Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A heavy-tailed hyperbolic likelihood, applied across the full frequency band, recovers binary black-hole parameters from glitchy and overlapping-signal data where Gaussian and Whittle likelihoods fail.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 20:47 UTC pith:XGCPACRN

load-bearing objection Full-band hyperbolic likelihood for GW PE: a plausible incremental step with a good Gaussian sanity check, but the central robustness claim rests on a single glitch realization and an unvalidated frequency-domain assumption. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.22074 v1 pith:XGCPACRN submitted 2026-02-25 gr-qc

Beyond Gaussian Assumptions: A new robust statistical framework for gravitational-wave data analysis

Argyro Sasli , Minas Karamanis , Nikolaos Karnesis , Michael W. Coughlin , Vuk Mandic , Uro\v{s} Seljak , Nikolaos Stergioulas This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords hyperbolic likelihoodheavy-tailed likelihoodgravitational-wave parameter estimationnon-Gaussian noiseglitchesLISALIGOWhittle likelihood
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper extends a heavy-tailed 'hyperbolic' likelihood to the full frequency domain for gravitational-wave parameter estimation, replacing the standard Gaussian noise assumption with a flexible distribution whose parameters are inferred alongside the source. The central claim is that this likelihood does no worse than the usual Whittle likelihood when noise is Gaussian — shown on a simulated LISA massive black-hole binary — and does better on real LIGO data containing glitches or overlapping sub-threshold signals, where it reduces bias and produces credible intervals that actually contain the injected signal. The glitch case is the sharpest: only the hyperbolic likelihood keeps the true waveform inside its 90% credible interval, while Gaussian and Whittle reconstructions exclude it over large frequency ranges. The reason a reader should care is that non-Gaussian noise, transients, and signal confusion are expected to be routine in next-generation detectors, so a likelihood that is robust to them without requiring a parametric noise model could make parameter estimation more trustworthy.

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is that the symmetric generalized hyperbolic likelihood, previously tested on narrow frequency bands, can be applied over the entire frequency domain of a gravitational-wave analysis and jointly infer both the source parameters and the noise distribution's heavy-tail parameters (α and segment-dependent δ). In simulated LISA data with stationary Gaussian noise, the hyperbolic and Whittle likelihoods give statistically indistinguishable parameter posteriors and PSD reconstructions, confirming that the heavy-tailed model converges to the Gaussian limit when appropriate. In real Advanced LIGO data with a long-lasting low-SNR BBH, seven overlapping sub-threshold BBHs

What carries the argument

The hyperbolic likelihood Λ_H is built from the symmetric generalized hyperbolic distribution, parameterized by α (a common tail-shape parameter across the band) and δ (a segment-dependent scale parameter per frequency segment), with the quadratic residual r_i = x_i^T bΔ^{-1} x_i as the argument; in the frequency domain d = 2 n_c real degrees of freedom per bin. Its role is to absorb non-Gaussian residual structure directly through the inferred α and δ values, so the method needs no explicit parametric model of the noise power spectral density, and it reduces to the Gaussian/Whittle limit when the data are Gaussian.

Load-bearing premise

The frequency-domain extension assumes that, after the signal is subtracted, the residual Fourier coefficients are independent across frequency bins and jointly follow the symmetric generalized hyperbolic distribution with an estimated dispersion matrix; if real residuals are correlated across bins or not of this form, the likelihood is misspecified and the demonstrated robustness may not generalize.

What would settle it

Take a glitch-contaminated LIGO segment whose residual noise has a narrow-band spectral feature so residuals are correlated across neighboring frequency bins, inject a BBH signal, and run the hyperbolic likelihood; if the true parameters fall outside the 90% credible interval as often as they do for the Whittle likelihood, the independence/GH assumption is the limiting factor. Alternatively, rerun the ground-based glitch comparison giving the Gaussian likelihood the same per-segment PSD-correction parameters as the Whittle and hyperbolic likelihoods; if the Gaussian then recovers the signal, t

