Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 99 references

A New Framework to Detect Multi-Messenger Signals from Bright Sporadic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that cross-correlating the stochastic gravitational-wave background with multi-band electromagnetic light curves recovers the counterparts of sub-threshold mergers, with multi-band coincidence reducing false alarms to…

desk verdict A plausible method paper whose headline false-alarm rates are single-trial p-values, not per-year rates; worth refereeing after a real FAR recalculation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18955 v2 pith:ZGED7TZI submitted 2025-07-25 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc

Hardik Jitendra Kuralkar , Mohit Raj Sah , Suvodip Mukherjee This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords multi-messengerastrophysicsstochasticgravitationalwavebackgroundtime-domaincross-correlationcounterpartsgamma-rayburstsfalsealarmratecompactbinarycoalescencessub-thresholdsearches
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 proposes a pipeline, MC$^2$ (Multi-messenger Cross-Correlation), for finding electromagnetic counterparts to gravitational-wave sources that are too faint to show up as individual detections. Instead of matched filtering for single events, it cross-correlates the time-varying stochastic gravitational-wave background with light curves in gamma-ray, X-ray, UV/optical/IR, and radio bands. On simulated data, the method recovers the buried GW-EM association for both compact-binary coalescences and unmodeled burst waveforms. Requiring coincidence across multiple independent EM bands drives the false-alarm rate down to the discretization floor, about $9.5\times10^{-6}$ per year for 300-second integration, a level at which a surviving candidate would be statistically meaningful.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the time-domain cross-correlation (TDCC) coefficient, implemented in the MC$^2$ pipeline, which correlates the fluctuating part of the SGWB energy density with the fluctuating part of an EM light curve at a scanned delay: $$C_\nu(t,\$\Delta$ t_\nu)=\$\Delta$ f\sum_f\left[\hat{\$\Omega$}_{\mathrm{GW}}(f,t)-\overline{\$\Omega$}_{\mathrm{GW}}(f)\right]\frac{1}{\delta t}\int_{t-\delta t/2}^{t+\delta t/2}\left[\hat{I}_\nu(t'+\$\Delta$ t_\nu)-\bar{I}_\nu\right]dt'.$$ The subtraction of time averages means only temporary excesses contribute, and scanning over $\Delta t_\nu$ and the averaging time $\delta t$ converts a buried GW episode plus its EM counterpart into a detectable peak. Extending the same test to several EM bands is what drives the reported reduction in false alarms.

What would settle it

Generate one year of simulated SGWB that includes realistic astrophysical fluctuations, time-shift EM transients so none is physically associated with a GW event, and count how many TDCC peaks survive the multi-band test; a rate far above $9.5\times10^{-6}$ per year would show the false-alarm suppression is overestimated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a single time-domain statistic, the multi-messenger cross-correlation between the short-time-averaged stochastic gravitational-wave energy density $\hat{\Omega}_{\mathrm{GW}}(f,t)$ and the electromagnetic flux $\hat{I}_\nu$, can pull a sub-threshold merger out of the stochastic background and attach it to the correct EM transient. In mock data the statistic peaks at the physical GW-EM delay for both modeled compact binaries and unmodeled sources, even when the event is invisible in the raw strain spectrogram. The quantitative edge comes from multi-band coincidence: combining gamma-ray, X-ray, UV/optical/IR, and radio channels suppresses false correlations until the false-alarm rate reaches the integration-time floor. The paper concludes that this multi-band route should make precise sky localization and redshift determination possible for otherwise undetectable GW events.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted false-alarm rates depend on the assumed rates of unrelated EM transients, on the smooth template shapes used for counterparts, and on treating detector noise alone as the comparison case rather than the real astrophysical gravitational-wave background.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Faint compact-binary mergers that cannot be individually detected by matched-filter searches can still be recovered as time-correlated excesses in the stochastic gravitational-wave background, extending the reach beyond the loud-event horizon.
  • Multi-band coincidence is the main statistical lever: single-band false-alarm rates that are already small fall to about $9.5\times10^{-6}$ per year for 300-second integration, so a candidate passing all channels is far more credible than a single-band spike.
  • The statistic is waveform-agnostic, so the same pipeline covers unmodeled or unknown burst sources, not only compact-binary coalescences.
  • When a counterpart is found, the EM signal provides precise localization and redshift, converting a sub-threshold GW detection into a cosmological measurement.
  • Because only archival light curves and stored GW data are needed, the search can be re-run on past observation periods to uncover missed events.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A stress test the paper does not run is to include the fluctuating astrophysical SGWB itself in the null ensemble; chance alignments between SGWB episodes and unrelated EM transients would likely raise the single-band false-alarm rates before multi-band coincidence suppresses them.
  • The same cross-correlation logic should transfer to other messengers: a neutrino light curve could play the role of an EM band in the TDCC, with the expected neutrino arrival delay standing in for $\Delta t_\nu$.
  • The appendix's minimum-sample-length result, roughly twice the delay time, implies that long-delay bands such as radio may need continuous monitoring rather than triggered follow-up to accumulate enough samples for a reliable correlation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents MC^2, a time-domain cross-correlation (TDCC) pipeline that correlates a time-dependent estimate of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB), Omega_GW(f,t), with electromagnetic light curves (Eq. 4.4) in order to identify EM counterparts of sub-threshold compact binary coalescences and unmodeled GW bursts. The authors simulate the SGWB from CBC populations (BNS, NSBH, BBH) using the temporal fluctuation formalism of Mukherjee & Silk and Sah & Mukherjee, inject EM counterparts with GW170817-inspired profiles in gamma-ray, X-ray, UVOIR, and radio bands, and report detection spikes and false-alarm rates for single-band and multi-band combinations (Tables 3-5). They also demonstrate time-delay recovery, optimum averaging-time selection, glitch mitigation in two-detector cross-correlation, and propose an observation strategy for current and future multi-messenger facilities.

