Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

The Gravitational Wave Bias Parameter from Angular Power Spectra: Bridging Between Galaxies and Binary Black Holes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper models the gravitational-wave bias of binary black hole mergers as a consequence of the stellar-mass-dependent host galaxy probability, and shows that measuring this bias can constrain how BBHs populate galaxies.

desk verdict A useful forward-modeling framework for the GW bias—qualitative trends are secure, but the headline 30% amplitude is an extreme corner and Eq. (4.7) as printed misstates the slopes. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11965 v2 pith:OKXECAUU submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Amir Dehghani , J. Leo Kim , Dorsa Sadat Hosseini , Alex Krolewski , Suvodip Mukherjee , Ghazal Geshnizjani This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavebiasbinaryblackholemergersangularpowerspectrumhostgalaxyprobabilitystellarmass2MPZWISClarge-scalestructure
open problems Dark Matter
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

This paper builds a forward model that connects the clustering bias of binary black hole mergers, $b_{\rm GW}$, to the stellar mass of their host galaxies. The authors populate the 2MPZ and WISC galaxy catalogs with mock BBH mergers according to a broken power-law host-galaxy probability $P({\rm GW}|M_*)$ with a pivot mass $M_K$, measure the angular power spectra of the resulting siren catalogs, and fit $b_{\rm GW}$ relative to the dark matter clustering. Their central finding is that $b_{\rm GW}$ increases with both $M_K$ and the low-mass slope $1/\delta_l$, with a maximum shift of about 30% relative to the galaxy bias across the parameter range explored. If this model is right, future measurements of $b_{\rm GW}$ from GW-galaxy cross-correlations can constrain $M_K$ and the slopes of the host-galaxy probability, offering a new observational handle on the astrophysics of BBH formation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the broken power-law host-galaxy probability $P({\rm GW}|M_*)$ of Eq. (4.7): $P\propto M_*\,10^{(\log_{10}M_*-\log_{10}M_K)/\delta_l}$ below $M_K$ and $\propto M_*\,10^{(\log_{10}M_K-\log_{10}M_*)/\delta_h}$ above it. This function decides which galaxies in 2MPZ and WISC host the mock BBH sirens, shifting the mean stellar mass of hosts and therefore their large-scale clustering. The measured $b_{\rm GW}$ comes from fitting $b_{\rm GW}^2 C_\ell^{\rm Mod}$ to the siren angular power spectrum, where $C_\ell^{\rm Mod}$ is computed from the siren redshift distribution and the dark matter transfer function. The merger-rate normalization and delay-time distribution set the number of sirens but are shown not to change the clustering, so the host-galaxy probability alone carries the parameter dependence of the bias.

What would settle it

Cross-correlate a future dark-siren catalog from next-generation detectors (O5 or Einstein Telescope) with 2MPZ/WISC-like galaxy maps at $z<0.4$, measure $b_{\rm GW}$ from the angular power spectrum, and compare it to the predicted $b_{\rm GW}(M_K)$ curves. If the recovered bias does not rise with the mean stellar mass of host galaxies, or falls outside the ~30% envelope around the galaxy bias, the broken power-law host-galaxy probability is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gravitational wave bias parameter is a diagnostic of the host-galaxy probability function, not a fixed number of the GW source population. For a broken power law $P({\rm GW}|M_*)$ peaking at $M_K$, the paper finds generically that increasing $M_K$ shifts the mock siren hosts toward more massive, more clustered galaxies and raises $b_{\rm GW}$, while decreasing $M_K$ pushes hosts toward low-mass galaxies and suppresses $b_{\rm GW}$ below the galaxy bias. Across the explored parameter space ($M_K\in[10^9,10^{12}]\,M_\odot$, $\delta_l\in[0.5,10]$, $\delta_h\in[0.1,5]$), the maximum deviation of $b_{\rm GW}$ from the galaxy bias is about 30%. The authors further claim that the ratio $b_{\rm GW}/b_g$ is the robust observable given catalog incompleteness, varying by less than 15% with redshift up to $z=0.4$ for the fiducial model, and that different formation scenarios (short vs. long delay times) leave distinguishable signatures in this ratio.

Load-bearing premise

The central premise is that the probability a galaxy hosts a binary black hole merger is a broken power law of stellar mass alone, with the same functional shape in every redshift bin and no dependence on star formation rate, metallicity, or environment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measurement of $b_{\rm GW}$ in the local universe can be inverted to constrain the pivot mass $M_K$ and the slopes $\delta_l$, $\delta_h$ of the BBH host-galaxy probability.
  • The ratio $b_{\rm GW}/b_g$, rather than the absolute bias, should be used for cosmological inference because it is robust to galaxy catalog incompleteness.
  • Scenarios with short delay times (strong suppression at high mass, small $\delta_h$) and long delay times (mild or no suppression, $\delta_l\sim1$) predict distinguishable $b_{\rm GW}$ values, up to ~30% apart.
  • The method transfers directly to binary neutron star and neutron star-black hole mergers, and to deeper future surveys such as DESI, Euclid, Rubin, and Roman.
  • The logistic fit of $b_{\rm GW}$ versus $\log_{10}M_K$ implies a steep transition near the mean galaxy mass of each redshift bin, so the bias measurement locates the characteristic stellar mass scale of the hosts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's restriction to stellar mass may mask a degeneracy: if real BBH hosts are selected by star formation rate or metallicity at fixed stellar mass, an observed $b_{\rm GW}$ would be attributed to the wrong $M_K$ and slopes; testing with spectroscopic samples that measure SFR and metallicity would break this degeneracy.
  • The ~30% maximum bias shift is derived from photometric catalogs with $z<0.4$; extrapolating the broken power-law model to higher redshift would require adding redshift evolution of $M_K$, which the current framework does not include.
  • A practical shortcut suggested by the logistic fits is that a single measurement of $b_{\rm GW}/b_g$ near $z\sim0.15$ could already place a lower or upper bound on $M_K$ relative to the mean galaxy mass, without needing the full parameter scan.
  • The method could be validated before GW detections by applying the same host-galaxy probability to a complete spectroscopic sample and checking whether the predicted $b_{\rm GW}$ from 3D clustering matches the angular-spectrum result.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a forward-modeling framework for the gravitational-wave (GW) bias parameter of binary black hole mergers. Mock BBH catalogs are generated by assigning hosts from the 2MPZ and WISC galaxy catalogs according to a broken power-law host-galaxy probability P(GW|M*) (Eq. 4.7), with pivot mass M_K and slopes 1/δ_l, 1/δ_h. The angular power spectra of the mock sirens are measured and fit to a linear bias model (Eq. 2.4), and b_GW is compared to the galaxy bias b_g measured from the same catalogs. The central finding is that b_GW increases with M_K and with 1/δ_l, with a maximum enhancement of about 30% relative to b_g over the explored parameter space, while the fiducial and physically motivated cases give enhancements of order 5–10%. The paper is framed as a first phenomenological bridge between observed galaxy catalogs and GW clustering, to be tested with future GW observations.

