Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 87 references

Testing the spin-induced multipole moments of compact binary coalescences using the flexible theory-independent framework

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave detectors can constrain spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moment deviations to roughly $10^{-2}$ and $10^{-1}$, two orders of magnitude tighter than current bounds, allowing routine…

desk verdict A careful, honest FTI-based SIQM/SIOM implementation with solid injection checks, but the headline XG forecast leans on FIM errors for delta_kappa_a that the paper itself shows to be unreliable—worth refereeing, with that specific claim needing population-level validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07237 v1 pith:ROGM44PX submitted 2026-08-07 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Elise M. Sänger , Alessandra Buonanno , Ajit Kumar Mehta , Jan Steinhoff This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE MSC 83C3583C57
keywords gravitationalwavesspin-inducedquadrupolemomentoctupoleno-hairtheorempost-Newtonianapproximationparameterizedtestsofgeneralrelativitynext-generationground-baseddetectorsFisherinformationmatrix
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that the spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moments of compact objects can be tested with gravitational waves through a flexible theory-independent framework that adds post-Newtonian phase corrections to an aligned-spin waveform. Applied to observed events, the test finds no deviation from the Kerr prediction. The paper's central forecast is that next-generation detectors such as Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer will bound the quadrupole deviation to $|\delta\kappa_s| \lesssim 10^{-2}$ and the octupole deviation to $|\delta\lambda_s| \lesssim 10^{-1}$, roughly two orders of magnitude tighter than current constraints. If those forecasts hold, gravitational-wave observations will be able to tell whether a compact object is a Kerr black hole or something else, such as a neutron star or an exotic compact object.

What carries the argument

The central object is the flexible theory-independent phase correction $\delta\psi_{\ell m}(f)$ added to the frequency-domain gravitational-wave phase. The deviation parameters enter through post-Newtonian coefficients: the quadrupole contributes at 2PN and 3PN, with a 3.5PN term shown to be negligible at current signal-to-noise ratios, and the octupole contributes at 3.5PN. A tapering function $W(f)$ smoothly switches the correction off before merger, and the framework's flexibility lets the user choose the baseline waveform and the taper location; the paper shows that higher tapering frequencies generally tighten the bounds. For the next-generation forecasts, the Fisher information matrix is the main forecasting tool, and the paper validates it against Bayesian inference for the single-parameter tests it uses.

What would settle it

Run full Bayesian inference on the synthetic next-generation population for the events that dominate the combined bounds, and check whether the 90 percent credible intervals widen when non-Gaussian posteriors are used; the paper already demonstrates such a widening for the GW150914-like single-event $\delta\kappa_a$ case.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the spin-induced multipole moments of the binary components can be measured as fractional deviations from the Kerr values, with $\delta\kappa_s$ and $\delta\kappa_a$ for the quadrupole and $\delta\lambda_s$ for the octupole moments. Using a one-year synthetic population of merging black-hole binaries, the paper forecasts that a triangular Einstein Telescope alone will bound $|\delta\kappa_s|<0.013$, $|\delta\kappa_a|<0.014$, and $|\delta\lambda_s|<0.24$, improving to $|\delta\kappa_s|<6.5\times10^{-3}$, $|\delta\kappa_a|<6.9\times10^{-3}$, and $|\delta\lambda_s|<0.12$ when two Cosmic Explorer detectors are added. The paper establishes the test by building the corrections into the flexible theory-independent framework, validating Fisher-matrix error forecasts against full Bayesian analyses for selected cases, and applying the test to seven observed events from the first three observing runs plus later data. All observed results are consistent with general relativity, and the paper concludes that next-generation detectors will be able to routinely test the black-hole nature of compact binary coalescences.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted next-generation bounds rest on the assumption that Fisher-matrix errors accurately describe every selected population event, an assumption the paper itself shows fails for $\delta\kappa_a$ in a GW150914-like case and when $\delta\kappa_s$ and $\delta\kappa_a$ are varied together.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A triangular Einstein Telescope alone should bound $|\delta\kappa_s|<0.013$, $|\delta\kappa_a|<0.014$, and $|\delta\lambda_s|<0.24$ for one year of observations.
  • Adding two Cosmic Explorer detectors tightens those bounds by roughly a factor of two, to $|\delta\kappa_s|<6.5\times10^{-3}$ and $|\delta\lambda_s|<0.12$, while detecting about four times as many usable events.
  • If those bounds hold, next-generation detectors can distinguish Kerr black holes from neutron stars and exotic compact objects, whose quadrupole and octupole parameters can differ from unity by orders of magnitude.
  • Combining many low-spin events adds little: a single highly spinning event can beat the combined population constraint, so the strongest tests will come from high-spin binaries.
  • The test detects injected quadrupole deviations as small as $\delta\kappa_s=\pm2$, but for large deviations it recovers biased values, so it should be used as a null test rather than as a precise measurement of large non-Kerr moments.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Fisher-matrix failure the paper documents extends to the wider population, the combined bounds quoted for $\delta\kappa_a$ and for simultaneous variation of both quadrupole parameters are optimistic; a fully Bayesian population forecast would likely report wider error bars for those parameters.
  • The freedom to change the taper location is itself a diagnostic: comparing bounds from different taper choices across the same events would expose systematic modeling error, in the same way the paper compares two waveform approximants.
  • The XG-era population constraint will probably be set by the loudest high-spin systems rather than by the total event count, since one highly spinning event already outperforms stacked low-spin events; this favors detector designs that maximize detection of high-mass, high-spin inspirals.
  • The paper's quoted ranges for $\kappa$ and $\lambda$ across neutron stars, boson stars, and gravastars mean that future $\delta\kappa$ and $\delta\lambda$ bounds can be translated directly into statements about which classes of compact objects are excluded.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a test of spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moments of compact objects within the flexible theory-independent (FTI) framework, using the SEOBNRv5HM waveform model. The authors study measurability through Bayesian injections calibrated to GW150914-like and GW190412-like systems, apply the test to seven selected GWTC-3 events plus O4a posteriors, and present forecasts for next-generation detectors (ET and ET+2CE) using Fisher-matrix errors on a synthetic BBH population. The central claims are that current LVK data are consistent with Kerr BHs in GR, and that XG detectors will constrain |δκ_s| to O(10^-2), |δκ_a| to O(10^-2), and |δλ_s| to O(10^-1), about two orders of magnitude better than current constraints.

