Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

gwsnr: A Python package for efficient signal-to-noise ratio calculations of gravitational waves

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Python package makes gravitational-wave signal-to-noise calculations fast enough for large synthetic populations.

desk verdict A useful-looking GW SNR package whose central efficiency/accuracy claims are not yet backed by benchmarks or validation; deserves a demanding referee, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09888 v4 pith:NGMSJWMK submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.IM astro-ph.HE

Hemantakumar Phurailatpam , Otto Akseli Hannuksela This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.IMastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavessignal-to-noiseratiodetectionprobabilityselectioneffectscompact-binarypopulationinterpolationneuralnetworkhorizondistance
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

gwsnr is a Python package that computes the optimal signal-to-noise ratio and detection probability for compact-binary gravitational-wave sources without repeatedly paying the cost of noise-weighted inner products. The paper claims this makes large simulated populations tractable for selection-effect modelling, rate estimation, detector-sensitivity studies, and population simulations. It offers several accelerated paths under one interface: multiprocessing inner products, partial-scaling interpolation for non-spinning and aligned-spin binaries, GPU-accelerated array backends, and an artificial-neural-network estimator for complex precessing waveforms, plus a hybrid scheme that recalculates only marginal events near the detection threshold. The package also models the observed signal-to-noise ratio statistically and derives detection thresholds from semianalytic injection-catalogue sensitivities. If the package works as described, a wide class of gravitational-wave population analyses that previously needed heavy compute can be done quickly and reproducibly.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the partial-scaling interpolation identity $\rho_{1/2}=D_{\rm eff}\,M^{-5/6}\rho_{\rm opt}$, where $M$ is chirp mass and $D_{\rm eff}$ effective distance; it factorizes the costly waveform-dependent part from an easy rescaling, so precomputed spline grids can serve new sources. Around this sits a unified detection-probability pipeline that turns any signal-to-noise estimator into $P_{\rm det}$ by thresholding an observed signal-to-noise ratio modelled as Gaussian or noncentral chi, with thresholds taken from semianalytic injection-catalogue sensitivities and a hybrid step that applies exact inner products to marginal events near threshold.

What would settle it

Run a large injection campaign with precessing black-hole-binary waveforms through a full matched-filter search pipeline at a fixed false-alarm rate, then compare the recovered fraction as a function of distance with gwsnr's $P_{\rm det}$ predictions; a systematic offset would show that the semianalytic thresholds do not track true detector selection for that population.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single code package can replace direct, expensive noise-weighted inner-product signal-to-noise evaluation with a menu of faster approximations while preserving the accuracy needed for detectability estimates. For non-spinning and aligned-spin binaries, a partial-scaling identity stores a distance- and chirp-mass-rescaled signal-to-noise ratio on a parameter grid and recovers new values by interpolation and rescaling. For precessing systems with subdominant modes, a neural-network estimator is used not for precise signal-to-noise values but for reliable threshold-crossing probabilities, and a hybrid mode re-evaluates events near the detection boundary with the full inner product. Detection probability is then computed by comparing an observed signal-to-noise ratio, modelled as Gaussian or noncentral chi distributed, against thresholds estimated from semianalytic injection-catalogue sensitivities. The claimed upshot is that large-scale compact-binary population simulation and selection-effect correction become computationally practical.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that detectability can be represented by comparing an observed signal-to-noise ratio to thresholds derived from semianalytic injection-catalogue sensitivities; if those thresholds do not match the true false-alarm-rate-based selection for the population or detector being simulated, $P_{\rm det}$ estimates, and any selection-effect corrections built on them, would be biased even though the signal-to-noise formulas are exact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Large synthetic compact-binary catalogues can be assigned $\rho_{\rm opt}$ and $P_{\rm det}$ at a fraction of the compute cost of repeated noise-weighted inner products, making population simulations of millions of systems feasible on a single workstation.
  • Selection-effect corrections in hierarchical Bayesian inference can be computed within the same code path as the signal-to-noise estimates, removing a bottleneck in rate and population inference.
  • Detector-sensitivity studies can report horizon distances through both analytic rescaling and numerical maximization, cross-checking one method against the other.
  • The hybrid scheme concentrates exact calculations on events near the detection boundary, so accuracy is retained exactly where $P_{\rm det}$ changes fastest.
  • Neural-network-based $P_{\rm det}$ estimation gives a route to detectability for precessing binaries with subdominant modes, where partial-scaling interpolation is unreliable.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $P_{\rm det}$ is insensitive to small signal-to-noise errors away from threshold, the same network-plus-hybrid architecture could be retrained for next-generation detector designs without reworking the interpolation grids.
  • The partial-scaling grid's dimensionality, two-dimensional for non-spinning and four-dimensional for aligned-spin binaries, suggests a natural extension to eccentric or higher-dimensional parameter spaces where the rescaling identity would still hold but more grid samples would be needed.
  • The package's threshold-based detectability inherits the assumption that stationary Gaussian noise and injection-catalogue thresholds approximate real search selection; comparing against a full false-alarm-rate pipeline on nonstationary noise would quantify how much selection-effect estimates could shift.
  • The pattern of approximating everywhere and computing exactly only near threshold could be reused in other detection-statistics problems, such as lensing or stochastic-background searches, wherever a cheap proxy for the detection statistic exists.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes gwsnr, a Python package for fast signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and detectability (P_det) calculations for compact-binary gravitational-wave sources. The package offers several computational pathways: a direct noise-weighted inner product with multiprocessing/JAX/MLX acceleration, a partial-scaling interpolation method for non-spinning and aligned-spin systems, an artificial neural network (ANN) for P_det estimation with precessing waveforms, a hybrid scheme that recalculates near-threshold events exactly, statistical models for the observed SNR, and horizon-distance calculations. The central claim is that these tools enable efficient selection-effect modelling, rate estimation, detector-sensitivity studies, and large-scale population simulations. The mathematical formulations are standard (FINDCHIRP scaling, matched-filter inner products, non-central chi-square P_det) and the package appears well-architected, but the paper does not provide quantitative validation of the approximate pathways, which is necessary to support the headline claims of accuracy and speed.

