Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 54 references

Reconstructing Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational-Wave Signals with Transdimensional Bayesian Inference

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

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

Pith's one-line read Transdimensional Bayesian inference reconstructs core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals with up to 85% overlap, and the dominant proto-neutron star mode survives even at low overlap.

desk verdict A solid, honest methods paper for tBilby on CCSN signals whose central astrophysical payoff—PNS radius from low-overlap reconstructions—is asserted from spectrograms, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05456 v1 pith:V3YJDQE6 submitted 2026-08-05 astro-ph.HE

Hayden Chapman , Jade Powell , Nir Guttman , Yi Shuen Christine Lee , Paul D. Lasky This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords core-collapsesupernovaegravitational-waveburstreconstructiontransdimensionalBayesianinferencetBilbysine-Gaussianwaveletschirpletsproto-neutronstaruniversalrelations
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

Core-collapse supernovae are expected to emit gravitational waves from the newborn proto-neutron star, but the signals are stochastic, contain multiple features, and span a wide frequency band, so reconstruction cannot rely on template waveforms. This paper shows that transdimensional Bayesian inference, in which the number of wavelets used to describe the signal is itself a sampled parameter, recovers up to 85% of the injected signal's overlap for the loudest simulated models. The key finding is that even when the overlap between injected and reconstructed waveforms is low, the rising-frequency oscillation of the dominant proto-neutron star mode remains visible in the spectrogram. That means a real detection could still yield a measurement of the proto-neutron star's shrinking size through universal relations, even in noisy data at signal-to-noise ratios as low as 20.

What carries the argument

The central object is the transdimensional Bayesian model tBilby, where the number of basis functions $N$ is a free parameter sampled alongside each wavelet's amplitude, central frequency, quality factor, time, and phase. The basis functions are sine-Gaussian wavelets and chirplets; a chirplet adds a frequency-derivative parameter $\dot{f}_0$, so the wavelet's frequency can sweep with time, and it reduces to a sine Gaussian when $\dot{f}_0 = 0$. A nested-sampling algorithm draws $N$ and all wavelet parameters jointly, treating parameters beyond the drawn $N$ as ghosts that are marginalized away. This lets the posterior automatically choose how many wavelets the data require, which is what makes the reconstruction morphology-independent.

What would settle it

Run the same tBilby pipeline on a CCSN waveform that includes prompt convection, SASI emission below 200 Hz, and a dominant mode that climbs past 1500 Hz, injected at a signal-to-noise ratio of 20 in the same noise; if the reconstructed spectrogram's dominant-mode track deviates from the injected track by more than the width required by the PNS universal relations, then the claim that low-overlap reconstructions still permit PNS size statements is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the transdimensional Bayesian framework tBilby, previously used for binary black holes, can reconstruct simulated core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals added to Gaussian noise at a two-detector design sensitivity. Overlaps between the injected and median-reconstructed waveforms reach about 0.85 for the rapidly rotating model m39 at the highest signal-to-noise ratios, with the other models between about 0.35 and 0.75. Crucially, even at low overlap values the reconstructed spectrogram preserves the dominant proto-neutron star f/g-mode, the feature that sweeps upward in frequency as the proto-neutron star contracts. The paper argues that this preservation, not the raw overlap, is what enables astrophysical inference about the size of the proto-neutron star, and that the method works down to a network signal-to-noise ratio of 20.

Load-bearing premise

The entire demonstration rests on four simulated waveforms that the paper itself calls 'the most simple first step,' because each mainly contains a single visible proto-neutron-star mode; real supernova signals are expected to add stochastic convection, SASI emission, extra modes, and frequencies above the 1024 Hz cutoff used here.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • tBilby becomes a viable morphology-independent reconstruction tool for core-collapse supernova bursts.
  • A single detected core-collapse supernova in the Milky Way could yield a measurement of the proto-neutron star's radius evolution even at marginal signal-to-noise ratios.
  • Chirplets match sine-Gaussian reconstruction quality while needing roughly half the wavelets, so faster analyses are possible for the same fidelity.
  • Overlap alone is not the right figure of merit for CCSN reconstruction: spectrogram-level capture of the dominant mode is what determines astrophysical usability.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, implicit in the paper, is to feed the reconstructed dominant-mode track directly into the PNS universal relations inside the same Bayesian framework, producing a posterior for the radius rather than a post-processing step.
  • Because the method's utility lives in spectrogram features rather than overlap, future reconstruction studies could adopt frequency-track recovery as an explicit metric.
  • The transdimensional approach should be tested on waveforms with multiple simultaneous modes and on the higher-frequency emission that real CCSNe are expected to show; the 1024 Hz cutoff is a computational choice, not a physical one.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper applies the transdimensional Bayesian inference code tBilby to reconstruct four simulated core-collapse supernova gravitational-wave signals (s18, y20, m39, z85) injected into synthetic Advanced LIGO noise at network SNRs from 20 to 60, using two wavelet dictionaries (sine-Gaussians and chirplets). The authors report noise-weighted overlaps between injected and reconstructed waveforms of up to about 0.85, counts of the number of wavelets used, log Bayes factors for the two dictionaries, and spectrograms of example reconstructions. They conclude that tBilby can capture up to 85% of the CCSN signal features and that, even at low overlap, the dominant proto-neutron-star mode is sufficiently recovered to make statements about the evolving PNS radius.

