Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Residual Test for the Third Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-18 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Subtracting best-fit waveforms from third gravitational-wave catalog events leaves residuals consistent with instrumental noise.

desk verdict Standard residual tests on GWTC-3 report a null result but apply KS/AD/chi-squared directly to post-fit residuals without calibration for estimated parameters. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.14924 v2 submitted 2025-09-18 gr-qc

Dicong Liang , Ning Dai , Yingjie Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesresidualtestGWTC-3goodnessoffitKolmogorov-SmirnovAnderson-Darling
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

The paper examines the residuals of events in the third gravitational-wave transient catalog after subtracting the best-fit waveform templates. It uses the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, and chi-squared tests to check if these residuals are consistent with instrumental noise. No statistically significant deviation is found. The method is simple, works on single-detector events, and does not require cross-correlation between detectors, though it is sensitive primarily to loud events.

What carries the argument

The residual signal after subtracting the best-fit theoretical waveform template from the observed data, tested for consistency with noise using statistical goodness-of-fit tests.

What would settle it

Finding a statistically significant deviation from the expected noise distribution in the residuals of one or more loud events would indicate inconsistency between the data and the templates.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By subtracting the best-fit waveform from the data and applying goodness-of-fit tests including the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test and the chi-squared test, the residuals of events in the third gravitational-wave transient catalog show no statistically significant deviation from the instrumental noise.

Load-bearing premise

The best-fit waveform template accurately captures the true gravitational wave signal so that any mismatch appears in the residuals.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The waveform templates used for detection match the observed signals well for the tested events.
  • The catalog events do not show evidence of unaccounted signals or noise mismatches in their residuals.
  • The test provides a computationally inexpensive way to validate fits without needing multiple detectors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This approach could be routinely applied to new loud events to quickly verify template accuracy.
  • Extensions might include testing for specific types of deviations, such as those from alternative gravity theories.
  • If applied to future, more sensitive detectors, it could help identify when waveform models need improvement for higher signal-to-noise ratios.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a residual test to events from the third gravitational-wave transient catalog (GWTC-3). Best-fit waveform templates are subtracted from the strain data, after which Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, and chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests are performed on the residuals to assess consistency with instrumental noise. The authors report no statistically significant deviations and note that the approach works for single-detector events and is computationally inexpensive.

Significance. If the goodness-of-fit tests are correctly calibrated, the work supplies a straightforward, cross-correlation-independent consistency check between observed signals and theoretical templates. This is potentially useful for validating loud events in future catalogs. The method's simplicity and single-detector applicability are clear strengths.

major comments (1)
  1. [description of the residual test and statistical analysis] The central claim that the residuals show no statistically significant deviation from noise rests on the direct application of the KS, AD, and chi-squared tests. These tests assume a fixed model, yet the best-fit waveform is obtained by maximizing the likelihood over the same data, reducing the effective degrees of freedom. The manuscript provides no Monte Carlo calibration of the null distribution, no adjusted critical values, and no discussion of this effect. This issue is load-bearing for the reported p-values and conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [abstract and methods] The abstract and methods should explicitly state the event selection criteria, the noise model assumed for each detector, and how non-stationary noise segments are handled.
  2. [methods] Clarify whether the tests are applied to whitened residuals or raw residuals and specify the frequency band or time window used for each event.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive criticism of our manuscript. We address the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that the residuals show no statistically significant deviation from noise rests on the direct application of the KS, AD, and chi-squared tests. These tests assume a fixed model, yet the best-fit waveform is obtained by maximizing the likelihood over the same data, reducing the effective degrees of freedom. The manuscript provides no Monte Carlo calibration of the null distribution, no adjusted critical values, and no discussion of this effect. This issue is load-bearing for the reported p-values and conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the standard critical values and p-value interpretations for the KS, AD, and chi-squared tests are derived under the assumption of a fixed model with no estimated parameters. Because the waveform template is obtained by maximizing the likelihood on the same data, the effective number of degrees of freedom is reduced and the null distribution of the test statistics is altered. The original manuscript applied the tests without explicit calibration or discussion of this point. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that (i) states this limitation explicitly, (ii) reports the results of Monte Carlo simulations in which synthetic signals are injected into realistic noise, the best-fit parameters are recovered, and the residuals are then subjected to the three tests, and (iii) provides either adjusted critical values or a mapping from observed test statistics to calibrated p-values. These additions will make the statistical interpretation of our results more rigorous while preserving the original finding that no significant deviations are observed. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: direct application of standard statistical tests to residuals

