Recognition: 1 theorem link
· Lean TheoremGWTC-4.0: Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion Rate and Modified Gravitational-wave Propagation
Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 17:20 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Gravitational waves from 142 mergers constrain the Hubble constant to 76.6 km/s/Mpc
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
The authors measure luminosity distances and redshifted masses from 142 GW sources in GWTC-4.0. They infer source redshifts statistically through mass spectrum features and galaxy catalog matches. This yields joint constraints on the Hubble constant H0 = 76.6 km/s/Mpc with 68% credible interval from +13.0 to -9.5, and on the modified propagation parameter Ξ0 = 1.2 with interval +0.8 to -0.4, where 1 corresponds to general relativity.
What carries the argument
Statistical redshift inference from identifiable features in the source-frame mass distribution and merger-rate evolution, combined with luminosity distances from GW signals and host galaxy identification in the GLADE+ catalog.
If this is right
- The Hubble constant measurement can be compared to other cosmological probes to address the Hubble tension.
- Constraints on Ξ0 limit deviations from general relativity in gravitational wave propagation.
- Including the GW170817 event with its electromagnetic counterpart refines the H0 estimate.
- The method scales with future detections as more events improve population model constraints.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- If the mass distribution features remain stable, this method could provide increasingly precise H0 measurements as detector sensitivity improves.
- This could help distinguish between different resolutions to the Hubble tension if it persists.
- Future catalogs might allow tighter bounds on modified gravity parameters affecting wave propagation over cosmic distances.
Load-bearing premise
The source-frame mass distribution and merger-rate evolution contain identifiable features that permit reliable statistical inference of individual source redshifts when electromagnetic counterparts are absent.
What would settle it
Detection of a gravitational-wave event with an independently measured electromagnetic redshift that lies outside the predicted distance-redshift relation from this analysis would challenge the inferred cosmological parameters.
read the original abstract
We analyze data from 142 of the 218 gravitational-wave (GW) sources in the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration (LVK) Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog (GWTC-4.0) to estimate the Hubble constant $H_0$ jointly with the population properties of merging compact binaries. We measure the luminosity distance and redshifted masses of GW sources directly; in contrast, we infer GW source redshifts statistically through i) location of features in the compact object mass spectrum and merger rate evolution, and ii) identifying potential host galaxies in the GW localization volume. Probing the relationship between source luminosity distances and redshifts obtained in this way yields constraints on cosmological parameters. We also constrain parameterized deviations from general relativity which affect GW propagation, specifically those modifying the dependence of a GW signal on the source luminosity distance. Assuming our fiducial model for the source-frame mass distribution and using GW candidates detected up to the end of the fourth observing run (O4a), together with the GLADE+ all-sky galaxy catalog, we estimate $H_0 = 76.6^{+13.0}_{-9.5} (76.6^{+25.2}_{-14.0})$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$. This value is reported as a median with 68.3% (90%) symmetric credible interval, and includes combination with the $H_0$ measurement from GW170817 and its electromagnetic counterpart. Using a parametrization of modified GW propagation in terms of the magnitude parameter $\Xi_0$, we estimate $\Xi_0 = 1.2^{+0.8}_{-0.4} (1.2^{+2.4}_{-0.5})$, where $\Xi_0 = 1$ recovers the behavior of general relativity.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The manuscript analyzes 142 events from the GWTC-4.0 catalog to jointly constrain the Hubble constant H0 and the modified GW propagation parameter Ξ0. Luminosity distances are measured directly from the signals while redshifts for events lacking electromagnetic counterparts are inferred statistically by matching redshifted masses to features in a fiducial source-frame mass distribution and merger-rate evolution, supplemented by GLADE+ galaxy catalog associations. The reported constraints are H0 = 76.6^{+13.0}_{-9.5} (76.6^{+25.2}_{-14.0}) km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} and Ξ0 = 1.2^{+0.8}_{-0.4} (1.2^{+2.4}_{-0.5}), incorporating the GW170817 anchor and assuming the fiducial population model.