Significance. If the performance claims are borne out, gwsnr would be a practically valuable tool for GW population inference, where repeated SNR and P_det evaluations are computationally expensive. The package bundles several methods under a unified interface, provides JAX/MLX backends, and is publicly available with documented workflows. The use of standard formulas and the disclosure of the ANN's limitations are positive aspects. However, the paper's central contribution—enabling efficient yet accurate selection-effect modelling—rests on the approximate pathways (partial-scaling interpolation, ANN, hybrid recalculation) that are asserted but not validated. Without error metrics, timing benchmarks, or comparisons against exact inner products, the significance of the package as a reliable tool for scientific inference remains undemonstrated. The absence of this validation is the key gap.

major comments (4)
  1. [Partial Scaling Interpolation] This section claims that the interpolation method 'yields significant speed-ups' and that new SNRs are recovered by spline interpolation, but it reports no interpolation error, no grid resolution, no benchmark timings, and no comparison against direct inner-product calculations. This is load-bearing because partial-scaling interpolation is the primary fast pathway for non-spinning and aligned-spin systems. The reader cannot assess whether the speed-up is real or whether the accuracy is adequate for selection-effect calculations over large populations. Please add quantitative results, such as maximum relative error in rho_opt over a test population, grid spacing convergence checks, and wall-clock timing comparisons.
  2. [ANN-based P_det Estimation] The paper states that 'the ANN is poor at estimating rho_opt directly' but that its outputs are 'effective for P_det, since detectability depends on threshold crossing rather than precise values.' This argument is insufficient: P_det is a steep function of rho_opt near the detection threshold, so even moderate rho_opt errors can translate into large P_det errors for marginal events. No quantitative evidence is provided, such as a comparison of ANN-based P_det with direct integration over a representative population, a confusion matrix for threshold crossing, or ROC statistics. Without such metrics, the ANN pathway is unsupported and the abstract's claim of enabling 'reliable selection-effect modelling' is not demonstrated.
  3. [Hybrid SNR Recalculation for P_det Estimation] The hybrid scheme first approximates SNR with partial scaling or the ANN, then recalculates near-threshold events with the exact noise-weighted inner product. The accuracy of this scheme depends critically on the approximate method's ability to identify which events are near threshold. If the approximate method is systematically biased, it may mis-rank events and fail to flag true marginal events, biasing the selection function. The paper does not test this failure mode. Please provide a validation showing, for a test population, the fraction of true near-threshold events that are correctly flagged by the approximate methods, and the resulting bias in P_det before and after the hybrid correction.
  4. [Statistical Models for P_det] The P_det estimates rely on precomputed rho_obs_thr values derived from semianalytic injection catalogues following Essick (2023). The paper does not discuss how mismatches between these thresholds and the true FAR-based search selection, or variations across detector configurations and population parameters, would affect the validity of P_det. This is not a flaw in the formula, but it is a load-bearing assumption for the package's use in rate estimation. Please include a sensitivity statement and guidance on when users should compute custom thresholds from their own injection catalogues, as well as the expected impact of threshold uncertainty on P_det.
minor comments (5)
  1. [General] The abstract mentions 'validation examples' and 'reproducible workflows,' but the full text does not include any validation tables or benchmark results. Please either add the validation to the text or provide explicit pointers to the specific examples in the repository with versioned outputs.
  2. [ANN-based P_det Estimation] The sentence 'Trainedonlarge ler datasets' is missing spaces and refers to an internal dataset; please clarify whether the training data are publicly available and provide details on the training population, sample size, and network architecture.
  3. [Horizon Distance Calculation] The numerical method for horizon distance is described in one sentence; please specify the algorithm used for maximising SNR over sky location and solving for d_L, and note any convergence criteria.
  4. [References] The reference formatting is inconsistent (e.g., 'This' in the article header and some incomplete entries). Please standardise the bibliography.
  5. [Notation] The relationship between rho_opt_thr, rho_obs_thr, and the user-specified detection threshold is not explicitly distinguished; please define each quantity and clarify the units and parameter dependence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: gwsnr's approximate pathways are disclosed numerical emulations, and no equation reduces to its own input.