full rationale

The paper performs an empirical residual analysis by subtracting the best-fit waveform template from GW strain data and then applying the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Anderson-Darling, and chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests to check consistency with instrumental noise. No derivation chain exists that reduces a claimed result to its own inputs by construction, nor are any predictions or first-principles outputs equivalent to fitted parameters. The procedure relies on external, well-established statistical tests whose null distributions are independent of the present work; the central claim is simply the outcome of these tests on catalog events. No self-citations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked in a load-bearing way. This matches the default expectation of a self-contained empirical study with no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard assumptions from gravitational-wave data analysis and classical statistics; no free parameters, invented entities, or ad-hoc axioms are introduced in the abstract.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption Instrumental noise is stationary and can be modeled as Gaussian for the purpose of the chosen goodness-of-fit tests
    Invoked implicitly when applying chi-squared, KS, and AD tests to residuals

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Residual Test for the Third Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2509.14924

@misc{pith2026250914924,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Residual Test for the Third Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2509.14924}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.14924}
}
read the original abstract

The residual test is commonly used to check the agreement between the gravitational wave signal and the theoretical waveform template. The basic idea of the residual test is to subtract the best-fit waveform from the data and then check whether the remaining data (i.e., the residuals) are consistent with the instrumental noise or not. We apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test and the chi-squared test as goodness-of-fit test to examine the residuals of events in the third gravitational-wave transient catalog and find no statistically significant deviation from the noise. Although our method is sensitive only to the loud events, it does not rely on the cross-correlation between detectors. A single-detector event suffices for our residual analysis, and the test is simple and computationally inexpensive.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We apply the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the Anderson-Darling test and the chi-squared test as goodness-of-fit test to examine the residuals of events in the third gravitational-wave transient catalog and find no statistically significant deviation from the noise.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Ensemble-Based Residual Tests of GW231123 across Waveform Models

    gr-qc 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GW231123's residuals are consistent with detector noise for all five waveform models, and the strain-level differences between models are too small to be detected.

  2. Compactness Inference in Gravitational-Wave Mergers with PhenomDECO: Catalog Benchmarks and Robustness Diagnostics

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PhenomDECO analysis of GWTC-3 events finds all considered signals consistent with binary black holes once low-frequency noise effects are addressed via higher starting frequencies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

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

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Class. Quant. Grav.37, 055002 (2020), arXiv:1908.11170 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    (LIGO Instrument Science Collaboration) 2021 Class

    D. Daviset al.(LIGO), Class. Quant. Grav.38, 135014 (2021), arXiv:2101.11673 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    2025, arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02831

    S. Soniet al.(LIGO), Class. Quant. Grav.42, 085016 (2025), arXiv:2409.02831 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    Powell, Class

    J. Powell, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 155017 (2018), arXiv:1803.11346 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Pankowet al., Phys

    C. Pankowet al., Phys. Rev. D98, 084016 (2018), arXiv:1808.03619 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    N. J. Cornish, T. B. Littenberg, B. B´ ecsy, K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, S. Ghonge, and M. Millhouse, Phys. Rev. D103, 044006 (2021), arXiv:2011.09494 [gr-qc]

    2021

  4. [12]

    Merritt, B

    J. Merritt, B. Farr, R. Hur, B. Edelman, and Z. Doctor, Phys. Rev. D104, 102004 (2021), arXiv:2108.12044 [gr-qc]

    2021

  5. [13]