Significance. If the quantitative claims survive revision, the framework would provide a useful new tool for multi-messenger searches of sub-threshold GW events, particularly because the TDCC statistic avoids requiring individually detected GW triggers and can exploit nearly full-sky gamma-ray monitoring. The paper is clearly structured, the simulation recipes are described in enough detail to be reproduced, and the demonstration that two-detector cross-correlation suppresses uncorrelated glitches (Appendix B.3) is a genuinely useful addition. However, the central quantitative claim—drastic false-alarm reduction reaching the ~1e-5 per-year floor—rests on a per-trial p-value being reported as a per-year rate, and on a null distribution that omits astrophysical SGWB fluctuations. Those two issues materially weaken the current numerical support for the headline conclusion, although both are fixable in a revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 7, Tables 3-5] The quoted 'FAR (per year)' values are single-trial complementary-CDF probabilities, not per-year rates. The text states: 'This area is equivalent to the value of the complementary CDF at the point of TDCC of the event, which is the FAR for that event.' A complementary CDF is a per-trial p-value; converting to an expected false-alarm rate per year requires multiplication by the number of independent trials per year, e.g., the total unassociated EM transient rate of Table 1 (~2045 events/yr) or the number of independent time offsets searched. After this correction, entries reading '≤ min' with min = delta_t/(seconds per year) = 9.5e-6 for 300 s imply a floor of roughly N_trials x 9.5e-6, about 0.02/yr for all Table 1 events and about 0.001/yr for GRBs alone. The claimed multi-band FAR reduction to the 1e-5 per-year floor is therefore not established by the presented numbers.
  2. [Section 7, null distribution] The false-alarm null distribution is generated from A+ detector noise only, as stated at the start of Section 7 ('We generate the GW background noise of A+ design sensitivity for a duration of one year'). The TDCC in Eq. (4.4) is applied to the reconstructed Omega_GW(f,t), which in a real search contains the fluctuating astrophysical SGWB of Section 5.1. Unrelated EM transients can therefore produce nonzero TDCC through chance alignment with SGWB fluctuations, and this contribution is not counted in the quoted FAR. The null simulations should include the astrophysical SGWB, or the authors should provide a quantitative argument that its contribution to the null TDCC distribution is negligible relative to detector noise.
  3. [Section 6.1 and 6.2, Figures 3-4] The detection demonstrations are injection-recovery tests with known time delays, and the TDCC peaks in Figures 3 and 4 are presented without a detection threshold, significance measure, or error bars. The statement in Section 6.1 that the correlations are 'statistically significant' is not quantified, and no criterion is given for declaring a candidate multi-messenger event in a blind search. The FAR analysis in Section 7 is applied only to the specific injected events of Table 2, not to the peaks shown in the detection figures, so the pipeline's detection capability and its false-alarm rate are not connected by an explicit decision rule.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 8] The conclusion states that the multi-band approach 'makes possible the precise localization and redshift determination from their EM counterparts,' but the paper does not present a localization or redshift-estimation procedure, nor does it quantify the claimed precision; this statement should be softened or supported.
  2. [Table 1 and Section 7] The assumed unassociated EM event rates (Table 1) and the assumption that false counterparts have the same smooth, modeled light-curve shapes as genuine counterparts directly control the quoted FAR values. Since these rates and shapes are acknowledged to be uncertain, the paper should provide a sensitivity analysis showing how the reported FARs change under plausible alternative rates and noisier light-curve profiles.
  3. [Appendix A.4] In the radio model, the frequency range is given as 'between 3x10^11 Hz and 9x10^3 Hz,' which appears to have the bounds reversed; this is likely a typographical error and should be corrected.
  4. [Equations (4.1) and (4.4)] The notation for the estimators and averages, such as the distinction between the observed Omega_GW(f,t), the time-averaged Omega_GW(f), and the EM mean I_nu, is introduced informally; a short table of symbols or explicit definitions would improve clarity.
  5. [General] The paper announces a Python-based software package MC2 but provides no code repository, version, or data availability statement; including these would aid reproducibility and is expected for a pipeline paper.
  6. [Figures 2-4] Several figures lack complete axis labels and color-scale descriptions, and the TDCC panels are normalized to unit maximum, which prevents quantitative comparison of peak heights across bands; adding scale bars or caption descriptions would help the reader assess the signal visibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the TDCC statistic is defined from first principles, the detection demonstrations are injection-based pipeline tests, and the FAR null is independently simulated.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The TDCC statistic in Eq. (4.4) is defined directly from the SGWB estimate and EM time series; it is not fitted to any target result. The Section 6 'detections' are pipeline-validation injections (simulated BNS/unmodeled GW signals plus modeled EM counterparts), so the appearance of correlation peaks is a test of the estimator, not a prediction derived from the estimator itself. The FAR analysis in Section 7 constructs a null distribution from A+ detector noise and randomly time-assigned false EM transients, then evaluates the complementary CDF of the observed TDCC; this is an internal null test whose outcome is not forced by the models used to build MC2. The self-citations [31], [46], and [54] attribute earlier work on the time-dependent SGWB and temporal correlations, but the paper explicitly formulates the time-dependent SGWB in Eq. (5.2) and re-derives the quantities it uses, so those citations are not load-bearing in the reduction sense. Possible concerns about the FAR being a per-trial p-value rather than a trials-corrected rate, or about the null omitting SGWB fluctuations, are statistical-calibration/correctness issues rather than circularity: the reported numbers are not constructed to equal the input rates by definition. No circular step can therefore be exhibited from the text.