Significance. If the projections hold, this would be an important step toward routine tests of the Kerr nature of compact binaries, with direct implications for distinguishing black holes from neutron stars and exotic compact objects. The paper has notable strengths: the SIQM and SIOM coefficients are taken from independent PN derivations and are not circular; the injection studies are careful, including checks of tapering frequency, higher-order modes, and non-GR injections; and the comparison with LVK SIM results provides an explicit cross-model systematic check. The forecasts for δκ_s and δλ_s are supported by Bayesian/FIM agreement in representative cases. However, the forecast for δκ_a rests on Fisher errors that the paper itself shows to be unreliable for an important class of systems; this undermines one of the headline quadrupole constraints and needs to be fixed before the central XG claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V B, Eq. (23)] The combined bounds |δκ_a|<0.014 (ET-only) and |δκ_a|<6.9e-3 (ET+2CE) are obtained by inverse-variance weighting of per-event Fisher errors via Eq. (23). However, Sec. V A and Figs. 15 and 16 demonstrate that the FIM underestimates the error on δκ_a for the GW150914-like injection because the δκ_a prefactor in Eq. (15) has a pole near the injected masses and spins, and that the FIM also underestimates errors when δκ_s and δκ_a vary jointly. The selection criteria used in the population forecast (inspiral SNR>10, at least 5 inspiral cycles, χ_eff nonzero at 90% credibility) do not exclude events near such poles, and the inverse-variance sum in Eq. (23) can be dominated by a small number of events with underestimated σ_i. The claim that 'the systems that provide the best constraints should not suffer from this issue' is not sufficient, because all selected events enter the sum. The δκ_a projection therefore needs population-level validation, for example by Bayesian analysis of a representative subsample of selected events, or by restricting the forecast to systems where the δκ_a prefactor is not small; otherwise the δκ_a bounds should be removed from the headline claims.
  2. [Sec. V A, Fig. 15] The paper validates the FIM against full Bayesian analyses for only two nearby injection points (GW150914-like and GW190412-like), while the synthetic population spans a wide range of masses, spins, and mass ratios and contributes 1249 (ET-only) or 4090 (ET+2CE) events to Eq. (23). Since the δκ_a prefactor in Eq. (15) can vanish for certain combinations of mass ratio and spins, a non-negligible fraction of the selected population may have non-Gaussian δκ_a posteriors even when their inspiral SNR and cycle counts pass the selection criteria. The authors should quantify how many selected events have small δκ_a prefactors, or otherwise demonstrate that the FIM errors for δκ_a are accurate for the events that dominate the combined inverse-variance sum.
  3. [Sec. V A, Sec. V B] The FIM calculations are performed with the gwbench package, but the manuscript does not state which waveform approximant gwbench uses. The injection and Bayesian recovery use SEOBNRv5HM ROM, so if gwbench uses a different waveform model (e.g., a TaylorF2 or IMRPhenom variant), the comparison between FIM and Bayesian errors could be affected by waveform systematics rather than by the Gaussianity assumption. This is particularly relevant for δκ_a, where the FIM already fails to reproduce the Bayesian width. Please specify the waveform model used in the FIM calculation and, if it differs from SEOBNRv5HM, verify the FIM results against SEOBNRv5HM for the representative points in Figs. 14-16.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'O(10−2) andO(10−1)' is missing a space after 'and'; please fix the LaTeX rendering.
  2. [Sec. II D] The priors for δκ_s, δκ_a, and δλ_s are stated, but the prior on δλ_a is not specified; please clarify whether δλ_a is always fixed to zero or given a prior in the analyses.
  3. [Sec. IV] The selection criterion 'χ_eff is nonzero at 90% credible level' should be made precise: does this mean that zero is excluded from the 90% credible interval, and is there a sign requirement on χ_eff?
  4. [Sec. IV C] The quoted combined result δκ_s = −29^{+38}_{−54} should clarify whether this is the hyperparameter μ of the assumed Gaussian population distribution or a posterior-predictive value; the individual event posteriors often reach the prior boundary, so the dependence of this combined number on the prior range should be discussed.
  5. [Sec. V A] The authors note that in the ET-only configuration the sky location was not recovered correctly in the Bilby runs due to the multibanded likelihood, but they assert that this does not affect intrinsic parameters. Since this assertion is used to justify the FIM/Bayesian comparison, a supplementary check showing that the intrinsic posteriors are unchanged between the correct and incorrect sky modes would strengthen the validation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SIQM/SIOM coefficients and forecasts are independent of the claimed results; the only mild loop is the FIM-informed prior used in the Bayesian validation.

