pith. sign in

arxiv: 2602.11282 · v2 · submitted 2026-02-11 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.IM· astro-ph.SR· gr-qc

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

Matthew Mould , Jack Heinzel , Sofia Alvarez-Lopez , Cailin Plunkett , Noah E. Wolfe , Salvatore Vitale This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-16 05:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.IMastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords pair-instability supernovaeblack hole mass gapgravitational wave astronomypopulation inferenceLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAstellar black holes
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravitational wave data similar to GWTC-4 cannot yet guarantee detection of the pair-instability black hole mass cutoff.

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

This paper simulates gravitational wave catalogs to test whether the mass gap from pair-instability supernovae can be identified in binary black hole populations. For data volumes matching the current GWTC-4 catalog, parametric models may fail to confidently detect a cutoff even when present, though the best constraints align with published results that include one. Spurious detections of a cutoff remain unlikely. With data expected by the end of the O4 run, uncertainty on the cutoff mass shrinks by at least 20 percent, but a cutoff at 40-50 solar masses yields only a lower bound on the carbon-alpha-oxygen reaction rate. Nonparametric analysis of actual GWTC-4 events reveals mass features without demanding a sharp cutoff, and the parametric model passes predictive checks.

Core claim

Using full Bayesian parameter estimation on simulated catalogs with and without a mass cutoff, the analysis shows that for GWTC-4-like volumes confident identification is not guaranteed, but strongest constraints are compatible with real-data results when the model includes the cutoff; spurious identification is unlikely. For O4 catalogs uncertainty on the cutoff mass reduces by at least 20 percent, giving S_300 greater than or equal to 125 keV b at 90 percent credibility for a 40-50 solar mass cutoff, while relative uncertainties on the Hubble parameter from gravitational waves alone can reach 100 percent. Nonparametric PixelPop modeling of GWTC-4 shows prominent mass features but does not

What carries the argument

Full Bayesian inference on simulated catalogs using parametric population models that include or exclude a sharp mass cutoff, validated against the nonparametric PixelPop model applied to GWTC-4 data.

If this is right

  • Uncertainty on the cutoff mass decreases by at least 20 percent with O4 data volumes
  • Only a lower bound on the carbon-alpha-oxygen reaction rate is obtained for cutoffs at 40-50 solar masses
  • Hubble parameter constraints from gravitational waves alone remain uncertain by up to 100 percent
  • The nonparametric PixelPop model applied to GWTC-4 reveals mass features without requiring a sharp cutoff, consistent with simulations that include one

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Astrophysical claims about pair-instability supernovae from gravitational-wave populations require explicit model-comparison and predictive tests to be robust.
  • Higher-sensitivity detectors or longer observing runs will likely be needed to tightly locate the cutoff and derive strong constraints on stellar evolution.
  • The current compatibility with GWTC-4 results leaves open the possibility that observed mass features arise from the pair-instability gap, but more events are required to distinguish this from other mass-distribution effects.

Load-bearing premise

The parametric population models and simulated selection effects accurately capture the true underlying black-hole mass distribution and detection biases.

