pith. sign in

arxiv: 2507.13249 · v2 · submitted 2025-07-17 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Comparing astrophysical models to gravitational-wave data in the observable space

Alexandre Toubiana , Davide Gerosa , Matthew Mould , Stefano Rinaldi , Manuel Arca Sedda , Tristan Bruel , Riccardo Buscicchio , Jonathan Gair
show 4 more authors
Lavinia Paiella Filippo Santoliquido Rodrigo Tenorio Cristiano Ugolini
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 04:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavespopulation inferenceselection effectscompact binary mergersastrophysical modelsLIGO-Virgo-KAGRA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Astrophysical models of compact binaries can be compared to gravitational-wave data directly in observable space.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper shows that comparing population-synthesis models to gravitational-wave observations works better when done directly on the observable population instead of first reconstructing the underlying astrophysical distribution. This keeps the comparison inside the parts of parameter space where the models are actually valid. Unbiased inference of the observable compact-binary population remains possible when selection effects are included in a non-standard way. The authors apply the approach to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA third-observing-run data and use it to test a fiducial population-synthesis model.

Core claim

Comparing models to data in the observable space respects the domain of validity of the astrophysical models, and unbiased inference of the observable compact-binary population is possible when selection effects are incorporated in a non-standard manner rather than the usual deconvolution followed by refolding.

What carries the argument

Reconstruction of the observable population by directly modeling detected events while incorporating selection effects differently from the standard hierarchical Bayesian approach.

If this is right

  • Only the parameter-space regions actually predicted by a given model enter the comparison.
  • Inference targets the population that detectors actually record rather than an extrapolated intrinsic one.
  • Model predictions can be tested without first removing and then re-applying selection effects.
  • The method has been applied to real O3 data and can be used for future observing runs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same direct-observable approach could be adapted to other selection-biased datasets such as exoplanet surveys.
  • Avoiding the deconvolution step may reduce error propagation in population analyses.
  • Extensions could include joint fits across multiple detectors or waveform models.

Load-bearing premise

Selection effects can be incorporated in a non-standard manner that still yields unbiased inference of the observable population.

What would settle it

A simulation test that injects a known observable population into mock data and checks whether this method recovers the injected distribution without bias would confirm or refute the claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13249 by Alexandre Toubiana, Cristiano Ugolini, Davide Gerosa, Filippo Santoliquido, Jonathan Gair, Lavinia Paiella, Manuel Arca Sedda, Matthew Mould, Riccardo Buscicchio, Rodrigo Tenorio, Stefano Rinaldi, Tristan Bruel.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Comparison between the inferred population and the population-synthesis model of Ref. [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distribution of detection probabilities estimates on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Comparing population-synthesis models to the results of hierarchical Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy requires a careful understanding of the domain of validity of the models fitted to data. This comparison is usually done using the inferred astrophysical distribution: from the data that were collected, one deconvolves selection effects to reconstruct the generating population distribution. In this paper, we demonstrate the benefits of instead comparing observable populations directly. In this approach, the domain of validity of the models is trivially respected, such that only the relevant parameter space regions as predicted by the astrophysical models of interest contribute to the comparison. With this in mind, it can be useful to fit the observed population directly, rather than effectively deconvolving the selection effects only to fold them back in when reconstructing the observable population. We clarify that unbiased inference of the observable compact-binary population is indeed possible. Crucially, this approach still requires incorporating selection effects, but in a manner that differs from the standard implementation. We apply our observable-space reconstruction to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data from their third observing run and illustrate its potential by comparing the results to the predictions of a fiducial population-synthesis model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper claims that comparing astrophysical population-synthesis models to gravitational-wave data is best performed directly in observable space rather than by first deconvolving selection effects to recover the intrinsic population. It clarifies that unbiased inference of the observable compact-binary population remains possible when selection effects are incorporated via a non-standard route, thereby respecting the domain of validity of the models by construction. The approach is illustrated by applying the observable-space reconstruction to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O3 data and comparing the results to a fiducial population-synthesis model.