Significance. If the central mapping is correct, this paper provides a practical way to translate assumptions about BBH host-galaxy properties into a prediction for the GW bias, which is useful for forecasts and for interpreting future dark-siren cross-correlations. The pipeline is carefully validated in several respects: a uniform host-galaxy probability recovers the galaxy bias (Appendix B), the results are robust to the adopted kmax/ℓmax over a broad range (Section 6.4), and the ℓmin choices are tested with a Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic on the χ² distribution (Appendix C). The treatment of mass-dependent photometric-redshift systematics in Appendix D is more thorough than is common in this type of study. The paper is also appropriately honest that this is a forward model rather than a measurement, and that incompleteness affects absolute bias values. However, the predictive content is largely a mapping from a mass-selection rule to the bias of a mass-selected subset, so the qualitative trend is expected; the value added is in the quantitative calibration and in the explicit exploration of the parameter space, not in an observational detection.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.7)] The printed host-galaxy probability contains an explicit leading factor M*, so log10 P = const + (1 + 1/δ_l) log10 M* on the low-mass side and log10 P = const + (1 − 1/δ_h) log10 M* on the high-mass side. The text immediately below Eq. (4.7) states that δ_l = 4 gives a 'positive slope of ~0.25' and δ_h = 0.5 a 'negative slope of ~−2', but the actual slopes are 1.25 and −1 if the equation is taken literally. This same issue propagates into the comparison with Artale et al. (2020): their α1 ~ 0.8 is translated into 1/δ_l = 0.8, yielding δ_l ~ 1.2, but under the printed equation one would obtain 1 + 1/δ_l = α1, i.e. δ_l ~ 5. Please either remove the leading M* factor or revise the slope definitions, and re-derive the literature mapping and fiducial parameter choices consistently.
  2. [Abstract; Secs. 6.2, 6.5, 7] The 'maximum change of about 30%' is reached only for the extreme δ_l = 0.5 corner of the parameter space (blue curves in Fig. 13), while the physically motivated δ_l ~ 1 case yields about 10%, as stated in Sec. 7 and Sec. 6.5 ('would require a rapid growth rate, around 1/δ_l ≳ 2'). At the same time, Appendix D and Fig. 21 show that b_GW shifts by up to ~10% between the different photometric-redshift convolution schemes, so the representative signal is of the same order as a documented systematic. In addition, Sec. 6.2 flags the WISC 0.2 < z < 0.3 bin as 'anomalously high' and 'unphysical' due to contamination or photo-z problems, yet this bin enters Figs. 10, 13, and 14. I recommend re-scoping the abstract and presentation so that the headline amplitude reflects the physically motivated regime, and quantifying a systematic floor before claiming future constraining power.
  3. [Secs. 2 and 6.1] The central trend b_GW increasing with M_K is, as the paper itself explains in Sec. 6.1, a consequence of selecting higher-stellar-mass subsets of the same galaxy catalogs whose bias b_g is measured, together with the fact that 'galaxy bias is related to stellar mass'. This does not invalidate the forward model, but it means the comparison b_GW vs. b_g is not an independent test of the host-galaxy probability; it is a calibration of the mass-selection mapping. The paper should state this limitation more prominently in the conclusions, and where possible validate the mapping against an external stellar-mass–bias relation or a separate galaxy sample.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.7)] The domain log10 M* < 7 is not covered by either branch of Eq. (4.7); please state explicitly that the probability is zero there, or extend the low-mass branch to lower masses.
  2. [Sec. 7] The sentence 'The GW bias at M_K = 10^12 M⊙ exceeds the galaxy bias by at most ~5% and exceeds the galaxy bias at M_K = 10^11 M⊙ by ~10%' appears to invert the trend shown in Fig. 10, where the enhancement grows with M_K; please clarify the intended comparison.
  3. [References] References [115] and [136] are the same HEALPix paper, and references [117] and [142] are the same Balaguera-Antolinez et al. paper; please consolidate the duplicates.
  4. [Appendix D, Fig. 21] Figure 21 omits error bars for clarity, but the spread among the convolution schemes is central to the systematic assessment; please include representative error bars or provide a numerical summary of the spread in the caption or text.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GW bias curves are forward-model outputs from an explicit host-galaxy probability, not fits to the quantity being predicted.

full rationale

The paper's central output is the GW bias parameter computed from mock siren catalogs generated by populating the observed 2MPZ and WISC galaxy catalogs with an explicitly parameterized broken power-law host-galaxy probability (Eq. 4.7). The parameters MK, delta_l, and delta_h are varied across a stated grid rather than fitted to the b_GW values they are used to predict, so the resulting b_GW(MK, delta_l, delta_h) curves are genuine forward-model outputs, not re-statements of an input. The bias is measured from the angular clustering of the mock catalogs using Eq. (2.4) with a CAMB model power spectrum, and the uniform host-probability test in Appendix B validates the pipeline by checking that it reproduces galaxy bias in the trivial limit; this is a consistency check, not a circular step. The comparison to galaxy bias is interpretive: the paper explains the trend through the known stellar-mass dependence of galaxy bias, but b_GW itself is not constructed from bg, it is independently measured from the mock siren maps. Self-citations to [25] for masks and [79] for a companion paper are ancillary and are not load-bearing for the central claim. The paper also transparently flags its own limitations, including photometric-redshift convolution systematics (Appendix D), the unphysical WISC 0.2<z<0.3 bin (Section 6.2), and the simplicity of a stellar-mass-only host probability (Section 7); these are correctness or modeling-concern issues, not circularity. No step in the derivation chain reduces by definition to its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on three free host galaxy probability parameters (M_K, δ_l, δ_h) whose ranges are anchored to earlier simulation-based estimates, plus a set of standard cosmological and astrophysical assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced. The photometric redshift corrections are fitted nuisance parameters that influence the result at the ~10% level (Appendix D).

