deletions | additions       diff --git a/component masses.tex b/component masses.tex  index 40d22a6..4160fe6 100644  --- a/component masses.tex  +++ b/component masses.tex 
...
Figure \ref{fig:comp_masses} compares the $90\%$ credible regions in component-mass space of $5$ chosen simulated signals \citep[cf.][figure 1]{Chatziioannou_2014}\footnote{Due to the difficulty of estimating the narrow and nonlinearly correlated credible regions in m1–m2 space, we illustrate the credible regions in $m_1$--$m_2$ space as the projection of a rectangular region in $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}$--$q$space, $\mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}$--$q$ space,  bounded above and below by the 1D $5^\mathrm{th}$ and $95^\mathrm{th}$ percentiles, respectively.}. If the analyses used a prior distribution for spin matching the simulated population ($\chi < 0.05$), we would expect the masses of the simulated sources to fall within the estimated $90\%$ credible regions for close to $90\%$ of simulations. For the broad spin prior used ($\chi < 1$) however, this will not be the case. If BNS systems turn out to have appreciable spins, however, it For this reason, several of the simulated sources lie outside of the $90\%$ credible regions in figure \ref{fig:comp_masses}. It  is evident that making strong (and wrong) overly conservative  prior assumptions about NS spin can drastically bias ($\chi < 1$) will \emph{strongly} affect uncertainties in  mass estimates.