  1. other [Sec. V A, after Eq. (22) (FIM validation)]
    "We use the error estimation from the FIM to estimate the prior widths for the chirp mass and deviation parameters. This allows us to set reasonably tight priors, improving sampling convergence and time without having to rerun the analysis due to posteriors exceeding their prior bounds. ... By comparing the FIM and Bayesian analyses, we can evaluate the effectiveness of the FIM approximation in estimating constraints on the SIQM and SIOM with XG detectors."

    The Bayesian check used to validate the FIM is not fully independent: the prior widths for the chirp mass and deviation parameters are taken from the same FIM covariance being validated. Agreement between FIM and Bilby for delta_kappa_s and delta_lambda_s is therefore partly inherited from the input rather than independently discovered. This is a mild validation loop, not a construction of the final forecast: the quoted combined bounds come directly from the FIM via Eq. (23), and the paper's own Figs. 15-16 expose cases where the FIM is not validated (delta_kappa_a, and joint delta_kappa_s-delta_kappa_a). The loop does not make the central XG claim equivalent to its inputs, but it weakens the advertised independent confirmation.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The SIQM and SIOM phase corrections use independently derived post-Newtonian coefficients from Krishnendu et al. (Ref. [3]) and Saini & Krishnendu (Ref. [18]), not functions of the posteriors being predicted. The FTI framework itself is taken from Ref. [26] by overlapping authors, but that framework is code-reproduced, has been used externally by the LVK Collaboration, and does not contain the target SIQM/SIOM result as an assumption, so this is normal self-citation rather than load-bearing circularity. The observed-event analysis is benchmarked against injections and against the previous IMRPhenom-based LVK SIM results, and the XG forecast is a Fisher-matrix sensitivity projection that assumes GR and sets the deviation parameters to zero; no parameter is fitted to the target bound. The FIM underestimation issues for delta_kappa_a and for simultaneous delta_kappa_s-delta_kappa_a variation flagged in Sec. V A and Figs. 15-16 are correctness and robustness risks, not circularity: they concern whether the forecast errors are accurate, not whether the forecast is a restatement of its inputs. The only mild circular element is the FIM-informed prior used in the Bayesian validation loop described above, which is why the score is 2 rather than 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecasts rest on existing PN phase corrections for SIQM/SIOM, the SEOBNRv5HM baseline, hand-chosen tapering parameters, event-selection cuts, prior widths, and the GWTC-3 population model. No new physical entities are introduced; the SIQM and SIOM parameters are inherited from prior literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Tapering frequency ratio alpha = 0.35, 0.5, 1.0 (f_tape = alpha * f_peak_22)
    Hand-chosen phenomenological knob; the paper states the choice is arbitrary and should be optimized, and Section III.C shows constraints depend on it.
  • Tapering width N_GW = 1 (default)
    Number of GW cycles over which the tapering function transitions from 0 to 1; chosen by hand and varied only mildly.
  • Event selection thresholds = Inspiral SNR >= 10, inspiral cycles >= 5, chi_eff nonzero at 90% CL, at least 2 detectors, FAR < 1/1000 yr
    These hand-selected cuts define the observed subset and the XG population selection, and therefore affect the combined bounds.
  • Prior widths on deviation parameters = delta_kappa_s, delta_kappa_a in [-500, 500]; delta_lambda_s in [-1000, 1000]
    Wide uniform priors chosen for the analysis; for weakly constrained posteriors, tails reach the prior edges, so quoted bounds depend on these ranges.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math The stationary-phase frequency-domain phase expansion (Eq. 2) is valid for quasi-circular adiabatic inspiral.
    Invoked in Section II when writing the GR frequency-domain phase; standard PN result from Refs. [35-38].
  • domain assumption The spin-induced quadrupole and octupole phase corrections are correctly given by the cited PN expressions, Eqs. (15)-(19).
    The paper adopts existing PN coefficients from Refs. [3, 17, 18] without re-derivation; any error in those coefficients propagates directly into the test.
  • domain assumption The SEOBNRv5HM ROM baseline waveform is accurate enough that adding FTI phase corrections up to the merger is unbiased.
    Section III.D compares against IMRPhenomXAS for a few injections, but not across the full parameter space; known waveform-model differences could be mistaken for deviations at high SNR.
  • domain assumption Binaries are aligned-spin and quasi-circular; spin precession and eccentricity are absent.
    Section II restricts the model to aligned spins and circular orbits, while real observed events may have precession or eccentricity that the test ignores.
  • domain assumption The GWTC-3 population model (Madau-Dickinson star formation, power-law+peak masses, default spin model) and the chosen detector PSDs describe the XG-observed population.
    Section V.B uses gwforge with these inputs to generate the synthetic population; the forecast bounds inherit all population-model uncertainties.
  • ad hoc to paper All events in the combined bound share a common deviation parameter, and their Fisher errors can be combined by inverse-variance weighting in Eq. (23).
    This is a simplifying assumption introduced in Section V.B; it ignores event-dependent deviations, selection effects, and systematic errors, and is not validated by Bayesian population inference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing the spin-induced multipole moments of compact binary coalescences using the flexible theory-independent framework." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ROGM44PX

@misc{pith2026260807237,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing the spin-induced multipole moments of compact binary coalescences using the flexible theory-independent framework},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ROGM44PX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07237}
}
abstract

