Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

The origin channels of hierarchical binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O1, O2, and O3 runs

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Nuclear star clusters likely dominate repeated black hole mergers

desk verdict The headline branching fractions don't hold up because Eq. (4) omits the 1G channel that dominates the O1-O3 catalog, but the paper is honest and contains a useful sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.09195 v2 pith:K74UKC2K submitted 2024-11-14 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRgr-qc

Guo-Peng Li , Xi-Long Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GAastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords hierarchicalmergersbinaryblackholesAGNdisksnuclearstarclustersgravitationalwavespopulationinferenceLVKO1-O3branchingfraction
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper infers where repeated black hole mergers come from using the gravitational-wave events detected in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's first three observing runs. It claims that, among hierarchical mergers (mergers involving the remnant of an earlier merger), nuclear star clusters—dense stellar clusters at galaxy centers—dominate the intrinsic rate in the Universe, with $f_{\rm NSC}=0.87^{+0.10}_{-0.29}$ at 90% credibility, while active galactic nucleus disks (gas disks around a supermassive black hole) can contribute up to nearly half of the hierarchical mergers detectable by current detectors, $f_{\rm det,AGN}=0.34^{+0.38}_{-0.26}$. It also finds that hierarchical mergers make up at least about 10% of all detected events, and that the mass, mass ratio, and spin of the merging black holes strongly influence the inferred channel fractions. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a direct population-level test of which astrophysical environments produce repeated mergers, a key path to growing black holes across the pair-instability mass gap.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a parametric population model (from Li et al. 2023a) that rapidly synthesizes hierarchical mergers in AGN disks and NSCs using the same numerical code, paired with a hierarchical Bayesian likelihood that corrects for detectability. Each channel is specified by the initial black hole mass distribution (PowerLaw+Peak), spin magnitude and tilt distributions, mass-ratio distribution, escape speed, and the pairing branch (NG+1G, NG+NG, or NG+≤NG). The likelihood uses posterior samples of the observed events to compute the probability of each event under each channel, and the branching fractions $f_j$ are then inferred with a uniform prior. The escape speed acts as the direct environmental parameter that determines whether a merger remnant is retained to take part in a later merger.

What would settle it

A calculation of the hierarchical merger rate from globular clusters using current cluster mass functions and escape speeds that exceeds the NSC rate would falsify the central claim, as would an observed sample of hierarchical candidates whose host environments are identified (e.g., through gravitational-wave lensing or electromagnetic counterparts) showing that globular clusters host the majority.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a measurement of the branching fractions between the two assumed hierarchical-merger channels. Using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis with a parametric population model that simulates hierarchical mergers in AGN disks and nuclear star clusters, the authors find that NSCs dominate the hierarchical merger rate in the fiducial model, with $f_{\rm NSC}=0.87^{+0.10}_{-0.29}$, and that the AGN disk channel contributes $f_{\rm det,AGN}=0.34^{+0.38}_{-0.26}$ of hierarchical mergers detectable by LVK. They further find that about 12 to 23 of the O1-O3 events are hierarchical candidates (roughly 10-25% of the catalog), and that the escape speed of the host cluster has only a minor effect on the branching fractions, whereas the mass spectral index, spin distribution shape, and mass-ratio index matter significantly. The authors conclude that inferring the host environment from the distribution of merger parameters alone is challenging when multiple formation channels are considered.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes that hierarchical mergers happen only in AGN disks and nuclear star clusters, ignoring globular clusters and young massive clusters; if those other channels contribute significantly, the claimed NSC dominance could be wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the result holds, nuclear star clusters are the primary factories of repeated black hole mergers in the universe, with AGN disks playing a secondary but still detectable role.
  • The detectable fraction of AGN-disk hierarchical mergers is larger than their intrinsic fraction, meaning selection effects favor finding them.
  • The branching fraction depends strongly on the mass spectrum, spin distribution, and mass-ratio distribution, so population parameters must be measured jointly with channel fractions.
  • The minor role of escape speed implies that distinguishing NSC-like from GC-like environments by merger parameters alone is difficult.
  • At least ~10% of detected gravitational-wave events are hierarchical, so any complete population model of LVK events must include a hierarchical component.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because globular clusters were excluded, the NSC fraction is likely an upper bound; including GCs would shift some hierarchical mergers from the NSC channel to a GC channel, possibly weakening the dominance claim.
  • The paper's difficulty-inferring-host-environment conclusion suggests that breaking channel degeneracies may require non-parametric or multi-messenger data, such as lensing statistics or electromagnetic counterparts, rather than more events alone.
  • A testable extension: apply the same hierarchical Bayesian framework to the O4 run once it is complete; if the branching fractions shift strongly with the new catalog, the parametric model's stability is questionable.
  • The simplified selection-effect calculation (uniform redshift, analytical SNR) could bias the detectable fraction; a rerun with injection-based selection would quantify this.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper aims to infer the branching fractions of hierarchical binary black hole mergers between two dynamical channels, AGN disks and nuclear star clusters (NSCs), using hierarchical Bayesian analysis applied to the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O1-O3 catalog. The central quantitative results are a fiducial NSC fraction f_NSC = 0.87(+0.10,-0.29) and a detectable AGN fraction f_det,AGN = 0.34(+0.38,-0.26), alongside a separate claim that hierarchical mergers constitute at least ~10% of detected LVK events. The analysis uses a parametric population model with 15 variations (Table 1), a simplified single-detector selection function, and a two-component likelihood (AGN and NSC) described by Eq. (4). The paper also performs a per-event classification of hierarchical candidates in Section 2.3, finding 12-23 candidate events depending on the model variant.

