arxiv: 2604.13930 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.GA · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: unknown

Bayesian Analysis of Gravitational Wave Microlensing Effects from Galactic Double White Dwarfs

Yan Sun , Yong Yuan , Minghui Du , Wen-Fan Feng , Xilong Fan , Peng Xu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.HE

keywords gravitational wavesmicrolensingdouble white dwarfsTaijiBayesian model selectiongalactic compact objectsTDI data

0 comments

The pith

Bayesian analysis of simulated Taiji data shows that microlensing by galactic objects cannot be distinguished in double white dwarf gravitational waves for lens masses below 100000 solar masses or separations of three Einstein radii or more

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

This paper simulates four years of Taiji observations of gravitational waves from galactic double white dwarf systems, adding microlensing effects from compact objects along the line of sight. It uses Bayesian parameter estimation on the second-generation TDI data streams to recover lens properties and then applies model selection to test whether the data prefer a lensed or unlensed waveform. The results identify clear thresholds below which the two models become indistinguishable. A reader cares because the work maps the practical reach of gravitational-wave microlensing as a probe of galactic compact objects, showing where this new channel adds information beyond traditional light-based microlensing studies.

Core claim

The authors simulate second-generation TDI data streams for Taiji observing galactic double white dwarfs over four years, incorporating a microlensing waveform model for varying lens mass, effective velocity, and initial separation. They perform Bayesian inference to estimate parameters and then compute Bayes factors between lensed and unlensed models. The analysis shows that distinction is impossible when lens mass is below 10^5 solar masses or initial separation reaches or exceeds three Einstein radii, while effective velocity still permits distinction across the full tested range even as the Bayes factor declines.

What carries the argument

Bayesian model selection via Bayes factors that compare lensed and unlensed gravitational-wave waveform templates fitted to simulated Taiji TDI data streams

If this is right

Only galactic lenses heavier than 10^5 solar masses produce detectable microlensing signatures in four-year Taiji observations of double white dwarfs.
Source-lens separations of three Einstein radii or larger erase any statistical preference for lensing in the data.
Lower effective velocities weaken the evidence for lensing but do not prevent model distinction within the simulated velocity range.
These thresholds define the subset of galactic microlensing events that Taiji can probe using gravitational waves from double white dwarfs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

If real observations match the simulations, electromagnetic follow-up will be required to study lenses below the 10^5 solar mass threshold.
Similar analysis applied to LISA data could shift the mass and separation thresholds because of differences in frequency coverage and sensitivity.
Changes in the assumed spatial distribution of double white dwarfs or lenses would move the reported distinguishability boundaries.

Load-bearing premise

The forward simulation of second-generation TDI data streams for Taiji, including the microlensing waveform model and the assumed galactic DWD population, accurately represents real observations without significant unmodeled systematics or incorrect priors.

What would settle it

Actual Taiji data yielding a Bayes factor that strongly favors the lensed model for a double white dwarf event with lens mass below 10^5 solar masses would falsify the claimed indistinguishability threshold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13930 by Minghui Du, Peng Xu, Wen-Fan Feng, Xilong Fan, Yan Sun, Yong Yuan.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic diagram illustrating a moving [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Parameter estimation results for the lens model in case 2. In this case, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Parameter estimation results for the unlens model in case 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Gravitational waves (GWs) from the galactic double white dwarf (DWD) systems are one of the primary targets for upcoming space-based detectors. Due to their vast abundance and widespread distribution throughout the Galactic disk and bulge, these systems may provide a high-statistical population for probing GW microlensing effects induced by Galactic compact objects. To evaluate the detectability of such effects, in this work we simulate the four-year observation of DWD systems by Taiji, in the form of a second-generation Time Delay Interferometry (TDI) data stream. Within a Bayesian inference framework, we estimate parameters for lensed GWs from DWD systems for different values of the lens parameters, including the lens mass $M_\mathrm{L}\in [10, 10^6]$\,M$_\odot$, the effective velocity $v_\mathrm{eff}\in [50, 500]$\,km/s and the initial separation $L\in [R_\mathrm{E}, 3R_\mathrm{E}]$, and obtain the uncertainties of the corresponding parameters. These results characterize the capability of future Taiji observations to probe such systems. We further employ the Bayesian model selection framework to distinguish between lensed and unlensed scenarios, and investigate the impacts of three key physical parameters of the lens system: $M_\mathrm{L}$, $v_\mathrm{eff}$, and $L$ on distinguishing lensing events. Our results show that when $M_\mathrm{L}$ is below $10^5$\,M$_\odot$ or $L\geq3R_\mathrm{E}$, it is not possible to distinguish between lensed and unlensed models. For $v_\mathrm{eff}$, although the Bayes factor decreases as $v_\mathrm{eff}$ decreases, the lensed and unlensed models can still be distinguished within our parameter range.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper runs Taiji TDI simulations to set concrete thresholds for distinguishing microlensed DWD signals but leaves the forward model's accuracy untested.