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

The central claims rest on a chain of simulation choices: a prescribed CBC population, EM light-curve models inherited from GW170817, and an idealized false-alarm distribution with hand-chosen EM event rates. No new physical entities are introduced. The most consequential free input is the set of EM transient rates in Table 1, because the quoted false alarm rates scale directly with it.

free parameters (3)
  • EM transient event rates (GRB, X-ray, UVOIR, radio) = 120/yr, 125/yr, 800/yr, 1000/yr
    Table 1; these are optimistic, physically motivated numbers chosen by hand for the FAR null distribution. They directly set the number of false EM counterparts injected, so the quoted FAR values scale with them.
  • Minimum detection SNR at z_max per EM band = GRB >5 sigma, X-ray >3 sigma, UVOIR >3 sigma, radio >3 sigma
    Table 1; used to scale EM SNRs for injected events at different redshifts, determining which events are included in the FAR analysis.
  • CBC population parameters for SGWB simulation = alpha=2.7, beta=-2.5, R0=(100,50) Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for BNS/NSBH
    Section 5.1.1; assumed from prior population estimates. They set the SGWB realization and are not fitted in this paper, but the mock data depend on them.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The merger rate evolution R(z)=R(0)(1+z)^alpha and the mass distributions P_BH(m) proportional to m^beta with the stated parameters describe the CBC population.
    Used in Eq. 5.1 and the mock SGWB generation in Section 5.1.1; based on prior population estimates, not measured in this paper.
  • domain assumption EM counterparts of sub-threshold mergers are described by the adopted pulse profiles for GRB (A.1), X-ray/radio (A.2/A.4), and optical (A.3), with parameters inherited from GW170817.
    Section A and Section 5.2; the TDCC demonstration injects exactly these models, so the result depends on the models being representative.
  • ad hoc to paper Unassociated EM transients occur uniformly in time and comoving volume with the rates in Table 1, and have the same smooth light-curve shapes as true counterparts.
    Section 7; this defines the false-alarm null distribution. It is an idealization chosen by the authors and called 'optimistic but physically motivated'.
  • domain assumption Detector noise in two GW detectors is uncorrelated, so the cross-correlation of strain data estimates the SGWB.
    Appendix C, Eq. C.3; this is standard in SGWB analyses and is required for the SGWB estimator used in the TDCC.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A New Framework to Detect Multi-Messenger Signals from Bright Sporadic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZGED7TZI

@misc{pith2026250718955,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A New Framework to Detect Multi-Messenger Signals from Bright Sporadic Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZGED7TZI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18955}
}
abstract

The temporal dependence of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational-wave (GW) background (SGWB) in the hecto-hertz band brings a unique avenue to identify multi-messenger signals to these sources by using coincident detection in both GW and multi-band EM signals. We developed a new analysis pipeline, \textit{Multi-messenger Cross-Correlation} (MC$^2$) that can search for EM counterparts to the SGWB signal originating from both modeled and unmodeled sources by harnessing the nearly full-sky gamma-ray sky map. We provide an observation strategy that can be followed by current and future missions to discover EM counterparts to the weak GW signal hidden in the SGWB. We demonstrate the ability of this technique to drastically reduce the false alarm rates when involving EM multi-band analysis. This formalism aims towards advancing the multi-messenger observation frontier and improving our understanding of the population of bright SGWB sources present in the high-redshift universe and can also be applied to other messengers such as neutrinos in the future.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 54 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley et al.,Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,Physical Review Letters116(2016) 061102. – 24 – Figure 14. Left: Spectrogram for SGWB extracted using short-time Fourier transform. Right: Energy vs. time [s] obtained from the spectrogram for the SGWB signal. Thi...

