Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

An analytical joint prior for effective spins for inference on the spin distribution of binary black holes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives a fully analytical joint prior for the effective spin parameters $\chi_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ under an isotropic, uniform-magnitude spin prior, and shows that the previous kernel-density estimate is biased…

desk verdict The analytical joint spin prior is real and worth having; the paper's claim that KDE prior errors accumulate with event count is not supported by the evidence shown. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.14551 v1 pith:KXWGSWME submitted 2024-12-19 gr-qc

Masaki Iwaya , Kazuya Kobayashi , Soichiro Morisaki , Kenta Hotokezaka , Tomoya Kinugawa This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords effectivespinparametersprecessinghierarchicalBayesianinferencebinaryblackholepopulationkerneldensityestimationanalyticpriorgravitational-waveastronomy
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 replaces the numerical kernel-density estimate of the joint prior on the effective spin parameters $\chi_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ with a closed-form expression derived from first principles. Under the standard isotropic, uniform-in-magnitude spin prior, the joint density conditioned on mass ratio $q$ is written as a sum of one-dimensional integrals whose antiderivative is a dilogarithm, so it can be evaluated accurately across the whole parameter space. The numerical KDE approach is shown to be systematically inaccurate when both $|\chi_\mathrm{eff}|$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ are small, producing errors of order unity in the population log-likelihood that accumulate as the number of events grows. A reanalysis of the 69 binary black holes in the third gravitational-wave transient catalog leaves the inferred spin distribution largely unchanged, but removes a stochastic error source that will matter for future larger catalogs.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a reduction of the two-dimensional delta-function integral over the four spin components. After the change of variables $x_i=a_i\sin\vartheta_i$, $z_i=a_i\cos\vartheta_i$, the identity $1=\Theta(x_1 - \tfrac{3+4q}{4+3q}qx_2)+\Theta(\tfrac{3+4q}{4+3q}qx_2-x_1)$ splits the $\max$ function in $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ into four branch cases. Each case reduces to one-dimensional integrals of the primitive function $F(x|a,b,c,d):=\int_0^x dx'\, \frac{b}{(x'-a)^2+b^2}\log\frac{x'^2+c^2}{d^2}$, whose closed form uses the dilogarithm $\mathrm{Li}_2$; the paper supplies the branch-cut-safe expression for this primitive so the result is fully analytical.

What would settle it

Evaluate Eqs. (17)-(29) with an independent arbitrary-precision implementation at $q=0.8$, $\chi_\mathrm{eff}=0.01$, and $\chi_\mathrm{p}=0.5$, and compare with a brute-force Monte Carlo estimate of Eq. (9) using at least $10^9$ samples from the isotropic uniform spin prior; disagreement beyond the Monte Carlo statistical error would disprove the formula. Separately, the KDE-bias claim can be tested by showing whether KDE with increasing sample size and shrinking bandwidth converges to the analytic curve in the small-$|\chi_\mathrm{eff}|$, small-$\chi_\mathrm{p}$ region.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that for a spin prior where both component spins are independently isotropic and uniform in magnitude from 0 to $a_\mathrm{max}$, the joint prior $\pi(\chi_\mathrm{eff},\chi_\mathrm{p}|q)$ is fully analytic: it reduces to a sum $I_1+I_2+I_3+I_4$ of one-dimensional integrals of a single function $F$, which in turn is expressed in terms of logarithms and dilogarithms. This makes the prior exact (up to floating-point evaluation) at every point, whereas the KDE prior used in the catalog analysis is biased in the region where both $|\chi_\mathrm{eff}|$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ are small, with a bandwidth that cannot resolve sharp boundaries and cusps. Recomputing the population likelihood with the analytic prior shows the KDE-induced errors are already of order unity in $\log_{10} p(\{d_i\}|\Lambda)$ and grow linearly with the number of events.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that both black-hole spins are drawn independently from the same simple prior: every direction equally likely and every spin magnitude equally likely up to one shared maximum. If a real analysis uses a different spin prior, the formula is not the correct reweighting density.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The joint prior $\pi(\chi_\mathrm{eff},\chi_\mathrm{p}|q)$ can be evaluated at any point without Monte Carlo noise, making evidence and selection-function integrals reproducible and faster.
  • The systematic KDE error at small $|\chi_\mathrm{eff}|$ and small $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ causes order-unity errors in $\log_{10} p(\{d_i\}|\Lambda)$ that add with each new event, so future larger catalogs will need the analytic prior.
  • Reanalyzing the 69 binary black holes in the third transient catalog with the analytic prior leaves the inferred spin distribution essentially unchanged, with a slightly narrower $\sigma_\mathrm{eff}$ and a slightly larger $\sigma_\mathrm{p}$.
  • Because the formula is analytic and fast, it applies to any hierarchical model that conditions on $\chi_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$, not just the Gaussian spin model used in the reanalysis.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same step-function decomposition could be applied to other two-spin summary parameters whose definitions contain a $\max$ function, yielding analytic priors for generalized precession parameters without new numerical infrastructure.
  • A natural testable extension is to derive the analog when the two spins have different maximum magnitudes or non-uniform magnitude distributions; the paper assumes a shared uniform range and does not cover those cases.
  • The paper's error-accumulation argument implies that even a small per-event KDE bias will dominate in catalogs of several hundred events, so the practical importance of the analytic prior is likely to grow faster than the number of events.
  • The analytic-vs-KDE likelihood difference per event, which the paper computes for its reanalysis, could serve as a diagnostic for identifying which events drive prior-induced bias in any future population study.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper derives an analytic expression for the joint prior p(chi_eff, chi_p | q) for binary black hole spins drawn from an isotropic, uniform-in-magnitude distribution. The authors reformulate the integral in terms of a one-dimensional primitive function F expressed through dilogarithms, provide a detailed derivation in Appendix A, and validate the result against histograms of random samples and against the KDE-based prior used in GWTC-3. They then reanalyze the 69 GWTC-3 BBH events with the Gaussian spin model, find largely unchanged hyperparameter posteriors, but report O(1) differences in log10 p({d_i}|Lambda) between the analytical and KDE priors and argue that these errors accumulate with the number of events.