read the letter

The main point here is that four-year Taiji observations of galactic double white dwarfs can separate lensed from unlensed signals only for lens masses above 10^5 solar masses or separations below 3 Einstein radii, while effective velocity still permits distinction across the full range tested. The work reaches these numbers by simulating second-generation TDI data streams and applying Bayesian parameter estimation plus model selection via Bayes factors. That specific combination for this detector and source population looks new. It turns the general idea of GW microlensing into usable numbers for planning future analyses, which is the useful part. The parameter sweeps on mass, velocity, and separation are straightforward and show the trends clearly. The soft spot is validation. Nothing in the description shows checks on the microlensing waveform itself, recovery tests with injected signals, or how the TDI noise and response are modeled in detail. Without those, the reported uncertainties and the exact thresholds rest on the assumption that the forward simulation matches reality. The galactic DWD population priors are also baked in, so any mismatch there moves the results. The stress-test note is on target for that reason. This is for the narrow set of people working on space-based GW detectors and Milky Way lensing. A reader preparing Taiji data pipelines would get practical estimates to think about. It has enough quantitative content and a clear question to deserve a serious referee, even if the review will focus on adding the missing methodological checks. I would send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates four-year Taiji observations of galactic double white dwarf (DWD) gravitational wave sources using second-generation Time Delay Interferometry (TDI) data streams. It performs Bayesian parameter estimation for microlensed signals across lens masses M_L in [10, 10^6] M_⊙, effective velocities v_eff in [50, 500] km/s, and separations L in [R_E, 3 R_E], then applies Bayesian model selection to determine when lensed versus unlensed models can be distinguished, reporting that distinction is impossible below M_L = 10^5 M_⊙ or for L ≥ 3 R_E while remaining feasible across the explored v_eff range.

Significance. If the forward simulation and inference pipeline are shown to be robust, the identified thresholds would offer concrete guidance on the regimes in which Taiji could statistically detect microlensing signatures in the galactic DWD population. This has potential implications for using space-based GW observations to constrain the abundance and properties of galactic compact lenses.

major comments (3)