    2016

  2. [2]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari et al.,Gwtc-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the second part of the third observing run,Physical Review X13(2023) 041039

    2023

  3. [3]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams et al.,Gw170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,Physical Review Letters 119(2017) 161101

    2017

  4. [4]

    Meegan, G

    C. Meegan, G. Lichti, P.N. Bhat, E. Bissaldi, M.S. Briggs, V. Connaughton et al., Thefermigamma-ray burst monitor,The Astrophysical Journal702(2009) 791–804

    2009

  5. [5]

    Goldstein, P

    A. Goldstein, P. Veres, E. Burns, M.S. Briggs, R. Hamburg, D. Kocevski et al.,An ordinary short gamma-ray burst with extraordinary implications: Fermi-gbm detection of grb 170817a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters848(2017) L14

    2017

  6. [6]

    Savchenko, C

    V. Savchenko, C. Ferrigno, E. Kuulkers, A. Bazzano, E. Bozzo, S. Brandt et al.,Integral detection of the first prompt gamma-ray signal coincident with the gravitational-wave event gw170817,The Astrophysical Journal Letters848(2017) L15

    2017

  7. [7]

    Troja, L

    E. Troja, L. Piro, H. van Eerten, R.T. Wollaeger, M. Im, O.D. Fox et al.,The x-ray counterpart to the gravitational-wave event gw170817,Nature551(2017) 71–74

    2017

  8. [8]

    W. Fong, R. Margutti and D. Haggard,LIGO/Virgo G298048: Continued X-ray monitoring and X-ray detection of GW170817 [erratum]],GRB Coordinates Network21786(2017) 1

    2017

Show all 99 references
  1. [9]

    Troja, R

    E. Troja, R. Ricci, M. Wieringa and L. Piro,LIGO/Virgo G298048: ATCA monitoring of SSS17a in NGC 4993,GRB Coordinates Network21803(2017) 1

    2017

  2. [10]

    Haggard, M

    D. Haggard, M. Nynka, V. Kalogera, P. Evans and B. Cenko,LIGO/Virgo G298048: Chandra X-ray Update on GW170817,GRB Coordinates Network21798(2017) 1

    2017

  3. [11]

    Margutti, E

    R. Margutti, E. Berger, W. Fong, C. Guidorzi, K.D. Alexander, B.D. Metzger et al.,The electromagnetic counterpart of the binary neutron star merger ligo/virgo gw170817. v. rising x-ray emission from an off-axis jet,The Astrophysical Journal Letters848(2017) L20

    2017

  4. [12]

    Haggard, M

    D. Haggard, M. Nynka, J.J. Ruan, V. Kalogera, S.B. Cenko, P. Evans et al.,A deep chandra x-ray study of neutron star coalescence gw170817,The Astrophysical Journal Letters848 (2017) L25

    2017

  5. [13]

    Soares-Santos, D.E

    M. Soares-Santos, D.E. Holz, J. Annis, R. Chornock, K. Herner, E. Berger et al.,The electromagnetic counterpart of the binary neutron star merger ligo/virgo gw170817. i. – 25 – discovery of the optical counterpart using the dark energy camera,The Astrophysical Journal Letters8...

    2017

  6. [14]

    Metzger, G

    B.D. Metzger, G. Mart´ ınez-Pinedo, S. Darbha, E. Quataert, A. Arcones, D. Kasen et al., Electromagnetic counterparts of compact object mergers powered by the radioactive decay of r-process nuclei,MNRAS406(2010) 2650 [1001.5029]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Alexander, W

    K.D. Alexander, W. Fong and E. Berger,LIGO/Virgo G298048: Further VLA Observations, GRB Coordinates Network21589(2017) 1

    2017

  8. [16]

    Hallinan, A

    G. Hallinan, A. Corsi, K. Mooley, D.A. Frail and M.M. Kasliwal,LIGO/VIRGO G298048: Latest 3 GHz Detection of Radio Counterpart to SSS17a,GRB Coordinates Network21929 (2017) 1

    2017

  9. [17]

    Corsi, G

    A. Corsi, G. Hallinan, K. Mooley, D.A. Frail, M.M. Kasliwal, N.T. Palliyaguru et al., LIGO/VIRGO G298048: Radio detection of SSS17a at 6 GHz with the VLA,GRB Coordinates Network21815(2017) 1

    2017

  10. [18]

    Hallinan, A

    G. Hallinan, A. Corsi, K.P. Mooley, K. Hotokezaka, E. Nakar, M.M. Kasliwal et al.,A radio counterpart to a neutron star merger,Science358(2017) 1579 [https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aap9855]. [19]LIGO Scientificcollaboration,Advanced LIGO,Class. Quant. Grav.32(...