Significance. If the claims were valid, the result that NSCs dominate the hierarchical merger rate and that AGN disks can contribute up to nearly half of detectable hierarchical mergers would be of considerable astrophysical interest, informing models of dynamical BBH assembly and the interpretation of massive, high-spin, or asymmetric GW events. The paper also aims to show which population parameters most affect the branching fraction, which is a useful sensitivity exploration. However, the central inference rests on a statistically misspecified likelihood, so the headline numerical claims are not reliable in their current form. The paper does not ship code or machine-checked proofs; its main value would be as an exploratory model-comparison study if the statistical issues were repaired.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.1, Eq. (4)] The likelihood in Eq. (4) is built from the two-component mixture L(θ|Λ,{µ_j}) defined in Eq. (2), which contains only the AGN and NSC hierarchical populations, yet it is applied to all Ndet detected events with no 1G (isolated) component in the model or in the detection fraction ξ(Λ,{µ_j}). The authors' own classification in Section 2.3 (Table 2) identifies only 12-23 of the catalog events as hierarchical candidates, implying that the majority of events in the likelihood are first-generation mergers. Consequently, the posterior on f_NSC obtained from Eq. (4) is not a properly normalized mixture-model posterior for the observed catalog, and the fiducial values f_NSC=0.87 and f_det,AGN=0.34 are not supported by the analysis as written.
  2. [Section 2.3, Eq. (7)] The claim that hierarchical mergers constitute at least ~10% of LVK events is derived from a separate classification step via Eq. (7), which assigns equal prior weight to the 1G and hierarchical populations and does not incorporate selection effects or the branching fractions inferred in Section 3. This classification is not connected to the likelihood of Eq. (4), so the paper effectively presents two incompatible analyses: the population-level inference assumes every detection is hierarchical, while the event-level classification finds that most detections are not. The abstract's 'at least ~10%' statement therefore is not a product of the hierarchical Bayesian inference and should not be presented as such.
  3. [Section 4, limitations paragraph] The paper states that if the contribution of globular clusters and young massive clusters is not neglected, 'our results may not hold true.' This is a load-bearing caveat that should be prominently reflected in the abstract and conclusions, because the central claim is that NSCs dominate the hierarchical merger rate. As written, the abstract and Section 3.1 present this dominance as a robust finding without the necessary caveat, making the headline conclusion conditional on an assumption the paper itself acknowledges may be invalid.
  4. [Section 2.1, selection function] The selection function is a simplified single-detector estimate using a single power spectral density, SNR threshold, and no network/duty-cycle effects, as described in Section 2.1. The authors compare SNR>8 and SNR>12 (Model 15) but do not validate against the actual search sensitivity used by LVK; this approximation directly affects the reported f_det,AGN and the widths of the branching-fraction posteriors, and it is another reason the quoted quantitative claims carry unquantified systematic uncertainty.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should specify that the 'hierarchical merger rate' is actually the branching fraction under the explicit assumption that only AGN and NSC channels contribute; as written, 'NSCs likely dominate the hierarchical merger rate in the Universe' overstates the model dependence.
  2. [Section 2.2] The analysis fixes the population parameters µ_j rather than sampling them jointly, so the quoted 90% credible intervals on f_NSC and f_det,AGN do not include uncertainty in α_m, β_q, α_χ, V_esc, etc.; this limitation is acknowledged in the text but should also be reflected in the abstract or conclusions.
  3. [Table 1] The table caption does not fully define the 'Branch' column (NG+1G vs NG+NG vs NG+≤NG are introduced only later in Section 2.2) and the 'SNR' column; a reader of the table alone cannot interpret the models.
  4. [Section 3.2] The sentence 'The 50% credible intervals of the distributions for both detectable fractions and branching fractions are always less than ~0.5 and ~0.3' is ambiguous because it does not specify which quantity has which bound; it also reads as if the intervals are centered on zero, which they are not.
  5. [Section 4, lensing discussion] The sentence 'the 90th percentile upper bound on the fraction of AGN-BBHs events is ≳50%' appears to use the wrong inequality symbol; the context suggests an upper bound should be ≲50%, and the wording should be checked.