Significance. If the fiducial population model supplies sufficiently strong, identifiable features for statistical redshift inference, the work supplies an independent H0 measurement from the O4a catalog and a direct test of GR propagation via Ξ0. The joint hierarchical inference of cosmology and population parameters is a methodological strength that mitigates some circularity risks, and the inclusion of the full catalog plus galaxy catalog information adds concrete data volume to the field of GW cosmology.
major comments (2)
- [§3] §3 (statistical redshift inference): The central results for H0 and Ξ0 are conditioned on the fiducial source-frame mass distribution and merger-rate evolution supplying identifiable features (peaks, cutoffs, rate evolution) that break the mass-redshift degeneracy for the 142 events without EM counterparts. The manuscript states that population parameters are fitted jointly, yet the quoted credible intervals do not include explicit marginalization or robustness checks against plausible alternative mass spectra (different power-law indices, peak locations, or absence of gaps). This assumption is load-bearing for the distance-redshift mapping and must be quantified.
- [Results section] Results section (Table of cosmological constraints): The reported 68% and 90% intervals for H0 and Ξ0 are presented under the single fiducial model. Without showing the shift in these intervals when the mass-distribution hyperparameters are varied within astrophysically motivated ranges, it is unclear whether the quoted precision is robust or dominated by the modeling choice.
minor comments (2)
- [Abstract] The notation for symmetric credible intervals (68.3% vs 90%) should be stated once in the abstract and used consistently in all tables and figures.
- [Figures] Figure captions for the posterior contours on H0–Ξ0 should explicitly note which events contribute via statistical redshift inference versus EM counterparts.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable comments on our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, focusing on the robustness of our results to the population model assumptions.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [§3] §3 (statistical redshift inference): The central results for H0 and Ξ0 are conditioned on the fiducial source-frame mass distribution and merger-rate evolution supplying identifiable features (peaks, cutoffs, rate evolution) that break the mass-redshift degeneracy for the 142 events without EM counterparts. The manuscript states that population parameters are fitted jointly, yet the quoted credible intervals do not include explicit marginalization or robustness checks against plausible alternative mass spectra (different power-law indices, peak locations, or absence of gaps). This assumption is load-bearing for the distance-redshift mapping and must be quantified.
Authors: We agree that the robustness to the specific form of the mass distribution is important. Our hierarchical analysis jointly infers the population hyperparameters along with H0 and Ξ0, so the reported intervals marginalize over the parameter uncertainties within the fiducial model. To further address this, we will add robustness checks in the revised manuscript by repeating the analysis with alternative mass models (e.g., varying power-law slopes and peak positions) and reporting the resulting shifts in the cosmological constraints. revision: partial
-
Referee: [Results section] Results section (Table of cosmological constraints): The reported 68% and 90% intervals for H0 and Ξ0 are presented under the single fiducial model. Without showing the shift in these intervals when the mass-distribution hyperparameters are varied within astrophysically motivated ranges, it is unclear whether the quoted precision is robust or dominated by the modeling choice.
Authors: We will include in the revised version a supplementary table or figure that shows the cosmological constraints obtained when varying key hyperparameters of the mass distribution within reasonable astrophysical ranges. This will demonstrate that the central values and uncertainties for H0 and Ξ0 remain stable, confirming that the results are not dominated by the specific modeling choice. revision: yes
Circularity Check
Joint H0-population fit uses fiducial mass-spectrum features for statistical redshifts; no definitional reduction or load-bearing self-citation.
full rationale
The derivation infers redshifts statistically from features in the assumed source-frame mass distribution and merger-rate evolution, then fits the distance-redshift relation jointly with population parameters. The abstract explicitly conditions on a 'fiducial model' motivated by independent astrophysical arguments rather than deriving the mass features from the cosmological parameters themselves. No equation or step equates the output H0/Ξ0 directly to the input population assumptions by construction, and no uniqueness theorem or prior self-citation is invoked to force the result. The central constraint therefore retains independent content from the GW data and GLADE+ catalog, yielding only a minor modeling-dependence flag rather than circularity.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
free parameters (2)
- H0 =
76.6
- Ξ0 =
1.2
axioms (1)
- domain assumption The compact-object mass spectrum and merger-rate evolution contain redshift-independent features that allow statistical redshift recovery.