    2017 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Abbott et al.,Sensitivity of the Advanced LIGO detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy,Phys

    B.P. Abbott et al.,Sensitivity of the Advanced LIGO detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy,Phys. Rev. D93(2016) 112004 [1604.00439]

    2016 arXiv

  12. [21]

    M. Tse, H. Yu, N. Kijbunchoo, A. Fernandez-Galiana, P. Dupej, L. Barsotti et al., Quantum-enhanced advanced ligo detectors in the era of gravitational-wave astronomy,Phys. Rev. Lett.123(2019) 231107

    2019

  13. [22]

    Acernese, M

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Allemandou, A. Allocca et al.,Advanced virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,Classical and Quantum Gravity32(2014) 024001. [23]Virgo Collaborationcollaboration,Increasing the astrophysical reach...

    2014

  14. [24]

    Amaro-Seoane, H

    P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, P. Bender et al.,Laser Interferometer Space Antenna,arXiv e-prints(2017) arXiv:1702.00786 [1702.00786]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Li and B

    L.-X. Li and B. Paczynski,Transient events from neutron star mergers,Astrophys. J. Lett. 507(1998) L59 [astro-ph/9807272]

    1998 arXiv

  16. [26]

    Metzger and E

    B.D. Metzger and E. Berger,What is the Most Promising Electromagnetic Counterpart of a Neutron Star Binary Merger?,ApJ746(2012) 48 [1108.6056]

    2012 arXiv

  17. [27]

    Barbieri, O

    C. Barbieri, O. Salafia, A. Perego, M. Colpi and G. Ghirlanda,Light-curve models of black hole – neutron star mergers: steps towards a multi-messenger parameter estimation,Astron. Astrophys.625(2019) A152 [1903.04543]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [28]

    Giacomazzo, J.G

    B. Giacomazzo, J.G. Baker, M.C. Miller, C.S. Reynolds and J.R. van Meter,General relativistic simulations of magnetized plasmas around merging supermassive black holes,The Astrophysical Journal Letters752(2012) L15

    2012

  19. [29]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. Ford, I. Bartos, M. Graham, W. Lyra, S. Marka et al.,Ram-pressure stripping of a kicked Hill sphere: Prompt electromagnetic emission from the merger of stellar mass black holes in an AGN accretion disk,Astrophys. J. Lett.884(2019) L50 [1907.03746]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [30]

    Graham, K

    M. Graham, K. Ford, B. McKernan, N. Ross, D. Stern, K. Burdge et al.,Candidate – 26 – electromagnetic counterpart to the binary black hole merger gravitational-wave event s190521g,Physical Review Letters124(2020)

    2020

  21. [31]

    Mukherjee and J

    S. Mukherjee and J. Silk,Time-dependence of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational wave background,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491(2020) 4690 [1912.07657]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [32]

    Veres et al.,Fermi GBM follow-up of LIGO-Virgo binary black hole mergers – detection prospects,1905.08755

    P. Veres et al.,Fermi GBM follow-up of LIGO-Virgo binary black hole mergers – detection prospects,1905.08755

    1905 arXiv

  23. [33]

    Blandford and R.L

    R.D. Blandford and R.L. Znajek,Electromagnetic extraction of energy from Kerr black holes., MNRAS179(1977) 433

    1977

  24. [34]

    Zhang,Mergers of Charged Black Holes: Gravitational-wave Events, Short Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Fast Radio Bursts,ApJL827(2016) L31 [1602.04542]

    B. Zhang,Mergers of Charged Black Holes: Gravitational-wave Events, Short Gamma-Ray Bursts, and Fast Radio Bursts,ApJL827(2016) L31 [1602.04542]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [35]

    Haiman,The X-ray Chirp of a Compact Black Hole Binary,Found

    Z. Haiman,The X-ray Chirp of a Compact Black Hole Binary,Found. Phys.48(2018) 1430

    2018

  26. [36]

    Palenzuela, L

    C. Palenzuela, L. Lehner and S.L. Liebling,Dual Jets from Binary Black Holes,Science329 (2010) 927 [1005.1067]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [37]

    Farris, P

    B.D. Farris, P. Duffell, A.I. MacFadyen and Z. Haiman,Binary Black Hole Accretion During Inspiral and Merger,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.447(2015) L80 [1409.5124]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [38]

    R. Gold, V. Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, S.L. Shapiro, Z.B. Etienne and H.P. Pfeiffer,Accretion disks around binary black holes of unequal mass: General relativistic MHD simulations of postdecoupling and merger,Phys. Rev.D90(2014) 104030 [1410.1543]

    2014 arXiv

  29. [39]

    Armitage and P

    P.J. Armitage and P. Natarajan,Accretion during the merger of supermassive black holes, Astrophys. J.567(2002) L9 [astro-ph/0201318]. [40]KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration,Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advance...

