{"about":{"site":"https://codewithpapers.app","non_affiliation":"Code with Papers and Syntology are not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Papers with Code, Meta, or the pwc-archive mirror.","licence":"CC BY-SA 4.0","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","attribution":"https://codewithpapers.app/attribution","modified":"archive material modified by Syntology; see the attribution page"},"url":"/paper/deep-follow-up-of-gw151226-ordinary-binary-or","title":"Deep follow-up for gravitational-wave inference: a case study with GW151226","arxiv_id":"2203.13406","date":"2022-03-25","proceeding":null,"authors":["Avi Vajpeyi","Rory Smith","Eric Thrane"],"abstract":"New analyses of gravitational wave events raise questions about the nature of some events. For example, LIGO--Virgo--KAGRA initially determined GW151226 to be a merger with a mass-ratio $q\\approx0.5$ and effective inspiral spin $\\chi_{\\text{eff}}\\approx 0.2$. However, recent works offer an alternative picture: GW151226 is a lower-mass-ratio event $q \\approx 0.3$ with slightly higher spin $\\chi_{\\text{eff}}\\approx 0.3$. This discrepancy has been challenging to resolve as a wide range of differences are employed for each analysis. This work introduces a ``deep follow-up'' framework to efficiently compute the posterior odds between two different peaks in parameter space. In doing so, we aim to help resolve disputes about the true nature of gravitational-wave events associated with conflicting astrophysical interpretations. Our proposal is not a replacement for standard inference techniques; instead, our method provides a diagnostic tool to understand discrepancies between conflicting results. We demonstrate this method by studying three {$q$-$\\chi_{\\text{eff}}$} peaks proposed for GW151226. We find the $(q\\sim0.5, \\chi_{\\text{eff}}\\sim0.2)$ interpretation is only slightly preferred over the $(q\\sim0.3, \\chi_{\\text{eff}}\\sim0.3)$ hypothesis with a posterior odds of $\\sim1.7\\pm0.4$, suggesting that neither of the two peaks can be ruled out. We discuss strategies to produce more reliable parameter estimation studies in gravitational-wave astronomy.","url_abs":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.13406v2","url_pdf":"https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.13406v2.pdf","source":{"archive":"pwc-archive (Hugging Face), CC BY-SA 4.0","snapshot":"2025-07-28","licence_url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode","row_kind":"links_only","authors_date_abstract":"arXiv metadata, CC0 1.0 (https://info.arxiv.org/help/license), from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12"},"code_links":[{"paper_slug":"deep-follow-up-of-gw151226-ordinary-binary-or","repo_url":"https://github.com/avivajpeyi/deep_gw_pe_followup","is_official":1,"mentioned_in_paper":1,"mentioned_in_github":0,"framework":"none","reach":null}],"tasks":[],"methods":[],"datasets_introduced":[],"methods_introduced":[],"results":[],"syntology":{"syntology_url":null,"atlas_url":null,"mcp":null,"developers":"https://syntology.ai/developers"},"arxiv_metadata":null,"syntology_extracted_results":null}