Significance. If the central clarification holds, the work offers a practical simplification for model comparison in gravitational-wave population studies. By relocating the comparison to the observable domain, it avoids unnecessary inversion steps while still requiring proper treatment of selection effects, which may reduce systematic uncertainties and improve the reliability of assessing which astrophysical models are consistent with the data.

major comments (1)
  1. Abstract and the section introducing the observable-space approach: the claim that unbiased inference of the observable population is possible with a non-standard incorporation of selection effects is central to the paper, yet the manuscript does not supply an explicit likelihood construction or step-by-step derivation showing how this differs from the standard hierarchical form while preserving unbiasedness; without this, verification of the result is difficult.
minor comments (2)
  1. The application to O3 data would be strengthened by including a quantitative metric (e.g., posterior predictive checks or overlap integrals) for the agreement between the reconstructed observable distribution and the fiducial model prediction.
  2. Notation for the observable population distribution and the selection-effect term should be introduced with a clear definition on first use to improve readability for readers unfamiliar with the relocated comparison step.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for recommending minor revision. We appreciate the identification of the need for greater explicitness in the central claim regarding unbiased inference in observable space.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: Abstract and the section introducing the observable-space approach: the claim that unbiased inference of the observable population is possible with a non-standard incorporation of selection effects is central to the paper, yet the manuscript does not supply an explicit likelihood construction or step-by-step derivation showing how this differs from the standard hierarchical form while preserving unbiasedness; without this, verification of the result is difficult.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit likelihood construction and step-by-step derivation would improve clarity and verifiability. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection (or appendix) that presents the likelihood for the observable population, derives it from first principles, and contrasts it with the standard hierarchical form. The derivation will show how selection effects enter via a non-standard route that respects the domain of validity of the models while preserving unbiasedness for the observable distribution. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper presents a methodological clarification that unbiased inference of the observable compact-binary population remains possible when selection effects are incorporated via a non-standard route, allowing direct model comparison in observable space. No equations, derivations, or steps in the provided abstract or description reduce the central claim to a fitted input, self-definition, or self-citation chain by construction; the approach relocates the comparison step within existing hierarchical inference frameworks without introducing load-bearing self-referential elements. The result is self-contained and builds on standard selection-effect handling in gravitational-wave astronomy.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard domain assumptions from gravitational-wave population inference but does not introduce new free parameters or invented entities in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Selection effects can be incorporated differently from the standard implementation while still permitting unbiased inference of the observable population.
    This premise is required for the claim that unbiased inference remains possible.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5779 in / 1133 out tokens · 26092 ms · 2026-05-19T04:32:55.234060+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. What You Don't Know Won't Hurt You: Self-Consistent Hierarchical Inference with Unknown Follow-up Selection Strategies

    astro-ph.IM 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Hierarchical Bayesian inference allows accurate recovery of intrinsic astrophysical source populations even when follow-up selection is unknown and correlated with parameters of interest.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 13 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Advanced LIGO

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  2. [2]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  3. [3]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    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. X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    T. A. Callister, (2024), arXiv:2410.19145 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    2018, arXiv:1806.05820

    I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Phys. Rept. 955, 1 (2022), arXiv:1806.05820 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Mapelli, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer, 2021) arXiv:2106.00699 [astro-ph.HE]

    M. Mapelli, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer, 2021) arXiv:2106.00699 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486, 1086 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  9. [9]

    Vitale, D

    S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Taylor, inHand- book of Gravitational Wave Astronomy(Springer, 2022) p. 45

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Zevin, S

    M. Zevin, S. S. Bavera, C. P. L. Berry, V. Kalogera, T. Fragos, P. Marchant, C. L. Rodriguez, F. Antonini, D. E. Holz, and C. Pankow, Astrophys. J.910, 152 (2021), arXiv:2011.10057 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    K. W. K. Wong, K. Breivik, K. Kremer, and T. Callister, Phys. Rev. D103, 083021 (2021), arXiv:2011.03564 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    Bouffanais, M

    Y. Bouffanais, M. Mapelli, F. Santoliquido, N. Giacobbo, G. Iorio, and G. Costa, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 3873 (2021), arXiv:2010.11220 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Franciolini, V

    G. Franciolini, V. Baibhav, V. De Luca, K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vitale, 6 Phys. Rev. D105, 083526 (2022), arXiv:2105.03349 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Mould, D

    M. Mould, D. Gerosa, and S. R. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103013 (2022), arXiv:2203.03651 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    A. Q. Cheng, M. Zevin, and S. Vitale, Astrophys. J.955, 127 (2023), arXiv:2307.03129 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Colloms, C