full rationale

This is a software-tool paper rather than a derivation chain, and I could not exhibit any step in which a predicted quantity is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation. The partial-scaling interpolation is an explicit adaption of FINDCHIRP's precomputed grid, and its recovery formula is just the algebraic inverse of the scaling definition, not a circular prediction. The ANN is described as trained on ler datasets and is explicitly conceded to be poor at rho_opt; its use for P_det is an empirical accuracy claim, not a reduction of P_det to the training labels. The hybrid scheme is a pre-filter plus exact recalculation for identified marginal events, and any failure to identify true marginal events would be an accuracy gap, not circularity. The threshold values follow external work (Essick 2023), and the P_det statistical models are standard Gaussian and noncentral-chi-square forms with stated assumptions. The ler citations appear as use-case demonstrations rather than as load-bearing premises that forbid alternative methods. The paper does lack quantitative validation of the approximate pathways against the exact noise-weighted inner product, and the ANN statement is under-justified, but those are correctness/completeness concerns, not circularity. I therefore find no significant circularity and score 0.

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

Central claim depends on standard matched-filter assumptions, on threshold-proxy calibration from injection catalogues, and on the accuracy of waveform models used to generate grids and ANN training sets. No new physical entities are introduced. The package's fitted components (ANN weights, interpolation grid anchors, threshold) are disclosed as computational calibrations, not physical constants.

free parameters (3)
  • ANN model weights = not specified; trained on `ler` datasets
    Used for P_det estimation with IMRPhenomXPHM; values are determined by supervised fitting, and no architecture or training-set details are given.
  • rho_obs_thr (detection threshold) = precomputed from semianalytic injection catalogues (Essick 2023) or user catalogues
    Defines the boundary for P_det; it is calibrated to injection data rather than derived, and can vary with parameters such as m1_src.
  • Partial-scaling interpolation grid values rho_1/2 = precomputed on 2D/4D grids via inner product
    Used as spline anchors; grid density and domain are implementation choices controlling the accuracy of interpolation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Detectability can be approximated by comparing the observed SNR to a fixed or parameter-dependent threshold rho_obs_thr.
    Used throughout Statement of Need and Statistical Models for P_det; in real searches detectability is set by FAR, and SNR threshold is a proxy that could diverge from the full search pipeline.
  • domain assumption Noise is stationary and Gaussian, so rho_obs follows a unit-variance Gaussian or non-central chi-square distribution with lambda = rho_opt.
    Invoked in Statistical Models for P_det; standard in GW literature but not universally valid for real nonstationary detector noise.
  • domain assumption Waveform models from lalsuite (including IMRPhenomXPHM) accurately represent the signals used in synthetic population studies.
    Used for inner-product, interpolation grid, and ANN training; waveform model error propagates into all SNR and P_det estimates.
  • standard math The FINDCHIRP partial-scaling relation rho = rho_1/2 M^5/6 / D_eff and grid smoothness make spline interpolation valid.
    Adopted from Allen et al. 2012; no error estimates for grid density are given in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of gwsnr: A Python package for efficient signal-to-noise ratio calculations of gravitational waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NGMSJWMK

