pith. sign in

arxiv: 2601.07908 · v2 · submitted 2026-01-12 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Signatures of a subpopulation of hierarchical mergers in the GWTC-4 gravitational-wave dataset

Cailin Plunkett , Thomas Callister , Michael Zevin , Salvatore Vitale This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 14:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords hierarchical mergersblack hole spinsgravitational wavespair-instability gapGWTC-4mass distributioncluster formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravitational-wave data shows hierarchical black hole mergers becoming dominant above 46 solar masses.

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

The paper develops a model for the spin properties of black holes formed through repeated mergers in dense clusters. It applies this to the GWTC-4 catalog and identifies a sharp transition where above roughly 46 solar masses, nearly all mergers are hierarchical rather than first-generation. This location matches the expected start of the pair-instability mass gap. The analysis also finds a peak in the hierarchical merger rate at lower masses around 16 solar masses, pointing to contributions from both solar-metallicity and metal-poor clusters. These findings add detail to the mass-dependent spin substructure in the binary black hole population.

Core claim

We introduce an astrophysically motivated model in the joint space of effective inspiral and precessing spins that captures the dominant spin dynamics for hierarchical mergers. Applying it to GWTC-4 reveals decisive evidence for a transition at m1 = 46.2 solar masses above which the population is nearly entirely hierarchical, consistent with the pair-instability gap, and a global peak in the hierarchical merger rate at m1 = 15.7 solar masses.

What carries the argument

An astrophysically motivated model for the joint distribution of effective inspiral and precessing spins that encodes the expected dynamics of hierarchical black hole mergers.

If this is right

  • The hierarchical subpopulation dominates the high-mass end of the black hole mass spectrum.
  • A peak in hierarchical mergers occurs at intermediate masses of about 16 solar masses.
  • Both near-solar and low-metallicity star clusters contribute to the observed hierarchical mergers.
  • The spin distribution exhibits mass-dependent substructure due to different formation channels.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future larger datasets could map the exact shape of the transition and test for multiple subpopulations.
  • This supports the role of dense clusters in building up the upper mass gap through repeated mergers.
  • Similar spin models could be applied to distinguish formation channels in other gravitational wave populations.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes that hierarchical merger spin dynamics are well described by the chosen distribution in effective and precessing spin space without major contamination from other channels.

What would settle it

A large sample of high-mass binary black hole events showing spin parameters inconsistent with the hierarchical model, or no evidence of the transition in an expanded catalog.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07908 by Cailin Plunkett, Michael Zevin, Salvatore Vitale, Thomas Callister.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of our two-component model in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The inferred fraction of hierarchical mergers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The 90% credible bounds on the marginal mass ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Marginal and two-dimensional joint posteriors on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The fraction of hierarchical mergers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Repeated black-hole mergers in dense stellar clusters are a plausible mechanism to populate the predicted gap in black hole masses due to the pair-instability supernova process. These hierarchical mergers carry distinct spin characteristics relative to first-generation black holes. We introduce an astrophysically motivated model in the joint space of effective inspiral and precessing spins, which captures the dominant spin dynamics expected for hierarchical mergers. We find decisive evidence for a transition at $m_1 = 46.2_{-7.2}^{+12.6} M_\odot$, above which the population is nearly entirely hierarchical, a location consistent with the anticipated onset of the pair-instability gap. We also infer a global peak in the hierarchical merger rate at $m_1 = 15.7_{-1.1}^{+3.2} M_\odot$. The existence of low- and high-mass subpopulations of higher-generation black holes suggests the contribution of both near-solar-metallicity and metal-poor star clusters to the hierarchical merger population. Our results reinforce the growing evidence for detailed, mass-dependent substructure in the spin distribution of the binary black hole population.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces an astrophysically motivated model in the joint space of effective inspiral spin (χ_eff) and precessing spin (χ_p) to identify a subpopulation of hierarchical mergers in the GWTC-4 gravitational-wave catalog. The authors report decisive evidence for a transition at m1 = 46.2_{-7.2}^{+12.6} M_⊙, above which the population is nearly entirely hierarchical, consistent with the pair-instability gap, and a global peak in the hierarchical merger rate at m1 = 15.7_{-1.1}^{+3.2} M_⊙, suggesting contributions from both solar-metallicity and metal-poor clusters.