Significance. The injection-recovery methodology is standard and the overlap computation is well defined; the use of simulated signals with known ground truth avoids circular reasoning, and the comparison between sine-Gaussian and chirplet dictionaries is a useful addition to the burst-reconstruction literature. If the quantitative PNS-radius inference were actually demonstrated, the paper would establish an important bridge between unmodelled burst reconstruction and astrophysical parameter estimation. However, as it stands the novel astrophysical payoff is asserted rather than measured, so the significance of the paper currently rests mainly on the reconstruction quality results.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract; Section IV; Section V] The paper's central astrophysical claim — that low-overlap reconstructions still capture enough of the dominant mode to make statements about the evolving PNS size — is not tested quantitatively. Section IV (Figures 6–8) supports this by visual inspection of spectrograms only; the authors never extract an instantaneous-frequency track from the reconstructions, never apply the universal relations of Refs. [35–37], and never compare a reconstructed PNS radius with the known radius of the injected waveform. Because the overlap is a single global scalar, equal overlap values do not guarantee equal fidelity of the mode's frequency evolution. I recommend adding a quantitative analysis: estimate the dominant-mode frequency evolution from each reconstruction, apply a universal relation, and report bias and uncertainty in PNS radius as a function of SNR and overlap, using the injected waveform's true radius as ground truth.
  2. [Section IV, Figure 8] At SNR 20, Figure 8 shows that most injections are reconstructed with one or two wavelets, and the text states that these capture only the highest-amplitude part of the signal, often around shock revival rather than the later PNS-mode evolution. This directly conflicts with the low-overlap PNS-size claim: if the reconstruction does not contain the frequency evolution of the mode, it cannot by itself support a radius estimate. The manuscript should state explicitly, with quantitative evidence, the lowest SNR or overlap at which a useful PNS-radius measurement is possible, and should separate shock-revival timing information from PNS-mode frequency evolution.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (2)-(3)] The printed Fourier-domain wavelet expressions appear to contain typos; for example, the second term in Eq. (2) has \(\exp[-Q^2 f/f_0]\), which is not the standard negative-frequency component of a sine-Gaussian. Please check the equations against the implemented dictionary and correct them or provide the code.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption states the overlap is 'calculated using Equation 5', but the overlap is defined in Eq. (4) and Eq. (5) defines the inner product; please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [Section IV and Figure 4 caption] The text says the number of wavelets is the maximum likelihood value, whereas the figure caption says 'maximum posterior values'; please use consistent terminology and state which point estimate is shown.
  4. [Section I and Section III] There are a few proofreading errors, including 'the SASI mode mode' and 'paramaters'; please correct these.
  5. [Section III] Please define 'network SNR' explicitly (e.g., quadrature sum of single-detector SNRs) and state whether each plotted point is a single noise realization or an average, since Figures 3–5 show no uncertainty estimates.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the overlap benchmark is external to the method; the PNS-radius statement is an evidentiary gap, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is the overlap between injected and reconstructed waveforms, computed via Eq. (4) against simulated signals in synthetic Advanced LIGO noise at known SNRs. The injected CCSN waveforms are independent simulation outputs from Refs. [16,43,44], not derived from tBilby or from the overlap statistic, and the overlap is a goodness-of-fit measure against those injections rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work in a way that forces the result: the tBilby code [40], the waveform models, and the universal relations [35-37] are prior independent inputs or targets for future work, not assumptions equivalent to the conclusion. The claim that low-overlap reconstructions still capture enough of the dominant f/g-mode to make statements about PNS size (Abstract; Section IV) is asserted from spectrogram inspection without a quantitative radius extraction, which is an evidentiary and support gap rather than a circular step. Because the benchmark is external to the reconstruction method, the derivation chain is self-contained; no circularity was identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a chain of domain assumptions about waveform representativeness, noise stationarity, known sky position, and the validity of universal relations. These are not new postulates but inherited assumptions that would need to be relaxed for a real detection. The analysis settings (max wavelets, frequency band, sampler live points) are chosen by hand and could affect the reported overlaps.