    J. Y. L. Kwok, R. K. L. Lo, A. J. Weinstein, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D105, 024066 (2022), arXiv:2109.07642 [gr-qc]

    2022

  6. [14]

    Hourihane, K

    S. Hourihane, K. Chatziioannou, M. Wijngaarden, D. Davis, T. Littenberg, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D106, 042006 (2022), arXiv:2205.13580 [gr-qc]

    2022

  7. [15]

    Davis, T

    D. Davis, T. B. Littenberg, I. M. Romero-Shaw, M. Millhouse, J. McIver, F. Di Renzo, and G. Ashton, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 245013 (2022), arXiv:2207.03429 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022

  8. [16]

    S. D. Mohanty and M. A. T. Chowdhury, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 125001 (2023), arXiv:2301.02398 [gr-qc]

    2023

  9. [17]

    Narolaet al., Phys

    H. Narolaet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 024079 (2025), arXiv:2411.15506 [gr-qc]

    2025

  10. [18]

    Hinderer and S

    T. Hinderer and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D96, 104048 (2017), arXiv:1707.08426 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Cao and W.-B

    Z. Cao and W.-B. Han, Phys. Rev. D96, 044028 (2017), arXiv:1708.00166 [gr-qc] . – 8 –

    2017 arXiv

  12. [20]

    X. Liu, Z. Cao, and Z.-H. Zhu, Class. Quant. Grav.39, 035009 (2022), arXiv:2102.08614 [gr-qc]

    2022

  13. [21]

    Nagar, A

    A. Nagar, A. Bonino, and P. Rettegno, Phys. Rev. D103, 104021 (2021), arXiv:2101.08624 [gr-qc]

    2021

  14. [22]

    Khalil, A

    M. Khalil, A. Buonanno, J. Steinhoff, and J. Vines, Phys. Rev. D104, 024046 (2021), arXiv:2104.11705 [gr-qc]

    2021

  15. [23]

    Islam, V

    T. Islam, V. Varma, J. Lodman, S. E. Field, G. Khanna, M. A. Scheel, H. P. Pfeiffer, D. Gerosa, and L. E. Kidder, Phys. Rev. D103, 064022 (2021), arXiv:2101.11798 [gr-qc]

    2021

  16. [24]

    Ramos-Buades, A

    A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, M. Khalil, and S. Ossokine, Phys. Rev. D105, 044035 (2022), arXiv:2112.06952 [gr-qc]

    2022

  17. [25]

    Wang, Y.-C

    H. Wang, Y.-C. Zou, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D107, 124061 (2023), arXiv:2302.11227 [gr-qc]

    2023

  18. [26]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J.973, 132 (2024), arXiv:2308.03822 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  19. [27]

    Gupteet al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    N. Gupteet al., (2024), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Trenado, T

    J. Trenado, T. Andrade, A. Climent, and M. A. Ferrer, (2025), arXiv:2509.05269 [gr-qc]

    2025

  21. [29]

    Barausse and L

    E. Barausse and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D77, 104027 (2008), arXiv:0711.4558 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  22. [30]

    N. Dai, Y. Gong, T. Jiang, and D. Liang, Phys. Rev. D106, 064003 (2022), arXiv:2111.13514 [gr-qc]

    2022

  23. [31]

    P. S. Cole, A. Coogan, B. J. Kavanagh, and G. Bertone, Phys. Rev. D107, 083006 (2023), arXiv:2207.07576 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023

  24. [32]

    M. Garg, A. Derdzinski, L. Zwick, P. R. Capelo, and L. Mayer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.517, 1339 (2022), arXiv:2206.05292 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022

  25. [33]

    N. Dai, Y. Gong, Y. Zhao, and T. Jiang, Phys. Rev. D110, 084080 (2024), arXiv:2301.05088 [gr-qc]

    2024

  26. [34]

    Zwick, C

    L. Zwick, C. Tiede, A. A. Trani, A. Derdzinski, Z. Haiman, D. J. D’Orazio, and J. Samsing, Phys. Rev. D110, 103005 (2024), arXiv:2405.05698 [gr-qc]