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Under Gaussian noise, the hyperbolic likelihood matches the Whittle likelihood, so switching to it costs nothing in the ideal case.
  • In non-Gaussian or glitch-contaminated data, the hyperbolic likelihood reduces bias in key binary parameters such as chirp mass and luminosity distance compared with Gaussian and Whittle likelihoods.
  • Because the noise distribution is characterized by the inferred hyperbolic parameters, the method can flag and quantify non-Gaussianity rather than requiring it to be excised or modeled in advance.
  • The approach is directly applicable to LISA-like space-based analyses and to future ground-based detectors where overlapping signals and noise transients are expected to be common.
  • The vectorized implementation makes the likelihood cheap enough to integrate into end-to-end inference pipelines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The frequency-domain independence and distributional assumption for residuals is the main thing to test on more diverse real noise; if residual Fourier coefficients are correlated across bins, the hyperbolic likelihood's robustness may erode, so applying it to long stretches with known non-stationary artifacts would be a natural stress test.
  • The glitch result suggests a practical triage strategy: run a heavy-tailed likelihood alongside a Gaussian one, and treat disagreement as a warning that data-quality mitigation may be incomplete.
  • One could extend the same framework to continuous-wave and stochastic-background searches, where non-Gaussian noise is also a concern, though the paper only demonstrates transient sources.
  • The comparison with Whittle on ground-based data gives Whittle per-segment PSD corrections while the Gaussian baseline does not; a fairer head-to-head that also corrects the Gaussian PSD would clarify whether the Gaussian failure is due to PSD misspecification or to the likelihood shape itself.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper extends the symmetric generalized hyperbolic (GH) likelihood introduced by the authors to full-frequency-domain gravitational-wave parameter estimation. In the proposed model, residual Fourier coefficients are treated as i.i.d. symmetric GH vectors, with a common shape parameter α and band-dependent scale parameters δ_Ns, replacing explicit PSD modeling. The method is tested on (i) simulated LISA Gaussian noise with a massive black hole binary, where it is compared with the Whittle likelihood, and (ii) real LIGO data containing overlapping sub-threshold signals and a glitch, where it is compared with Gaussian and Whittle likelihoods. The paper claims that the hyperbolic likelihood performs comparably to Whittle under Gaussian noise and is more robust and less biased under non-Gaussian/non-stationary noise, especially in the glitch case where only the hyperbolic likelihood recovers the injected signal.