free parameters (5)
  • Maximum number of wavelets, N_max = 15
    Set as an upper bound for the transdimensional model; m39 and y20 signals saturate this bound at high SNR, which may truncate the reconstruction and lower overlap.
  • Maximum analysis frequency = 1024 Hz
    Limited by the 2048 Hz sampling rate; real CCSN signals can emit above 1000 Hz, so this cutoff may omit signal power.
  • Lower frequency cutoff = 30 Hz
    Chosen to remove low-frequency noise; may exclude SASI or other low-frequency features.
  • Number of live points = 1500
    Sampler setting for dynesty; convergence of the transdimensional posterior depends on this choice.
  • Signal-to-noise ratio range = 20 to 60
    Selected to match the regime where current CCSN searches can find signals; results outside this range are not tested.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The four selected CCSN waveform models are representative of real CCSN gravitational-wave emission.
    The paper states these were 'selected as the most simple first step' (Section V); real signals may have additional modes and stochastic features that could reduce reconstruction performance.
  • domain assumption Detector noise is stationary, Gaussian, and described by the Advanced LIGO design-sensitivity PSD.
    Injections use synthetic Gaussian noise; real LIGO noise is non-stationary and contains glitches, which may affect reconstruction quality.
  • domain assumption The universal relations between gravitational-wave frequency and proto-neutron-star properties are valid.
    The conclusion that captured mode enables statements about PNS size relies on relations from refs [35-37], which are not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The time and sky position of the source are known exactly.
    Section III: 'we assume that the time and sky position of the gravitational-wave signal is already known'; in real detections these are uncertain, which could degrade reconstruction.
  • standard math The standard gravitational-wave transient likelihood (Veitch et al. 2015) applies.
    Used for all likelihood evaluations; standard in the field.
  • standard math The tBilby implementation of transdimensional nested sampling is correct.
    Relies on the software presented in ref [40]; the paper uses it as a black box.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational-Wave Signals with Transdimensional Bayesian Inference." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/V3YJDQE6

@misc{pith2026260805456,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing Core-Collapse Supernova Gravitational-Wave Signals with Transdimensional Bayesian Inference},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/V3YJDQE6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05456}
}
read the original abstract

Core-collapse supernovae (CCSNe) are promising future sources of gravitational waves for current and next-generation observatories. Reconstructing CCSN gravitational-wave signals is challenging as they contain stochastic elements, have multiple complex features, and cover a wide frequency band. The stochasticity of the signal in particular motivates the need for morphology-independent reconstruction techniques which, once observed, will enable us to infer properties of the newly born proto-neutron star, the rotation, and the unknown CCSN explosion mechanism. In this work, we investigate the reconstruction of gravitational-wave signals from CCSNe using the transdimensional Bayesian inference framework tBilby. We demonstrate the method using simulated signals in synthetic Advanced LIGO detector noise at a range of signal-to-noise ratios. We reconstruct the signals using two types of wavelets: sine Gaussians and chirplets. We calculate overlaps between injected and reconstructed signals of up to 85%. We find that even when reconstruction overlap values are low, enough of the time-frequency structure of the dominant mode is captured to still make statements about the size of the evolving proto-neutron star. These capabilities establish tBilby as a powerful tool for gravitational-wave astronomy with burst sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05456 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The CCSN simulated signals used in this study at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Examples of the wavelets used in this study. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Overlap between the injected and reconstructed waveforms, calculated using Equation 5, as a function of the signal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: For each injected waveform, we show the number of wavelets used to reconstruct the signal as a function of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The log Bayes factors for models s18, y20, m39 and z85 at different signal-to-noise ratios. There are no significant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Gravitational-wave spectrograms. From top to bottom are models s18, y20, m39 and z85. The left column shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Same as Figure 6, however the signal-to-noise of the injected signal is 35. A significant part of the mode is still visible. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Same as Figure 6 and 7, however the signal-to-noise of the injected signal is 20. The majority of the injections are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Burrows and D