According to the no-hair theorem, the multipole moments of an electrically neutral black hole in general relativity are entirely determined by its mass and spin. However, this is not in general true for compact objects: The multipole moments of neutron stars or exotic compact objects can depend on their formation history and internal processes, which are encoded in an equation of state. Furthermore, their spin-induced multipole moments differ from those of black holes of the same mass and spin, leaving an imprint on the dynamics and emitted gravitational waves of the binary. Gravitational waves can thus be used to test the nature of compact binary coalescences. Here, we present a test of the spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moments of compact objects based on the flexible theory-independent (FTI) framework. FTI is a parameterized inspiral test of general relativity which enables the addition of post-Newtonian coefficient deviations to the gravitational-wave phase of a generic aligned-spin frequency-domain waveform model. We use this test on synthetic signals to study the measurability of spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moments. Next, we apply the test to a subset of signals observed by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration. Lastly, we present forecasts for next-generation ground-based detectors, such as Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer. Our estimates suggest that these detectors will be capable of placing stringent constraints on the spin-induced quadrupole and octupole moments of $\mathcal{O}(10^{-2})$ and $\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$ respectively, which is two orders of magnitude tighter than current constraints, and thus on the nature of black holes in a compact binary coalescence.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07237 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GW190412-like signal in GR (green solid line) and with a deviation in the SIQM of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The posteriors on δκs for the different spin cases for the GW150914-like (left) and GW190412-like (right) injections. The dashed lines indicate the 90% credible intervals. We see that larger spins lead to tighter constraints on the SIQM. heavy tail. What is surprising though is that the tail only appears on the negative side for the χ1,2 = 0.2 case. For the negative spin case χ1,2 = −0.2 on the other hand, the tail … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The joint posteriors on δκs and χeff for the positive (orange) and negative (blue) spin cases of the GW150914-like injections. The bold black lines indicate the injected values. We see that there is a correlation between these parameters and that the direction of the tail in δκs depends on the sign of χeff. C. Varying the tapering frequency As described in Sec. II, the modifications to the inspiral are tapered off t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results for the GW190412-like injection when including [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Results from varying the tapering frequency for the GW150914-like (left) and GW190412-like (right) injections. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The posteriors on δκs obtained using different waveform approximants for the GW150914-like (left) and GW190412-like (right) injections. We see that the inclusion of higher modes (red) greatly improves the results for the GW190412-like case. E. Anti-symmetric combinatio…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The posteriors on δκa for the GW150914-like (blue) and GW190412-like (red) injections. Here, we keep the value of δκs fixed to zero. −800 0 800 δκ1 −800 0 800 δκ2 −400 0 400 δκs −400 0 400 δκ a −400 0 400 δκa GW150914-like GW190412-like [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_f…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The joint posteriors on δκs and δκa when varying both at the same time for the GW150914-like (blue) and GW190412-like (red) injections. The inset in the top right show the posteriors converted to δκ1 and δκ2. The bold black lines indicate the injected values. strained …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The solid lines show the posteriors obtained for injections with varying values for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Results for δκs (left), δκa (middle), and δλs (right) for the seven GWTC-3.0 events that meet our selection criteria. All results are consistent with