    2024

  27. [35]

    Zwick, J

    L. Zwick, J. Tak´ atsy, P. Saini, K. Hendriks, J. Samsing, C. Tiede, C. Rowan, and A. A. Trani, (2025), arXiv:2503.24084 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  28. [36]

    Torigoe, K

    Y. Torigoe, K. Hattori, and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 251101 (2009), arXiv:0906.1448 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Dmitraˇ sinovi´ c, M.ˇSuvakov, and A

    V. Dmitraˇ sinovi´ c, M.ˇSuvakov, and A. Hudomal, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 101102 (2014), arXiv:1501.03405 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Bonetti, E

    M. Bonetti, E. Barausse, G. Faye, F. Haardt, and A. Sesana, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 215004 (2017), arXiv:1707.04902 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gupta, H

    P. Gupta, H. Suzuki, H. Okawa, and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D101, 104053 (2020), arXiv:1911.11318 [gr-qc] . – 9 –

    2020

  32. [40]

    R. S. Chandramouli and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D105, 064009 (2022), arXiv:2107.00741 [gr-qc]

    2022

  33. [41]

    Samajdar, J

    A. Samajdar, J. Janquart, C. Van Den Broeck, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D104, 044003 (2021), arXiv:2102.07544 [gr-qc]

    2021

  34. [42]

    Relton and V

    P. Relton and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D104, 084039 (2021), arXiv:2103.16225 [gr-qc]

    2021

  35. [43]

    Antonelli, O

    A. Antonelli, O. Burke, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 5069 (2021), arXiv:2104.01897 [gr-qc]

    2021

  36. [44]

    Z. Wang, D. Liang, J. Zhao, C. Liu, and L. Shao, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 055011 (2024), arXiv:2304.06734 [astro-ph.IM]

    2024

  37. [45]

    Z. Wang, D. Liang, and L. Shao, (2025), arXiv:2509.07737 [gr-qc]

    2025

  38. [46]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and M. Mewes, Phys. Lett. B757, 510 (2016), arXiv:1602.04782 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mewes, Phys

    M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. D99, 104062 (2019), arXiv:1905.00409 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Shao, Phys

    L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D101, 104019 (2020), arXiv:2002.01185 [hep-ph]

    2020

  41. [49]

    Z. Wang, L. Shao, and C. Liu, Astrophys. J.921, 158 (2021), arXiv:2108.02974 [gr-qc]

    2021

  42. [50]

    Z.-C. Zhao, Z. Cao, and S. Wang, Astrophys. J.930, 139 (2022), arXiv:2201.02813 [gr-qc]

    2022

  43. [51]

    Haegel, K

    L. Haegel, K. O’Neal-Ault, Q. G. Bailey, J. D. Tasson, M. Bloom, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D107, 064031 (2023), arXiv:2210.04481 [gr-qc]

    2023

  44. [52]

    T. Zhu, W. Zhao, J.-M. Yan, Y.-Z. Wang, C. Gong, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D110, 064044 (2024), arXiv:2304.09025 [gr-qc]

    2024

  45. [53]

    Liang, Y

    D. Liang, Y. Gong, S. Hou, and Y. Liu, Phys. Rev. D95, 104034 (2017), arXiv:1701.05998 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    S. Hou, Y. Gong, and Y. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 378 (2018), arXiv:1704.01899 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Soudi, G

    I. Soudi, G. Farrugia, V. Gakis, J. Levi Said, and E. N. Saridakis, Phys. Rev. D100, 044008 (2019), arXiv:1810.08220 [gr-qc]

    2019

  48. [56]

    Y. Gong, S. Hou, D. Liang, and E. Papantonopoulos, Phys. Rev. D97, 084040 (2018), arXiv:1801.03382 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Capozziello, M

    S. Capozziello, M. Capriolo, and L. Caso, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 156 (2020), arXiv:1912.12469 [gr-qc]

    2020

  50. [58]