    A. Burrows and D. Vartanyan, Nature (London)589, 29 (2021), 2009.14157

    arXiv 2021

  2. [2]

    frequency (Hz) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 FIG

    frequency (Hz) 250 500 750 1000 . frequency (Hz) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 FIG. 7: Same as Figure 6, however the signal-to-noise of the injected signal is 35. A significant part of the mode is still visible. tralian Government, and from the Victorian Highe...

    work page

  3. [3]

    frequency (Hz) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 FIG

    frequency (Hz) 250 500 750 1000 . frequency (Hz) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 FIG. 8: Same as Figure 6 and 7, however the signal-to-noise of the injected signal is 20. The majority of the injections are reconstructed with only a single wavelet

    work page

  4. [4]

    Kuroda, A

    T. Kuroda, A. Arcones, T. Takiwaki, and K. Kotake, Astrophys. J.896, 102 (2020), 2003.02004

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    Jerkstrand, D

    A. Jerkstrand, D. Milisavljevic, and B. M¨ uller, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics, Volume 2 (2026), vol. 2, pp. 639–668, 2503.01321

    arXiv 2026

  6. [6]

    Janka, in Handbook of Supernovae, edited by A

    H.-T. Janka, in Handbook of Supernovae, edited by A. W. Alsabti and P. Murdin (2017), p. 1095

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Akutsu, M

    Kagra Collaboration, T. Akutsu, M. Ando, K. Arai, Y. Arai, S. Araki, A. Araya, N. Aritomi, H. Asada, Y. Aso, et al., Nature Astronomy3, 35 (2019), 1811.08079

    arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), 1411.4547

    arXiv 2015

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Alle- mandou, A. Allocca, J. Amarni, P. Astone, G. Balestri, G. Ballardin, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2015), 1408.3978

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, Y. Zheng, J. M. Antelis, M. Ben- jamin, M.-A. Bizouard, A. Casallas-Lagos, P. Cerd´ a- Dur´ an, D. Davis, D. Gondek-Rosi´ nska, S. Klimenko, et al., Phys. Rev. D110, 042007 (2024), 2305.16146

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabo- ration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2605.27225 (2026), 2605.27225

    2026 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Powell and P

    J. Powell and P. D. Lasky, PASA42, e030 (2025), 2410.12105

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M¨ uller, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2403.18952 (2024), 2403.18952

    B. M¨ uller, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2403.18952 (2024), 2403.18952

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A. G. Abac, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, et al., Astrophys. J.985, 183 (2025), 2410.16565

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, J. M. Antelis, M. Benjamin, M. Cavagli` a, D. Gondek-Rosi´ nska, T. Hansen, S. Kli- menko, M. D. Morales, C. Moreno, S. Mukherjee, et al., Phys. Rev. D104, 102002 (2021), 2104.06462

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 1178 (2019), 1812.05738

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Kuroda, K

    T. Kuroda, K. Kotake, K. Hayama, and T. Takiwaki, Astrophys. J.851, 62 (2017), 1708.05252

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    E. P. O’Connor and S. M. Couch, Astrophys. J.865, 81 (2018), 1807.07579

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Vartanyan and A

    D. Vartanyan and A. Burrows, Astrophys. J.901, 108 (2020), 2007.07261

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Andresen, E

    H. Andresen, E. M¨ uller, H.-T. Janka, A. Summa, K. Gill, and M. Zanolin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 2238 (2019), 1810.07638

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Radice, V

    D. Radice, V. Morozova, A. Burrows, D. Vartanyan, and H. Nagakura, Astrophys. J. Lett.876, L9 (2019), 1812.07703

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Mezzacappa and M

    A. Mezzacappa and M. Zanolin, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2401.11635 (2024), 2401.11635

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K.-C. Pan, M. Liebend¨ orfer, S. M. Couch, and F.-K. Thielemann, Astrophys. J.914, 140 (2021), 2010.02453

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Jakobus, B

    P. Jakobus, B. M¨ uller, A. Heger, S. Zha, J. Powell, A. Motornenko, J. Steinheimer, and H. St¨ ocker, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 191201 (2023), 2301.06515

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    L. Walk, T. Foglizzo, and I. Tamborra, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063014 (2023), 2212.07467