@misc{pith2026241209888,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: gwsnr: A Python package for efficient signal-to-noise ratio calculations of gravitational waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NGMSJWMK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09888}
}
abstract

$gwsnr$ is a Python package for efficient signal-to-noise ratio and detectability calculations for compact-binary gravitational-wave sources. It is designed for large simulated populations where repeated evaluation of the optimal signal-to-noise ratio, $\rho_{\rm opt}$, and the probability of detection, $P_{\rm det}$, becomes computationally expensive with direct noise-weighted inner-product calculations. The package provides multiple calculation pathways under a unified interface, including multiprocessing-based inner-product evaluation, partial-scaling interpolation for non-spinning and aligned-spin systems, JAX and MLX backends for accelerated array execution, and artificial neural network based detectability estimation for more complex waveform settings. It also supports statistical modelling of the observed signal-to-noise ratio, $\rho_{\rm obs}$, under stationary Gaussian noise assumptions, threshold estimation from injection catalogues, hybrid recalculation of marginal events near the detection boundary, and horizon-distance calculations. By combining fast numerical methods with configurable detector, waveform, and population settings, $gwsnr$ enables efficient selection-effect modelling, rate estimation, detector-sensitivity studies, and large-scale compact-binary population simulations. The package is publicly available with documentation, validation examples, and reproducible workflows.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems

    Abadi, Martin, Ashish Agarwal, Paul Barham, Eugene Brevdo, Zhifeng Chen, Craig Citro, Greg S. Corrado, et al. 2015. “TensorFlow: Large-Scale Machine Learning on Heterogeneous Systems.” https://www.tensorflow.org/

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    ASTROPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE BINARY BLACK HOLE MERGER GW150914

    Abbott, B. P., R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, et al. 2016. “ASTROPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE BINARY BLACK HOLE MERGER GW150914.”The Astrophysical Journal Letters818 (2): L22. https: //doi.org/10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l22

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/l22 2016

  3. [3]

    GW150914: First Results from the Search for Binary Black Hole Coalescence with Advanced LIGO

    Abbott, B. P., R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, et al. 2016. “GW150914: First Results from the Search for Binary Black Hole Coalescence with Advanced LIGO.”Physical Review D93 (12). https://doi.org/10.1103/ physrevd.93.122003

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Binary Black Hole Population Properties Inferred from the First and Second Observing Runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo

    Abbott, B. P., R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, et al. 2019. “Binary Black Hole Population Properties Inferred from the First and Second Observing Runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo.”The Astrophysical Journal Letters882 (2): L24. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3800 2019

  5. [5]

    Prospects for Observing and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA

    Abbott, B. P., R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, et al. 2020. “Prospects for Observing and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA.”Living Reviews in Relativity23 (1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2020

  6. [6]

    Search for Lensing Signatures in the Gravitational-Wave Observations from the First Half of LIGO-Virgo’s Third Observing Run

    Abbott, R., T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, A. Adams, C. Adams, et al. 2021. “Search for Lensing Signatures in the Gravitational-Wave Observations from the First Half of LIGO-Virgo’s Third Observing Run.”The Astrophysical Journal923 (1): 14. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac23db 2021

  7. [7]

    Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light

    Acernese, F., M. Agathos, L. Aiello, A. Allocca, A. Amato, S. Ansoldi, S. Antier, et al. 2019. “Increasing the Astrophysical Reach of the Advanced Virgo Detector via the Application of Squeezed Vacuum States of Light.”Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (December): 231108. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.231108

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.231108 2019

  8. [8]

    Advanced Virgo: A Second-Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detector

    Acernese, F, M Agathos, K Agatsuma, D Aisa, N Allemandou, A Allocca, J Amarni, et al. 2014. “Advanced Virgo: A Second-Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detector.”Classical and Quantum Gravity32 (2): 024001. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page 2014

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Overview of KAGRA: Detector Design and Construction History

    Akutsu, T., M. Ando, K. Arai, Y. Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, et al. 2020. “Overview of KAGRA: Detector Design and Construction History.” https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2005.05574

