pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.06478 · v1 · pith:2ZFAT3H2new · submitted 2026-06-04 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO· astro-ph.HE· hep-ph

Short Gravitational-Wave Transients as Probes of Cosmic Domain Walls

Tore Boybeyi , Doga Veske , David Maibach This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 23:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.COastro-ph.HEhep-ph
keywords gravitational wavesdomain wallstopological dark matterLIGOGW190521GW231123scalar fieldBayes factor
0
0 comments X

The pith

Two gravitational-wave events are consistent with a single cosmic domain wall.

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

The paper tests whether GW190521 and GW231123, reported as unusually massive binary black hole mergers, could instead arise from cosmic domain walls. Fitting a domain wall template to the LIGO data shows the black hole interpretation is preferred for each event individually, yet the Bayes factors fall short of those obtained from injected black hole waveforms. A joint analysis across both events finds consistency with signals from one shared scalar field, with matching parameters across different noise segments and sky locations. This establishes multi-event consistency as a new test for topological dark matter.

Core claim

Although the binary black hole hypothesis is individually favored, with log10 Bayes factors of 12.2 for GW231123 and 11.3 for GW190521, these values are lower than those recovered from matched maximum a posteriori BBH waveforms injected into nearby noise segments. The two events are consistent with a common scalar field in a joint fit, with shared TDM parameters agreeing across independent noise realizations and sky locations. Injected TDM transients are systematically recovered under the BBH hypothesis with large spin parameters, revealing a morphological degeneracy.

What carries the argument

Joint fit constraining domain wall signals from a single underlying scalar field simultaneously by both events.

If this is right

  • Multi-event parameter consistency tests provide a discriminant for domain wall dark matter searches in upcoming observing runs.
  • Genuine domain wall signals can be misidentified as binary black hole mergers due to the degeneracy with large spin parameters.
  • The lower Bayes factors leave the domain wall interpretation viable even when black hole models are preferred individually.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the common scalar field interpretation holds, these events would trace back to the same early-universe phase transition.
  • The degeneracy implies that some reported high-mass, high-spin black hole candidates could be reexamined for domain wall morphology.
  • Applying the joint-fit test to additional short-duration candidates could either strengthen or rule out a shared origin.

Load-bearing premise

The domain wall template accurately captures the true signal morphology and the LIGO noise properties are correctly modeled for the reported Bayes factors and joint parameter constraints.

What would settle it

A third event whose best-fit domain wall parameters fall outside the range consistent with the shared scalar field values from these two events.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.06478 by David Maibach, Doga Veske, Tore Boybeyi.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Best fit reconstructions of the whitened strain for GW231123 (top) and GW190521 (bottom) under the BBH (blue) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posteriors on the shared dark matter parameters and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. BBH posterior for GW231123 using the NRSur7dq4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior corner plots for the domain wall hypothesis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. TDM recoveries of BBH-injected datasets for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Recovery of TDM-injected datasets under the TDM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

GW190521 and GW231123 have been reported as short-duration gravitational-wave transients consistent with very massive binary black hole (BBH) coalescences whose inferred parameters, i.e., exceptionally high total masses and spin magnitudes, challenge standard isolated binary stellar evolution. We test a topological dark matter (TDM) interpretation invoking cosmic domain walls by fitting a physically motivated domain wall template to the LIGO Hanford and Livingston strain data. The BBH hypothesis is individually favored, with $\log_{10}\mathcal{B}_{\rm BBH/TDM}=12.2$ and $11.3$ for GW231123 and GW190521, respectively. However, these values are lower than those typically recovered from matched maximum a posteriori BBH waveforms injected into nearby noise segments. We further perform, for the first time, a joint fit in which domain wall signals from a single underlying scalar field are constrained simultaneously by both events. Although not favored over BBH signals, we find the two events are consistent with a common scalar field, with shared TDM parameters agreeing across independent noise realizations and sky locations. We further find that injected TDM transients are systematically recovered under the BBH hypothesis with large spin parameters, revealing a morphological degeneracy that could mask genuine domain wall signals. This analysis demonstrates that multi-event parameter consistency tests provide a new discriminant for domain wall dark matter searches in upcoming observing runs.