What would settle it

A future observed catalog in which the posterior shows no support for a cutoff when the simulated truth includes one, or a strong preference for a cutoff when the truth has none.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.11282 by Cailin Plunkett, Jack Heinzel, Matthew Mould, Noah E. Wolfe, Salvatore Vitale, Sofia Alvarez-Lopez.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Mass distributions of BHs in merging binaries inferred from GWTC-3 (blue) and GWTC-4 excluding GW231123 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Self-consistent data-level PPC showing the cumula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior distributions for the source masses of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Constraints on the mass cutoff for secondary BHs ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Posterior distributions for the maximum secondary BH mass (left panel) and the S-factor for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Posterior distributions for the maximum primary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Posterior distributions for the Hubble parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Population distributions of primary (top row) and secondary (bottom row) BH masses inferred by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Ratios of 90% CIs for binary BH merger rates in primary (top row) and secondary (bottom row) mass bins between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Same as the bottom row of Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Population distributions (top row) of primary (left column) and secondary (right column) BH masses in terms of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Pair-instability supernovae leave behind no compact remnants, resulting in a predicted gap in the distribution of stellar black-hole masses. Gravitational waves from binary black-hole mergers probe the relevant mass range and analyses of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog (GWTC-4) indicate a possible mass cutoff at $40$-$50\,M_\odot$. However, the robustness of this result remains unclear. To this end, using full Bayesian parameter estimation, we simulate gravitational-wave catalogs with and without such a mass cutoff, then test whether its presence or absence is correctly inferred with parametric population models. For catalogs similar to GWTC-4, confident identification of a cutoff is not guaranteed, but the best constraints among our simulations are compatible with results from GWTC-4 when the model includes a cutoff. Conversely, spurious identification of a cutoff is unlikely. For catalogs expected by the end of the O4 observing run, uncertainty in the cutoff mass is reduced by $\gtrsim20\,\%$, but a cutoff at 40-50$M_\odot$ yields only a lower bound on the $^{12}\mathrm{C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}\mathrm{O}$ reaction rate, our most stringent constraints on the S-factor at $300\,\mathrm{keV}$ being $S_{300}\gtrsim125\,\mathrm{keV}\,\mathrm{b}$ at $90\,\%$ credibility. Relative uncertainties on the Hubble parameter $H_0$ from gravitational-wave data alone can still be up to $100\,\%$. We also analyze GWTC-4 with the nonparametric PixelPop population model, finding that some mass features are more prominent than in parametric models but a sharp cutoff is not required. However, the parametric model passes a likelihood-based predictive test in GWTC-4 and the PixelPop results are consistent with those from our simulated catalogs with a cutoff. Such tests are necessary to make astrophysical claims from gravitational-wave catalogs.

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 / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates gravitational-wave catalogs with and without a pair-instability mass cutoff at 40-50 solar masses, then recovers the catalogs using the same parametric population models applied to real GWTC-4 data. It reports that for GWTC-4-like catalogs, confident cutoff identification is not guaranteed but the strongest recovered constraints are compatible with existing results when a cutoff is present, while spurious detections are unlikely. For O4-scale catalogs the cutoff-mass uncertainty shrinks by at least 20 percent, yet only a lower bound on the 12C(α,γ)16O S-factor at 300 keV is obtained. A nonparametric PixelPop analysis of GWTC-4 is also presented and shown to be consistent with the parametric results under a cutoff model.

Significance. If the central simulation-based validation holds, the work supplies a necessary controlled test of the inference pipeline used to claim mass cutoffs from GWTC-4. The combination of forward simulations, likelihood-based predictive checks, and a nonparametric cross-check provides a concrete assessment of detection prospects and of the robustness of current parametric conclusions. The quantitative statements on uncertainty reduction and on the limited constraining power for nuclear rates are directly useful for planning future observing runs and for interpreting any future cutoff detection.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4.2] §4.2 and the simulation setup: the claim that the parametric models accurately capture the true underlying mass distribution and selection effects is load-bearing for the recovery tests. If the real population contains features (e.g., additional peaks or a smoother taper) not spanned by the chosen parametric family, the reported false-positive and false-negative rates may not translate to real data. A quantitative sensitivity test to model misspecification would strengthen the result.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that the best constraints are 'compatible with results from GWTC-4'; it would help to quote the numerical GWTC-4 cutoff posterior (median and 90 % interval) for direct comparison.
  2. [Figures 2-4] Figure captions for the simulated catalogs should explicitly state the injected cutoff location and the number of events in each realization.
  3. [§5.3] Notation for the S-factor (S_300) is introduced without a reference to the nuclear-physics definition; a brief parenthetical or footnote would remove ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the positive assessment. We address the single major comment below and will incorporate the requested sensitivity test in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4.2] §4.2 and the simulation setup: the claim that the parametric models accurately capture the true underlying mass distribution and selection effects is load-bearing for the recovery tests. If the real population contains features (e.g., additional peaks or a smoother taper) not spanned by the chosen parametric family, the reported false-positive and false-negative rates may not translate to real data. A quantitative sensitivity test to model misspecification would strengthen the result.