  6. [Throughout] There are several typos and formatting issues: 'PhemonA' should be 'PhenomA', 'PowerLa w+Peak' contains an extra space, and 'Fiducial model' is inconsistently capitalized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the branching fractions are data-driven hierarchical Bayesian fits; the main statistical weakness (omitting the 1G channel from Eq. 4) is misspecification, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are obtained by a hierarchical Bayesian fit to the O1-O3 catalog, not by definitional identity. In Eq. (4), the likelihood is a two-component hierarchical mixture in which only the branching fractions f_j are free; the population models L(theta|mu_j) are fixed inputs taken from LVK GWTC-3 (Abbott et al. 2023b), external astrophysical arguments (Yang et al. 2019a; Rodriguez et al. 2019; etc.), and the authors' prior parametric code (Li et al. 2023a). The cited prior work is used as a modeling engine, not as an authority that fixes the conclusion; notably, the paper explicitly corrects the opposite conclusion previously reached in Li et al. (2023a), which shows the current inference is not inherited by citation. The 'at least ~10% hierarchical fraction' claim comes from a posterior classification count using Eq. (7) with phier > 0.5; this is model-dependent but not circular. The substantive statistical concern raised by the skeptic, that Eq. (4) omits the 1G channel that is introduced in Sec. 2.3, is a model misspecification and potential bias, not a circular reduction: the posterior over f_NSC is still data-driven, is not equal to the prior, and is not a renamed version of any input parameter. No step of the derivation reduces, by the paper's own equations or by a self-citation chain, to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on many hand-chosen population parameters and several explicit domain assumptions. The most important free choices are the mass spectral indices, spin shape parameters, mass-ratio indices, and escape speed, all fixed a priori rather than jointly inferred. The analysis also assumes the parametric model from the authors' previous work is correct, uses a simplified selection function, and neglects globular clusters. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (10)
  • f_AGN (f_NSC = 1 - f_AGN) = 0.13 in fiducial model (f_NSC = 0.87)
    The inferred branching fraction between AGN disk and NSC hierarchical merger channels; the central output of the paper.
  • alpha_m,AGN = 1.0 fiducial; 2.0 in Model 2
    Power-law index of 1G BH mass distribution in AGN disks, chosen from AGN hardening estimates; strongly affects f_AGN.
  • alpha_m,NSC = 2.3 fiducial; 3.5 in Model 2
    Power-law index of 1G BH mass distribution in NSCs, aligned with Kroupa IMF or LVK-inferred slope; affects mass gap between channels.
  • mmax = 80 Msun fiducial; 65 Msun in Model 3
    Maximum mass of 1G BHs, controlling whether the pair-instability gap is included; its impact is found to be minor.
  • alpha_chi,AGN, beta_chi,AGN = 1.5, 3.0 fiducial; 2.0, 2.5 in Model 4
    Beta distribution shape parameters for AGN spin magnitudes; higher spins reduce the inferred AGN contribution.
  • gamma_chi,AGN = 1.0 fiducial; 0.5, 2.0 in Models 5, 6
    Exponent for spin misalignment angle distribution in AGN disks; found to have minimal impact.
  • beta_q,AGN = 0.0 fiducial; -1.0 in Model 7
    Mass ratio power-law index for AGN disks; asymmetric binaries favored by negative values, strongly increasing the AGN detectable fraction.
  • beta_q,NSC = 5.0 fiducial; 1.0 in Model 7
    Mass ratio power-law index for NSCs; strong equal-mass preference in the fiducial model drives the NSC dominance.
  • V_esc,NSC = 100 km/s fiducial; 50-500 in Models 8-11
    Escape speed of NSC host; in the fiducial model it controls whether merger remnants are retained, though its impact on the branching fraction is minor.
  • Hierarchical branch combination = NG+1G for AGN, NG+NG for NSC in fiducial; varied in Models 12-14
    Choice of which hierarchical merger branches are allowed in each channel; changes the population model and candidate list, though the paper reports minor impact on the branching fraction.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hierarchical mergers predominantly occur in AGN disks and NSCs, excluding globular clusters and young massive clusters.
    Section 2.2 and Section 4; the paper explicitly states that neglecting GCs and YSCs may invalidate the results, making this a load-bearing assumption.
  • domain assumption The parametric population model described in Li et al. (2023a) accurately represents the mass, spin, and mass-ratio distributions of hierarchical mergers in AGN disks and NSCs.
    Section 2.2; all likelihood calculations use this model, and the paper notes it 'does not fully incorporate the complexity of the physical processes.'
  • domain assumption Posterior samples from Nitz et al. (2023) are representative of the true LVK event posteriors for the O1-O3 runs.
    Section 2.1; the analysis is built on these public posterior samples, which come from an independent search catalog rather than the official LVK GWTC-3 posterior sets.
  • domain assumption The simplified single-detector SNR calculation with a LIGO noise curve and uniform-in-comoving-volume redshift prior gives an unbiased detection efficiency for O1-O3.
    Section 2.1; the paper acknowledges it does not implement the standard injection-based selection function, and only compares SNR>8 and SNR>12 thresholds.
  • domain assumption The 1G 'isolated' BBH population used in Section 2.3 for candidate identification is described by the LVK PowerLaw+Peak model of Abbott et al. (2023b).
    Section 2.3; this model separates 1G from hierarchical candidates but is not included in the Eq. (4) likelihood used for the main branching-fraction inference.
  • domain assumption Kicks of merger remnants in AGN disks are negligible, while NSC retention depends on the escape speed exceeding the kick velocity.
    Section 2.2; this determines whether a remnant can participate in a later merger, directly shaping the hierarchical population in each channel.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The origin channels of hierarchical binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O1, O2, and O3 runs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K74UKC2K