[Methods (Bayesian framework and simulation)] The distinguishability thresholds (M_L < 10^5 M_⊙ and L ≥ 3 R_E) are load-bearing for the central claim, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit equations or implementation details for the microlensing-induced phase and amplitude shifts in the GW waveform, the second-generation TDI response, or the noise model used to generate the simulated data streams. Without these, the reported Bayes factors cannot be independently assessed for robustness against unmodeled systematics.
[Results (parameter estimation and model selection)] No validation tests—such as recovery of injected lensed signals, convergence diagnostics for the MCMC sampling, or comparison of recovered parameters against analytic expectations—are described. This directly undermines in the parameter uncertainties and model-selection outcomes that underpin the abstract's conclusions.
[Simulation setup] The galactic DWD population priors and the ad-hoc sampling ranges for M_L, v_eff, and L are embedded in the forward model; the paper does not demonstrate that the reported thresholds remain stable under reasonable variations in these choices or under different assumptions for the lens spatial distribution.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that uncertainties are obtained but reports neither example values nor which parameters are recovered, reducing clarity for readers.
[Introduction or Methods] The normalization of separation L to the Einstein radius R_E should be defined explicitly at first use, including the formula for R_E in the context of the DWD source and lens geometry.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive comments on our manuscript. We have addressed each of the major comments point by point below. Where the comments highlight areas for improvement, we will revise the manuscript accordingly to enhance clarity and robustness.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The distinguishability thresholds (M_L < 10^5 M_⊙ and L ≥ 3 R_E) are load-bearing for the central claim, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit equations or implementation details for the microlensing-induced phase and amplitude shifts in the GW waveform, the second-generation TDI response, or the noise model used to generate the simulated data streams. Without these, the reported Bayes factors cannot be independently assessed for robustness against unmodeled systematics.

Authors: We agree that the absence of explicit equations and implementation details limits the ability to independently verify our results. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the Methods section to include the specific equations for the microlensing-induced phase and amplitude shifts applied to the GW waveform, the second-generation TDI response functions used for the Taiji data streams, and the noise model. These details will allow readers to reproduce the simulated data streams and assess the robustness of the Bayes factors. revision: yes
Referee: No validation tests—such as recovery of injected lensed signals, convergence diagnostics for the MCMC sampling, or comparison of recovered parameters against analytic expectations—are described. This directly undermines in the parameter uncertainties and model-selection outcomes that underpin the abstract's conclusions.

Authors: We acknowledge that validation tests were not explicitly described in the original submission. We will add a new subsection in the Results section detailing the validation procedures. This will include demonstrations of recovering injected lensed signals with known parameters, MCMC convergence diagnostics (including autocorrelation times and Gelman-Rubin statistics), and comparisons of recovered parameters for unlensed DWD signals against analytic expectations. These additions will provide greater confidence in our parameter estimation and model selection findings. revision: yes
Referee: The galactic DWD population priors and the ad-hoc sampling ranges for M_L, v_eff, and L are embedded in the forward model; the paper does not demonstrate that the reported thresholds remain stable under reasonable variations in these choices or under different assumptions for the lens spatial distribution.

Authors: The ranges for M_L, v_eff, and L were chosen based on typical values for galactic compact objects and to systematically explore the parameter space where microlensing effects transition from detectable to undetectable. The DWD population priors are based on standard models of the galactic binary population. We agree that testing the stability of the thresholds under variations would strengthen the paper. In the revision, we will include additional analyses varying the priors and lens distribution assumptions to verify that the key thresholds (M_L ≈ 10^5 M_⊙ and L = 3 R_E) remain consistent. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: distinguishability thresholds arise from forward simulation and Bayes factors, not by construction

full rationale

The paper's workflow consists of generating simulated second-generation TDI data streams for Taiji incorporating a microlensing waveform model and galactic DWD population priors, followed by Bayesian parameter estimation and model selection between lensed and unlensed hypotheses. The reported thresholds (inability to distinguish for M_L below 10^5 M_⊙ or L ≥ 3 R_E, while v_eff still permits distinction) are direct numerical outputs of the computed Bayes factors on these simulated datasets. No equation or step reduces a claimed result to a fitted input by definition, no self-citation supplies a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz, and no renaming of known patterns occurs. The analysis is self-contained as a simulation study whose central claims are falsifiable against the chosen forward model and priors.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard assumptions of general relativity for GW propagation and microlensing, plus a galactic population model for DWDs. No new physical entities are introduced. The simulation ranges for lens parameters are chosen by hand rather than fitted to data.

free parameters (3)

