlapping gravitational wave signals using hierarchical subtraction and joint parameter estimation. Monthly No- tices of the Royal Astronomical Society , 523(2):1699–1710, May 2023

    2023

  143. [154]

    Gravitational wave signal denoising and merger time prediction with a deep neural network

    Yuxiang Xu, He Wang, Minghui Du, Bo Liang, and Peng Xu. Gravitational wave signal denoising and merger time prediction with a deep neural network. Phys. Rev. D , 111:063037, Mar 2025

    2025

  144. [155]

    Gravitational-wave source dynamics and population inference

    Matthew Mould. Gravitational-wave source dynamics and population inference . PhD thesis, University of Birmingham, 2023

    2023

  145. [156]

    Tuning neural posterior estimation for gravitational wave inference, 2024

    Alex Kolmus, Justin Janquart, Tomasz Baka, Recent Advances in Simulation-based Inference for Gravitational Wave Data Analysis 31 Twan van Laarhoven, Chris Van Den Broeck, and Tom Heskes. Tuning neural posterior estimation for gravitational wave inference, 2024

    2024

  146. [157]

    The detection, ex- traction and parameter estimation of extreme- mass-ratio inspirals with deep learning

    Qianyun Yun, Wen-Biao Han, Yi-Yang Guo, He Wang, and Minghui Du. The detection, ex- traction and parameter estimation of extreme- mass-ratio inspirals with deep learning. Sci- ence China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy , 68(1):210413, 2025

    2025

  147. [158]

    Rapid parameter estimation for extreme mass ratio inspirals using machine learning, 2024

    Bo Liang, Hong Guo, Tianyu Zhao, He wang, Herik Evangelinelis, Yuxiang Xu, Chang liu, Manjia Liang, Xiaotong Wei, Yong Yuan, Peng Xu, Minghui Du, Wei-Liang Qian, and Ziren Luo. Rapid parameter estimation for extreme mass ratio inspirals using machine learning, 2024

    2024

  148. [159]

    Normaliz- ing flows as an avenue to studying overlapping gravitational wave signals

    Jurriaan Langendorff, Alex Kolmus, Justin Jan- quart, and Chris Van Den Broeck. Normaliz- ing flows as an avenue to studying overlapping gravitational wave signals. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 130:171402, Apr 2023

    2023

  149. [160]

    ICERM Topical Workshop,

    Statistical and machine learning for gravitational wave astronomy. ICERM Topical Workshop,

  150. [162]

    Jaxnrsur: Numer- ical relativity surrogate waveform in jax, 2025

    Kaze Wong and contributors. Jaxnrsur: Numer- ical relativity surrogate waveform in jax, 2025

    2025

  151. [163]

    flowmc: Normalizing-flow enhanced sampling package for probabilistic inference in jax, 2025

    Kaze Wong and contributors. flowmc: Normalizing-flow enhanced sampling package for probabilistic inference in jax, 2025. Documentation available at: flowmc.readthedocs.io/en/main/

    2025

  152. [164]

    Rotskoff, and Eric Vanden-Eijnden

    Marylou Gabri´ e, Grant M. Rotskoff, and Eric Vanden-Eijnden. Adaptive Monte Carlo augmented with normalizing flows. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 119(10):e2109420119, 2022

    2022

  153. [165]

    Kaze W. k. Wong, Marylou Gabri´ e, and Daniel Foreman-Mackey. flowMC: Normalizing flow enhanced sampling package for probabilistic inference in JAX. J. Open Source Softw. , 8(83):5021, 2023

    2023

  154. [2025]

    Institute for Computational and Exper- imental Research in Mathematics, Brown Uni- versity

Pith tools

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