    2002 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Bhat, C.A

    P.N. Bhat, C.A. Meegan, G.G. Lichti, M.S. Briggs, V. Connaughton, R. Diehl et al.,The fermi gamma-ray burst monitor instrument, inAIP Conference Proceedings, (Huntsville (Alabama)), p. 34–36, AIP, 2009, DOI

    2009

  31. [42]

    Lacy, S.A

    M. Lacy, S.A. Baum, C.J. Chandler, S. Chatterjee, T.E. Clarke, S. Deustua et al.,The Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array Sky Survey (VLASS). Science Case and Survey Design,PASP 132(2020) 035001 [1907.01981]

    2020

  32. [43]

    Bogdanovi´ c, M.C

    T. Bogdanovi´ c, M.C. Miller and L. Blecha,Electromagnetic counterparts to massive black-hole mergers,Living Reviews in Relativity25(2022)

    2022

  33. [44]

    Nakar,The electromagnetic counterparts of compact binary mergers,Physics Reports886 (2020) 1–84

    E. Nakar,The electromagnetic counterparts of compact binary mergers,Physics Reports886 (2020) 1–84

    2020

  34. [45]

    Barsotti, L

    L. Barsotti, L. McCuller, M. Evans and P. Fritschel,The a+ design curve,LIGO Document: LIGO-T1800042(2018)

    2018

  35. [46]

    Mukherjee and J

    S. Mukherjee and J. Silk,Fundamental physics using the temporal gravitational wave background,Physical Review D104(2021) 063518

    2021

  36. [47]

    GBM, INTEGRAL, I

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, F. GBM, INTEGRAL, I. Collaboration, A.C.Z.T.I. Team et al.,Multi-messenger observations of a binary neutron star merger,The Astrophysical Journal Letters848(2017) L12

    2017

  37. [48]

    Kasliwal, E

    M.M. Kasliwal, E. Nakar, L.P. Singer, D.L. Kaplan, D.O. Cook, A. Van Sistine et al., Illuminating gravitational waves: a concordant picture of photons from a neutron star merger, Science358(2017) 1559

    2017

  38. [49]

    Troja, A.J

    E. Troja, A.J. Castro-Tirado, J.B. Gonzalez, Y. Hu, G.S. Ryan, S.B. Cenko et al.,The afterglow and kilonova of the short GRB 160821B,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2019) stz2255. – 27 –

    2019

  39. [50]

    Chase, B

    E.A. Chase, B. O’Connor, C.L. Fryer, E. Troja, O. Korobkin, R.T. Wollaeger et al.,Kilonova detectability with wide-field instruments,The Astrophysical Journal927(2022) 163

    2022

  40. [51]

    Allen,The stochastic gravity-wave background: sources and detection, Tech

    B. Allen,The stochastic gravity-wave background: sources and detection, Tech. Rep. (1996)

    1996

  41. [52]

    Phinney,A practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds, 2001

    E.S. Phinney,A practical theorem on gravitational wave backgrounds, 2001

    2001

  42. [53]

    Christensen,Stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds,Reports on Progress in Physics82 (2018) 016903

    N. Christensen,Stochastic gravitational wave backgrounds,Reports on Progress in Physics82 (2018) 016903

    2018

  43. [54]

    Sah and S

    M.R. Sah and S. Mukherjee,Non-stationary astrophysical stochastic gravitational-wave background: A new probe to the high redshift population of binary black holes, 2023

    2023

  44. [55]

    Blackman, S.E

    J. Blackman, S.E. Field, M.A. Scheel, C.R. Galley, C.D. Ott, M. Boyle et al.,Numerical relativity waveform surrogate model for generically precessing binary black hole mergers, Physical Review D96(2017) 024058

    2017

  45. [56]

    Dietrich, S

    T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, B. Bruegmann and W. Tichy,High-resolution numerical relativity simulations of spinning binary neutron star mergers, in2018 26th Euromicro International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Network-based Processing (PDP), (Cambridge), pp. 682–689, I...

    2018

  46. [57]

    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,Physical Review D79(2009) 104023

    2009

  47. [58]

    Buonanno, B.R

    A. Buonanno, B.R. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan and B.S. Sathyaprakash,Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detectors, Physical Review D80(2009) 084043

    2009

  48. [59]

    Blanchet,Gravitational radiation from post-newtonian sources and inspiralling compact binaries,Living Reviews in Relativity17(2014) 2

    L. Blanchet,Gravitational radiation from post-newtonian sources and inspiralling compact binaries,Living Reviews in Relativity17(2014) 2

    2014

  49. [60]

    Mishra, A

    C.K. Mishra, A. Kela, K. Arun and G. Faye,Ready-to-use post-Newtonian gravitational waveforms for binary black holes with nonprecessing spins: An update,Physical Review D93 (2016) 084054

    2016

  50. [61]

    Powell, D

    J. Powell, D. Trifir` o, E. Cuoco, I.S. Heng and M. Cavagli` a,Classification methods for noise transients in advanced gravitational-wave detectors,Classical and Quantum Gravity32(2015) 215012

    2015

  51. [62]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams et al.,Gw170104: observation of a 50-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence at redshift 0. 2,Physical Review Letters118(2017) 221101