free parameters (7)
  • Pivot mass M_K = fiducial 10^11 M_sun, varied 10^9 to 10^12 M_sun
    Pivot of broken power law host galaxy probability (Eq. 4.7); the main scan variable. Not fitted to GW data; chosen to explore physically motivated range.
  • Low-mass slope parameter δ_l = fiducial 4, varied 0.5 to 10
    Controls growth of P(GW|M*) below M_K; values are 'roughly chosen for consistency with host-galaxy probabilities in past works' (Section 4.2).
  • High-mass slope parameter δ_h = fiducial 0.5, varied 0.1 to 5
    Controls suppression above M_K; same provenance as δ_l.
  • Delay time parameters κ and t_d,min = κ=1.0, t_d,min=0.5 Gyr
    Power-law delay time distribution (Eq. 4.1); authors state they do not affect clustering, only N(z).
  • Merger rate normalization A0 = set so R_GW(0)=23.9 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Normalizes mock catalog size; does not affect bias.
  • BH mass distribution parameters α, m_min, m_PISN = α=2.3, m_min=5 M_sun, m_PISN=45 M_sun
    Sampled for completeness; authors state no effect on clustering (Section 4.3).
  • Photometric redshift convolution parameters = σ(z), zshift(M_K) fitted per bin
    Mass-dependent photo-z corrections fitted from 2MPZ spectroscopic subset (Section 5.2.1); affect model C_ell and slightly change b_GW (Appendix D).
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Flat Lambda CDM with Planck 2018 parameters (Ω_c h^2=0.122, Ω_b h^2=0.022, H0=67.5, ns=0.965, As=2e-9)
    Used to compute the model angular power spectrum with CAMB (Section 2.1).
  • domain assumption Linear bias relation δ_GW = b_GW δ_m on large scales, with constant b_GW in each redshift bin over [ℓ_min, ℓ_max]
    Central modeling assumption; tested in Section 6.4 by raising kmax and fitting a scale-dependent model.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass is a monotonic (and sufficiently tight) proxy for halo mass and thus galaxy bias
    The interpretation that b_GW rises with M_K relies on the known galaxy bias - stellar mass relation (Section 6.1, citing [64,143,144]).
  • domain assumption The observed galaxy catalogs 2MPZ and WISC are complete above the stated mass limits and their masks are correct
    Incompleteness is acknowledged to affect b_GW; the authors mitigate by comparing to b_g of the same catalog (Section 7).
  • domain assumption BBH merger rate traces cosmic SFR (Madau-Dickinson) with a power-law delay time distribution
    Used only for N(z) and host selection timing; authors argue delay time parameters do not change GW bias (Section 4.1).
  • domain assumption Host-galaxy probability depends only on stellar mass, not on SFR or metallicity
    Explicitly stated in Section 4.2; the absence of SFR/metallicity information in 2MPZ/WISC forces this restriction.
  • standard math Post-Limber angular power spectrum computation with HALOFIT nonlinear correction is accurate for these surveys
    Computed with CAMB_SOURCES [89-91]; standard in the field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gravitational Wave Bias Parameter from Angular Power Spectra: Bridging Between Galaxies and Binary Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OKXECAUU

@misc{pith2026241111965,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gravitational Wave Bias Parameter from Angular Power Spectra: Bridging Between Galaxies and Binary Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OKXECAUU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11965}
}
abstract

This study presents the modeling of the gravitational wave (GW) bias parameter by bridging a connection between simulated GW sources and galaxies in low redshift galaxy surveys 2MPZ and WISExSCOS (WISC). We study this connection by creating a mock GW catalog, populating galaxy surveys with binary black holes (BBHs) for different scenarios of the GW host-galaxy probability as a function of the galaxy stellar mass. We probe the observable consequences of this connection by exploring the spatial clustering of the GW sources in terms of the GW bias parameter. We consider a phenomenological broken power law model for the host-galaxy probability function, with a potential turnover $M_{K}$ at high stellar mass ($10^{11}$ $M_{\odot}$ in the fiducial model) where the star formation efficiency begins to drop. We vary the parameters of the GW host-galaxy probability function and find that generically the GW bias increases as $M_{K}$ increases (and gets suppressed as $M_{K}$ decreases). The change in the GW bias parameter shows a maximum change of about $30\%$ for different scenarios explored in this work in comparison to the galaxy bias. Future measurements of the GW bias can help constrain $M_{K}$ and the slopes of the host-galaxy probability function and thus offer insights into the underlying astrophysical processes.

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. Modeling Gravitational Wave Bias from 3D Power Spectra of Spectroscopic Surveys

    astro-ph.GA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Using mock gravitational wave catalogs built from the SDSS DR7 galaxy survey, the clustering bias of GW sources is most sensitive to host stellar mass, secondarily to star formation rate, and nearly insensitive to met...

  2. Blinded Mock Data Challenge for Gravitational-Wave Cosmology-I: Assessing the Robustness of Methods Using Binary Black Holes Mass Spectrum

    astro-ph.CO 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A blinded mock data challenge shows that ignoring a mild redshift evolution in binary black hole masses biases the gravitational-wave Hubble constant measurement by about 1.5 sigma at LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4 sensitivity.

  3. Gravitational Wave Cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2025-02 unverdicted

    A review of standard siren cosmology: gravitational wave sources measure luminosity distance directly, and redshift comes from electromagnetic counterparts, galaxy catalogs, or mass spectrum features.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett.116 (2016) 061102 [1602.03837]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, Prospects for observing and localizing gravitational-wave transients with Advanced LIGO, Advanced Virgo and KAGRA, Living Rev. Rel. 19 (2016) 1 [1304.0670]

    arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    LIGO Scientificcollaboration, Advanced LIGO, Class. Quant. Grav.32 (2015) 074001 [1411.4547]

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    VIRGO collaboration, Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.32 (2015) 024001 [1408.3978]

    arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    The KAGRA Collaborationcollaboration, Interferometer design of the kagra gravitational wave detector, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) 043007

    2013

  6. [6]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, Binary Black Hole Population Properties Inferred from the First and Second Observing Runs of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, Astrophys. J. Lett.882 (2019) L24 [1811.12940]. – 35 – log 10(MK/M ⊙) 9 10 11 12 δl 2 4 6 8 100.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 δh 0.10 < z <0.20 0.8 1.0 1.2 bGW log 10(MK/M ⊙) 9 10 11 12 δl 2 4 6 8 100.2 0....

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, Astrophys. J. Lett.913 (2021) L7 [2010.14533]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo„ KAGRA, VIRGOcollaboration, Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion History from GWTC–3, Astrophys. J. 949 (2023) 76 [2111.03604]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 151 references
  1. [9]

    KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientificcollaboration, Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X 13 (2023) 011048 [2111.03634]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mészáros, D.B

    P. Mészáros, D.B. Fox, C. Hanna and K. Murase,Multi-Messenger Astrophysics, Nature Rev. Phys. 1 (2019) 585 [1906.10212]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, Z. Haiman, D.E. Holz, E. Mottola, S. Mukherjee et al.,Snowmass2021 Cosmic Frontier White Paper: Fundamental Physics and Beyond the Standard Model, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.06240]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Adhikari et al.,Report of the Topical Group on Cosmic Probes of Fundamental Physics – 36 – for for Snowmass 2021, 2209.11726

    R.X. Adhikari et al.,Report of the Topical Group on Cosmic Probes of Fundamental Physics – 36 – for for Snowmass 2021, 2209.11726