@misc{pith2026241109195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The origin channels of hierarchical binary black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O1, O2, and O3 runs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K74UKC2K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.09195}
}
abstract

We infer the origin channels of hierarchical mergers observed in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) O1, O2, and O3 runs using a hierarchical Bayesian analysis under a parametric population model. By assuming the active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk and nuclear star cluster (NSC) channels, we find that NSCs likely dominate the hierarchical merger rate in the Universe, corresponding to a fraction of $f_{\rm NSC}=0.87_{-0.29}^{+0.10}$ at 90\% credible intervals in our fiducial model; AGN disks may contribute up to nearly half of hierarchical mergers detectable with LVK, specifically $f_{\rm det,AGN}=0.34_{-0.26}^{+0.38}$. We investigate the impact of the escape speed, along with other population parameters on the branching fraction, suggesting that the mass, mass ratio, and spin of the sources play significant roles in population analysis. We show that hierarchical mergers constitute at least $\sim$$10\%$ of the gravitational wave events detected by LVK during the O1-O3 runs. Furthermore, we demonstrate that it is challenging to effectively infer detailed information about the host environment based solely on the distribution of black hole merger parameters if multiple formation channels are considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.09195 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The probability distributions of the branching fraction (dashed) and detectable fraction (solid) for hierarchical mergers in the AGN disk channel are shown under the different population models in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Uncovering Hierarchical Sub-Population of Binary Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A flexible six-component fit to 259 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA black-hole mergers finds a roughly geometric sequence of mass peaks but no aligned-spin signal except in the lowest-mass component.