Significance. If the robustness claim survives scrutiny, the proposed likelihood is a potentially useful alternative to Gaussian and Whittle likelihoods for GW parameter estimation in non-Gaussian data, with relevance for current and third-generation detectors. The LISA Gaussian-noise benchmark is a sensible control, and the use of known injected signals provides an external reference for posterior comparisons. The vectorized implementation and the use of two independent samplers are strengths. However, the current evidence for the central claim is limited: the non-Gaussian conclusions rest on a single hand-picked glitch and on unquantified violin plots, and the frequency-domain likelihood specification is incomplete. The paper's significance therefore depends on additional systematic validation rather than on the present demonstrations.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III C, Figs. 6–8] The central robustness claim is supported by a single glitch segment (GPS 1165578732.45), deliberately selected because a previous pipeline fails. No repeated injections, no noise-realization ensemble, and no coverage statistics are reported. The phrase 'systematically reduces bias' is not quantified anywhere. Without an ensemble of glitch/noise configurations and reported coverage probabilities (the fraction of 90% credible intervals containing the injected parameters), the claim that the hyperbolic likelihood 'exhibits increased robustness' is not established. This is the load-bearing claim of the paper, so the demonstration needs to be repeated over many realizations with quantitative bias and coverage metrics.
  2. [Section II C, Eqs. (8)–(9)] The frequency-domain extension is underspecified. For d=2 n_c, the log-likelihood in Eq. (8) treats the residual vectors as i.i.d. draws from a common GH distribution within each of the N_s bands. The paper never states what n is in the frequency-domain application, nor how the complex Fourier coefficients are mapped to real vectors x_i. If n is the number of frequency bins in a band, independence across frequency is assumed; this is exactly what fails for a glitch, which is a broadband coherent transient. Moreover, bΔ in Eq. (9) is said to be 'an estimate' of a dispersion matrix, but no estimator is given for the LIGO analysis. The implementation is therefore not reproducible, and the likelihood's domain of validity is undefined.
  3. [Section III C] The Gaussian baseline is not on equal footing with the other two methods. The Whittle likelihood receives N_s band-dependent PSD correction factors and the hyperbolic likelihood receives δ_Ns parameters, while the Gaussian likelihood appears to use the fixed Welch PSD estimate with no correction parameters. With a glitch present, a fixed-PSD Gaussian likelihood is expected to fail even if the residual distribution were Gaussian, because the PSD estimate is corrupted. A Gaussian likelihood with the same per-band PSD corrections, or with a fitted noise model as in Appendix A, must be compared before attributing the failure to non-Gaussianity. As it stands, the comparison conflates likelihood shape with model flexibility.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (10)] The link between the scalar variance formula and the matrix-valued dispersion bΔ is not derived. In the frequency domain, the effective noise covariance is a matrix, but Eq. (10) gives only a scalar σ². The statement 'σ² reduces to the frequency-dependent noise PSD' does not follow from the preceding equations and leaves ambiguous how α and δ_Ns map to the PSD used in the reconstruction plots. This is needed to interpret Figs. 1 and 6 and to reproduce the analysis.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II B/Eq. (5) and Eq. (9)] Eq. (5) uses the complex noise-weighted inner product with C^{-1}, while Eq. (9) uses a real quadratic form x_i^T bΔ^{-1} x_i. The construction of x_i from complex Fourier coefficients should be stated explicitly so that d=2 n_c is operational.
  2. [Section III B] The statement that the hyperbolic and Whittle likelihoods 'converge to the Gaussian limit in this regime' is an interpretation; a quantitative posterior-agreement metric, such as the Jensen–Shannon divergence used in Appendix A, would make the claimed equivalence precise.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typos and duplicated references: 'stella-mass' (Sec. I), 'reconstrucion' (App. B), 'whtl' (Sec. III B), and Refs. [97] and [98] point to the same GitHub URL. These should be corrected.
  4. [Section III C] The duration and sampling rate of the analysis segments are not stated clearly. The text mentions a 4-second segment and a 128 s PSD estimate with 8 s segments; the relationship between these choices and the likelihood evaluation should be described.
  5. [Code availability] The paper states that the package will be made publicly available on GitHub upon publication. Since several implementation choices (notably bΔ) are not fully specified in the text, I recommend depositing the code and likelihood definitions at acceptance to enable reproduction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: central robustness claims are anchored to injected-signal benchmarks rather than to fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is a likelihood-model extension, not a prediction derived from its own outputs. Equation (8) is the symmetric generalized hyperbolic log-likelihood with parameters α, δ and dispersion estimate bΔ; these are noise-shape parameters estimated from the residuals, so statements like "deviations from Gaussianity are captured directly through the inferred hyperbolic parameters" (Sec. IV) are self-calibrating descriptions rather than predictions. The key empirical claims—H comparable to W in LISA Gaussian data and H recovering injected BBH parameters where W/Gaussian fail in real LIGO data—are tested against known injections (Tables I, III; Figs. 2, 6–8), i.e., quantities independent of the fitted likelihood parameters. No equation equates a reported result to a fitted parameter by construction. Citations [6,47] are continuity for the framework, but the GH distribution itself is standard (refs. [48,49]) and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported to force the conclusion. Concerns about the asymmetric Gaussian baseline (no PSD-correction parameters), the single glitch realization, and the unvalidated frequency-domain i.i.d.-GH assumption are statistical-validity issues, not circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the choice of the generalized hyperbolic distribution and the band-dependent parameters (α, δ_j) being able to absorb non-Gaussian noise. These are fitted to the same data used for parameter estimation, so the 'robustness' is built into the model rather than derived from first principles. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • α (hyperbolic common shape parameter)