Significance. If the spin-based separation is robust, this provides important evidence that hierarchical mergers contribute significantly to the high-mass end of the binary black hole population, offering observational support for the pair-instability supernova gap and the role of dense clusters in black hole formation. The mass-dependent substructure in spins adds to our understanding of formation channels.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model and results sections] The central claim of a sharp transition at m1 = 46.2 M_⊙ (abstract) rests on the assumption that the chosen distribution in (χ_eff, χ_p) space cleanly isolates hierarchical mergers. Without explicit overlap integrals, injection-recovery tests, or robustness checks against alternative spin priors and selection effects (as flagged in the stress-test note), it is unclear whether the inferred subpopulation split is data-driven or sensitive to model assumptions.
  2. [Results and discussion] The reported 'decisive evidence' for the transition and the secondary rate peak at 15.7 M_⊙ requires quantitative support such as Bayes factors comparing the two-component model to a single-population null hypothesis. The current presentation leaves the statistical strength of the subpopulation decomposition difficult to evaluate independently.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the fitted values but does not specify the prior ranges or hyperparameter choices for the transition mass and rate peak; these should be stated explicitly for reproducibility.
  2. [Throughout] Ensure consistent notation for the primary mass m1 and clarify whether the reported uncertainties are 90% credible intervals throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. We address each major comment below and will incorporate revisions to improve the clarity and robustness of our analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model and results sections] The central claim of a sharp transition at m1 = 46.2 M_⊙ (abstract) rests on the assumption that the chosen distribution in (χ_eff, χ_p) space cleanly isolates hierarchical mergers. Without explicit overlap integrals, injection-recovery tests, or robustness checks against alternative spin priors and selection effects (as flagged in the stress-test note), it is unclear whether the inferred subpopulation split is data-driven or sensitive to model assumptions.

    Authors: We agree that the spin distributions for first-generation and hierarchical mergers exhibit some overlap, and our model is not intended to provide a perfectly clean separation but rather to capture the dominant astrophysical differences in χ_p and χ_eff. The stress-test note already explores sensitivity to certain assumptions, and the inferred transition remains stable. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit overlap integrals between the two spin populations, injection-recovery tests on simulated catalogs, and expanded robustness checks against alternative spin priors and selection effects to demonstrate that the mass-dependent transition is driven by the data rather than model assumptions. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and discussion] The reported 'decisive evidence' for the transition and the secondary rate peak at 15.7 M_⊙ requires quantitative support such as Bayes factors comparing the two-component model to a single-population null hypothesis. The current presentation leaves the statistical strength of the subpopulation decomposition difficult to evaluate independently.

    Authors: We accept that a direct Bayes-factor comparison would provide clearer quantitative support for the subpopulation model. The phrase 'decisive evidence' was used to reflect the strong posterior preference for a mass-dependent hierarchical fraction, but we will compute and report the Bayes factor between the two-component model and a single-population null hypothesis in the revised manuscript. This will allow independent evaluation of the statistical significance of the transition and the secondary rate peak. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; inference uses externally motivated model on public dataset

full rationale

The paper introduces an astrophysically motivated spin model (not fitted from the target data) and performs standard hierarchical population inference on the external GWTC-4 catalog to infer a mass transition and rate peak. The reported m1=46.2 transition and m1=15.7 peak are fitted parameters under the model, not quantities defined by construction or renamed from inputs. No self-citations, self-definitional steps, or fitted-input-called-prediction patterns appear in the abstract or described derivation. The result remains falsifiable against the independent catalog and pair-instability predictions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on an astrophysically motivated spin model whose parameters are fitted to the data and on the assumption that hierarchical mergers produce distinguishable spin signatures; the transition mass and peak rate are free parameters inferred from the catalog.

free parameters (2)
  • transition mass m1 = 46.2 M_⊙
    Fitted location marking the change to a nearly entirely hierarchical population.
  • hierarchical rate peak mass = 15.7 M_⊙
    Inferred mass at which the hierarchical merger rate reaches its global maximum.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hierarchical mergers carry distinct spin characteristics relative to first-generation black holes that can be captured in the joint space of effective inspiral and precessing spins.
    This assumption motivates the entire model and is invoked to interpret the mass-dependent transition.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5511 in / 1467 out tokens · 26675 ms · 2026-05-16T14:51:45.036467+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 6 Pith papers

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

  1. Secondary-Mass Features improve Spectral-Siren $H_0$ Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A new model emphasizing secondary mass features and pairing transitions improves spectral siren H0 constraints by ~30% using 142 GW events from GWTC-4.0.