    Authors: We agree that model misspecification is a valid concern for translating the reported rates to real data. Our simulations are intentionally performed within the same parametric family used for the GWTC-4 analysis to test the inference pipeline under its own assumptions, and the nonparametric PixelPop results on both simulated and real data already provide a consistency check. To directly quantify the impact of misspecification, we will add a new test in the revised manuscript: we will generate additional mock catalogs using an alternative mass distribution (a smoother logistic taper plus an optional secondary peak outside the parametric family) and recover them with the standard parametric model, reporting the resulting changes in false-positive and false-negative rates for cutoff detection. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper generates simulated catalogs independently of the real GWTC-4 data, injects known cutoffs or their absence, and recovers them using parametric models; it then applies both parametric and nonparametric (PixelPop) models to the actual catalog for comparison. These steps are forward simulations and separate data analyses rather than any fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction or any result being defined in terms of itself. No self-citation chain is load-bearing for the central claims about detection prospects, and the nonparametric check serves as an internal consistency test without reducing the conclusions to the inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The study relies on standard assumptions in gravitational-wave population inference and on the accuracy of the simulated selection function; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced beyond those already standard in the field.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The simulated catalogs faithfully reproduce the selection biases and parameter-estimation uncertainties of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA network.
    Invoked when generating mock data and comparing recovered posteriors to GWTC-4 results.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5694 in / 1446 out tokens · 50643 ms · 2026-05-16T05:33:04.293663+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

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 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Posterior Predictive Checks for Gravitational-wave Populations: Limitations and Improvements

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Maximum-likelihood-based posterior predictive checks detect model misspecification better than event-level versions for uncertain spin tilts, but current detector sensitivity limits their power; the Gaussian Component...

  2. Gravitational-wave constraints on $H_0$ are robust to (putative) redshift evolution in the binary black hole mass spectrum at current sensitivity

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 conditional novelty 5.0

    Spectral-siren H0 constraints from GWTC-4.0 binary black holes remain robust when the mass spectrum is permitted to evolve with redshift at current detector sensitivity.

  3. Emergent structure in the binary black hole mass distribution and implications for population-based cosmology

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    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...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 141 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers · 38 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    need to be revised. The distributions do not de- cline sharply at low and high masses, reflecting the ag- nosticPixelPopprior [75], unlike the assumption of strict minima and maxima in the parametric models. In- stead, in Figure 1 we show the 99%, 99.9%, and 99.99% percentile masses, computed from the marginal cumula- tive distributions form 1 andm 2 from...

    work page

  2. [2]

    maximum likelihood

    but, unlike common approaches in GW population studies, we compare observed and predicted sources self consistently (see Ref. [71] for a discussion). For each ob- served event, we select the parameter estimate with the highest likelihood1 among its posterior samples. We com- pare the observed highest-likelihood secondary masses to predictions from theSing...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Over the broader range 30< m 2/M⊙ <150, the GWTC-4 median is typically shallower than results from catalogs of all three simulated populations. From the Single Power Law + 2 Peaks + Cutoffcatalogs, PixelPopidentifies that them 2 slope over 30–60M ⊙ is steeper than over 10–20M ⊙ with posterior probabilities (≳92%) consistently more similar to the GWTC-4 re...

    work page 2000

  4. [4]

    Advanced LIGO

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    Capoteet al., Phys

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    (LIGO Instrument Science Collaboration) 2025 Class

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

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

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    GWTC-2.1: Deep Extended Catalog of Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

    R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Mapelli, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 7, 38 (2020), ISSN 2296-987X, arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph], URL http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12455

    M. Mapelli, Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 38 (2020), arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    Mapelli, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astron- omy(Springer, Singapore, 2020) pp

    M. Mapelli, inHandbook of Gravitational Wave Astron- omy(Springer, Singapore, 2020) pp. 1–65

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    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

  17. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Abbottet al., Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, ApJL913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533

    R. Abbottet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

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

    R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  20. [20]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

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

    work page 1964

  22. [22]