Lens mass simulation range
M_L chosen in [10, 10^6] M_⊙ for the study
Effective velocity simulation range
v_eff chosen in [50, 500] km/s
Initial separation simulation range
L chosen in [R_E, 3 R_E]

axioms (2)

standard math General relativity governs gravitational wave propagation and microlensing
Invoked implicitly in the lensing waveform model
domain assumption Double white dwarfs are distributed throughout the galactic disk and bulge with known abundance
Used to justify the high-statistical population for probing microlensing

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5660 in / 1483 out tokens · 60259 ms · 2026-05-10T12:36:41.605450+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

Einstein, Annalen der Physik354, 769 (1916)

A. Einstein, Annalen der Physik354, 769 (1916)

1916
[2]

Walsh, R

D. Walsh, R. F. Carswell, and R. J. Wey- mann, Nature (London)279, 381 (1979)

1979
[3]

J. N. Hewitt, E. L. Turner, D. P. Schneider, B. F. Burke, and G. I. Langston, Nature (London)333, 537 (1988)

1988
[4]

S. Das, B. D. Sherwin, P. Aguirre, J. W. Appel, J. R. Bond, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 021301 (2011), arXiv:1103.2124 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2011
[5]

Dai and C

X. Dai and C. S. Kochanek, Astrophys. 17 J.625, 633 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0502007 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[6]

A. J. Shajib, G. Vernardos, T. E. Collett, V. Motta, D. Sluse, et al., Space Sci. Rev. 220, 87 (2024), arXiv:2210.10790 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

Calura, C

M. Meneghetti, G. Davoli, P. Bergamini, P. Rosati, P. Natarajan, et al., Science 369, 1347 (2020), arXiv:2009.04471 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2020
[8]

R.S.Ellis,PhilosophicalTransactionsofthe Royal Society of London Series A368, 967 (2010)

2010
[9]

Wang and A

M.-Y. Wang and A. R. Zentner, Phys. Rev. D82, 123507 (2010), arXiv:1011.2774 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2010
[10]

Fadely and C

R. Fadely and C. R. Keeton, inAmer- ican Astronomical Society Meeting Ab- stracts #215, American Astronomical Soci- ety Meeting Abstracts, Vol. 215 (2010) p. 300.03

2010
[11]

Zackrisson, S

E. Zackrisson, S. Asadi, K. Wiik, J. Jöns- son, P. Scott, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.431, 2172 (2013), arXiv:1208.5482 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2013
[12]

J. M. Ezquiaga and M. Zumalacár- regui, Phys. Rev. D102, 124048 (2020), arXiv:2009.12187 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[13]

Y. Wang, A. Stebbins, and E. L. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett.77, 2875 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9605140 [astro-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[14]

Sereno, A

M. Sereno, A. Sesana, A. Bleuler, P. Jet- zer, M. Volonteri, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 251101 (2010), arXiv:1011.5238 [astro- ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2010
[15]

S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc.476,2220(2018), arXiv:1802.05089 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[16]

Dai, S.-S

L. Dai, S.-S. Li, B. Zackay, S. Mao, and Y. Lu, Phys. Rev. D98, 104029 (2018), arXiv:1810.00003 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2018
[17]

Takahashi and T

R. Takahashi and T. Nakamura, Astro- phys. J.595, 1039 (2003), arXiv:astro- ph/0305055 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2003
[18]

Baraldo, A

C. Baraldo, A. Hosoya, and T. T. Naka- mura, Phys. Rev. D59, 083001 (1999)

1999
[19]

T. T. Nakamura and S. Deguchi, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement133, 137 (1999)

1999
[20]

Schneider, J

P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco, Gravitational Lenses(Springer Berlin, Hei- delberg, 1992)

1992
[21]

R. B. Nerin, O. Bulashenko, O. G. Freitas, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D111, 084067 (2025), arXiv:2412.00566 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

Y. Yuan, M. Du, X.-y. Lin, H. Zhou, P. Xu, et al., Astrophys. J.997, 11 (2026), arXiv:2509.01888 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2026
[23]