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9 (2019) 031040 [1811.12907]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 11 (2021) 021053 [2010.14527]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRAcollaboration, GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, 2111.03606

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Schutz,Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations, Nature 323 (1986) 310

    B.F. Schutz,Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations, Nature 323 (1986) 310

    1986

  9. [17]

    Oguri,Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies, Phys

    M. Oguri,Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies, Phys. Rev. D93 (2016) 083511 [1603.02356]

    2016 arXiv

  10. [18]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTERcollaboration, A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant, Nature 551 (2017) 85 [1710.05835]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach and D.E. Holz,A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years, Nature 562 (2018) 545 [1712.06531]

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, A Standard Siren Measurement of the Hubble Constant from GW170817 without the Electromagnetic Counterpart, Astrophys. J. Lett.871 (2019) L13 [1807.05667]

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Mukherjee and B.D

    S. Mukherjee and B.D. Wandelt,Beyond the classical distance-redshift test: cross-correlating redshift-free standard candles and sirens with redshift surveys, 1808.06615

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    DES, LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, First Measurement of the Hubble Constant from a Dark Standard Siren using the Dark Energy Survey Galaxies and the LIGO/Virgo Binary–Black-hole Merger GW170814, Astrophys. J. Lett.876 (2019) L7 [1901.01540]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Mukherjee, B.D

    S. Mukherjee, B.D. Wandelt, S.M. Nissanke and A. Silvestri,Accurate precision Cosmology with redshift unknown gravitational wave sources, Phys. Rev. D103 (2021) 043520 [2007.02943]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    S. Bera, D. Rana, S. More and S. Bose,Incompleteness Matters Not: Inference ofH0 from Binary Black Hole–Galaxy Cross-correlations, Astrophys. J. 902 (2020) 79 [2007.04271]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Krolewski, B.D. Wandelt and J. Silk,Cross-correlating dark sirens and galaxies: measurement ofH0 from GWTC-3 of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, 2203.03643

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee,Prospect of Precision Cosmology and Testing General Relativity using Binary Black Holes- Galaxies Cross-correlation, 2407.09262

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    NANOGravcollaboration, The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background, Astrophys. J. Lett.951 (2023) L8 [2306.16213]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    The dataset and timing analysis, Astron

    EPTAcollaboration, The second data release from the European Pulsar Timing Array I. The dataset and timing analysis, Astron. Astrophys.(2023) [ 2306.16224]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res

    H. Xu et al.,Searching for the Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background with the Chinese Pulsar Timing Array Data Release I, Res. Astron. Astrophys.23 (2023) 075024 [2306.16216]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Sah and S

    M.R. Sah and S. Mukherjee,Discovering the Cosmic Evolution of Supermassive Black Holes using Nano-Hertz Gravitational Waves and Galaxy Surveys, 2407.11669. – 37 –

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    M.R. Sah, S. Mukherjee, V. Saeedzadeh, A. Babul, M. Tremmel and T.R. Quinn,Imprints of Supermassive Black Hole Evolution on the Spectral and Spatial Anisotropy of Nano-Hertz Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background, 2404.14508

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    Belczynski, V

    K. Belczynski, V. Kalogera and T. Bulik,A Comprehensive study of binary compact objects as gravitational wave sources: Evolutionary channels, rates, and physical properties, Astrophys. J. 572 (2001) 407 [astro-ph/0111452]

    2001 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Neijssel, A

    C.J. Neijssel, A. Vigna-Gómez, S. Stevenson, J.W. Barrett, S.M. Gaebel, F.S. Broekgaarden et al.,The effect of the metallicity-specific star formation history on double compact object mergers, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.490 (2019) 3740 [1906.08136]

    2019 arXiv

  26. [34]

    O’Shaughnessy, V

    R. O’Shaughnessy, V. Kalogera and K. Belczynski,Binary Compact Object Coalescence Rates: The Role of Elliptical Galaxies, Astrophys. J. 716 (2010) 615 [0908.3635]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Dominik, E

    M. Dominik, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, I. Mandel, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer et al.,Double Compact Objects III: Gravitational Wave Detection Rates, Astrophys. J. 806 (2015) 263 [1405.7016]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mapelli, N

    M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, E. Ripamonti and M. Spera,The cosmic merger rate of stellar black hole binaries from the Illustris simulation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.472 (2017) 2422 [1708.05722]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Giacobbo, M

    N. Giacobbo, M. Mapelli and M. Spera,Merging black hole binaries: the effects of progenitor’s metallicity, mass-loss rate and Eddington factor, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474 (2018) 2959 [1711.03556]

    2018 arXiv

  30. [38]

    L. Cao, Y. Lu and Y. Zhao,Host galaxy properties of mergers of stellar binary black holes and their implications for advanced LIGO gravitational wave sources, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 474 (2018) 4997 [1711.09190]

    2018 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fishbach, D.E

    M. Fishbach, D.E. Holz and W.M. Farr,Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?, Astrophys. J. Lett.863 (2018) L41 [1805.10270]

    2018 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Santoliquido, M

    F. Santoliquido, M. Mapelli, M.C. Artale and L. Boco,Modelling the host galaxies of binary compact object mergers with observational scaling relations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.516 (2022) 3297 [2205.05099]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Dominik, K

    M. Dominik, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D. Holz, E. Berti, T. Bulik et al.,Double Compact Objects I: The Significance of the Common Envelope on Merger Rates, Astrophys. J. 759 (2012) 52 [1202.4901]

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Toffano, M

    M. Toffano, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, M.C. Artale and G. Ghirlanda,The host galaxies of double compact objects across cosmic time, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489 (2019) 4622 [1906.01072]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Artale, M

    M.C. Artale, M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, N. Giacobbo, M. Spera and M. Pasquato,Mass and star formation rate of the host galaxies of compact binary mergers across cosmic time, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491 (2020) 3419 [1910.04890]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    McCarthy, Z

    K.S. McCarthy, Z. Zheng and E. Ramirez-Ruiz,Constraining delay time distribution of binary neutron star mergers from host galaxy properties, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.499 (2020) 5220 [2007.15024]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee,Phase Space of Binary Black Holes from Gravitational Wave Observations to Unveil its Formation History, 2411.07304

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Gerosa and E

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti,Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?, prd 95 (2017) 124046 [1703.06223]

    2017 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Y. Yang, I. Bartos, V. Gayathri, K.E.S. Ford, Z. Haiman, S. Klimenko et al.,Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in Active Galactic Nuclei, prl 123 (2019) 181101 [1906.09281]. – 38 –

    2019 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Doctor, D

    Z. Doctor, D. Wysocki, R. O’Shaughnessy, D.E. Holz and B. Farr,Black Hole Coagulation: Modeling Hierarchical Mergers in Black Hole Populations, apj 893 (2020) 35 [1911.04424]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Paxton, L