    Barkat, G

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

    work page 1967

  23. [23]

    Rakavy and G

    G. Rakavy and G. Shaviv, Astrophys. J.148, 803 18 (1967)

    work page 1967

  24. [24]

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

    work page 1968

  25. [25]

    S. E. Woosley, Astrophys. J.836, 244 (2017), arXiv:1608.08939 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  26. [26]

    The Effect of Pair-Instability Mass Loss on Black Hole Mergers

    K. Belczynskiet al., Astron. Astrophys.594, A97 (2016), arXiv:1607.03116 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    The Impact of Pair-instability Mass Loss on the Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution,

    S. Stevenson, M. Sampson, J. Powell, A. Vigna-G´ omez, C. J. Neijssel, D. Sz´ ecsi, and I. Mandel, The Astrophys- ical Journal882, 121 (2019), arXiv:1904.02821 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    A. K. Mehta, A. Buonanno, J. Gair, M. C. Miller, E. Farag, R. J. deBoer, M. Wiescher, and F. X. Timmes, Astrophys. J.924, 39 (2022), arXiv:2105.06366 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  31. [31]

    D. D. Hendriks, L. A. C. van Son, M. Renzo, R. G. Izzard, and R. Farmer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526, 4130 (2023), arXiv:2309.09339 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    Gabrielliet al., Mon

    F. Gabrielliet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.534, 151 (2024), arXiv:2408.16823 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, The Astrophysical Journal887, 53 (2019), arXiv:1910.12874 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  34. [34]

    Impact of the Rotation and Compactness of Progenitors on the Mass of Black Holes,

    M. Mapelli, M. Spera, E. Montanari, M. Limongi, A. Chieffi, N. Giacobbo, A. Bressan, and Y. Bouffanais, Astrophys. J.888, 76 (2020), arXiv:1909.01371 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Renzo, R

    M. Renzo, R. J. Farmer, S. Justham, S. E. de Mink, Y. G¨ otberg, and P. Marchant, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 4333 (2020), arXiv:2002.08200 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2020

  36. [36]

    The impact of stellar rotation on the black hole mass-gap from pair- instability supernovae,

    P. Marchant and T. Moriya, Astron. Astrophys.640, L18 (2020), arXiv:2007.06220 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  37. [37]

    For- mation of GW190521 from stellar evolution: the impact of the hydrogen-rich envelope, dredge-up, and 12C(α, γ)16O rate on the pair-instability black hole mass gap,

    G. Costa, A. Bressan, M. Mapelli, P. Marigo, G. Iorio, and M. Spera, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501, 4514 (2021), arXiv:2010.02242 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    R. J. deBoeret al., Rev. Mod. Phys.89, 035007 (2017), arXiv:1709.03144 [nucl-ex]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  39. [39]

    The Low Detection Rate of Pair Instability Supernovae and the Effect of the Core Carbon Fraction

    K. Takahashi, Astrophys. J.863, 153 (2018), arXiv:1807.05373 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  40. [40]

    Farag, M

    E. Farag, M. Renzo, R. Farmer, M. T. Chidester, and F. X. Timmes, Astrophys. J.937, 112 (2022), arXiv:2208.09624 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  41. [41]

    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

  42. [42]

    Antonini, M

    F. Antonini, M. Gieles, F. Dosopoulou, and D. Chat- topadhyay, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.522, 466 (2023), arXiv:2208.01081 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  43. [43]

    Golomb, M

    J. Golomb, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J.976, 121 (2024), arXiv:2312.03973 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    S. K. Roy, L. A. C. van Son, and W. M. Farr, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 225008 (2025), arXiv:2507.01086 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.22093, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.22093

    O. Sridhar, A. Ray, and V. Kalogera, arXiv:2511.22093 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Wanget al., Black Hole Mass Function of Co- alescing Binary Black Hole Systems: Is there a Pulsa- tional Pair-instability Mass Cutoff?, ApJ913, 42 (2021), arXiv:2104.02566

    Y.-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, Y.-F. Liang, M.-Z. Han, X. Li, Z.-P. Jin, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J.913, 42 (2021), arXiv:2104.02566 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  47. [47]