Kerr BHs in GR. C. Combined GWTC-4.0 results We can combine the results from individual events to ob￾tain more stringe…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison between our results (blue) and the results of the SIQM test performed by the LVK Collaboration (orange) for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Combined constraints on δκs obtained by hierarchically combining events only from O4a (orange, [33]) or including O1 – O4a (blue). For comparison, we show the posterior on δκs from GW241011 233834 (red), an event observed during O4b and the best single event SIQM cons…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Bayesian- (Bilby, orange) and FIM-analysis (gwbench, red) results for δκs for the GW150914-like injection (black) in the ET-only detector configuration. The 2d contours and ellipses cor￾respond to {1,2,3}-sigma credible regions. The numbers at the top correspond to th…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Bayesian- (Bilby, orange) and FIM-analysis (gwbench, red) results for δκa for the GW150914-like injection (black) in the ET-only detector configuration. The bold black lines indicate the injected values. There is a pole in the SIQM corrections close to the injected va…
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: The distributions of 90% upper bounds on the magnitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Carter, Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two Degrees of Freedom, Phys

    B. Carter, Axisymmetric Black Hole Has Only Two Degrees of Freedom, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

    1971

  2. [2]

    R. O. Hansen, Multipole moments of stationary space-times, J. Math. Phys.15, 46 (1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    N. V . Krishnendu, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Testing the binary black hole nature of a compact binary coalescence, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 091101 (2017), arXiv:1701.06318 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Z. Lyu, M. LaHaye, H. Yang, and B. Bonga, Probing spin- induced quadrupole moments in precessing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D109, 064081 (2024), arXiv:2308.09032 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    •The effective spinχ eff =(m 1χ1 +m 2χ2)/Mis nonzero at 90% credible level

    The number of GW cycles is calculated in the fre- quency domain betweenf min, usually 20 Hz, andf peak 22 . •The effective spinχ eff =(m 1χ1 +m 2χ2)/Mis nonzero at 90% credible level. The seven GW events from GWTC-3.0 that meet these criteria and their main properties are listed in Table II. To stay as close as possible to previous analyses performed by t...

  6. [6]

    K. G. Arun, A. Buonanno, G. Faye, and E. Ochsner, Higher- order spin effects in the amplitude and phase of gravitational waveforms emitted by inspiraling compact binaries: Ready-to- use gravitational waveforms, Phys. Rev. D79, 104023 (2009), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 84, 049901 (2011)], arXiv:0810.5336 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2009

  7. [7]

    C. K. Mishra, A. Kela, K. G. Arun, and G. Faye, Ready-to-use post-Newtonian gravitational waveforms for binary black holes with nonprecessing spins: An update, Phys. Rev. D93, 084054 (2016), arXiv:1601.05588 [gr-qc]. 17

    arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2015

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history, PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  3. [11]

    N. V . Krishnendu, M. Saleem, A. Samajdar, K. G. Arun, W. Del Pozzo, and C. K. Mishra, Constraints on the binary black hole nature of GW151226 and GW170608 from the mea- surement of spin-induced quadrupole moments, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104019 (2019), arXiv:1908.02247 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190814: Gravi- tational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object, Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190814: Gravi- tational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of general rel- ativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of general rel- ativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), GW241011 and GW241110: Exploring Binary Formation and Fundamental Physics with Asymmetric, High-spin Black Hole Coalescences, Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L21 (2025), arXiv:2510.26931 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Saleem, N