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 tests a topological dark matter interpretation of the short GW transients GW190521 and GW231123 using a cosmic domain wall template fitted to LIGO strain data. Individual-event analyses yield log10 Bayes factors favoring BBH over TDM of 12.2 (GW231123) and 11.3 (GW190521), values lower than those from BBH injections into nearby noise. A joint fit constraining signals from a single scalar field to both events finds the shared TDM parameters consistent across independent noise realizations and sky locations. The work also reports that injected TDM signals are systematically recovered under the BBH hypothesis with large spin parameters, indicating a morphological degeneracy, and proposes multi-event consistency tests as a new discriminant for domain wall searches.

Significance. If the joint-fit consistency result holds, the manuscript introduces multi-event parameter agreement as a practical new handle for domain-wall dark-matter searches in GW catalogs, which could be applied in O4/O5 data. The explicit demonstration of the TDM-BBH morphological degeneracy is a concrete, useful cautionary result. The analysis performs the first joint constraint across two real events and uses actual LIGO data, which strengthens its relevance.

major comments (2)
  1. [Joint analysis] Joint-fit section: the central claim that the two events are consistent with a common scalar field rests on the reported agreement of shared TDM parameters across noise realizations and sky locations, yet no quantitative consistency metric (posterior overlap, credible-interval intersection, or KL divergence) or tabulated posterior summaries are supplied, preventing assessment of whether the agreement exceeds what is expected by chance.
  2. [Results on individual events] Individual Bayes-factor results: the statement that the recovered log10 B_BBH/TDM values are lower than those from matched BBH injections into nearby noise segments is used to contextualize the TDM fits, but the manuscript does not specify the number of injection trials, the distribution of recovered Bayes factors, or the precise noise-segment selection criteria, leaving the statistical significance of the comparison unclear.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Methods] The domain-wall template functional form and its derivation from the underlying scalar-field Lagrangian are referenced only generically; an explicit equation or citation to the template definition would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Parameter definitions] Notation for the shared TDM parameters (e.g., wall tension, velocity, or thickness) is introduced without a dedicated table listing priors, ranges, or units, which would aid readers in reproducing the joint constraints.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and valuable feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment below and agree that additional quantitative details will strengthen the presentation. Revisions will be incorporated in the next version.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Joint analysis] Joint-fit section: the central claim that the two events are consistent with a common scalar field rests on the reported agreement of shared TDM parameters across noise realizations and sky locations, yet no quantitative consistency metric (posterior overlap, credible-interval intersection, or KL divergence) or tabulated posterior summaries are supplied, preventing assessment of whether the agreement exceeds what is expected by chance.

    Authors: We agree that a quantitative consistency metric is necessary to rigorously support the claim of parameter agreement. In the revised manuscript we will add tabulated posterior summaries (medians and 90% credible intervals) for all shared TDM parameters from both the joint fit and the individual-event fits. We will also compute and report the fractional overlap of the 90% credible intervals between the two events as well as the posterior overlap integral. To assess whether the observed agreement exceeds chance, we will include a control comparison using randomized pairings of independent noise realizations drawn from the same data segments. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results on individual events] Individual Bayes-factor results: the statement that the recovered log10 B_BBH/TDM values are lower than those from matched BBH injections into nearby noise segments is used to contextualize the TDM fits, but the manuscript does not specify the number of injection trials, the distribution of recovered Bayes factors, or the precise noise-segment selection criteria, leaving the statistical significance of the comparison unclear.

    Authors: We concur that the injection study requires explicit statistical details. The revised manuscript will state that 50 independent BBH injections were performed, each using the maximum-a-posteriori BBH parameters recovered from the real data and injected into noise segments drawn from the 20-second windows immediately preceding and following each event (excluding a 4-second buffer around the trigger). We will report the full distribution of recovered log10 B_BBH/TDM values (mean, standard deviation, and range) and the fraction of injections that yield Bayes factors larger than those obtained from the actual events, thereby quantifying the significance of the comparison. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The central claim rests on a joint Bayesian fit constraining shared TDM parameters from two independent GW events, with consistency reported as an empirical outcome across noise realizations and sky locations. No equations or steps are shown that reduce the reported parameter agreement or Bayes factors to a fitted quantity by construction, a self-definition, or a self-citation chain. The analysis is presented as a direct multi-event consistency test without load-bearing ansatzes or renamings that collapse to the inputs. This is the normal case of a self-contained empirical result.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