    S. Colloms, C. P. L. Berry, J. Veitch, and M. Zevin, (2025), arXiv:2503.03819 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Plunkett, M

    C. Plunkett, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, (2025), arXiv:2504.18615 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Leyde, S

    K. Leyde, S. R. Green, A. Toubiana, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064056 (2024), arXiv:2311.12093 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  19. [19]

    Jiang, H.-L

    J.-Q. Jiang, H.-L. Huang, J. He, Y.-T. Wang, and Y.-S. Piao, (2025), arXiv:2505.15530 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization

    C. Talbot and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J.856, 173 (2018), arXiv:1801.02699 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  21. [21]

    T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 922, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.00521 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    Adamcewicz and E

    C. Adamcewicz and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517, 3928 (2022), arXiv:2208.03405 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Biscoveanu, T

    S. Biscoveanu, T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.932, L19 (2022), arXiv:2204.01578 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  24. [24]

    Franciolini and P

    G. Franciolini and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D105, 123024 (2022), arXiv:2201.13098 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  25. [25]

    Wanget al., Potential Subpopulations and Assem- bling Tendency of the Merging Black Holes, ApJL941, L39 (2022), arXiv:2208.11871

    Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-J. Li, J. S. Vink, Y.-Z. Fan, S.-P. Tang, Y. Qin, and D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J. Lett.941, L39 (2022), arXiv:2208.11871 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Li, Y .-Z

    Y.-J. Li, Y.-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 051401 (2024), arXiv:2303.02973 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    Pierra, S

    G. Pierra, S. Mastrogiovanni, and S. Perriès, Astron. As- trophys. 692, A80 (2024), arXiv:2406.01679 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    Gennari, S

    V. Gennari, S. Mastrogiovanni, N. Tamanini, S. Marsat, and G. Pierra, (2025), arXiv:2502.20445 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Hussain, M

    A. Hussain, M. Isi, and A. Zimmerman, (2024), arXiv:2411.02252 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Rinaldi and W

    S. Rinaldi and W. Del Pozzo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 5454 (2021), arXiv:2109.05960 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    Tiwari, Astrophys

    V. Tiwari, Astrophys. J. 928, 155 (2022), arXiv:2111.13991 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Sadiq, T

    J. Sadiq, T. Dent, and D. Wysocki, Phys. Rev. D105, 123014 (2022), arXiv:2112.12659 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Edelman, B

    B. Edelman, B. Farr, and Z. Doctor, Astrophys. J.946, 16 (2023), arXiv:2210.12834 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    D. Ruhe, K. Wong, M. Cranmer, and P. Forré, (2022), arXiv:2211.09008 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  35. [35]

    A. M. Farah, B. Edelman, M. Zevin, M. Fishbach, J. M. Ezquiaga, B. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.955, 107 (2023), arXiv:2301.00834 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    T. A. Callister and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. X14, 021005 (2024), arXiv:2302.07289 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Toubiana, M

    A. Toubiana, M. L. Katz, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 5844 (2023), arXiv:2305.08909 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Heinzel, M

    J. Heinzel, M. Mould, S. Álvarez-López, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D111, 063043 (2025), arXiv:2406.16813 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Essick and M

    R. Essick and M. Fishbach, Astrophys. J.962, 169 (2024), arXiv:2310.02017 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    Arca Sedda, M

    M. Arca Sedda, M. Mapelli, M. Benacquista, and M. Spera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520, 5259 (2023), arXiv:2109.12119 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA Collaboration, 10.5281/zen- odo.11254021 (2024)

    work page doi:10.5281/zen- 2024

  42. [42]

    T. A. Callister, R. Essick, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123041 (2024), arXiv:2408.16828 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 863, L41 (2018), arXiv:1805.10270 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Eryn : A multi-purpose sampler for bayesian inference,

    N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.526, 4814 (2023), arXiv:2303.02164 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    S. M. Gaebel, J. Veitch, T. Dent, and W. M. Farr, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.484, 4008 (2019), arXiv:1809.03815 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Roulet, T

    J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123022 (2020), arXiv:2008.07014 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  48. [48]

    Callister, M

    T. Callister, M. Fishbach, D. Holz, and W. Farr, Astro- phys. J. Lett.896, L32 (2020), arXiv:2003.12152 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    R. J. E. Smith, C. Talbot, F. Hernandez Vivanco, and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.496, 3281 (2020), arXiv:2004.09700 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [50]