    2017

  52. [63]

    Abbott, R

    B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley et al.,Gw151226: observation of gravitational waves from a 22-solar-mass binary black hole coalescence, Physical Review Letters116(2016) 241103

    2016

  53. [64]

    Gehrels, G

    N. Gehrels, G. Chincarini, P. Giommi, K.O. Mason, J.A. Nousek, A.A. Wells et al.,The Swift Gamma-Ray Burst Mission,ApJ611(2004) 1005 [astro-ph/0405233]

    2004 arXiv

  54. [65]

    Y. Wang, Z. Zhai, A. Alavi, E. Massara, A. Pisani, A. Benson et al.,The high latitude spectroscopic survey on the nancy grace roman space telescope,The Astrophysical Journal928 (2022) 1

    2022

  55. [66]

    Taylor, A.J

    G.B. Taylor, A.J. Beasley, D.A. Frail, S.R. Kulkarni and J.E. Reynolds,Vlbi observations of grb afterglows,Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series138(1999) 445–446

    1999

  56. [67]

    Bissaldi,Multi-Messenger Observations of GRBs: The GW connection,PoSICRC2019 (2020) 003 [1909.05960]

    E. Bissaldi,Multi-Messenger Observations of GRBs: The GW connection,PoSICRC2019 (2020) 003 [1909.05960]. – 28 –

    2020 arXiv

  57. [68]

    Ronchini, M

    S. Ronchini, M. Branchesi, G. Oganesyan, B. Banerjee, U. Dupletsa, G. Ghirlanda et al., Perspectives for multimessenger astronomy with the next generation of gravitational-wave detectors and high-energy satellites,Astron. Astrophys.665(2022) A97 [2204.01746]

    2022 arXiv

  58. [69]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,A&A641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  59. [70]

    Gehrels,The swift gamma-ray burst mission, inAIP Conference Proceedings, vol

    N. Gehrels,The swift gamma-ray burst mission, inAIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 727, (Sante Fe, New Mexico (USA)), p. 637–641, AIP, 2004, DOI

    2004

  60. [71]

    Singh,Astrosat: Ii

    K.P. Singh,Astrosat: Ii. highlights of scientific results from 2015–2021: Science from astrosat, Resonance27(2022) 961–981

    2022

  61. [72]

    Pradhan, A.D

    P. Pradhan, A.D. Falcone, J.A. Kennea and D.N. Burrows,Exploring rapid transient detection with the Athena Wide Field Imager,Journal of Astronomical Telescopes, Instruments, and Systems6(2020) 038002 [2007.05548]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [73]

    Bavdaz, E

    M. Bavdaz, E. Wille, M. Ayre, I. Ferreira, B. Shortt, S. Fransen et al.,The athena telescope and optics status, inOptics for EUV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Astronomy VIII, vol. 10399, pp. 50–61, SPIE, 2017

    2017

  63. [74]

    Hambleton, F.B

    K.M. Hambleton, F.B. Bianco, R. Street, K. Bell, D. Buckley, M. Graham et al.,Rubin observatory lsst transients and variable stars roadmap, 2022

    2022

  64. [75]

    Collaboration,Large synoptic survey telescope: Dark energy science collaboration,

    L.D.E.S. Collaboration,Large synoptic survey telescope: Dark energy science collaboration,

  65. [76]

    Hounsell, D

    R. Hounsell, D. Scolnic, D. Brout, B. Rose, O. Fox, M. Sako et al.,Roman ccs white paper: Measuring type ia supernovae discovered in the roman high latitude time domain survey, 2023

    2023

  66. [77]

    Bellm, S.R

    E.C. Bellm, S.R. Kulkarni, M.J. Graham, R. Dekany, R.M. Smith, R. Riddle et al.,The zwicky transient facility: System overview, performance, and first results,Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific131(2019) 018002

    2019

  67. [78]

    DePoy, T

    D.L. DePoy, T. Abbott, J. Annis, M. Antonik, M. Barcel´ o, R. Bernstein et al.,The dark energy camera (decam), (Marseille, France), p. 70140E, July, 2008, DOI

    2008

  68. [79]

    Belkin, B.P

    S. Belkin, B.P. Gompertz, A. Kumar, K. Ackley, D.K. Galloway, F. Jim´ enez-Ibarra et al.,Grb 230911a: The first discovery of a fermi grb optical counterpart with the gravitational-wave optical transient observer (goto),Research Notes of the AAS8(2024) 6

    2024

  69. [80]

    Shvartzvald, E

    Y. Shvartzvald, E. Waxman, A. Gal-Yam, E.O. Ofek, S. Ben-Ami, D. Berge et al.,Ultrasat: A wide-field time-domain uv space telescope,The Astrophysical Journal964(2024) 74

    2024

  70. [81]

    Laureijs, L

    R.J. Laureijs, L. Duvet, I.E. Sanz, P. Gondoin, D.H. Lumb, T. Oosterbroek et al.,The euclid mission, inSpace Telescopes and Instrumentation 2010: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, vol. 7731, pp. 453–458, SPIE, 2010