    B. Paxton, L. Bildsten, A. Dotter, F. Herwig, P. Lesaffre and F. Timmes,Modules for Experiments in Stellar Astrophysics (MESA), apjs 192 (2011) 3 [1009.1622]

    2011 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Vogelsberger, S

    M. Vogelsberger, S. Genel, V. Springel, P. Torrey, D. Sijacki, D. Xu et al.,Introducing the Illustris Project: simulating the coevolution of dark and visible matter in the Universe, mnras 444 (2014) 1518 [1405.2921]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Hopkins, A

    P.F. Hopkins, A. Wetzel, C. Wheeler, R. Sanderson, M.Y. Grudić, O. Sameie et al.,FIRE-3: updated stellar evolution models, yields, and microphysics and fitting functions for applications in galaxy simulations, mnras 519 (2023) 3154 [2203.00040]

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S.E. de Mink, P. Marchant and S. Justham,Mind the Gap: The Location of the Lower Edge of the Pair-instability Supernova Black Hole Mass Gap, Astrophys. J. 887 (2019) 53 [1910.12874]

    2019 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Mukherjee,The redshift dependence of black hole mass distribution: is it reliable for standard sirens cosmology?, Mon

    S. Mukherjee,The redshift dependence of black hole mass distribution: is it reliable for standard sirens cosmology?, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515 (2022) 5495 [2112.10256]

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Karathanasis, S

    C. Karathanasis, S. Mukherjee and S. Mastrogiovanni,Binary black holes population and cosmology in new lights: signature of PISN mass and formation channel in GWTC-3, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523 (2023) 4539 [2204.13495]

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Wechsler and J.L

    R.H. Wechsler and J.L. Tinker,The Connection between Galaxies and their Dark Matter Halos, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.56 (2018) 435 [1804.03097]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Benson, S

    A.J. Benson, S. Cole, C.S. Frenk, C.M. Baugh and C.G. Lacey,The Nature of galaxy bias and clustering, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.311 (2000) 793 [astro-ph/9903343]

    2000 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Sheth and G

    R.K. Sheth and G. Tormen,Large scale bias and the peak background split, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.308 (1999) 119 [astro-ph/9901122]

    1999 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Cole, C.G

    S. Cole, C.G. Lacey, C.M. Baugh and C.S. Frenk,Hierarchical galaxy formation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.319 (2000) 168 [astro-ph/0007281]

    2000 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Peacock and R.E

    J.A. Peacock and R.E. Smith,Halo occupation numbers and galaxy bias, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.318 (2000) 1144 [astro-ph/0005010]

    2000 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Vale and J.P

    A. Vale and J.P. Ostriker,Linking halo mass to galaxy luminosity, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 353 (2004) 189 [astro-ph/0402500]

    2004 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Gao and S.D.M

    L. Gao and S.D.M. White,Assembly bias in the clustering of dark matter haloes, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.377 (2007) L5 [astro-ph/0611921]

    2007 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Croton, L

    D.J. Croton, L. Gao and S.D.M. White,Halo assembly bias and its effects on galaxy clustering, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.374 (2007) 1303 [astro-ph/0605636]

    2007 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Dalal, M

    N. Dalal, M. White, J.R. Bond and A. Shirokov,Halo Assembly Bias in Hierarchical Structure Formation, Astrophys. J. 687 (2008) 12 [0803.3453]

    2008 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Moster, R.S

    B.P. Moster, R.S. Somerville, C. Maulbetsch, F.C. van den Bosch, A.V. Macciò, T. Naab et al.,Constraints on the Relationship between Stellar Mass and Halo Mass at Low and High Redshift, Astrophys. J. 710 (2010) 903 [0903.4682]

    2010 arXiv

  57. [66]

    Behroozi, R.H

    P.S. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler and C. Conroy,The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z = 0-8, Astrophys. J. 770 (2013) 57 [1207.6105]. – 39 –

    2013 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Behroozi, R.H

    P. Behroozi, R.H. Wechsler, A.P. Hearin and C. Conroy,UNIVERSEMACHINE: The correlation between galaxy growth and dark matter halo assembly from z = 0-10, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488 (2019) 3143 [1806.07893]

    2019 arXiv

  59. [69]

    Mukherjee and J

    S. Mukherjee and J. Silk,Time-dependence of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational wave background, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.491 (2020) 4690 [1912.07657]

    2020 arXiv

  60. [70]

    Calore, A

    F. Calore, A. Cuoco, T. Regimbau, S. Sachdev and P.D. Serpico,Cross-correlating galaxy catalogs and gravitational waves: a tomographic approach, Phys. Rev. Res.2 (2020) 023314 [2002.02466]

    2020 arXiv

  61. [71]

    Diaz and S

    C.C. Diaz and S. Mukherjee,Mapping the cosmic expansion history from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA in synergy with DESI and SPHEREx, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.511 (2022) 2782 [2107.12787]

    2022 arXiv

  62. [72]

    Libanore, M.C

    S. Libanore, M.C. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais et al., Clustering of Gravitational Wave and Supernovae events: a multitracer analysis in Luminosity Distance Space, JCAP 02 (2022) 003 [2109.10857]

    2022 arXiv

  63. [73]

    Naab and J.P

    T. Naab and J.P. Ostriker,Theoretical challenges in galaxy formation, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics55 (2017) 59–109

    2017

  64. [74]

    Nagamine,Feedback models in galaxy simulations and probing their impact by cosmological hydrodynamic simulations, inResolving the Rise and Fall of Star Formation in Galaxies, T

    K. Nagamine,Feedback models in galaxy simulations and probing their impact by cosmological hydrodynamic simulations, inResolving the Rise and Fall of Star Formation in Galaxies, T. Wong and W.-T. Kim, eds., vol. 373 ofIAU Symposium, pp. 283–292, Jan., 2023, DOI [2307.09576]

    2023 arXiv

  65. [75]

    Sales, A

    L.V. Sales, A. Wetzel and A. Fattahi,Baryonic solutions and challenges for cosmological models of dwarf galaxies, Nature Astron.6 (2022) 897 [2206.05295]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [76]

    Libanore, M.C

    S. Libanore, M.C. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais et al., Gravitational wave mergers as tracers of large scale structures, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2021 (2021) 035–035

    2021

  67. [77]

    Peron, A

    M. Peron, A. Ravenni, S. Libanore, M. Liguori and M.C. Artale,Clustering of binary black hole mergers: a detailed analysis of the EAGLE + MOBSE simulation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.530 (2024) 1129 [2305.18003]

    2024 arXiv

  68. [78]

    Scelfo, L

    G. Scelfo, L. Boco, A. Lapi and M. Viel,Exploring galaxies-gravitational waves cross-correlations as an astrophysical probe, JCAP 10 (2020) 045 [2007.08534]