  2. Revealing the $\chi_{\rm eff}$-$q$ Correlation among Coalescing Binary Black Holes and Tentative Evidence for AGN-driven Hierarchical Mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    The anti-correlation between effective spin and mass ratio in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA black hole mergers disappears when the population is split into a low-mass and a high-mass subpopulation, with the latter showing spins co...

  3. The Hierarchical Merger Scenario for GW231123

    astro-ph.HE 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    GW231123 is claimed to be a 2G+2G hierarchical merger, but only under the NRSur7dq4 waveform; the conclusion flips with IMRPhenomXO4a.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Abadie, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 173001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/27/17/173001 2010

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 044001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa51f4 —. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040 11 —. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 3, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa51f4 2017

  3. [3]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2023b, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  5. [5]

    2023, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  6. [6]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  7. [7]

    2007, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24, S689, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S31

    Ajith, P., Babak, S., Chen, Y., et al. 2007, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 24, S689, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S31

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/s31 2007

  8. [8]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 084044, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084044

    Berti, E. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 084044, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084044

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.084044 2023

Show all 87 references
  1. [9]

    2020, PhRvD, 102, 123016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123016

    Antonini, F., & Gieles, M. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 123016, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123016

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJ, 831, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/187

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    M., & Callister, T

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I. M., & Callister, T. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.19044, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.19044 Arca sedda, M., Kamlah, A. W. H., Spurzem, R., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 5140, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3951 Arca Sedda, M., Mapelli, M., Benacquista, M., & Sp...

    2024 doi arXiv

  4. [12]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 043007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007

    Aso, Y., Michimura, Y., Somiya, K., et al. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 043007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    2012, ApJ, 758, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/63

    Barausse, E., Morozova, V., & Rezzolla, L. 2012, ApJ, 758, 63, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/1/63

    2012 doi

  6. [14]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & Márka, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    2016, A&A, 594, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628980

    Belczynski, K., Heger, A., Gladysz, W., et al. 2016, A&A, 594, A97, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628980

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., & Ford, K

    Bellovary, J. M., Mac Low, M.-M., McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2016, ApJL, 819, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17 Bogdanović, T., Reynolds, C. S., & Miller, M. C. 2007, ApJL, 661, L147, doi: 10.1086/518769

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    2007, ApJL, 659, L5, doi: 10.1086/516712

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007, ApJL, 659, L5, doi: 10.1086/516712

    2007 doi

  10. [18]

    2024, ApJ, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, ApJ, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02778

    Chen, S., & Jani, K. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02778, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02778

    2024 doi arXiv

  12. [20]

    Q., Zevin, M., & Vitale, S

    Cheng, A. Q., Zevin, M., & Vitale, S. 2023, ApJ, 955, 127, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced98 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Bouffanais, Y., et al. 2020a, MNRAS, 497, 1043, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa1997 Di Carlo, U. N., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2020b, MNRAS, 498, 495, doi: 10...

    2023 doi

  13. [21]

    Carlo, U. N. 2023, A&A, 673, A8, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202346124

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., et al. 2012, ApJ, 759, 52, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52

    2012 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Farr, B

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, B. 2017, ApJL, 840, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Ford, K. E. S., & McKernan, B. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 5827, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2861

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    A., & Silk, J

    Fragione, G., Kocsis, B., Rasio, F. A., & Silk, J. 2022, ApJ, 927, 231, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5026

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 124046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124046 —

    Gerosa, D., & Berti, E. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 124046, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124046 —. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 041301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.041301

    2017 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w González Prieto, E., Kremer, K., Fragione, G., et al

    Gerosa, D., & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w González Prieto, E., Kremer, K., Fragione, G., et al. 2022, ApJ, 940, 131, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9b0f