    Bers and S

    N. Bers and S. Biscoveanu, (2025), arXiv:2506.21868 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    K.-W., et al

    B. Cousins, K. Schumacher, A. K.-W. Chung, C. Tal- bot, T. Callister, D. E. Holz, and N. Yunes, (2025), arXiv:2503.01997 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Ferraiuolo, S

    S. Ferraiuolo, S. Mastrogiovanni, S. Escoffier, and E. Kaj- fasz, (2025), arXiv:2503.14686 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Giarda, A

    G. Giarda, A. I. Renzini, C. Pacilio, and D. Gerosa, (2025), arXiv:2506.12572 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Gerosa, G

    D. Gerosa, G. Pratten, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D102, 103020 (2020), arXiv:2007.06585 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  55. [55]

    Talbot and E

    C. Talbot and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J.927, 76 (2022), arXiv:2012.01317 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Rinaldi, (2024), arXiv:2405.06366 [stat.ME]

    S. Rinaldi, (2024), arXiv:2405.06366 [stat.ME]

    work page arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Using final black hole spins and masses to infer the formation history of the observed population of gravitational wave sources

    M. Arca Sedda and M. Benacquista, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 2991 (2019), arXiv:1806.01285 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Arca Sedda, M

    M. Arca Sedda, M. Mapelli, M. Spera, M. Benac- quista, and N. Giacobbo, Astrophys. J.894, 133 (2020), arXiv:2003.07409 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  59. [59]

    Arca Seddaet al., (In preparation)

    M. Arca Seddaet al., (In preparation)

    work page

  60. [60]

    Essick, Phys

    R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043011 (2023), arXiv:2307.02765 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  61. [61]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Bellotti, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 125002 (2024), arXiv:2404.16930 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    Lorenzo-Medina and T

    A. Lorenzo-Medina and T. Dent, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 045008 (2025), arXiv:2408.13383 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Talbot and J

    C. Talbot and J. Golomb, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 3495 (2023), arXiv:2304.06138 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Essick and W

    R. Essick and W. Farr, (2022), arXiv:2204.00461 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    W. M. Farr, Research Notes of the AAS3, 66 (2019), arXiv:1904.10879 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  66. [66]

    C. M. Fabbri, D. Gerosa, A. Santini, M. Mould, A. Toubiana, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D111, 104053 (2025), arXiv:2501.17233 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

    Rinaldi, A

    S. Rinaldi, A. Toubiana, and J. R. Gair, (2025), arXiv:2506.05153 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  68. [68]

    Alvarez-Lopez, J

    S. Alvarez-Lopez, J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, (2025), arXiv:2506.20731 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Radiation Backgrounds at Cosmic Dawn: X-Rays from Compact Binaries

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, Astrophys. J.840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    Mapelli, Y

    M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, F. Santoliquido, M. Arca 7 Sedda, and M. C. Artale, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.511, 5797 (2022), arXiv:2109.06222 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    Neumayer, A

    N. Neumayer, A. Seth, and T. Böker, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 28, 4 (2020), arXiv:2001.03626 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2020

  72. [72]

    S. S. Bavera, T. Fragos, Y. Qin, E. Zapartas, C. J. Nei- jssel, I. Mandel, A. Batta, S. M. Gaebel, C. Kimball, and S. Stevenson, Astron. Astrophys.635, A97 (2020), arXiv:1906.12257 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  73. [73]

    Merging black hole binaries: the effects of progenitor's metallicity, mass-loss rate and Eddington factor

    N. Giacobbo, M. Mapelli, and M. Spera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 2959 (2018), arXiv:1711.03556 [astro- ph.SR]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    The progenitors of compact-object binaries: impact of metallicity, common envelope and natal kicks

    N. Giacobbo and M. Mapelli, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 2011 (2018), arXiv:1806.00001 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  75. [75]

    Giacobbo and M

    N. Giacobbo and M. Mapelli, Astrophys. J. 891, 141 (2020), arXiv:1909.06385 [astro-ph.HE]. 8 End Matter Population-synthesis model — The astrophysical pop- ulation of BBH mergers is constructed leveraging on an upgraded version of theB-Pop semi-analytic population synthesis tool [40, 57–59]. B-Pop is a flexible tool that permits the user to simulate a het...

    work page arXiv 2020