  2. Measurement prospects for the pair-instability mass cutoff with gravitational waves

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    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...

  3. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for core-collapse IMBHs in GWTC-4; heavy BHs from hierarchical mergers, with low-spin mass distribution truncating at ~65 solar masses and PIMG upper edge estimated at 150 solar masses.

  4. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for core-collapse formed low-spin IMBHs in GWTC-4, with 90% upper limit on merger rate of 0.077 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, low-spin BH mass truncation at 65 solar masses consistent with pair-instability gap lower e...

  5. No model-independent evidence for a peak in binary black hole spin (mis)alignments

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    No model-independent evidence for a peak in binary black hole spin tilts is found in GWTC-4; mass-spin magnitude correlation is confirmed but mass-tilt correlation is not.

  6. Remnant recoil and host environments of GWTC-4.0 binary black-hole mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Five O4 gravitational-wave events prefer dynamical cluster formation; typical recoil kicks eject remnants from globular clusters but allow possible retention in nuclear star clusters, disfavoring efficient hierarchica...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

122 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers · 14 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2018, arXiv:1806.05820

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

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

    M. Mapelli, Formation Channels of Single and Bi- nary Stellar-Mass Black Holes (2021) arXiv:2106.00699 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Mandel and F

    I. Mandel and F. S. Broekgaarden, Living Rev. Rel.25, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.14239 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  4. [4]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    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

  7. [7]

    Capoteet al., Phys

    E. Capoteet al., Phys. Rev. D111, 062002 (2025), arXiv:2411.14607 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    (LIGO Instrument Science Collaboration) 2025 Class

    S. Soniet al.(LIGO), Class. Quant. Grav.42, 085016 (2025), arXiv:2409.02831 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    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

  10. [10]

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

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Abbottet al., PRL125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  12. [12]

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

    R. Abbottet 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

  13. [13]

    Edelman, Z

    B. Edelman, Z. Doctor, and B. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L23 (2021), arXiv:2104.07783 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 6 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    W. A. Fowler and F. Hoyle, Astrophys. J. Suppl.9, 201 (1964)

    work page 1964

  16. [16]

    Barkat, G

    Z. Barkat, G. Rakavy, and N. Sack, Phys. Rev. Lett.18, 379 (1967)

    work page 1967

  17. [17]

    Rakavy and G

    G. Rakavy and G. Shaviv, Astrophys. J.148, 803 (1967)

    work page 1967

  18. [18]

    G. S. Fraley, Astrophysics and Space Science2, 96 (1968)

    work page 1968

  19. [19]

    How Massive Single Stars End their Life

    A. Heger, C. L. Fryer, S. E. Woosley, N. Langer, and D. H. Hartmann, Astrophys. J.591, 288 (2003), arXiv:astro-ph/0212469

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  20. [20]

    2019, ApJ, 887, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b (2019), arXiv:1910.12874 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b 2019

  21. [21]

    S., Bindi, V., Zhang, M., Feng, X., 2019, A Numerical Study of Cosmic Proton Modulation Using AMS-02 Observations , Astrophys

    S. Stevenson, M. Sampson, J. Powell, A. Vigna-G´ omez, C. J. Neijssel, D. Sz´ ecsi, and I. Mandel 10.3847/1538- 4357/ab3981 (2019), arXiv:1904.02821 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538- 2019

  22. [22]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. de Mink, M. Fishbach, and S. Justham, Astrophys. J. Lett.902, L36 (2020), arXiv:2006.06678 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  23. [23]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, Astrophys. J. Lett.912, L31 (2021), arXiv:2103.07933 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    E. J. Farrell, J. H. Groh, R. Hirschi, L. Murphy, E. Kaiser, S. Ekstr¨ om, C. Georgy, and G. Meynet, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502, L40 (2021), arXiv:2009.06585 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Tagawa, B

    H. Tagawa, B. Kocsis, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, K. Omukai, and J. Samsing, Astrophys. J.908, 194 (2021), arXiv:2012.00011 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    M. P. Vaccaro, M. Mapelli, C. P´ erigois, D. Barone, M. C. Artale, M. Dall’Amico, G. Iorio, and S. Torniamenti, Astron. Astrophys.685, A51 (2024), arXiv:2311.18548 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  27. [27]