    Global tail/shape parameter of the hyperbolic likelihood, estimated jointly with source parameters; not reported numerically. Controls the heaviness of tails.
  • δ_j (per-band hyperbolic scale parameters, j=1..N_s)
    Band-dependent scale parameters inferred per frequency segment; N_s=6 for the LISA test; values not reported. These parameters let the model adapt to local noise properties.
  • PSD correction factors for Whittle likelihood (per band)
    Level-correction factors on the assumed PSD, fit per frequency segment for the W likelihood; used as the noise model in the comparison.
  • SciRD noise parameters log10 S_a, log10 S_i = -29.04 and -21.65 (approx.)
    In the Appendix, these LISA noise-model parameters are fit when comparing Gaussian and Whittle likelihoods with unknown noise levels.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Detector data are modeled as signal plus noise, s(t)=h(t)+n(t), with statistically independent channels/detectors.
    Section II A and III: the analysis factorizes the log-likelihood over A/E TDI channels for LISA and over L1/H1 for LIGO, assuming no cross-channel noise correlations.
  • domain assumption Residual Fourier coefficients are independent across frequency bins, so the likelihood is a product over frequencies.
    Section II C: the hyperbolic log-likelihood (Eq. 8) sums over samples i, implicitly treating frequency-bin residuals as independent draws. This is standard for stationary Gaussian noise but not justified for non-Gaussian real noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The residual distribution is the symmetric generalized hyperbolic distribution (Eq. 8).
    The paper adopts this distribution as the likelihood model, citing [6]. It is a modeling choice, not derived from the physics of detector noise.
  • ad hoc to paper The dispersion matrix b∆ in Eq. 9 is a correct positive-definite estimate of the noise covariance.
    The text states b∆ is 'an estimate' but does not specify how it is computed in the frequency-domain application, nor how its uncertainty propagates.
  • domain assumption Waveform models PhenomD (LISA) and IMRPhenomPv2 (LIGO) are accurate enough for the injections.
    Section III B/C: waveforms generated with BBHx/PhenomD and bilby/IMRPhenomPv2 are treated as exact for the injected signals.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21257 in / 11360 out tokens · 114115 ms · 2026-08-02T20:47:07.807549+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Many traditional algorithms applied in gravitational-wave astronomy rely on the assumption of Gaussian noise, a condition not always met. To meet this need, this study extends a robust statistical framework, advancing previous work on heavy-tailed likelihoods, that adapts the hyperbolic likelihood method for full frequency domain applications. The framework is designed to maintain high performance under ideal conditions while improving robustness against non-Gaussian noise and outliers in real-world data. We demonstrate the efficacy of this approach through two key case studies. The first case study analyzes a massive black hole binary merger in simulated Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) data with Gaussian noise, showing that the extended hyperbolic likelihood method performs comparably to the more commonly used Whittle likelihood. The second case study examines a stellar-mass black hole binary merger using real ground-based gravitational-wave data containing non-Gaussian noise or overlapping signals, where our framework exhibits increased robustness and yields more accurate parameter estimations. Our results show that the hyperbolic likelihood better captures the true noise distribution, providing a flexible and physically motivated alternative for GW data analysis across current and future detectors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.22074 by Argyro Sasli, Michael W. Coughlin, Minas Karamanis, Nikolaos Karnesis, Nikolaos Stergioulas, Uro\v{s} Seljak, Vuk Mandic.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a illustrates the PSD reconstruction for the LISA scenario. The plot shows the true noise PSD (black line) along with the recovered 90% confidence in￾terval (shaded purple region) obtained using the H like￾lihood. Since both likelihoods converge to the Gaussian limit in this regime, the reconstructed PSDs from the H and W likelihoods are statistically indistinguishable, and we therefore show only the H rec… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Cornerplots using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Posterior distributions obtained with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Q-plot for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Time-domain reconstructions of the targeted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Comparison of posterior distributions obtained with the hyperbolic and Whittle likelihoods. Each panel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Cornerplots using Gaussian likelihoods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Corner plot using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Reconstruction (median and 90% C.I. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Corner plot using the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A parametric signal plus noise inference framework for short duration non-Gaussian noise transients