    M. Saleem, N. V . Krishnendu, A. Ghosh, A. Gupta, W. Del Pozzo, A. Ghosh, and K. G. Arun, Population infer- ence of spin-induced quadrupole moments as a probe for non- black hole compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D105, 104066 (2022), arXiv:2111.04135 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Divyajyoti, N. V . Krishnendu, M. Saleem, M. Colleoni, A. Vi- jaykumar, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Effect of double spin- precession and higher harmonics on spin-induced quadrupole moment measurements, Phys. Rev. D109, 023016 (2024), arXiv:2311.05506 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    N. V . Krishnendu, C. K. Mishra, and K. G. Arun, Spin- induced deformations and tests of binary black hole nature us- ing third-generation detectors, Phys. Rev. D99, 064008 (2019), arXiv:1811.00317 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Saini and N

    P. Saini and N. V . Krishnendu, Constraining the nature of dark compact objects with spin-induced octupole moment measure- ment, Phys. Rev. D109, 024009 (2024), arXiv:2308.01309 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. U. Naqvi and C. K. Mishra, Spin-induced Quadrupole Mo- ment (SIQM) Test for Eccentric Compact Binaries (2025) arXiv:2509.10675 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  13. [21]

    N. V . Krishnendu, Test for eccentric binaries based on the spin- induced quadrupole moment, Phys. Rev. D113, 124008 (2026), arXiv:2512.20579 [gr-qc]

    2026

  14. [22]

    Branchesiet al., Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07, 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07, 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Abacet al.(ET), The Science of the Einstein Telescope, JCAP03, 081, arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    A. Abacet al.(ET), The Science of the Einstein Telescope, JCAP03, 081, arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    N. V . Krishnendu and A. B. Yelikar, Testing the Kerr nature of supermassive and intermediate-mass black hole binaries using spin-induced multipole moment measurements, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 205019 (2020), arXiv:1904.12712 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Kong and J.-d

    Y .-L. Kong and J.-d. Zhang, Probing the spin-induced quadrupole moment of massive black holes with the inspi- ral of binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D110, 024059 (2024), arXiv:2401.12066 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Piarulli, S

    M. Piarulli, S. Marsat, E. M. S ¨anger, A. Buonanno, J. Stein- hoff, and N. Tamanini, Parametrized test of general relativity for LISA massive black hole binary inspirals, Phys. Rev. D112, 124044 (2025), arXiv:2510.06330 [gr-qc]

    2025

  19. [27]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, R. Cotesta, A. Ghosh, N. Sennett, and J. Steinhoff, Tests of general relativity with gravitational- wave observations using a flexible theory-independent method, Phys. Rev. D107, 044020 (2023), arXiv:2203.13937 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of Gen- eral Relativity with GW170817, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 011102 (2019), arXiv:1811.00364 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Tests of General Relativity with the Binary Black Hole Signals from the LIGO- Virgo Catalog GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  22. [30]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190425: Ob- servation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass ∼3.4M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett.892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    E. M. S ¨angeret al., Tests of general relativity with GW230529: A neutron star merging with a lower mass-gap compact object, Phys. Rev. D113, 084070 (2026), arXiv:2406.03568 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  24. [32]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), GW230814: Investigation of a Loud Gravitational-wave Sig- nal Observed with a Single Detector, Astrophys. J. Lett.1004, L23 (2026), arXiv:2509.07348 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  25. [33]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Black Hole Spectroscopy and Tests of General Relativ- ity with GW250114, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026), arXiv:2509.08099 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  26. [34]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), GWTC- 4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameterized Tests, (2026), arXiv:2603.19020 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  27. [35]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), GW240925 and GW250207: Astrophysical Calibration of Gravitational-wave Detectors 10.1103/gzrj-mwv3 (2026), arXiv:2605.11703 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Blanchet, Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves, Living Rev

    L. Blanchet, Post-Newtonian Theory for Gravitational Waves, Living Rev. Rel.27, 4 (2024), arXiv:1310.1528 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    B. S. Sathyaprakash and S. V . Dhurandhar, Choice of filters for the detection of gravitational waves from coalescing binaries, Phys. Rev. D44, 3819 (1991)

    1991

  30. [38]