    Liang, R

    D. Liang, R. Xu, X. Lu, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D106, 124019 (2022), arXiv:2207.14423 [gr-qc]

    2022

  51. [59]

    Dong, Y.-Q

    Y.-Q. Dong, Y.-Q. Liu, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D109, 044013 (2024), arXiv:2310.11336 [gr-qc]

    2024

  52. [60]

    Dong, X.-B

    Y.-Q. Dong, X.-B. Lai, Y.-Q. Liu, and Y.-X. Liu, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 645 (2025), arXiv:2409.11838 [gr-qc] . – 10 –

    2025

  53. [61]

    N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 135012 (2015), arXiv:1410.3835 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  54. [62]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 129902 (2018)], arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  55. [63]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 104036 (2019), arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  58. [66]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021), arXiv:2010.14529 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2021), arXiv:2112.06861 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    M. A. Green and J. W. Moffat, Phys. Lett. B784, 312 (2018), arXiv:1711.00347 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    A. B. Nielsen, A. H. Nitz, C. D. Capano, and D. A. Brown, JCAP02, 019 (2019), arXiv:1811.04071 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Marcoccia, F

    P. Marcoccia, F. Fredriksson, A. B. Nielsen, and G. Nardini, JCAP11, 043 (2020), arXiv:2008.12663 [gr-qc]

    2020

  63. [71]

    Residuals for Binary Black Hole Events in GWTC-1 Using Chi-squared Tests,

    D. Liang, J. Kanner, A. J. Weinstein, S. Ghonge, and Y. Gong, “Residuals for Binary Black Hole Events in GWTC-1 Using Chi-squared Tests,” (2020), LIGO-P2000464

    2020

  64. [72]

    Chatterji, L

    S. Chatterji, L. Blackburn, G. Martin, and E. Katsavounidis, Class. Quant. Grav.21, S1809 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0412119

    2004 arXiv

  65. [73]

    S. K. Chatterji,The search for gravitational wave bursts in data from the second LIGO science run, Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2005)

    2005

  66. [74]

    Blackburnet al., Class

    L. Blackburnet al., Class. Quant. Grav.25, 184004 (2008), arXiv:0804.0800 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Vazsonyi and D

    L. Vazsonyi and D. Davis, Class. Quant. Grav.40, 035008 (2023), arXiv:2208.12338 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023

  68. [76]

    Trovato (Ligo Scientific, Virgo), PoSAsterics2019, 082 (2020)

    A. Trovato (Ligo Scientific, Virgo), PoSAsterics2019, 082 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Prattenet al., Phys

    G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  70. [78]

    D. M. Macleod, J. S. Areeda, S. B. Coughlin, T. J. Massinger, and A. L. Urban, SoftwareX13, 100657 (2021)

    2021

  71. [79]

    An, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att4, 89 (1933)

    K. An, Giorn Dell’inst Ital Degli Att4, 89 (1933)

    1933

  72. [80]

    Smirnov, The annals of mathematical statistics19, 279 (1948)

    N. Smirnov, The annals of mathematical statistics19, 279 (1948)

    1948

  73. [81]

    Virtanen, R

    P. Virtanen, R. Gommers, T. E. Oliphant, M. Haberland, T. Reddy, D. Cournapeau, E. Burovski, P. Peterson, W. Weckesser, J. Bright,et al., Nature methods17, 261 (2020). – 11 –

    2020

  74. [82]

    T. W. Anderson and D. A. Darling, Journal of the American statistical association49, 765 (1954)

    1954

  75. [83]

    Pearson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science50, 157 (1900)

    K. Pearson, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science50, 157 (1900)

    1900

  76. [84]

    Punturoet al., Class

    M. Punturoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  77. [85]

    Reitzeet al., Bull

    D. Reitzeet al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Hildet al., Class

    S. Hildet al., Class. Quant. Grav.28, 094013 (2011), arXiv:1012.0908 [gr-qc] . – 12 –

    2011 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed May 18, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.