    2020

  2. [10]

    FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for Detection of Gravitational Waves from Inspiraling Compact Binaries

    Allen, Bruce, Warren G. Anderson, Patrick R. Brady, Duncan A. Brown, and Jolien D. E. Creighton. 2012. “FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for Detection of Gravitational Waves from Inspiraling Compact Binaries.”Physical Review D85 (12). https://doi.org/10.1103/ physrevd.85.122006

    2012

  3. [11]

    Aso, Yoichi, Yuta Michimura, Kentaro Somiya, Masaki Ando, Osamu Miyakawa, Takanori Sekiguchi, Daisuke Tatsumi, and Hiroaki Yamamoto. 2013. “Interferometer Design of Hemantakumar Phurailatpam, Otto Akseli Hannuksela, (2024).gwsnr: A python package for efficient signal-to-noise ...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Sensitivity and Performance of the Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Third Observing Run

    Buikema, A., C. Cahillane, G. L. Mansell, C. D. Blair, R. Abbott, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, et al. 2020. “Sensitivity and Performance of the Advanced LIGO Detectors in the Third Observing Run.”Phys. Rev. D102 (September): 062003. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.102.062003

    2020

  5. [13]

    Neural Network Emulator of the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo Selection Function

    Callister, Thomas A. et al. 2024. “Neural Network Emulator of the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo Selection Function.”Physical Review D110 (12). https://doi.org/10. 1103/physrevd.110.123041

    2024

  6. [14]

    Rapid Determination of LISA Sensitivity to Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals with Machine Learning

    Chapman-Bird, Christian E A et al. 2023. “Rapid Determination of LISA Sensitivity to Extreme Mass Ratio Inspirals with Machine Learning.”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society522 (4): 6043–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1397

    2023 doi

  7. [15]

    Search for Gravitational- Lensing Signatures in the Full Third Observing Run of the LIGO-Virgo Network

    Collaboration, The LIGO Scientific, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, et al. 2023. “Search for Gravitational- Lensing Signatures in the Full Third Observing Run of the LIGO-Virgo Network.” https: //arxiv.org/abs/2304.08393

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Differentiable and hardware-accelerated waveforms for gravitational wave data analysis

    Edwards, Thomas D. P., Kaze W. K. Wong, Kelvin K. H. Lam, Adam Coogan, Daniel Foreman-Mackey, Maximiliano Isi, and Aaron Zimmerman. 2024. “Differentiable and hardware-accelerated waveforms for gravitational wave data analysis.”Phys. Rev. D110 (6): 064028. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Semianalytic Sensitivity Estimates for Catalogs of Gravitational-Wave Transients

    Essick, Reed. 2023. “Semianalytic Sensitivity Estimates for Catalogs of Gravitational-Wave Transients.” https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02765

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Ensuring Consistency Between Noise and Detection in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

    Essick, Reed, and Maya Fishbach. 2024. “Ensuring Consistency Between Noise and Detection in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference.”The Astrophysical Journal962 (2): 169. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    The Most Massive Binary Black Hole Detections and the Identification of Population Outliers

    Fishbach, Maya, Will M. Farr, and Daniel E. Holz. 2020. “The Most Massive Binary Black Hole Detections and the Identification of Population Outliers.”The Astrophysical Journal Letters891 (2): L31. https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab77c9

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    Gravitational-Wave Selection Effects Using Neural-Network Classifiers

    Gerosa, Davide et al. 2020. “Gravitational-Wave Selection Effects Using Neural-Network Classifiers.”Physical Review D102 (10). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.102.103020

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    Hannun, Awni, Jagrit Digani, Angelos Katharopoulos, and Ronan Collobert. 2023. “mlx.” https://github.com/ml-explore

    2023

  14. [22]

    JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy Programs

    James Bradbury, Peter Hawkins, Roy Frostig, and Various others. 2018. “JAX: Composable Transformations of Python+NumPy Programs.” GitHub. https://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  15. [23]

    Follow-up analyses to the O3 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA lensing searches

    Janquart, J, M Wright, S Goyal, J C L Chan, A Ganguly, A Garron, D Keitel, et al. 2023. “Follow-up analyses to the O3 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA lensing searches.”Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526 (3): 3832–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stad2909

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Numba: A High Performance Python Compiler

    Lam, Stan, Stephane Pitrou, and Mark Seibert. 2022. “Numba: A High Performance Python Compiler.”Numba Documentation. Anaconda, Inc. https://numba.pydata.org/