    E. R. J. Winch, J. S. Vink, E. R. Higgins, and G. N. Sab- hahitf, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.529, 2980 (2024), arXiv:2401.17327 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  28. [28]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2401.14837, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2401.14837 van Son, L

    S. Torniamenti, M. Mapelli, C. P´ erigois, M. A. Sedda, M. C. Artale, M. Dall’Amico, and M. P. Vaccaro, As- tron. Astrophys.688, A148 (2024), arXiv:2401.14837 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  29. [29]

    R. M. O’Leary, F. A. Rasio, J. M. Fregeau, N. Ivanova, and R. W. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J.637, 937 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0508224

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  30. [30]

    Merging black hole binaries in galactic nuclei: implications for advanced-LIGO detections

    F. Antonini and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J.831, 187 (2016), arXiv:1606.04889 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  31. [31]

    C. L. Rodriguez, M. Zevin, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chat- terjee, K. Kremer, F. A. Rasio, and C. S. Ye, Phys. Rev. D100, 043027 (2019), arXiv:1906.10260 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Doctor, D

    Z. Doctor, D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, D. E. Holz, and B. Farr 10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fac (2019), arXiv:1911.04424 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7fac 2019

  33. [33]

    Mahapatra, D

    P. Mahapatra, D. Chattopadhyay, A. Gupta, F. An- tonini, M. Favata, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. G. Arun, Astrophys. J.975, 117 (2024), arXiv:2406.06390 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    M. A. Sedda, A. W. H. Kamlah, R. Spurzem, F. P. Rizzuto, M. Giersz, T. Naab, and P. Berczik, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 5140 (2024), arXiv:2307.04807 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Evolution of Binary Black Hole Spacetimes

    F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 121101 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507014

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  36. [36]

    Estimating the final spin of a binary black hole coalescence

    A. Buonanno, L. E. Kidder, and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D77, 026004 (2008), arXiv:0709.3839 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  37. [37]

    The final mass and spin of black hole mergers

    W. Tichy and P. Marronetti, Phys. Rev. D78, 081501 (2008), arXiv:0807.2985 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  38. [38]

    On the final spin from the coalescence of two black holes

    L. Rezzolla, E. Barausse, E. N. Dorband, D. Pollney, C. Reisswig, J. Seiler, and S. Husa, Phys. Rev. D78, 044002 (2008), arXiv:0712.3541 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    The final spin from binary black holes in quasi-circular orbits

    F. Hofmann, E. Barausse, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett.825, L19 (2016), arXiv:1605.01938 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  40. [40]

    Zevin and D

    M. Zevin and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett.935, L20 (2022), arXiv:2205.08549 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    Borchers, C

    A. Borchers, C. S. Ye, and M. Fishbach, As- trophys. J.987, 10.3847/1538-4357/addec6 (2025), arXiv:2503.21278 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addec6 2025

  42. [42]

    Are LIGO's Black Holes Made From Smaller Black Holes?

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and B. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.840, L24 (2017), arXiv:1703.06869 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  43. [43]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L21 (2025), arXiv:2510.26931 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  45. [45]

    Kimball et al., Evidence for Hierarchical Black Hole Merg- ers in the Second LIGO–Virgo Gravitational Wave Catalog, Astrophys

    C. Kimballet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L35 (2021), arXiv:2011.05332 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  46. [46]

    Gayathri, Y

    V. Gayathri, Y. Yang, H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, and I. Bartos, Astrophys. J. Lett.920, L42 (2021), arXiv:2104.10253 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Nature Astron.5, 749 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    Fishbach and D

    M. Fishbach and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett.904, L26 (2020), arXiv:2009.05472 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  49. [49]

    Formation of binary black holes similar to 44 GW190521 with a total mass of∼ 150M⊙ from Popula- tion III binary star evolution,

    T. Kinugawa, T. Nakamura, and H. Nakano, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501, L49 (2021), arXiv:2009.06922 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    S. A. Popa and S. E. de Mink, (2025), arXiv:2509.00154 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Gottlieb, B

    O. Gottlieb, B. D. Metzger, D. Issa, S. E. Li, M. Renzo, and M. Isi, Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L54 (2025), arXiv:2508.15887 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Croon, J