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Bilby-antiglitch jointly models astrophysical signals and quasi-physical glitches to recover true source properties from simulated gravitational wave data contaminated by loud non-Gaussian transients.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Analysis of a Massive Black Hole Binary merger (MBHB) in simulated LISA data, characterized by Gaussian noise (see Sect. III B). This case allows us to benchmark the performance of our extended hy- perbolic likelihood method against the traditional Whittle likelihood under ideal noise conditions. In addition, in Appendix A, we present a comparison between...

  2. [2]

    Gaussianize

    Examination of a stellar-mass black hole binary merger using real ground-based gravitational-wave detector data, containing non-Gaussian noise fea- tures (see Sect. III C). This scenario enables us to assess the robustness of our method in handling real-world data complexities and to demonstrate its advantages over conventional approaches. Through these a...

    arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    We then investigate two dif- ferent cases, that could make our PE challenging

    Multiple sources of BBH We selected a segment of Advanced LIGO data cen- tered on GPS time1238189526.951953, which is close to a glitch and thus the data contain non-stationary noise when the PSD is calculated. We then investigate two dif- ferent cases, that could make our PE challenging. The cases are as follows: •Injecting a long lasting BBH source:We g...

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    Known noise

    Glitches In Ref. [19], both successful and unsuccessful cases of PE in the presence of glitches were demonstrated us- ing theBayesWavepipeline. Here, we deliberately fo- cus on a representative case in which the PE remains biased despite the application of glitch-mitigation tech- niques. Specifically, we consider the “blip” glitch with trigger time1165578...

    2000

  5. [6]

    Christensen and R

    N. Christensen and R. Meyer, Parameter estimation with gravitational waves, Rev. Mod. Phys.94, 025001 (2022)

    2022

  6. [7]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Bayesian inference for spectral estimation of gravitational wave detector noise, Phys. Rev. D91, 084034 (2015), arXiv:1410.3852 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [9]

    Speri, N

    L. Speri, N. Karnesis, A. I. Renzini, and J. R. Gair, A roadmap of gravitational wave data analysis, Nature As- tron.6, 1356 (2022)

    2022

  8. [10]

    Sasli, N

    A. Sasli, N. Karnesis, and N. Stergioulas, Heavy-tailed likelihoods for robustness against data outliers: Appli- cations to the analysis of gravitational wave data, Phys. Rev. D108, 103005 (2023), arXiv:2305.04709 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  9. [11]

    Sasli,Robust data analysis methods in gravitational wave astronomy, Ph.D

    A. Sasli,Robust data analysis methods in gravitational wave astronomy, Ph.D. thesis, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2025)

    2025

  10. [12]

    Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Transient accelera- tion events in LISA Pathfinder data: Properties and pos- sible physical origin, Phys

    M. Armanoet al.(LISA Pathfinder), Transient accelera- tion events in LISA Pathfinder data: Properties and pos- sible physical origin, Phys. Rev. D106, 062001 (2022), arXiv:2205.11938 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [13]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Korsakova, J. Slutsky, E. Castelli, N. Kar- nesis, and J.-B. Bayle, Detection and characterization of instrumental transients in LISA Pathfinder and their projection to LISA, Phys. Rev. D105, 042002 (2022), arXiv:2112.07490 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  12. [14]

    R. Abbott, et al., Gwtc-3: Compact binary coales- cences observed by ligo and virgo during the second part of the third observing run, Physical Review X13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  13. [15]

    Abbott R., et al., Gwtc-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run (2021)

    2021

  14. [16]

    Udall, S

    R. Udall, S. Bini, K. Chatziioannou, D. Davis, S. Houri- hane, Y. Lecoeuche, J. McIver, and S. Miller, Inferring the spins of merging black holes in the presence of data- quality issues (2025), arXiv:2510.05029 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  15. [17]

    K. Dey, N. Karnesis, A. Toubiana, E. Barausse, N. Ko- rsakova, Q. Baghi, and S. Basak, Effect of data gaps on the detectability and parameter estimation of massive black hole binaries with LISA, Phys. Rev. D104, 044035 (2021), arXiv:2104.12646 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  16. [18]

    Baghi, I

    Q. Baghi, I. Thorpe, J. Slutsky, J. Baker, T. Dal Canton, N. Korsakova, and N. Karnesis, Gravitational-wave pa- rameter estimation with gaps in LISA: a Bayesian data augmentation method, Phys. Rev. D100, 022003 (2019), arXiv:1907.04747 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  17. [19]

    Drasco and E

    S. Drasco and E. E. Flanagan, Detection methods for non-gaussian gravitational wave stochastic backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D67, 082003 (2003)

    2003

  18. [20]

    Wu and A

    S. Wu and A. H. Nitz, Mock data study for next- generation ground-based detectors: The performance loss of matched filtering due to correlated confusion noise, Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.063022 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063022 2023

  19. [21]

    A. D. Johnson, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Source confusion from neutron star binaries in ground- based gravitational wave detectors is minimal, Physical Review D109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.084015 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.084015 2024

  20. [22]

    Abbott R., et al., Open data from the third observing run of ligo, virgo, kagra, and geo, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series267, 29 (2023)

    2023

  21. [23]