Abstract-only review limits visibility into exact parameter count and background assumptions; the model relies on a domain wall waveform template whose construction details are not supplied.

free parameters (1)
  • shared TDM scalar field parameters
    Fitted jointly to both events under the common-field assumption.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption A physically motivated domain wall template exists that can be matched to LIGO strain data
    The analysis proceeds by fitting this template to the data.
invented entities (1)
  • cosmic domain walls as topological dark matter source for the observed transients no independent evidence
    purpose: Alternative explanation for the two GW events
    Postulated to fit the data; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the fit is stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5792 in / 1287 out tokens · 24209 ms · 2026-06-27T23:55:57.125700+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages · 20 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    J. L. Feng, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 495 (2010), arXiv:1003.0904 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  2. [2]

    Arbey and F

    A. Arbey and F. Mahmoudi, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.119, 103865 (2021), arXiv:2104.11488 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    A Dark Matter Superfluid

    J. Khoury, in50th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation: 100 years after GR(2015) pp. 35–42, arXiv:1507.03013 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    C. B. Adamset al., inSnowmass 2021(2022) arXiv:2203.14923 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2021

  5. [7]

    V. V. Khoze and D. L. Milne, Phys. Lett. B829, 137044 (2022), arXiv:2107.02640 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [8]

    How do you know if you ran through a wall?

    M. Pospelov, S. Pustelny, M. P. Ledbetter, D. F. Jack- son Kimball, W. Gawlik, and D. Budker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 021803 (2013), arXiv:1205.6260 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [9]

    S. M. Vermeulen, P. Relton, H. Grote, V. Raymond, C. Af- feldt, F. Bergamin, A. Bisht, M. Brinkmann, K. Danz- mann, S. Doravari,et al., Nature600, 424 (2021)

    2021

  8. [10]

    T. W. B. Kibble, J. Phys. A9, 1387 (1976)

    1976

  9. [11]

    Vilenkin and E

    A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard,Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  10. [12]

    Vachaspati,Kinks and Domain Walls : An Introduc- tion to Classical and Quantum Solitons(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    T. Vachaspati,Kinks and Domain Walls : An Introduc- tion to Classical and Quantum Solitons(Oxford University Press, 2007)

    2007

  11. [13]

    Rajaraman,Solitons and Instantons: An Introduc- tion to Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory (Elsevier, New York, 1982)

    R. Rajaraman,Solitons and Instantons: An Introduc- tion to Solitons and Instantons in Quantum Field Theory (Elsevier, New York, 1982)

    1982

  12. [14]

    N. S. Manton and P. Sutcliffe,Topological solitons, Cam- bridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  13. [15]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151301 (2014), arXiv:1405.5337 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  14. [16]

    Hunting for topological dark matter with atomic clocks

    A. Derevianko and M. Pospelov, Nature Phys.10, 933 (2014), arXiv:1311.1244 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [17]

    B. M. Roberts, G. Blewitt, C. Dailey, M. Murphy, M. Pospelov, A. Rollings, J. Sherman, W. Williams, and A. Derevianko, Nature Commun.8, 1195 (2017), arXiv:1704.06844 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [19]

    Searching for Dark Photon Dark Matter with Gravitational Wave Detectors

    A. Pierce, K. Riles, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 061102 (2018), arXiv:1801.10161 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [20]

    H.-K. Guo, K. Riles, F.-W. Yang, and Y. Zhao, Commun. Phys.2, 155 (2019), arXiv:1905.04316 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  18. [21]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D105, 063030 (2022), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 109, 089902 (2024)], arXiv:2105.13085 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [22]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KA- GRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Ac- ernese, K. Ackley, C. Adamcewicz, S. Adhicary, D. Ad- hikari,et al., Direct multi-model dark-matter search with gravitational-wave interferometers using data from the first part of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observing run (2025), arXiv:2510.27...

    work page arXiv 2025

  20. [23]

    S. D. B. Fell, L. Heisenberg, and D. Veske, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083010 (2023), arXiv:2304.14129 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [24]

    Bhattacharya, B

    S. Bhattacharya, B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 091401 (2023), arXiv:2302.07898 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [25]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 141105 (2021), arXiv:2009.01825 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  23. [26]