    D. Croon, J. Sakstein, and D. Gerosa, (2025), arXiv:2508.10088 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Bartos and Z

    I. Bartos and Z. Haiman, (2025), arXiv:2508.08558 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    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. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Payne, S

    E. Payne, S. Hourihane, J. Golomb, R. Udall, R. Udall, D. Davis, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D106, 104017 (2022), arXiv:2206.11932 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  56. [56]

    Udall, S

    R. Udall, S. Bini, K. Chatziioannou, D. Davis, S. Houri- hane, Y. Lecoeuche, J. McIver, and S. Miller, (2025), arXiv:2510.05029 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    A. Ray, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, (2025), arXiv:2510.07228 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Macas, A

    R. Macas, A. Lundgren, and G. Ashton, Phys. Rev. D 109, 062006 (2024), arXiv:2311.09921 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    S. J. Miller, Z. Ko, T. Callister, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D109, 104036 (2024), arXiv:2401.05613 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Vitale, S

    S. Vitale, S. Biscoveanu, and C. Talbot, Astron. Astro- phys.668, L2 (2022), arXiv:2209.06978 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  61. [61]

    Analysis of spin precession in binary black hole systems including quadrupole-monopole interaction

    E. Racine, Phys. Rev. D78, 044021 (2008), arXiv:0803.1820 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  62. [62]

    Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D95, 124046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06223 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  63. [63]

    Parameter estimation for heavy binary-black holes with networks of second-generation gravitational-wave detectors

    S. Vitale, R. Lynch, V. Raymond, R. Sturani, J. Veitch, and P. Graff, Phys. Rev. D95, 064053 (2017), 7 arXiv:1611.01122 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    H. C. Spruit, Astron. Astrophys.381, 923 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0108207

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  65. [65]

    Y. Qin, T. Fragos, G. Meynet, J. Andrews, M. Sørensen, and H. F. Song, Astron. Astrophys.616, A28 (2018), arXiv:1802.05738 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  66. [66]

    Fuller and L

    J. Fuller and L. Ma, Astrophys. J. Lett.881, L1 (2019), arXiv:1907.03714 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  67. [67]

    Fuller and W

    J. Fuller and W. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511, 3951 (2022), arXiv:2201.08407 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  68. [68]

    Burrows, T

    A. Burrows, T. Wang, D. Vartanyan, and M. S. B. Cole- man, Astrophys. J.963, 63 (2024), arXiv:2311.12109 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  69. [69]

    Kremer, C

    K. Kremer, C. S. Ye, N. Z. Rui, N. C. Weatherford, S. Chatterjee, G. Fragione, C. L. Rodriguez, M. Spera, and F. A. Rasio, Astrophys. J. Suppl.247, 48 (2020), arXiv:1911.00018 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    C. L. Rodriguezet al., Astrophys. J. Supp.258, 22 (2022), arXiv:2106.02643 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2022

  71. [71]

    C. S. Ye and M. Fishbach, Astrophys. J.967, 62 (2024), arXiv:2402.12444 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  72. [72]

    Hierarchical analysis of gravitational-wave measurements of binary black hole spin-orbit misalignments

    S. Stevenson, C. P. L. Berry, and I. Mandel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471, 2801 (2017), arXiv:1703.06873 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  73. [73]

    Safarzadeh, W

    M. Safarzadeh, W. M. Farr, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, As- trophys. J.894, 129 (2020), arXiv:2001.06490 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  74. [74]

    The Emergence of Structure in the Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution,

    V. Tiwari and S. Fairhurst, Astrophys. J. Lett.913, L19 (2021), arXiv:2011.04502 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  75. [75]

    C. Hoy, S. Fairhurst, M. Hannam, and V. Tiwari, As- trophys. J.928, 75 (2022), arXiv:2110.13542 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  76. [76]

    Signatures of hierar- chical mergers in black hole spin and mass distribution,

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, and K. Omukai, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507, 3362 (2021), arXiv:2104.09510 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  77. [77]

    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

  78. [78]

    Fishbach, C

    M. Fishbach, C. Kimball, and V. Kalogera, Astro- phys. J. Lett.935, L26 (2022), arXiv:2207.02924 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  79. [79]

    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

  80. [80]

    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

Showing first 80 references.