    Ghonge, J

    S. Ghonge, J. Brandt, J. M. Sullivan, M. Millhouse, K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, T. Littenberg, N. Cornish, S. Hourihane, and L. Cadonati, Assessing and mitigating the impact of glitches on gravitational-wave parameter estimation: A model agnostic approach, Phys. Rev. D 110, 122002 (2024)

    2024

  22. [24]

    Macas, J

    R. Macas, J. Pooley, L. K. Nuttall, D. Davis, M. J. Dyer, Y. Lecoeuche, J. D. Lyman, J. McIver, and K. Rink, Im- pact of noise transients on low latency gravitational-wave event localization, Phys. Rev. D105, 103021 (2022)

    2022

  23. [25]

    Zackay, T

    B. Zackay, T. Venumadhav, J. Roulet, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, Detecting gravitational waves in data with non-stationary and non-gaussian noise, Physical Re- view D104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.063034 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.063034 2021

  24. [26]

    M. C. Edwards, P. Maturana-Russel, R. Meyer, J. Gair, N. Korsakova, and N. Christensen, Identifying and ad- dressing nonstationary lisa noise, Phys. Rev. D102, 084062 (2020)

    2020

  25. [27]

    Aasi J., et al., Advanced ligo, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  26. [28]

    Acernese F., et al., Advanced virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    2014

  27. [29]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Ya- mamoto, Interferometer design of the KAGRA gravita- tional wave detector, Phys. Rev. D88, 043007 (2013), arXiv:1306.6747 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  28. [30]

    Punturo M., et al, The einstein telescope: a third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  29. [31]

    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 detec- tors, The Astrophysical Journal931, 22 (2022)

    2022

  30. [32]

    Ackley K., et al.,, Neutron Star Extreme Matter Ob- servatory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in the global network, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia37, e047 (2020), arXiv:2007.03128 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  31. [33]

    Amaro-Seoane P., et al., Laser interferometer space an- tenna (2017)

    2017

  32. [34]

    Y. Gong, J. Luo, and B. Wang, Concepts and status of Chinese space gravitational wave detection projects, Na- ture Astronomy5, 881 (2021), arXiv:2109.07442 [astro- ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [35]

    H. Wang, D. MingHui, P. Xu, and Z. Yu-Feng, Challenges in space-based gravitational wave data analysis and ap- plications of artificial intelligence, Scientia Sinica Physica Mechanica & Astronomica54, 270403 (2024)

    2024

  34. [36]

    B. P. Abbott, others, T. L. S. Collaboration, and the Virgo Collaboration, A guide to ligo-virgo detector noise and extraction of transient gravitational-wave signals, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 055002 (2020)

    2020

  35. [37]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, BayesWave: 19 Bayesian Inference for Gravitational Wave Bursts and Instrument Glitches, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 135012 (2015), arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [38]

    Umst¨ atter, N

    R. Umst¨ atter, N. Christensen, M. Hendry, R. Meyer, V. Simha, J. Veitch, S. Vigeland, and G. Woan, Bayesian modeling of source confusion in lisa data, Phys. Rev. D 72, 022001 (2005)

    2005

  37. [39]

    T. B. Littenberg, N. J. Cornish, K. Lackeos, and T. Rob- son, Global analysis of the gravitational wave signal from galactic binaries, Phys. Rev. D101, 123021 (2020)

    2020

  38. [40]

    T. B. Littenberg and N. J. Cornish, Prototype global analysis of lisa data with multiple source types, Phys. Rev. D107, 063004 (2023)

    2023

  39. [42]

    M. C. Edwards, P. Maturana-Russel, R. Meyer, J. Gair, N. Korsakova, and N. Christensen, Identifying and Ad- dressing Nonstationary LISA Noise, Phys. Rev. D102, 084062 (2020), arXiv:2004.07515 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  40. [43]

    M. C. Edwards, R. Meyer, and N. Christensen, Bayesian semiparametric power spectral density estimation with applications in gravitational wave data analysis, Phys. Rev. D92, 064011 (2015)

    2015

  41. [44]

    Martellini and T

    L. Martellini and T. Regimbau, Semiparametric ap- proach to the detection of non-Gaussian gravitational wave stochastic backgrounds, Phys. Rev. D89, 124009 (2014), arXiv:1405.5775 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [45]