Lean theorems connected to this paper
-
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinctionreality_from_one_distinction unclear?
unclearRelation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.
We employ a hierarchical Bayesian framework... p(Λ,Λc|{d},Ndet)∝... ξ(Λ,Λc)−Ndet ...
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 18 Pith papers
-
GW240925 and GW250207: Astrophysical Calibration of Gravitational-wave Detectors
The first informative astrophysical calibration of gravitational-wave detectors is reported using GW240925 and GW250207.
-
End-to-End Population Inference from Gravitational-Wave Strain using Transformers
Dingo-Pop uses a transformer to perform amortized, end-to-end population inference from GW strain data in seconds, bypassing per-event Monte Carlo sampling.
-
How lonely are the Binary Compact Objects Detected by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration?
No three-body encounter signatures detected in GW170817, GW190814, and GW230627_015337, constraining intermediate-mass black holes above 100 solar masses within roughly 0.1 AU of these binaries.
-
Highly eccentric non-spinning binary black hole mergers: quadrupolar post-merger waveforms
Polynomial models for the (2,2) post-merger waveform amplitudes of eccentric non-spinning binary black holes are constructed from numerical-relativity data as functions of symmetric mass ratio and two merger-time dyna...
-
First measurement of the Hubble constant from a combined weak lensing and gravitational-wave standard siren analysis
Joint analysis of LVK standard sirens and DES 3x2pt data yields H0 = 67.9 +4.4/-4.3 km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} at 6.4% precision while tightening the Omega_m constraint by 22%.
-
Mind the peak: improving cosmological constraints from GWTC-4.0 spectral sirens using semiparametric mass models
A data-driven Bspline model for the binary black hole mass distribution from 137 GW events resolves three peaks and improves H0 precision by 12-21% over parametric alternatives.
-
Radio sirens: inferring $H_0$ with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory
Using simulated binary black hole mergers and neutral hydrogen maps, the radio sirens method constrains H0 to 8% precision with 3000 high-SNR events, offering a 90% improvement over standard dark siren analyses.
-
All-order structure of static gravitational interactions and the seventh post-Newtonian potential
A closed formula computes static post-Newtonian corrections at arbitrary odd orders in gravity, yielding the explicit seventh post-Newtonian potential that matches an independent diagrammatic method.
-
Robust parameter inference for Taiji via time-frequency contrastive learning and normalizing flows
A glitch-robust amortized inference framework combining normalizing flows, time-frequency multimodal fusion, and contrastive learning outperforms MCMC for Taiji massive black hole binary parameter estimation under noi...
-
A unified harmonic framework for dark siren cosmology
The GW-galaxy cross-correlation method, unified with spectral sirens in a harmonic framework, can measure H0 to 1% and Omega_m to 5% precision with 2 years of data from next-generation detectors like Einstein Telescop...
-
Measurement prospects for the pair-instability mass cutoff with gravitational waves
Simulations show a 40-50 solar-mass black-hole cutoff is not guaranteed to be confidently recovered from GWTC-4-like catalogs, spurious detections are unlikely, and O4 data would reduce cutoff-mass uncertainty by at l...
-
Emergent structure in the binary black hole mass distribution and implications for population-based cosmology
B-spline agnostic reconstruction of binary black hole masses from GWTC-4.0 reveals multiple features and a logarithmic hierarchy that impacts Hubble constant measurements, with a low-mass subpopulation isolation metho...
-
Mitigating Systematic Errors in Parameter Estimation of Binary Black Hole Mergers in O1-O3 LIGO-Virgo Data
Parametric models incorporating waveform phase and amplitude uncertainties mitigate systematic errors in gravitational wave parameter estimation, producing consistent results across models and raw/deglitched data for ...