    E. J. Baxter, D. Croon, S. D. McDermott, and J. Sakstein, Astrophys. J. Lett.916, L16 (2021), arXiv:2104.02685 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2021

  48. [48]

    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

  49. [49]

    Gerosa and M

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

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    Karathanasis, S

    C. Karathanasis, S. Mukherjee, and S. Mastrogio- vanni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 4539 (2023), arXiv:2204.13495 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  51. [51]

    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

  52. [52]

    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

  53. [53]

    Pierra, S

    G. Pierra, S. Mastrogiovanni, and S. Perri` es, Astron. Astrophys.692, A80 (2024), arXiv:2406.01679 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  54. [54]

    Antonini, I

    F. Antonini, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and T. Callister, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 011401 (2025), arXiv:2406.19044 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Antonini, T

    F. Antonini, T. Callister, F. Dosopoulou, I. M. Romero- Shaw, and D. Chattopadhyay, Phys. Rev. D112, 063040 (2025), arXiv:2506.09154 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  56. [56]

    Maga˜ na Hernandez and A

    I. Maga˜ na Hernandez and A. Palmese, arXiv:2508.19208 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Evidence of the pair instability gap from black hole masses

    H. Tonget al., Nature 10.1038/s41586-026-10359-0 (2026), arXiv:2509.04151 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10359-0 2026

  58. [58]

    Guttman, E

    N. Guttman, E. Payne, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, arXiv:2509.09876 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  59. [59]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    Mandel, The Astrophysical Journal996, L4 (2026), arXiv:2509.05885 [astro-ph.HE]

    I. Mandel, Astrophys. J. Lett.996, L4 (2026), arXiv:2509.05885 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  61. [61]

    Tenorio and D

    R. Tenorio and D. Gerosa, arXiv:2601.02467 [astro- ph.HE] (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Gravitational-wave constraints on the pair-instability mass gap and nuclear burning in massive stars

    F. Antonini, I. Romero-Shaw, T. Callister, F. Dosopoulou, D. Chattopadhyay, M. Gieles, and M. Mapelli, arXiv:2509.04637 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    Shenet al., Astrophys

    Y. Shenet al., Astrophys. J.945, 41 (2023)

    work page 2023

  64. [64]

    A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, Phys. Rev. C113, 025803 (2026), arXiv:2509.17102 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    Banagiri, E

    S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, arXiv:2509.15646 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    H. Tong, T. A. Callister, M. Fishbach, E. Thrane, F. Antonini, S. Stevenson, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and F. Dosopoulou, arXiv:2511.05316 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  67. [67]

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

    C. Plunkett, T. Callister, M. Zevin, and S. Vitale, arXiv:2601.07908 [gr-qc] (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  68. [68]

    A. M. Farah, A. Vijaykumar, and M. Fishbach, arXiv:2601.03456 [astro-ph.HE] (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Vijaykumar, A

    A. Vijaykumar, A. M. Farah, and M. Fishbach, Astro- phys. J. Lett.999, L30 (2026), arXiv:2601.03457 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  70. [70]

    A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff

    Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-J. Li, S.-J. Gao, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, arXiv:2510.22698 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Ray and V

    A. Ray and V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. Lett.998, L20 (2025), arXiv:2510.18867 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    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

  73. [73]

    Toubiana, M

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

    work page arXiv 2023

  74. [74]

    S. J. Miller, Z. Ko, T. Callister, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D109, 104036 (2024), arXiv:2401.05613 [gr- qc]. 19

    work page arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Biscoveanu, Astrophys

    S. Biscoveanu, Astrophys. J.996, 95 (2026), arXiv:2502.04278 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Vitale, M

    S. Vitale and M. Mould, Phys. Rev. D112, 083015 (2025), arXiv:2505.14875 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    A. G. Abacet al., arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Heinzel, M

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

    work page arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Heinzel, M

    J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D111, L061305 (2025), arXiv:2406.16844 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Alvarez-Lopez, J

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

    work page arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.