Cao, L.-F

Z. Cao, L.-F. Li, and Y. Wang, Phys. Rev. D90, 062003 (2014)

2014
[24]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, et al., 18 Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2016
[25]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2016
[26]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[27]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, F. Acernese, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 221101 (2016), arXiv:1602.03841 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[28]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[29]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[30]

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

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, et al., Physical Re- view X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[31]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2019
[32]

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

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, et al., Physical Re- view X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[33]

K.-H. Lai, O. A. Hannuksela, A. Herrera- Martín, J. M. Diego, T. Broadhurst, et al., Phys. Rev. D98, 083005 (2018), arXiv:1801.07840 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2018
[34]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2017
[35]

Punturo, M

M. Punturo, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, B. Allen, N. Andersson, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

2010
[36]

Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

P. Amaro-Seoane, H. Audley, S. Babak, J. Baker, E. Barausse, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1702.00786 (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[37]

Hu and Y.-L

W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Na- tional Science Review4, 685 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- pdf/4/5/685/31566708/nwx116.pdf

2017
[38]

TianQin: a space-borne gravitational wave detector

J. Luo, L.-S. Chen, H.-Z. Duan, Y.- G. Gong, S. Hu, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[39]

Suyamprakasam, S

S. Suyamprakasam, S. Harikumar, P. Ciecieląg, P. Figura, M. Bejger, et al., Phys. Rev. D112, 124019 (2025), arXiv:2503.21845 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[40]

Çalışkan, N

M. Çalışkan, N. Anil Kumar, L. Ji, J. M. 19 Ezquiaga, R. Cotesta, et al., Phys. Rev. D108, 123543 (2023), arXiv:2307.06990 [astro-ph.CO]

work page arXiv 2023
[41]

Brando, S

G. Brando, S. Goyal, S. Savastano, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacár- regui, Phys. Rev. D111, 024068 (2025), arXiv:2407.04052 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Goyal, H

S. Goyal, D. Harikrishnan, S. J. Kapadia, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D104, 124057 (2021), arXiv:2106.12466 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[43]

K. Kim, J. Lee, R. S. H. Yuen, O. A. Han- nuksela, and T. G. F. Li, Astrophys. J.915, 119 (2021)

2021
[44]

Magare, A

S. Magare, A. More, and S. Choudhary, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.535, 990 (2024), arXiv:2403.02994 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[45]

Du et al.,Towards realistic detection pipelines of Taiji: New challenges in data analysis and high-fidelity simulations of space-based gravitational wave antenna,Sci

M.Duetal.,Sci.ChinaPhys.Mech.Astron. 69,249501(2026),arXiv:2505.16500[gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2026
[46]

Panuzzoet al.(Gaia), Discovery of a dormant 33 solar-mass black hole in pre-release Gaia astrometry, Astron

Gaia Collaboration, P. Panuzzo, T. Mazeh, F. Arenou, B. Holl, et al., Astron. As- trophys.686, L2 (2024), arXiv:2404.10486 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[47]

El-Badry, H.-W

K. El-Badry, H.-W. Rix, E. Quataert, A. W. Howard, H. Isaacson, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.518, 1057 (2023), arXiv:2209.06833 [astro-ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2023
[48]

Olejak, K

A. Olejak, K. Belczynski, T. Bulik, and M. Sobolewska, Astron. Astrophys. 638, A94 (2020), arXiv:1908.08775 [astro- ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2020
[49]

Häberle, N

M. Häberle, N. Neumayer, A. Seth, A. Bellini, M. Libralato, et al., Nature (Lon- don)631, 285 (2024), arXiv:2405.06015 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[50]

Peißker, M

F. Peißker, M. Zajaček, M. Labaj, L. Thomkins, A. Elbe, et al., Astrophys. J.970, 74 (2024), arXiv:2407.15800 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[51]

Sweeney, P

D. Sweeney, P. Tuthill, S. Sharma, and R. Hirai, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 4971 (2022), arXiv:2210.04241 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2022
[52]