    2010

  71. [82]

    Gautam, A

    T. Gautam, A. Ridolfi, P.C.C. Freire, R.S. Wharton, Y. Gupta, S.M. Ransom et al.,Upgraded gmrt survey for pulsars in globular clusters: I. discovery of a millisecond binary pulsar in ngc 6652,Astronomy &; Astrophysics664(2022) A54

    2022

  72. [83]

    McPherson, J

    A.M. McPherson, J. McMullin, T. Stevenson, P. Dewdney, A. Casson, L. Stringhetti et al., Square kilometer array project status report, inGround-based and Airborne Telescopes VII, vol. 10700, pp. 281–311, SPIE, 2018

    2018

  73. [84]

    Price-Whelan, P.L

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, P.L. Lim, N. Earl, N. Starkman, L. Bradley et al., The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package,ApJ935(2022) 167 [2206.14220]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [85]

    Harris, K.J

    C.R. Harris, K.J. Millman, S.J. van der Walt, R. Gommers, P. Virtanen, D. Cournapeau et al.,Array programming with NumPy,Nature585(2020) 357

    2020

  75. [86]

    Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90

    J.D. Hunter,Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment,Computing in Science & Engineering9 (2007) 90. – 29 –

    2007

  76. [87]

    Pandas Development Team,pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, Feb., 2020

    T. Pandas Development Team,pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, Feb., 2020. 10.5281/zenodo.3509134

    2020 doi

  77. [88]

    56 – 61, 2010, DOI

    Wes McKinney,Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python, inProceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, St´ efan van der Walt and Jarrod Millman, eds., pp. 56 – 61, 2010, DOI

    2010

  78. [89]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T.E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau et al., SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python,Nature Methods17 (2020) 261

    2020

  79. [90]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al.,healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in python,Journal of Open Source Software4(2019) 1298

    2019

  80. [91]

    G´ orski, E

    K.M. G´ orski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere,ApJ622(2005) 759 [arXiv:astro-ph/0409513]

    2005 arXiv

  81. [92]

    Rees and P

    M.J. Rees and P. Meszaros,Dissipative photosphere models of gamma-ray bursts and x-ray flashes,The Astrophysical Journal628(2005) 847–852

    2005

  82. [93]

    Rees and P

    M.J. Rees and P. Meszaros,Unsteady Outflow Models for Cosmological Gamma-Ray Bursts, ApJL430(1994) L93 [astro-ph/9404038]

    1994 arXiv

  83. [94]

    Norris, R.J

    J.P. Norris, R.J. Nemiroff, J.T. Bonnell, J.D. Scargle, C. Kouveliotou, W.S. Paciesas et al., Attributes of Pulses in Long Bright Gamma-Ray Bursts,ApJ459(1996) 393

    1996

  84. [95]

    Beuermann, F.V

    K. Beuermann, F.V. Hessman, K. Reinsch, H. Nicklas, P.M. Vreeswijk, T.J. Galama et al., Vlt observations of grb 990510 and its environment, 1999

    1999

  85. [96]

    Troja, H

    E. Troja, H. van Eerten, G. Ryan, R. Ricci, J.M. Burgess, M.H. Wieringa et al.,A year in the life of gw170817: the rise and fall of a structured jet from a binary neutron star merger, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2019)

    2019

  86. [97]

    Piro et al.,A long-lived neutron star merger remnant in GW170817: constraints and clues from X-ray observations,Mon

    L. Piro et al.,A long-lived neutron star merger remnant in GW170817: constraints and clues from X-ray observations,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.483(2019) 1912 [1810.04664]

    2019 arXiv

  87. [98]

    Nakar and T

    E. Nakar and T. Piran,Radio Remnants of Compact Binary Mergers - the Electromagnetic Signal that will follow the Gravitational Waves,Nature478(2011) 82 [1102.1020]

    2011 arXiv

  88. [99]

    Abbott, R

    B.P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T.D. Abbott, M.R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley et al., Characterization of transient noise in advanced ligo relevant to gravitational wave signal gw150914,Classical and Quantum Gravity33(2016) 134001

    2016

  89. [100]

    Abbott, R

    B.P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T.D. Abbott, M.R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley et al.,Effects of data quality vetoes on a search for compact binary coalescences in advanced ligo’s first observing run,Classical and Quantum Gravity35(2018) 065010

    2018

  90. [101]

    Sorazu, K.A

    B. Sorazu, K.A. Strain, I.S. Heng and R. Kumar,Violin mode amplitude glitch monitor for the presence of excess noise on the monolithic silica suspensions of geo 600,Classical and Quantum Gravity27(2010) 155017

    2010

  91. [102]

    Cabero, A

    M. Cabero, A. Lundgren, A.H. Nitz, T. Dent, D. Barker, E. Goetz et al.,Blip glitches in Advanced LIGO data,Classical and Quantum Gravity36(2019) 155010. – 30 –

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.