    Cutler and E

    C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Gravitational waves from merging compact binaries: How accurately can one extract the binary’s parameters from the inspiral wave form?, Phys. Rev. D49, 2658 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402014

    1994 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Buonanno, B

    A. Buonanno, B. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y . Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D80, 084043 (2009), arXiv:0907.0700 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Pappas and T

    G. Pappas and T. A. Apostolatos, Revising the multipole mo- ments of numerical spacetimes, and its consequences, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 231104 (2012), arXiv:1201.6067 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Pappas and T

    G. Pappas and T. A. Apostolatos, Multipole Moments of nu- merical spacetimes, (2012), arXiv:1211.6299 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Harry and T

    I. Harry and T. Hinderer, Observing and measuring the neutron- star equation-of-state in spinning binary neutron star systems, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 145010 (2018), arXiv:1801.09972 [gr- qc]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [43]

    F. D. Ryan, Spinning boson stars with large selfinteraction, Phys. Rev. D55, 6081 (1997). 18

    1997

  36. [44]

    Uchikata and S

    N. Uchikata and S. Yoshida, Slowly rotating thin shell gravas- tars, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 025005 (2016), arXiv:1506.06485 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  37. [45]

    H. S. Chia, T. D. P. Edwards, R. N. George, A. Zimmer- man, A. Coogan, K. Freese, C. Messick, and C. N. Setzer, Di- mensionally Reduced Waveforms for Spin-Induced Quadrupole Searches, (2022), arXiv:2211.00039 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    R. Das, N. V . Krishnendu, M. Saleem, C. K. Mishra, and K. G. Arun, Testing the Kerr hypothesis beyond the quadrupole with GW241011, (2026), arXiv:2604.09828 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Pompiliet al., Laying the foundation of the effective-one- body waveform models SEOBNRv5: Improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning nonprecessing binary black holes, Phys

    L. Pompiliet al., Laying the foundation of the effective-one- body waveform models SEOBNRv5: Improved accuracy and efficiency for spinning nonprecessing binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D108, 124035 (2023), arXiv:2303.18039 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Ashton, C

    G. Ashton, C. Talbot, S. Roy, G. Pratten, T.-H. Pang, M. Agathos, T. Baka, E. S¨anger, A. Mehta, J. Steinhoff, E. Mag- gio, A. Ghosh, A. Vijaykumar, R. Enficiaud, and L. Pompili, Bilby TGR (2025)

    2025

  41. [49]

    Ashtonet al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys

    G. Ashtonet al., BILBY: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    I. M. Romero-Shawet al., Bayesian inference for compact bi- nary coalescences with bilby: validation and application to the first LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, LVK Algorithm Library - LALSuite, Free software (GPL) (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    Wette, SWIGLAL: Python and Octave interfaces to the LALSuite gravitational-wave data analysis libraries, SoftwareX 12, 100634 (2020), arXiv:2012.09552 [astro-ph.IM]

    K. Wette, SWIGLAL: Python and Octave interfaces to the LALSuite gravitational-wave data analysis libraries, SoftwareX 12, 100634 (2020), arXiv:2012.09552 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    J. S. Speagle, dynesty: a dynamic nested sampling package for estimating Bayesian posteriors and evidences, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro- ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Koposov, J

    S. Koposov, J. Speagle, K. Barbary, G. Ashton, E. Bennett, J. Buchner, C. Scheffler, C. Talbot, B. Cook, J. Guillochon, P. Cubillos, A. A. Ramos, M. Dartiailh, Ilya, E. Tollerud, D. Lang, B. Johnson, jtmendel, E. Higson, T. Vandal, T. Day- lan, R. Angus, patelR, P. Cargile, P....

    2025

  47. [55]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190412: Obser- vation of a Binary-Black-Hole Coalescence with Asymmetric Masses, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190412: Obser- vation of a Binary-Black-Hole Coalescence with Asymmetric Masses, Phys. Rev. D102, 043015 (2020), arXiv:2004.08342 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  49. [57]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Rev. Rel.23, 3 (2020), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  50. [58]

    O’Reillyet al.,Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper, Tech

    B. O’Reillyet al.,Noise curves used for Simulations in the update of the Observing Scenarios Paper, Tech. Rep. LIGO- T2000012 (LIGO Project, 2022)

    2022

  51. [59]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collabora- tion and the KAGRA Collaboration,Prospects for Observ- ing and Localizing Gravitational-Wave Transients with Ad- vanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Tech. Rep. LIGO- P1200087-v42 (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration a...