    2022

  17. [25]

    LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration. 2018. “LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite.” Free software (GPL). https://doi.org/10.7935/ GT1W-FZ16

    2018

  18. [26]

    Gravitational Lensing: To- wards Combining the Multi-Messengers

    More, Anupreeta, and Hemantakumar Phurailatpam. 2025. “Gravitational Lensing: To- wards Combining the Multi-Messengers.” https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.02536

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Y., Justin Janquart, Hemantakumar Phurailatpam, Harsh Narola, Jason S

    Ng, Leo C. Y., Justin Janquart, Hemantakumar Phurailatpam, Harsh Narola, Jason S. C. Poon, Chris Van Den Broeck, and Otto A. Hannuksela. 2024. “Uncovering Faint Lensed Hemantakumar Phurailatpam, Otto Akseli Hannuksela, (2024).gwsnr: A python package for efficient signal-to-noi...

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    NumPy: A Fundamental Package for Scientific Computing with Python

    NumPy Community. 2022. “NumPy: A Fundamental Package for Scientific Computing with Python.”NumPy Website. NumPy. https://numpy.org/

    2022

  21. [29]

    Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python

    Pedregosa, Fabian, Gael Varoquaux, Alexandre Gramfort, Vincent Michel, Bertrand Thirion, Olivier Grisel, Mathieu Blondel, et al. 2011. “Scikit-Learn: Machine Learning in Python.”Journal of Machine Learning Research12: 2825–30

    2011

  22. [30]

    Phurailatpam, Hemantakumar, Anupreeta More, Harsh Narola, Ng Chung Yin, Justin Janquart, Chris Van Den Broeck, Otto Akseli Hannuksela, Neha Singh, and David Keitel

  23. [31]

    Mining Gravitational-Wave Catalogs to Understand Binary Stellar Evolution: A New Hierarchical Bayesian Framework

    Taylor, Stephen R., and Davide Gerosa. 2018. “Mining Gravitational-Wave Catalogs to Understand Binary Stellar Evolution: A New Hierarchical Bayesian Framework.”Physical Review D98 (8). https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.98.083017

    2018 doi

  24. [32]

    Advanced LIGO

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J Aasi, B P Abbott, R Abbott, T Abbott, M R Abernathy, K Ackley, et al. 2015. “Advanced LIGO.”Classical and Quantum Gravity32 (7): 074001. https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    2015 doi

  25. [33]

    An Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Parameter Estimation, Model Selection, and Hier- archical Models

    Thrane, Eric, and Colm Talbot. 2019. “An Introduction to Bayesian Inference in Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Parameter Estimation, Model Selection, and Hier- archical Models.”Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia36. https: //doi.org/10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python

    Virtanen, Pauli, Ralf Gommers, Travis E. Oliphant, Matt Haberland, Tyler Reddy, David Cournapeau, Evgeni Burovski, et al. 2020. “SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python.”Nature Methods. SciPy. https://www.scipy.org/

    2020

  27. [35]

    A Lensing Multi-Messenger Channel: Combining LIGO-Virgo-Kagra Lensed Gravitational-Wave Measurements with Euclid Observations

    Wempe, Ewoud, Leon V. E. Koopmans, A. Renske A. C. Wierda, Otto Akseli Han- nuksela, Alberto Agnello, Cyril Bonvin, Bendetta Bucciarelli, et al. 2022. “A Lensing Multi-Messenger Channel: Combining LIGO-Virgo-Kagra Lensed Gravitational-Wave Measurements with Euclid Observations...

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Beyond the Detector Horizon: Forecasting Gravitational-Wave Strong Lensing

    Wierda, A. Renske A. C., Ewoud Wempe, Otto A. Hannuksela, Leon V. E. Koopmans, Alberto Agnello, Cyril Bonvin, Bendetta Bucciarelli, et al. 2021. “Beyond the Detector Horizon: Forecasting Gravitational-Wave Strong Lensing.”The Astrophysical Journal921 (1): 154. https://doi.org/...

    2024 doi

  29. [2024]

    Ler : LVK (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration) Event (Compact-Binary Mergers) Rate Calculator and Simulator

    “Ler : LVK (LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration) Event (Compact-Binary Mergers) Rate Calculator and Simulator.” https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.07526

    arXiv

Pith tools

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