deletions | additions       diff --git a/spinning followup.tex b/spinning followup.tex  index eee979b..141a8b4 100644  --- a/spinning followup.tex  +++ b/spinning followup.tex 
...
To simulate a real analysis scenario where the class of compact binary and the NS EOS are not known, we use uniform priors in component masses between $0.6~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $5.0~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ to avoid any prior constraints on mass posteriors, and our standard spin prior: uniform in spin magnitudes $\chi_{1,\,2} \sim U(0, 1)$ and isotropic in spin orientation. Prior distributions for the location and orientation of the binary match that of the simulated population, i.e. isotropically oriented and uniform in volume (out to a maximum distance of $218.9~\mathrm{Mpc}$, safely outside the detection horizon, which is $\sim137~\mathrm{Mpc}$ for a $1.6~\mathrm{M}_\odot$--$1.6~\mathrm{M}_\odot$ binary).\footnote{The mean (median) true distance for the set of $250$ events is $52.1~\mathrm{Mpc}$ ($47.8~\mathrm{Mpc}$), and the maximum is $124.8~\mathrm{Mpc}$.} Choosing any particular upper bound for spin magnitude would require either assuming hard constraints on NS spin-up, which are based upon observations with hard-to-quantify selection effects, or making assumptions regarding the unknown EOS of NSs. For these reasons we choose not to rule out compact objects with high spin a priori by using an upper limit of $\chi < 1$, encompassing all allowed NS and black hole (BH) spins. In section \ref{subsec:prior_constraints} we look at more constraining spin priors, and particularly how such choices can affect mass estimates.    We only show results from the TaylorF2 non-spinning analyses, but we also ran SpinTaylorT4 analyses with spins fixed to $\chi_{1,~2}=0$ and validated that systematic differences in waveform models do not significantly affect estimates. There were no significant differences in parameter estimation between the non-spinning TaylorF2 and zero-spin SpinTaylorT4 results for any of the quantities we examined.\footnote{Using as an example the chirp mass, the most precisely inferred parameter, we can compare the effects of switch from a non-spinning to a spinning analysis to those from switching waveform approximants by comparing the difference the posterior means $\langle \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle$. The difference between means from the SpinTaylorT4 analyses with and without spin, is an order of magnitude greater than the difference between the zero-spin SpinTaylorT4 and TaylorF2 analyses: defining the log-ratio $\xi = \log_{10}(|\langle \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^\mathrm{S} - \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^0|/|\langle \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^\mathrm{NS} - \mathcal{M}_\mathrm{c}\rangle^0|)$, where the superscripts $\mathrm{S}$, $0$ and $\mathrm{NS}$ indicates results of the fully spinning SpinTaylorT4, the zero-spin SpinTaylorT4 and the non-spinning TaylorF2 analyses respectively, the mean (median) value of $xi$ is $0.90$ ($1.03$), and $92.8\%$ of events have $\xi > 0$ (indicating that the shift in the mean from introducing spin is larger than the shift from switching approximants).}