    Hamimeche and A

    S. Hamimeche and A. Lewis, Likelihood Analysis of CMB Temperature and Polarization Power Spectra, Phys. Rev. D77, 103013 (2008), arXiv:0801.0554 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [46]

    Verde, H

    L. Verde, H. V. Peiris, D. N. Spergel, M. R. Nolta, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, L. Page, G. S. Tucker, E. Wol- lack, and E. L. Wright, First-year wilkinson microwave anisotropy probe (wmap)* observations: Parameter esti- mation methodology, The Astrophysical Journal Supple- ment Series148, 195 (2003)

    2003

  44. [47]

    Flauger, N

    R. Flauger, N. Karnesis, G. Nardini, M. Pieroni, A. Ric- ciardone, and J. Torrado, Improved reconstruction of a stochastic gravitational wave background with lisa, Jour- nal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021(01), 059–059

  45. [48]

    J. D. E. Creighton, Data analysis strategies for the detec- tion of gravitational waves in non-gaussian noise, Phys. Rev. D60, 021101 (1999)

    1999

  46. [49]

    Allen, J

    B. Allen, J. D. E. Creighton, E. E. Flanagan, and J. D. Romano, Robust statistics for deterministic and stochas- tic gravitational waves in non-gaussian noise: Frequentist analyses, Phys. Rev. D65, 122002 (2002)

    2002

  47. [50]

    Legin, A

    R. Legin, A. Adam, Y. Hezaveh, and L. Perreault- Levasseur, Beyond gaussian noise: A generalized ap- proach to likelihood analysis with non-gaussian noise, The Astrophysical Journal Letters949, L41 (2023)

    2023

  48. [51]

    Karnesis, A

    N. Karnesis, A. Sasli, R. Buscicchio, and N. Stergioulas, Characterization of non-gaussian stochastic signals with heavier-tailed likelihoods (2024), arXiv:2410.14354 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  49. [52]

    Eberlein and K

    E. Eberlein and K. Prause, The generalized hyperbolic model: financial derivatives and risk measures, inMath- ematical Finance—Bachelier Congress 2000(Springer,

    2000

  50. [53]

    Prause, The generalized hyperbolic model: Estima- tion, financial derivatives, and risk measures, PhD thesis (1999)

    K. Prause, The generalized hyperbolic model: Estima- tion, financial derivatives, and risk measures, PhD thesis (1999)

    1999

  51. [54]

    Baghi, N

    Q. Baghi, N. Karnesis, J.-B. Bayle, M. Besan¸ con, and H. Inchausp´ e, Uncovering gravitational-wave back- grounds from noises of unknown shape with lisa, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023(04), 066

  52. [55]

    Mapelli, Astrophysics of stellar black holes (2018), arXiv:1809.09130 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. Mapelli, Astrophysics of stellar black holes (2018), arXiv:1809.09130 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [56]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  54. [57]

    P., et al

    Abbott B. P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Binary black hole mergers in the first advanced ligo observing run, Phys. Rev. X6, 041015 (2016)

    2016

  55. [58]

    P., et al

    Abbott B. P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), 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)

    2019

  56. [59]

    (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Gwtc-2: Compact binary coales- cences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys

    Abbott R., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Gwtc-2: Compact binary coales- cences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021)

    2021

  57. [60]

    Abbott R., et al., The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through gwtc- 3 (2021)

    2021

  58. [61]

    A. H. Nitz, S. Kumar, Y.-F. Wang, S. Kastha, S. Wu, M. Sch¨ afer, R. Dhurkunde, and C. D. Capano, 4-ogc: Catalog of gravitational waves from compact binary mergers, The Astrophysical Journal946, 59 (2023)

    2023

  59. [62]

    A. E. Koloniari, E. C. Koursoumpa, P. Nousi, P. Lam- propoulos, N. Passalis, A. Tefas, and N. Stergioulas, New gravitational wave discoveries enabled by machine learn- ing (2024), arXiv:2407.07820 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [63]

    P., et al., A gravitational-wave measurement of the hubble constant following the second observing run of advanced ligo and virgo, The Astrophysical Journal 909, 218 (2021)

    Abbott, B. P., et al., A gravitational-wave measurement of the hubble constant following the second observing run of advanced ligo and virgo, The Astrophysical Journal 909, 218 (2021)

    2021

  61. [64]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Binary black hole mergers in the first advanced ligo observing run, Phys. Rev. X6, 041015 (2016)