    2020 arXiv

  69. [79]

    Bridging galaxies and binary black holes: estimating the gravitational wave bias parameter from 3D power spectra using spectroscopic survey

    D.S. Hosseini, A. Dehghani, J.L. Kim, A. Krolewski, S. Mukherjee and G. Geshnizjani, “Bridging galaxies and binary black holes: estimating the gravitational wave bias parameter from 3D power spectra using spectroscopic survey.” In Preparation

  70. [80]

    Mukherjee and A

    S. Mukherjee and A. Moradinezhad Dizgah,Toward a Precision Measurement of Binary Black Holes Formation Channels Using Gravitational Waves and Emission Lines, Astrophys. J. Lett. 937 (2022) L27 [2111.13166]

    2022 arXiv

  71. [81]

    Namikawa, A

    T. Namikawa, A. Nishizawa and A. Taruya,Detecting black-hole binary clustering via the second-generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 024013 [1603.08072]

    2016 arXiv

  72. [82]

    Mukherjee, B.D

    S. Mukherjee, B.D. Wandelt and J. Silk,Probing the theory of gravity with gravitational lensing of gravitational waves and galaxy surveys, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494 (2020) 1956 [1908.08951]

    2020 arXiv

  73. [83]

    Mukherjee, B.D

    S. Mukherjee, B.D. Wandelt and J. Silk,Testing the general theory of relativity using gravitational wave propagation from dark standard sirens, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502 (2021) 1136 [2012.15316]. – 40 –

    2021 arXiv

  74. [84]

    Libanore, M

    S. Libanore, M. Artale, D. Karagiannis, M. Liguori, N. Bartolo, Y. Bouffanais et al., Clustering of gravitational wave and supernovae events: a multitracer analysis in luminosity distance space, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2022 (2022) 003

    2022

  75. [85]

    Gagnon, D

    E.L. Gagnon, D. Anbajagane, J. Prat, C. Chang and J. Frieman,Cosmological Constraints from Combining Galaxy Surveys and Gravitational Wave Observatories, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2312.16289 [2312.16289]

    2023 arXiv

  76. [86]

    Raccanelli, E.D

    A. Raccanelli, E.D. Kovetz, S. Bird, I. Cholis and J.B. Muñoz,Determining the progenitors of merging black-hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) 023516 [1605.01405]

    2016 arXiv

  77. [87]

    Scelfo, N

    G. Scelfo, N. Bellomo, A. Raccanelli, S. Matarrese and L. Verde,GW×LSS: chasing the progenitors of merging binary black holes, "jcap" 2018 (2018) 039 [1809.03528]

    2018 arXiv

  78. [88]

    Libanore, M

    S. Libanore, M. Liguori and A. Raccanelli,Signatures of primordial black holes in gravitational wave clustering, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023 (2023) 055

    2023

  79. [89]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis,Linear power spectrum of observed source number counts, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 043516 [1105.5292]

    2011 arXiv

  80. [90]

    Lewis, A

    A. Lewis, A. Challinor and A. Lasenby,Efficient computation of CMB anisotropies in closed FRW models, Astrophys. J. 538 (2000) 473 [astro-ph/9911177]

    2000 arXiv

  81. [91]

    Howlett, A

    C. Howlett, A. Lewis, A. Hall and A. Challinor,Cmb power spectrum parameter degeneracies in the era of precision cosmology, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012 (2012) 027–027

    2012

  82. [92]

    Challinor and A

    A. Challinor and A. Lewis,Lensed CMB power spectra from all-sky correlation functions, Phys. Rev. D71 (2005) 103010 [astro-ph/0502425]

    2005 arXiv

  83. [93]

    Planck collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys. 641 (2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  84. [94]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson,Cosmic star-formation history, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 52 (2014) 415

    2014

  85. [95]

    A.J. Ross, L. Samushia, C. Howlett, W.J. Percival, A. Burden and M. Manera,The clustering of the SDSS DR7 main galaxy sample – i. a 4 per cent distance measure at z = 0.15, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society449 (2015) 835

    2015

  86. [96]

    Dálya et al.,GLADE+ : an extended galaxy catalogue for multimessenger searches with advanced gravitational-wave detectors, Mon

    G. Dálya et al.,GLADE+ : an extended galaxy catalogue for multimessenger searches with advanced gravitational-wave detectors, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514 (2022) 1403 [2110.06184]

    2022 arXiv

  87. [97]

    Bilicki, T.H

    M. Bilicki, T.H. Jarrett, J.A. Peacock, M.E. Cluver and L. Steward,2MASS Photometric Redshift catalog: a comprehensive three-dimensional census of the whole sky, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 210 (2014) 9 [1311.5246]

    2014 arXiv

  88. [98]

    Jarrett, T

    T.H. Jarrett, T. Chester, R. Cutri, S. Schneider, M. Skrutskie and J.P. Huchra,2mass extended source catalog: overview and algorithms, Astron. J. 119 (2000) 2498 [astro-ph/0004318]

    2000 arXiv

  89. [99]

    Skrutskie, R.M

    M.F. Skrutskie, R.M. Cutri, R. Stiening, M.D. Weinberg, S. Schneider, J.M. Carpenter et al., The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS), The Astronomical Journal131 (2006) 1163

    2006

  90. [100]

    Wright, P.R.M

    E.L. Wright, P.R.M. Eisenhardt, A.K. Mainzer, M.E. Ressler, R.M. Cutri, T. Jarrett et al., The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE): Mission Description and Initial On-orbit Performance, The Astronomical Journal140 (2010) 1868 [1008.0031]

    2010 arXiv

  91. [101]

    Cutri and et al.,VizieR Online Data Catalog: WISE All-Sky Data Release (Cutri+ 2012), VizieR Online Data Catalog(2012) II/311

    R.M. Cutri and et al.,VizieR Online Data Catalog: WISE All-Sky Data Release (Cutri+ 2012), VizieR Online Data Catalog(2012) II/311

    2012

  92. [102]

    Hambly et al.,The supercosmos sky survey

    N. Hambly et al.,The supercosmos sky survey. paper I: introduction and description, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.326 (2001) 1279 [astro-ph/0108286]. – 41 –

    2001 arXiv

  93. [103]

    Hambly, M

    N. Hambly, M. Irwin and H. MacGillivray,The supercosmos sky survey. paper. 2. Image detection, parameterisation, classification and photometry, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.326 (2001) 1295 [astro-ph/0108290]

    2001 arXiv

  94. [104]

    Hambly, C

    N. Hambly, C. Davenhall, M. Irwin and H. MacGillivray,The supercosmos sky survey. paper

  95. [105]

    Astrometry, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.326 (2001) 1315 [astro-ph/0108291]