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, ApJ, 942, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    2023 doi

  22. [30]

    Hartmann, D. H. 2003, ApJ, 591, 288, doi: 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  23. [31]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    1975 doi

  24. [32]

    G., & Fullerton, L

    Hills, J. G., & Fullerton, L. W. 1980, AJ, 85, 1281, doi: 10.1086/112798

    1980 doi

  25. [33]

    2016, ApJL, 825, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L19

    Hofmann, F., Barausse, E., & Rezzolla, L. 2016, ApJL, 825, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/825/2/L19

    2016 doi

  26. [34]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.17491, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.17491

    Iwaya, M., Kinugawa, T., & Tagoshi, H. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2312.17491, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.17491

    2023 doi arXiv

  27. [35]

    2010, ApJ, 715, 1006, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1006 12

    Kesden, M., Sperhake, U., & Berti, E. 2010, ApJ, 715, 1006, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/715/2/1006 12

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Kimball, C., Talbot, C., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L35, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0aef

    2021 doi

  29. [37]

    2020, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    Kremer, K., Spera, M., Becker, D., et al. 2020, ApJ, 903, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb945

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    2023, PhRvD, 108, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083012

    Kritos, K., Berti, E., & Silk, J. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 083012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083012

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    Kroupa, P. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04022.x

    2001

  32. [40]

    Leong, S. H. W., Janquart, J., Sharma, A. K., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.13144, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.13144

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2022a, PhRvD, 105, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063006 —

    Li, G.-P. 2022a, PhRvD, 105, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063006 —. 2022b, A&A, 666, A194, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202244257

    doi

  34. [42]

    2023a, PhRvD, 107, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063007

    Li, G.-P., Lin, D.-B., & Yuan, Y. 2023a, PhRvD, 107, 063007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063007

    doi

  35. [43]

    M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S

    Li, J., Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S. 2023b, ApJL, 944, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb934

    doi

  36. [44]

    2024a, ApJ, 977, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83b5

    Li, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., Gao, S.-J., Wu, D.-C., & Wang, Y.-Z. 2024a, ApJ, 977, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83b5

    doi

  37. [45]

    2024b, PhRvL, 133, 051401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051401 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Aasi, J., Abbott, B

    Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024b, PhRvL, 133, 051401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051401 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    2015 doi

  38. [46]

    S., et al

    Liu, B., Hartwig, T., Sartorio, N. S., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1634, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2120

    2024 doi

  39. [47]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 6015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2188

    Luo, Y., Wu, X.-J., Zhang, S.-R., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 6015, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2188

    2023 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, ApJ, 975, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad781b —

    Mahapatra, P., Chattopadhyay, D., Gupta, A., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad781b —. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2209.05766, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2209.05766

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

    Sathyaprakash, B. S. 2021, ApJL, 918, L31, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac20db

    2021 doi

  42. [50]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    2022 doi

  43. [51]

    2022, PhR, 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    Mandel, I., & Farmer, A. 2022, PhR, 955, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz896

    2019 doi

  45. [53]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 16, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_16-1

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, 16, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_16-1

    2021 doi

  46. [54]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1334

    Mapelli, M., Dall’Amico, M., Bouffanais, Y., et al. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 339, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1334

    2021 doi

  47. [55]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 460, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    2012

  48. [56]

    2020, MNRAS, 494, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa740

    Wysocki, D. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa740

    2020 doi

  49. [57]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, ApJL, 884, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    A., & Umbreit, S

    Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., Rodriguez, C., Rasio, F. A., & Umbreit, S. 2015, ApJ, 800, 9, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/800/1/9

    2015 doi

  51. [59]

    Mould, M., Gerosa, D., & Taylor, S. R. 2022, PhRvD, 106, 103013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103013

    2022 doi

  52. [60]

    H., Kumar, S., Wang, Y.-F., et al

    Nitz, A. H., Kumar, S., Wang, Y.-F., et al. 2023, ApJ, 946, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca591 O’Leary, R. M., Meiron, Y., & Kocsis, B. 2016, ApJL, 824, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/824/1/L12 Pavlík, V., & Vesperini, E. 2022, MNRAS, 515, 1830, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1776