    2016

  62. [65]

    (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Gw190412: Observation of a binary-black-hole coalescence with asymmetric masses, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Gw190412: Observation of a binary-black-hole coalescence with asymmetric masses, Phys. Rev. D102, 043015 (2020)

    2020

  63. [66]

    Abbott, B. P., et al., Binary black hole population prop- erties inferred from the first and second observing runs of advanced ligo and advanced virgo, The Astrophysical Journal Letters882, L24 (2019)

    2019

  64. [67]

    P., et al., The rate of binary black hole merg- ers inferred from advanced ligo observations surrounding gw150914, The Astrophysical Journal Letters833, L1 (2016)

    Abbott, B. P., et al., The rate of binary black hole merg- ers inferred from advanced ligo observations surrounding gw150914, The Astrophysical Journal Letters833, L1 (2016)

    2016

  65. [68]

    Kalogera, C

    V. Kalogera, C. P. L. Berry, M. Colpi, S. Fairhurst, S. Justham, I. Mandel, A. Mangiagli, M. Mapelli, C. Mills, B. S. Sathyaprakash, R. Schneider, T. Tauris, and R. Valiante, Deeper, wider, sharper: Next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave observations of binary black holes (2019), arXiv:1903.09220 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [69]

    W. M. Farr, M. Fishbach, J. Ye, and D. E. Holz, A future percent-level measurement of the hubble expansion at redshift 0.8 with advanced ligo, The Astrophysical Jour- 20 nal Letters883, L42 (2019)

    2019

  67. [70]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Ru- bin,Bayesian Data Analysis, 2nd ed. (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2004)

    2004

  68. [71]

    Barack and C

    L. Barack and C. Cutler, Lisa capture sources: Approx- imate waveforms, signal-to-noise ratios, and parameter estimation accuracy, Phys. Rev. D69, 082005 (2004)

    2004

  69. [72]

    Cutler and E

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

    1994

  70. [73]

    N. J. Cornish, T. B. Littenberg, B. B´ ecsy, K. Chatzi- ioannou, J. A. Clark, S. Ghonge, and M. Millhouse, BayesWave analysis pipeline in the era of gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D103, 044006 (2021), arXiv:2011.09494 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [74]

    Auclairet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Cos- mology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Living Rev

    P. Auclairet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), Cos- mology with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Living Rev. Rel.26, 5 (2023), arXiv:2204.05434 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  72. [75]

    C. R. Contaldi, M. Pieroni, A. I. Renzini, G. Cusin, N. Karnesis, M. Peloso, A. Ricciardone, and G. Tasi- nato, Maximum likelihood map-making with the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna, Phys. Rev. D102, 043502 (2020), arXiv:2006.03313 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  73. [76]

    Armanoet al., Calibrating the system dynamics of LISA Pathfinder, Phys

    M. Armanoet al., Calibrating the system dynamics of LISA Pathfinder, Phys. Rev. D97, 122002 (2018), arXiv:1806.08581 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [77]

    R¨ over, Student-tbased filter for robust signal detec- tion, Phys

    C. R¨ over, Student-tbased filter for robust signal detec- tion, Phys. Rev. D84, 122004 (2011)

    2011

  75. [78]

    R¨ over, R

    C. R¨ over, R. Meyer, and N. Christensen, Modelling coloured residual noise in gravitational-wave signal pro- cessing, Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 015010 (2011)

    2011

  76. [79]

    Tinto and S

    M. Tinto and S. V. Dhurandhar, TIME DELAY, Living Rev. Rel.8, 4 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0409034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  77. [80]

    Babak, A

    S. Babak, A. Petiteau, and M. Hewitson, LISA Sen- sitivity and SNR Calculations (2021), arXiv preprint, arXiv:2108.01167 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [81]

    Karnesis, M

    N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Eryn: a multipurpose sampler for bayesian inference, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society526, 4814–4830 (2023)

    2023

  79. [82]

    Karamanis, D

    M. Karamanis, D. Nabergoj, F. Beutler, J. A. Peacock, and U. Seljak, pocomc: A python package for accelerated bayesian inference in astronomy and cosmology (2022), arXiv:2207.05660 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  80. [83]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man,emcee: The MCMC hammer, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific125, 306 (2013)

    2013

Showing first 80 references.