    2001 arXiv

  96. [106]

    Collister and O

    A.A. Collister and O. Lahav,ANNz: Estimating Photometric Redshifts Using Artificial Neural Networks, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.116 (2004) 345 [astro-ph/0311058]

    2004 arXiv

  97. [107]

    C.P. Ahn, R. Alexandroff, C. Allende Prieto, S.F. Anderson, T. Anderton, B.H. Andrews et al.,The Ninth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: First Spectroscopic Data from the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey, Astrophys. J. Suppl.203 (2012) 21 [1207.7137]

    2012 arXiv

  98. [108]

    Jones, M.A

    D.H. Jones, M.A. Read, W. Saunders, M. Colless, T. Jarrett, Q.A. Parker et al.,The 6dF Galaxy Survey: final redshift release (DR3) and southern large-scale structures, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.399 (2009) 683 [0903.5451]

    2009 arXiv

  99. [109]

    2DFGRS collaboration, The 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey: Spectra and redshifts, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.328 (2001) 1039 [astro-ph/0106498]

    2001 arXiv

  100. [110]

    Jarrett,Large Scale Structure in the Local Universe - The 2MASS Galaxy Catalog, Publ

    T. Jarrett,Large Scale Structure in the Local Universe - The 2MASS Galaxy Catalog, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.21 (2004) 396 [astro-ph/0405069]

    2004 arXiv

  101. [111]

    Bell, D.H

    E.F. Bell, D.H. McIntosh, N. Katz and M.D. Weinberg,The optical and near-infrared properties of galaxies. 1. Luminosity and stellar mass functions, Astrophys. J. Suppl.149 (2003) 289 [astro-ph/0302543]

    2003 arXiv

  102. [112]

    Bilicki et al.,WISE x SuperCOSMOS photometric redshift catalog: 20 million galaxies over 3pi steradians, Astrophys

    M. Bilicki et al.,WISE x SuperCOSMOS photometric redshift catalog: 20 million galaxies over 3pi steradians, Astrophys. J. Suppl.225 (2016) 5 [1607.01182]

    2016 arXiv

  103. [113]

    Cutri, E.L

    R.M. Cutri, E.L. Wright, T. Conrow, J.W. Fowler, P.R.M. Eisenhardt, C. Grillmair et al., VizieR Online Data Catalog: AllWISE Data Release (Cutri+ 2013), VizieR Online Data Catalog (2021) II/328

    2021

  104. [114]

    Driver, P

    S.P. Driver, P. Norberg, I.K. Baldry, S.P. Bamford, A.M. Hopkins, J. Liske et al.,GAMA: towards a physical understanding of galaxy formation, Astronomy and Geophysics50 (2009) 5.12 [0910.5123]

    2009 arXiv

  105. [115]

    Liske, I.K

    J. Liske, I.K. Baldry, S.P. Driver, R.J. Tuffs, M. Alpaslan, E. Andrae et al.,Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA): end of survey report and data release 2, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.452 (2015) 2087 [1506.08222]

    2015 arXiv

  106. [117]

    Zonca, L

    A. Zonca, L. Singer, D. Lenz, M. Reinecke, C. Rosset, E. Hivon et al.,healpy: equal area pixelization and spherical harmonics transforms for data on the sphere in python, Journal of Open Source Software4 (2019) 1298

    2019

  107. [119]

    Xavier, M.V

    H.S. Xavier, M.V. Costa-Duarte, A. Balaguera-Antolínez and M. Bilicki,All-sky angular power spectra from cleaned WISE×SuperCOSMOS galaxy number counts, JCAP 08 (2019) 037 [1812.08182]

    2019 arXiv

  108. [120]

    Kettlety, J

    T. Kettlety, J. Hesling, S. Phillipps, M.N. Bremer, M.E. Cluver, E.N. Taylor et al.,Galaxy and mass assembly (GAMA): the consistency of GAMA and WISE derived mass-to-light ratios, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.473 (2018) 776 [1709.08316]. – 42 –

    2018 arXiv

  109. [121]

    Fitzpatrick,Correcting for the Effects of Interstellar Extinction, Publ

    E.L. Fitzpatrick,Correcting for the Effects of Interstellar Extinction, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 111 (1999) 63 [astro-ph/9809387]

    1999 arXiv

  110. [122]

    Banerjee, H

    S. Banerjee, H. Baumgardt and P. Kroupa,Stellar-mass black holes in star clusters: implications for gravitational wave radiation, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.402 (2010) 371 [0910.3954]

    2010 arXiv

  111. [123]

    Mukherjee, T

    S. Mukherjee, T. Broadhurst, J.M. Diego, J. Silk and G.F. Smoot,Impact of astrophysical binary coalescence time-scales on the rate of lensed gravitational wave events, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.506 (2021) 3751

    2021

  112. [124]

    Fishbach and V

    M. Fishbach and V. Kalogera,The Time Delay Distribution and Formation Metallicity of LIGO-Virgo’s Binary Black Holes, Astrophys. J. Lett.914 (2021) L30 [2105.06491]

    2021 arXiv

  113. [125]

    LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration, GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼ 3.4M⊙, Astrophys. J. Lett.892 (2020) L3 [2001.01761]

    2020 arXiv

  114. [126]

    Chruslinska, G

    M. Chruslinska, G. Nelemans and K. Belczynski,The influence of the distribution of cosmic star formation at different metallicities on the properties of merging double compact objects, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482 (2019) 5012 [1811.03565]

    2019 arXiv

  115. [127]

    Chruślińska,Chemical Evolution of the Universe and its Consequences for Gravitational-Wave Astrophysics, Annalen Phys

    M. Chruślińska,Chemical Evolution of the Universe and its Consequences for Gravitational-Wave Astrophysics, Annalen Phys. 536 (2024) 2200170 [2206.10622]

    2024 arXiv

  116. [128]

    Artale, Y

    M.C. Artale, Y. Bouffanais, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, N.B. Sabha, F. Santoliquido et al.,An astrophysically motivated ranking criterion for low-latency electromagnetic follow-up of gravitational wave events, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society495 (2020) 1841–1852

    2020

  117. [129]

    L. Rauf, C. Howlett, T.M. Davis and C.D.P. Lagos,Exploring binary black hole mergers and host galaxies with SHARK and COMPAS, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523 (2023) 5719 [2302.08172]

    2023 arXiv

  118. [130]

    Salim, R.M

    S. Salim, R.M. Rich, S. Charlot, J. Brinchmann, B.D. Johnson, D. Schiminovich et al.,UV Star Formation Rates in the Local Universe, Astrophys. J. Suppl.173 (2007) 267 [0704.3611]

    2007 arXiv

  119. [131]