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    2010a, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002 —

    Punturo, M., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2010a, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002 —. 2010b, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084007

    doi

  54. [62]

    P., Naab, T., Spurzem, R., et al

    Rizzuto, F. P., Naab, T., Spurzem, R., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 884, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac231 —. 2021, MNRAS, 501, 5257, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3634

    2022 doi

  55. [63]

    L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 043027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043027

    2019 doi

  56. [64]

    2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 124007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124007

    Somiya, K. 2012, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 29, 124007, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124007

    2012 doi

  57. [65]

    2020a, ApJ, 899, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba2cc

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., Bartos, I., & Kocsis, B. 2020a, ApJ, 899, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aba2cc

    doi

  58. [66]

    2020b, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020b, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    doi

  59. [67]

    S., & Haiman, Z

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., & Haiman, Z. 2023, ApJ, 955, 23, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ace71d

    2023 doi

  60. [68]

    2021, ApJ, 908, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd555 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo

    Tagawa, H., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., et al. 2021, ApJ, 908, 194, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abd555 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo

    2021 doi

  61. [69]

    2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.01045, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.01045

    Collaboration, Abbott, R., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2108.01045, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2108.01045

    2021 doi arXiv

  62. [70]

    2019, PASA, 36, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    Thrane, E., & Talbot, C. 2019, PASA, 36, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    2019 doi

  63. [71]

    P., Mapelli, M., Périgois, C., et al

    Vaccaro, M. P., Mapelli, M., Périgois, C., et al. 2024, A&A, 685, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348509

    2024 doi

  64. [72]

    M., & van Velzen, S

    Veronesi, N., Rossi, E. M., & van Velzen, S. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 6031, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3157

    2023 doi

  65. [73]

    M., van Velzen, S., & Buscicchio, R

    Veronesi, N., Rossi, E. M., van Velzen, S., & Buscicchio, R. 2022, MNRAS, 514, 2092, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1346 13

    2022 doi

  66. [74]

    Veronesi, N., van Velzen, S., & Rossi, E. M. 2024a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.05318, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.05318

    doi arXiv

  67. [75]

    M., & Storey-Fisher, K

    Veronesi, N., van Velzen, S., Rossi, E. M., & Storey-Fisher, K. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.21568, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2407.21568

    doi arXiv

  68. [76]

    C., Li, Y.-R., & Du, P

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., Li, Y.-R., & Du, P. 2021, ApJL, 916, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46

    2021 doi

  69. [77]

    S., et al

    Wang, Y.-Z., Li, Y.-J., Vink, J. S., et al. 2022, ApJL, 941, L39, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca89f

    2022 doi

  70. [78]

    E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A. 2007, Nature, 450, 390, doi: 10.1038/nature06333

    2007 doi

  71. [79]

    2019a, ApJ, 876, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., et al. 2019a, ApJ, 876, 122, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab16e3

    doi

  72. [80]

    2020, ApJL, 901, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb940

    Yang, Y., Gayathri, V., Bartos, I., et al. 2020, ApJL, 901, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abb940

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    2019b, PhRvL, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V., et al. 2019b, PhRvL, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    doi

  74. [82]

    Yi, S.-X., & Cheng, K. S. 2019, ApJL, 884, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab459a

    2019 doi

  75. [83]

    Zevin, M., & Holz, D. E. 2022, ApJL, 935, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac853d

    2022 doi

  76. [84]

    S., Berry, C

    Zevin, M., Bavera, S. S., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, ApJ, 910, 152, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40e

    2021 doi

  77. [85]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10904, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10904

    Zhang, H.-H., Zhu, J.-P., & Yu, Y.-W. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.10904, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.10904

    2024 doi arXiv

  78. [86]

    2023, ApJ, 951, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd380

    Zhou, Z.-H., Zhu, J.-P., & Wang, K. 2023, ApJ, 951, 74, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd380

    2023 doi

  79. [87]

    2024, MNRAS, 528, L88, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad176

    Zhu, J.-P. 2024, MNRAS, 528, L88, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slad176

    2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.