-
VIGILant: an automatic classification pipeline for glitches in the Virgo detector
VIGILant applies tree-based models and a ResNet CNN to classify Virgo O3b glitches with 98% accuracy and has been deployed for daily use with an interactive dashboard.
-
Investigating the effect of sensitivity of KAGRA on sky localization of gravitational-wave sources from compact binary coalescences
KAGRA enhances sky localization of binary neutron star mergers in the LVK network via added baselines, with measurable gains at current sensitivity and larger improvements as range reaches ~30 Mpc.
-
Not too close! Evaluating the impact of the baseline on the localization of binary black holes by next-generation gravitational-wave detectors
Baselines of 8-11 ms light travel time for two CE detectors provide a reasonable compromise for BBH sky localization, with third detectors eliminating multimodality for most or all events.
-
Gravitational-wave standard sirens and application in cosmology
Gravitational-wave events from binary mergers act as standard sirens to independently measure luminosity distances and constrain cosmological parameters such as the Hubble constant and dark energy.
-
Love numbers of black holes and compact objects
A pedagogical review of Love numbers and tidal responses for black holes and compact objects in general relativity and extensions.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
The Science of the Einstein Telescope
Aasi, J., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 Abac, A., et al. 2025a. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.12263 Abac, A. G., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 970, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb —. 2025b, To be published in this issue. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P2400293/public —. 2025c, To be published in this issue...
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015
-
[2]
The DESI Experiment Part I: Science,Targeting, and Survey Design
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.00036 Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 Akutsu, T., et al. 2021, PTEP, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 Amendola, L., Sawicki, I., Kunz, M., & Saltas, I. D. 2018, JCAP, 08, 030, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2018/08/030 Ashton, G., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27, ...
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020
-
[3]
High Mass X-ray Binaries: Future Evolution and Fate
https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2422 Belgacem, E., Dirian, Y ., Foffa, S., et al. 2019a, JCAP, 08, 015, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/015 Belgacem, E., Dirian, Y ., Foffa, S., & Maggiore, M. 2018a, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 023510, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023510 —. 2018b, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 104066, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.104066 Belgacem, E., et al. 2019b, JCAP, 07,...
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/08/015 2019
-
[4]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.05082 Capote, E., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 062002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002 Chatterjee, D., Hegade K R, A., Holder, G., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 083528, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083528 Chen, A., Gray, R., & Baker, T. 2024a, JCAP, 02, 035, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/02/035 Chen, H.-Y . 2020, Phys. Rev. Let...
-
[5]
https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01471 Chen, H.-Y ., Talbot, C., & Chase, E. A. 2024c, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 191003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191003 Chernoff, D. F., & Finn, L. S. 1993, Astrophys. J. Lett., 411, L5, doi: 10.1086/186898 Chow, N., & Khoury, J. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 80, 024037, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.024037 Clifton, T., Ferreira, P. G., Padil...
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.191003 1993
-
[6]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.03275 Dálya, G., Galgóczi, G., Dobos, L., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 479, 2374, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1703 Dálya, G., et al. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 514, 1403, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1443 Davies, G. S., Dent, T., Tápai, M., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 022004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.022004 Deffaye...
-
[7]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00461 Essick, R., & Fishbach, M. 2024, Astrophys. J., 962, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604 Essick, R., Godwin, P., Hanna, C., Blackburn, L., & Katsavounidis, E. 2020, Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 2, 015004, doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/abab5f Essick, R., et al. 2025, In preparation 49 Ezquiaga, J. M. 2021, Phys. Lett. ...
-
[8]
2021a, JCAP, 08, 026, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026 —
https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.00202 Finke, A., Foffa, S., Iacovelli, F., Maggiore, M., & Mancarella, M. 2021a, JCAP, 08, 026, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026 —. 2021b, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 084057, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084057 —. 2022, Phys. Dark Univ., 36, 100994, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2022.100994 Fishbach, M., Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2020, Astrophys. J...