    Mannucci, G

    F. Mannucci, G. Cresci, R. Maiolino, A. Marconi and A. Gnerucci,A fundamental relation between mass, star formation rate and metallicity in local and high-redshift galaxies, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.408 (2010) 2115 [1005.0006]

    2010 arXiv

  120. [132]

    Peng, S.J

    Y.-j. Peng, S.J. Lilly, K. Kovač, M. Bolzonella, L. Pozzetti, A. Renzini et al.,Mass and Environment as Drivers of Galaxy Evolution in SDSS and zCOSMOS and the Origin of the Schechter Function, Astrophys. J. 721 (2010) 193 [1003.4747]

    2010 arXiv

  121. [133]

    Mapelli, N

    M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, M. Toffano, E. Ripamonti, A. Bressan, M. Spera et al.,The host galaxies of double compact objects merging in the local Universe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 481 (2018) 5324 [1809.03521]

    2018 arXiv

  122. [134]

    Q. Guo, S. White, M. Boylan-Kolchin, G. De Lucia, G. Kauffmann, G. Lemson et al.,From dwarf spheroidals to cD galaxies: simulating the galaxy population in aΛCDM cosmology, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.413 (2011) 101 [1006.0106]

    2011 arXiv

  123. [135]

    Kroupa,On the variation of the initial mass function, Mon

    P. Kroupa,On the variation of the initial mass function, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.322 (2001) 231 [astro-ph/0009005]

    2001 arXiv

  124. [136]

    McClintock and R.A

    J.E. McClintock and R.A. Remillard,Black hole binaries, inCompact stellar X-ray sources, vol. 39, pp. 157–213 (2006), DOI

    2006

  125. [137]

    Górski, E

    K.M. Górski, E. Hivon, A.J. Banday, B.D. Wandelt, F.K. Hansen, M. Reinecke et al., HEALPix: A Framework for High-Resolution Discretization and Fast Analysis of Data Distributed on the Sphere, Astrophys. J. 622 (2005) 759 [astro-ph/0409513]. – 43 –

    2005 arXiv

  126. [138]

    Efstathiou,A maximum likelihood analysis of the low cosmic microwave background multipoles from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Mon

    G. Efstathiou,A maximum likelihood analysis of the low cosmic microwave background multipoles from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.348 (2004) 885 [astro-ph/0310207]

    2004 arXiv

  127. [139]

    Knox,Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments, Phys

    L. Knox,Determination of inflationary observables by cosmic microwave background anisotropy experiments, Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) 4307 [astro-ph/9504054]

    1995 arXiv

  128. [140]

    Leandro, V

    H. Leandro, V. Marra and R. Sturani,Measuring the hubble constant with black sirens, Physical Review D105 (2022)

    2022

  129. [141]

    Weinberg, R

    D.H. Weinberg, R. Davé, N. Katz and L. Hernquist,Galaxy Clustering and Galaxy Bias in a ΛCDM Universe, Astrophys. J. 601 (2004) 1 [astro-ph/0212356]

    2004 arXiv

  130. [142]

    Peacock and M

    J.A. Peacock and M. Bilicki,Wide-area tomography of CMB lensing and the growth of cosmological density fluctuations, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481 (2018) 1133 [1805.11525]

    2018 arXiv

  131. [143]

    Balaguera-Antolínez, M

    A. Balaguera-Antolínez, M. Bilicki, E. Branchini and A. Postiglione,Extracting cosmological information from the angular power spectrum of the 2MASS Photometric Redshift catalogue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476 (2018) 1050 [1711.04583]

    2018 arXiv

  132. [144]

    Tinker, B.E

    J.L. Tinker, B.E. Robertson, A.V. Kravtsov, A. Klypin, M.S. Warren, G. Yepes et al.,The Large-scale Bias of Dark Matter Halos: Numerical Calibration and Model Tests, Astrophys. J. 724 (2010) 878 [1001.3162]

    2010 arXiv

  133. [145]

    Behroozi, C

    P.S. Behroozi, C. Conroy and R.H. Wechsler,A Comprehensive Analysis of Uncertainties Affecting the Stellar Mass-Halo Mass Relation for 0 < z < 4, Astrophys. J. 717 (2010) 379 [1001.0015]

    2010 arXiv

  134. [146]

    Schechter,An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies., Astrophys

    P. Schechter,An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies., Astrophys. J. 203 (1976) 297

    1976

  135. [147]

    S. Cole, P. Norberg, C.M. Baugh, C.S. Frenk, J. Bland-Hawthorn, T. Bridges et al.,The 2dF galaxy redshift survey: near-infrared galaxy luminosity functions, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 326 (2001) 255 [astro-ph/0012429]

    2001 arXiv

  136. [148]

    Dey, D.J

    A. Dey, D.J. Schlegel, D. Lang, R. Blum, K. Burleigh, X. Fan et al.,Overview of the desi legacy imaging surveys, The Astronomical Journal157 (2019) 168

    2019

  137. [149]

    Collaboration, R

    E. Collaboration, R. Scaramella et al.,Euclid preparation-i. the euclid wide survey, A&A 662 (2022) A112

    2022

  138. [150]

    Ivezić, S.M

    Ž. Ivezić, S.M. Kahn, J.A. Tyson, B. Abel, E. Acosta, R. Allsman et al.,Lsst: from science drivers to reference design and anticipated data products, The Astrophysical Journal873 (2019) 111

    2019

  139. [151]

    Doré et al.,WFIRST: The Essential Cosmology Space Observatory for the Coming Decade, 1904.01174

    O. Doré et al.,WFIRST: The Essential Cosmology Space Observatory for the Coming Decade, 1904.01174

    1904 arXiv

  140. [152]

    Robitaille, E.J

    Astropy Collaboration, T.P. Robitaille, E.J. Tollerud, P. Greenfield, M. Droettboom, E. Bray et al.,Astropy: A community Python package for astronomy, Astron. Astrophys.558 (2013) A33 [1307.6212]

    2013 arXiv

  141. [153]

    Price-Whelan, B.M

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, B.M. Sipőcz, H.M. Günther, P.L. Lim, S.M. Crawford et al.,The Astropy Project: Building an Open-science Project and Status of the v2.0 Core Package, The Astronomical Journal156 (2018) 123 [1801.02634]

    2018 arXiv

  142. [154]

    Price-Whelan, P.L

    Astropy Collaboration, A.M. Price-Whelan, P.L. Lim, N. Earl, N. Starkman, L. Bradley et al., The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package, apj 935 (2022) 167 [2206.14220]

    2022 arXiv

  143. [155]

    Fixsen, E.S

    D.J. Fixsen, E.S. Cheng, J.M. Gales, J.C. Mather, R.A. Shafer and E.L. Wright,The Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum from the full COBE FIRAS data set, Astrophys. J. 473 (1996) 576 [astro-ph/9605054]. – 44 –

    1996 arXiv

Pith tools

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