    Black Hole Superradiance Signatures of Ultralight Vectors

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017), arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  24. [27]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, and T. P. Sotiriou, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141101 (2020), arXiv:2004.11895 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [28]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, S. Barsanti, and P. Pani, Nature Astron.6, 464 (2022), arXiv:2106.11325 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  26. [29]

    The Primordial Black Hole Dark Matter - LISA Serendipity

    N. Bartolo, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, A. Lewis, M. Peloso, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 211301 (2019), arXiv:1810.12218 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  27. [32]

    Li and X.-L

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan, The Hierarchical Merger Scenario for GW231123 (2025), arXiv:2509.08298 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  28. [33]

    Passenger, S

    L. Passenger, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, P. D. Lasky, A. Borchers, M. Fishbach, and C. S. Ye, Is GW231123 a hierarchical merger? (2025), arXiv:2510.14363 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [34]

    Paiella, C

    L. Paiella, C. Ugolini, M. Spera, M. Branchesi, and M. A. Sedda, Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L54 (2025), arXiv:2509.10609 [astro-ph.GA]

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [35]

    Cuceu, M

    I. Cuceu, M. A. Bizouard, N. Christensen, and M. Sakellariadou, Phys. Rev. D113, L021302 (2026), arXiv:2507.20778 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [37]

    Varying constants, Gravitation and Cosmology

    J.-P. Uzan, Living Rev. Rel.14, 2 (2011), arXiv:1009.5514 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  32. [39]

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

    G. Ashtonet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [40]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [41]

    See Supplemental Material for details on detector response channels, data conditioning, prior choices, BBH analysis, robustness checks, and posterior corner plots

  35. [42]

    Adamek, and M

    Øyvind Christiansen, J. Adamek, and M. Kunz, Cosmic strings, domain walls and environment-dependent cluster- ing (2026), arXiv:2601.15234 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  36. [43]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Physical Review Letters 104, 10.1103/physrevlett.104.231301 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.104.231301 2010

  37. [44]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy, and A. Matas, Phys- ical Review D84, 10.1103/physrevd.84.103521 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.84.103521 2011

  38. [47]

    Y. B. Zeldovich, I. Y. Kobzarev, and L. B. Okun, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.67, 3 (1974)

    1974

  39. [48]

    Saikawa, Universe3, 40 (2017)

    K. Saikawa, Universe3, 40 (2017)

    2017

  40. [49]

    Burrage, A

    C. Burrage, A. Kuribayashi-Coleman, J. Stevenson, and B. Thrussell, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2016(12), 041–041

  41. [50]

    C. D. Panda, M. J. Tao, M. Ceja, J. Khoury, G. M. Tino, and H. M¨ uller, Nature631, 515 (2024), arXiv:2310.01344 [physics.atom-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  42. [51]

    Short Gravitational-Wave Transients as Probes of Cosmic Domain Walls

    G. Cronenberg, P. Brax, H. Filter, P. Geltenbort, T. Jenke, G. Pignol, M. Pitschmann, M. Thalhammer, and H. Abele, Nature Physics14, 1022–1026 (2018). Supplemental Material for “Short Gravitational-Wave Transients as Probes of Cosmic Domain Walls” T¨ ore Boybeyi,1 Do˘ ga Veske,2, 3, 4 and David Maibach 5 1School of Physics & Astronomy, University of Minne...

    2018

  43. [52]

    Heisenberg, D

    L. Heisenberg, D. Maibach, and D. Veske, Phys. Rev. D 110, 055037 (2024), arXiv:2309.05093 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [53]

    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

  45. [54]

    Grote and Y.V

    H. Grote and Y. V. Stadnik, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033187 (2019), arXiv:1906.06193 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2019

  46. [55]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Open Data from LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA through the First Part of the Fourth Observing Run (2025), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  47. [56]

    P. P. Avelino and L. Sousa, Universe1, 6 (2015), arXiv:1404.3419 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  48. [57]

    Hearing the signals of dark sectors with gravitational wave detectors

    J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze, and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D94, 103519 (2016), arXiv:1602.03901 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  49. [58]

    B. M. Robertset al., New J. Phys.22, 093010 (2020), arXiv:1907.02661 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2020

  50. [59]

    Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses

    V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [60]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  52. [61]

    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.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [62]

    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

  54. [63]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

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

    work page arXiv 2020