-
[9]
2023, JCAP, 08, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/050 Fryer, C
https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.11316 Fonseca, J., Zazzera, S., Baker, T., & Clarkson, C. 2023, JCAP, 08, 050, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/08/050 Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, Astrophys. J., 749, 91, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/749/1/91 Gair, J. R., et al. 2023, Astron. J., 166, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acca78 Ganapathy, D., et al. 2...
-
[10]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.20445 Gleyzes, J. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 063516, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.063516 Gleyzes, J., Langlois, D., Mancarella, M., & Vernizzi, F. 2015a, JCAP, 08, 054, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2015/08/054 —. 2016, JCAP, 02, 056, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/056 Gleyzes, J., Langlois, D., & Vernizzi, F. 2015b, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 23,...
-
[11]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12026 Ivezi´c, v., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J., 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c Jasche, J., & Wandelt, B. D. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 432, 894, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt449 Jia, W., et al. 2024, Science, 385, 1318, doi: 10.1126/science.ado8069 John Zweizig. 2006, The Data Monitor Tool Project, labcit.ligo.caltech.e...
-
[12]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06990 50 Kapil, V ., Reali, L., Cotesta, R., & Berti, E. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 104043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.104043 Karathanasis, C., Mukherjee, S., & Mastrogiovanni, S. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 523, 4539, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad1373 Kiendrebeogo, R. W., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 958, 158, doi: 10.3847/1538-43...
-
[13]
2016, JCAP, 02, 034, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/034 Laureijs, R., et al
https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.10295 Langlois, D., & Noui, K. 2016, JCAP, 02, 034, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/02/034 Laureijs, R., et al
-
[14]
Euclid Definition Study Report
https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3193 Leyde, K., Baker, T., & Enzi, W. 2024, JCAP, 12, 013, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/013 —
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/12/013 2024
-
[15]
A., Chassande-Mottin, E., & Karathanasis, C
https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.12171 Leyde, K., Mastrogiovanni, S., Steer, D. A., Chassande-Mottin, E., & Karathanasis, C. 2022, JCAP, 09, 012, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/09/012 Li, Y .-J., Tang, S.-P., Wang, Y .-Z., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2024a, Astrophys. J., 976, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad888b Li, Y .-J., Wang, Y .-Z., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2024b, Phys. R...
-
[16]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.10482 Perivolaropoulos, L., & Skara, F. 2022, New Astron. Rev., 95, 101659, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 Perna, G., Mastrogiovanni, S., & Ricciardone, A
-
[17]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.07904 Pettorino, V ., & Amendola, L. 2015, Phys. Lett. B, 742, 353, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.007 Pierra, G., Mastrogiovanni, S., & Perriès, S. 2024a, Astron. Astrophys., 692, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452545 Pierra, G., Mastrogiovanni, S., Perriès, S., & Mapelli, M. 2024b, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 083504, doi: 10.1103/Phys...
-
[18]
https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.08580 Saltas, I. D., Sawicki, I., Amendola, L., & Kunz, M. 2014, Phys. Rev. Lett., 113, 191101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.191101 Salvarese, A., & Chen, H.-Y . 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 974, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7bbc Schechter, P. 1976, Astrophys. J., 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079 Schutz, B. F. 1986, Nature, 323, 310...
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.113.191101 1901
-
[19]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.11361 Speagle, J. S. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278 Starobinsky, A. A. 2007, JETP Lett., 86, 157, doi: 10.1134/S0021364007150027 52 Talbot, C., & Golomb, J. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 3495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2968 Talbot, C., & Thrane, E. 2018, Astrophys. J., 856, 173, d...
-
[20]
https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10780 Tsujikawa, S. 2010, Lect. Notes Phys., 800, 99, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-10598-2_3 Turski, C., Bilicki, M., Dálya, G., Gray, R., & Ghosh, A. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 6224, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3110 Urban, A. L., et al. 2021, gwdetchar/gwdetchar, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2575786, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.597...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.