    2013

  52. [60]

    Agathos, W

    M. Agathos, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, J. Veitch, and S. Vitale, TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with grav- itational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D89, 082001 (2014), ar...

    2014 arXiv

  53. [61]

    J. Meidamet al., Parametrized tests of the strong-field dynam- ics of general relativity using gravitational wave signals from coalescing binary black holes: Fast likelihood calculations and sensitivity of the method, Phys. Rev. D97, 044033 (2018), arXiv:1712.08772 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [62]

    S. Roy, M. Haney, G. Pratten, P. T. H. Pang, and C. Van Den Broeck, Improved parametrized test of general relativity using the IMRPhenomX waveform family: Including higher harmonics and precession, Phys. Rev. D113, 024016 (2026), arXiv:2504.21147 [gr-qc]

    2026

  55. [63]

    Pratten, S

    G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos- Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Setting the cornerstone for a family of models for gravitational waves from com- pact binaries: The dominant harmonic for nonprecessing qua- sicircular black holes, Phys. Rev. D102...

    2020 arXiv

  56. [64]

    N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, A. Ghosh, S. Ghonge, M. Saleem, N. V . Krishnendu, and J. A. Clark, Investigating the relation be- tween gravitational wave tests of general relativity, Phys. Rev. D105, 044020 (2022), arXiv:2109.06988 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), 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. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC- 3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), GWTC- 3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Ad- vanced Virgo, SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Open data from the first and second observing runs of Advanced LIGO and Ad- vanced Virgo, SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  62. [70]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of Compact Binary Co- alescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run - Parameter Estimation Data Re- lease , 10.5281/zenodo.6513631 (2022)

    2022 doi

  63. [71]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Open Data from the Third Observing Run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO, Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Open Data from the Third Observing Run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO, Astrophys. J. Suppl.267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration, GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coales- cences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run — Parameter estimation data re- lease , 10.5281/zenodo.5546663 (2021)

    2021 doi

  65. [73]

    Hannam, P

    M. Hannam, P. Schmidt, A. Boh´e, L. Haegel, S. Husa, F. Ohme, G. Pratten, and M. P ¨urrer, Simple Model of Complete Precess- ing Black-Hole-Binary Gravitational Waveforms, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 151101 (2014), arXiv:1308.3271 [gr-qc]. 19

    2014 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Boh ´e, M

    A. Boh ´e, M. Hannam, S. Husa, F. Ohme, M. Puerrer, and P. Schmidt,PhenomPv2 - Technical Notes for LAL Implemen- tation, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T1500602 (LIGO Project, 2016)

    2016

  67. [75]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), GWTC- 4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA Observing Run, Astrophys. J. Lett.1004, L22 (2026), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  68. [76]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration, Data release for GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. II. Parameterized Tests , 10.5281/zen- odo.21403342 (2026)

    2026 doi

  69. [77]

    M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Hierarchical test of general relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 121101 (2019), arXiv:1904.08011 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  70. [78]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), GWTC- 4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests, (2026), arXiv:2603.19019 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Hildet al., Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Grav- itational Wave Observatories, Class

    S. Hildet al., Sensitivity Studies for Third-Generation Grav- itational Wave Observatories, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Srivastava, D

    V . Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer Detectors, Astrophys. J.931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Poisson and C

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, Gravitational waves from inspiral- ing compact binaries: Parameter estimation using second post- Newtonian wave forms, Phys. Rev. D52, 848 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9502040

    1995

  74. [82]

    Borhanian, GWBENCH: a novel Fisher information package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Class

    S. Borhanian, GWBENCH: a novel Fisher information package for gravitational-wave benchmarking, Class. Quant. Grav.38, 175014 (2021), arXiv:2010.15202 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Morisaki, Accelerating parameter estimation of gravita- tional waves from compact binary coalescence using adap- tive frequency resolutions, Phys

    S. Morisaki, Accelerating parameter estimation of gravita- tional waves from compact binary coalescence using adap- tive frequency resolutions, Phys. Rev. D104, 044062 (2021), arXiv:2104.07813 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Adhikari and S

    N. Adhikari and S. Morisaki, Accelerating gravitational-wave parametrized tests of general relativity using a multiband de- composition of likelihood, Phys. Rev. D106, 104053 (2022), arXiv:2208.03731 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Chandra, gwforge: a user-friendly package to generate gravitational-wave mock data, Class

    K. Chandra, gwforge: a user-friendly package to generate gravitational-wave mock data, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 025003 (2025), arXiv:2407.21109 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Cosmic Star-Formation History, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  79. [87]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Popula- tion of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Popula- tion of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

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