W. E. Harris, Astron. J.112, 1487 (1996)

1996
[53]

A catalogue of masses, structural parameters and velocity dispersion profiles of 112 Milky Way globular clusters

H. Baumgardt and M. Hilker, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.478, 1520 (2018), arXiv:1804.08359 [astro-ph.GA]

work page Pith review arXiv 2018
[54]

Peißker, M

F. Peißker, M. Zajaček, L. Thomkins, A. Eckart, L. Labadie, et al., Astrophys. J.956, 70 (2023), arXiv:2310.06156 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2023
[55]

E. R. Garro, D. Minniti, and J. G. Fernández-Trincado, Astron. Astrophys. 687, A214 (2024), arXiv:2405.05055 [astro- ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2024
[56]

W. E. Harris, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1012.3224 (2010), arXiv:1012.3224 [astro-ph.GA]

work page arXiv 2010
[57]

D. E. McLaughlin and R. P. van der Marel, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.161, 304 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0605132 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2005
[58]

Springel, J

V. Springel, J. Wang, M. Vogelsberger, A. Ludlow, A. Jenkins, et al., Mon. 20 Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.391, 1685 (2008), arXiv:0809.0898 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[59]

Diemand, M

J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, and P. Madau, As- trophys. J.667, 859 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0703337 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2007
[60]

Diemand, M

J. Diemand, M. Kuhlen, P. Madau, M. Zemp, B. Moore, etal., Nature(London) 454,735(2008),arXiv:0805.1244[astro-ph]

work page arXiv 2008
[61]

Janquartet al., Mon

J. Janquart, M. Wright, S. Goyal, J. C. L. Chan, A. Ganguly, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.526, 3832 (2023), arXiv:2306.03827 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[62]

K. Liao, M. Biesiada, and X.-L. Fan, Astro- phys. J.875, 139 (2019), arXiv:1903.06612 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[63]

K. C. Sahu, J. Anderson, S. Casertano, H. E. Bond, A. Udalski, et al., Astrophys. J.933, 83 (2022), arXiv:2201.13296 [astro- ph.SR]

work page arXiv 2022
[64]

J. Gais, K. K. Y. Ng, E. Seo, K. W. K. Wong, and T. G. F. Li, Astrophys. J. Lett. 932, L4 (2022), arXiv:2201.01817 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2022
[65]

Moore, S

B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, et al., Astrophys. J. Lett.524, L19 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9907411 [astro-ph]

work page arXiv 1999
[66]

J. F. Navarro, C. S. Frenk, and S. D. M. White, Astrophys. J.462, 563 (1996), arXiv:astro-ph/9508025 [astro-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 1996
[67]

N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D76, 083006 (2007), arXiv:0704.1808 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2007
[68]

N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Phys. Rev. D112, 102007 (2025), arXiv:2506.08093 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[69]

Binney and S

J. Binney and S. Tremaine,Galactic Dy- namics(Princeton University Press, 1988)

1988
[70]

Villarrubia-Rojo, S

H. Villarrubia-Rojo, S. Savastano, M. Zumalacárregui, L. Choi, S. Goyal, et al., Phys. Rev. D111, 103539 (2025), arXiv:2409.04606 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[71]

Bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy

G. Ashton, M. Hübner, P. D. Lasky, C. Tal- bot, K. Ackley, et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[72]

M. J. Williams, J. Veitch, and C. Mes- senger, Phys. Rev. D103, 103006 (2021), arXiv:2102.11056 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[73]

M.J.Williams, J.Veitch,andC.Messenger, Machine Learning: Science and Technology 4, 035011 (2023), arXiv:2302.08526 [astro- ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2023
[74]

L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D46, 5236 (1992), arXiv:gr-qc/9209010 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 1992
[75]

Use and Abuse of the Fisher Information Matrix in the Assessment of Gravitational-Wave Parameter-Estimation Prospects

M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D77, 042001 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0703086 [gr-qc]. 21

work page Pith review arXiv 2008