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Burrows, T

    A. Burrows, T. Wang, and D. Vartanyan, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2607.06664 (2026), 2607.06664

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    J. M. Blondin, A. Mezzacappa, and C. DeMarino, Astro- phys. J.584, 971 (2003), astro-ph/0210634. 9

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Cusinato, M

    M. Cusinato, M. Obergaulinger, and M. ´A. Aloy, Astron. Astrophys.705, A179 (2026), 2507.16903

    2026

  21. [29]

    Foglizzo, Astron

    T. Foglizzo, Astron. Astrophys.692, A196 (2024), 2409.12725

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. W. Bruenn and A. Mezzacappa, Astrophys. J. Lett. 433, L45 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    N. Raza, J. McIver, G. D´ alya, and P. Raffai, Phys. Rev. D106, 063014 (2022), 2203.08960

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Drago, S

    M. Drago, S. Klimenko, C. Lazzaro, E. Milotti, G. Mitsel- makher, V. Necula, B. O’Brian, G. A. Prodi, F. Salemi, M. Szczepanczyk, et al., SoftwareX14, 100678 (2021), 2006.12604

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity32, 135012 (2015), 1410.3835

    2015 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Pastor-Marcos, P

    C. Pastor-Marcos, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, D. Walker, A. Torres- Forn´ e, E. Abdikamalov, S. Richers, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D109, 063028 (2024), 2308.03456

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Y. S. C. Lee, M. J. Szczepa´ nczyk, T. Mishra, M. Mill- house, and A. Melatos, Phys. Rev. D112, 082006 (2025), 2510.01614

    2025

  28. [36]

    M. C. Edwards, Phys. Rev. D103, 024025 (2021), 2009.07367

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D105, 063018 (2022), 2201.01397

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Torres-Forn´ e, P

    A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, M. Obergaulinger, B. M¨ uller, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 051102 (2019), 1902.10048

    2019 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Sotani, T

    H. Sotani, T. Takiwaki, and H. Togashi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 123009 (2021), 2110.03131

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    H. Tong, N. Guttman, T. A. Clarke, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, E. Payne, R. Nathan, B. Farr, M. Fish- bach, G. Ashton, et al., Astrophys. J. Supp. Ser.276, 50 (2025), 2404.04460

    2025 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Bruel, M.-A

    T. Bruel, M.-A. Bizouard, M. Obergaulinger, P. Maturana-Russel, A. Torres-Forn´ e, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Christensen, J. A. Font, and R. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 107, 083029 (2023), 2301.10019

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Powell, A

    J. Powell, A. Iess, M. Llorens-Monteagudo, M. Ober- gaulinger, B. M¨ uller, A. Torres-Forn´ e, E. Cuoco, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D109, 063019 (2024), 2311.18221

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, 4665 (2020), 2002.10115

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ashton et al., Astrophys

    G. Ashton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), 1811.02042

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    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, et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499, 3295 (2020), 2006.00714

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    K. C. LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collabora- tion, Virgo and kagra noise curves for use in simulations (2022), URL https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2200043

    2022

  39. [47]

    Powell, B

    J. Powell, B. M¨ uller, and A. Heger, Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc.503, 2108 (2021), 2101.06889

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Veitch, V

    J. Veitch, V. Raymond, B. Farr, W. Farr, P. Graff, S. Vi- tale, B. Aylott, K. Blackburn, N. Christensen, M. Cough- lin, et al., Phys. Rev. D91, 042003 (2015), 1409.7215

    2015 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Powell, B

    J. Powell, B. M¨ uller, D. R. Aguilera-Dena, and N. Langer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, 6070 (2023), 2212.00200

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), 1904.02180

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Millhouse, N

    M. Millhouse, N. J. Cornish, and T. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D97, 104057 (2018), 1804.03239

    2018 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Powell and B

    J. Powell and B. M¨ uller, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 532, 4326 (2024), 2406.09691

    2024 arXiv

  45. [54]

    L. Choi, A. Burrows, and D. Vartanyan, Astrophys. J. 975, 12 (2024), 2408.01525

    2024 arXiv

  46. [1000]

    frequency (Hz) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 FIG

    frequency (Hz) 250 500 750 1000 . frequency (Hz) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 time (s) 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 250 500 750 1000 FIG. 6: Gravitational-wave spectrograms. From top to bottom are models s18, y20, m39 and z85. The lef...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.