Significance. If the results are correct, the analytic prior is a valuable technical contribution: it replaces a stochastic, computationally expensive KDE evaluation with a deterministic formula, and it is cross-checked against direct random samples in Figs. 2 and 3. The derivation in Appendix A is careful and the claimed accuracy of the formula is well supported. However, the paper's broader claim that KDE-induced errors will accumulate in future analyses is not established by the presented evidence; the current support is stronger for the formula's correctness than for the extrapolation to growing systematic bias.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (38)] The statement that KDE-prior errors 'accumulate with the increasing number of events' does not follow from Eq. (38), which is simply the logarithm of Eq. (3) decomposed into a common selection term and a sum over events. Random per-event errors with zero mean would grow only as sqrt(N) and could partially cancel; linear growth requires a systematic bias of consistent sign. The paper does not demonstrate such a systematic sign or magnitude, so the abstract's concluding claim is not supported by the presented analysis.
  2. [Fig. 6 and surrounding text] The histogram of Delta log10 p = log10 p_analytical - log10 p_KDE conflates systematic KDE bias with KDE realization noise. The paper does not state whether the KDE prior was re-seeded across Lambda samples, nor does it report the KDE stochastic scatter; the 90% intervals shown in Figs. 2-3 are not propagated to Fig. 6. To support the accumulation claim, the authors should either compute the mean and standard error of the per-event Delta log10 Z_i over repeated KDE realizations at fixed Lambda, or otherwise separate the deterministic bias from Monte Carlo noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Introduction] There is a typo: 'distingush' should be 'distinguish'.
  2. [Eq. (12)] The notation max_{q,chi_eff}(chi_p) is confusing; consider writing chi_p,max(q,chi_eff) or defining it more explicitly in words.
  3. [Sec. III.A] The list of posterior sample choices ('Overall posterior samples... PrecessingIMRPHM samples... C01:Mixed samples') is difficult to parse in prose; a table or bullet list would improve clarity.
  4. [General] The paper does not provide a public implementation of the function F or of the full analytical prior; given the complexity of the dilogarithm branch handling in Eq. (29), a code release would aid reproducibility and adoption.
  5. [Sec. II.C] The KDE bandwidth is stated to be around 0.2 for 10,000 samples; a brief statement of how this value was estimated would help the reader judge the severity of the boundary bias.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the analytic joint prior is derived from the stated spin prior and checked against independent random samples.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation begins from the explicitly stated isotropic, uniform-in-magnitude spin prior (Eq. 8), transforms variables, and reduces the integral (9) to the sum of one-dimensional integrals (A4)–(A11) and the closed-form primitive F (26)–(29). None of the load-bearing steps cites a prior result by the same authors; the only supporting decomposition π(χeff|q) from Ref. [39] is used in describing the KDE method, not in the derivation of the analytical prior, and Ref. [39] is not authored by the present authors. The analytical formula is validated against 1,000,000 random draws (Figs. 2–3), which is independent evidence. The reanalysis uses public posterior samples, public injections, and the GWTC-3 inference code; the analytical prior is not fitted to the data. The abstract's claim that KDE errors 'accumulate with the increasing number of events' via Eq. (38) is a substantive scientific assertion about the KDE errors, not a definitional identity, and any concern about its support is a correctness/statistical issue, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation. The self-citations that appear ([12], [18], [22]) are contextual references to formation-channel literature and are not load-bearing for the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analytic formula is derived from a stated spin prior and standard calculus; no free parameters are fit to the target result, and no new physical entities are introduced. The reanalysis inherits the GWTC-3 Gaussian spin model and hyperpriors, but those are applications, not inputs to the central derivation.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Both component spins are drawn independently from the same isotropic and uniform-in-magnitude prior π(ai)=1/(4π amax) with 0≤ai≤amax.
    This is the physical assumption defining the prior; Eq. (9) computes the joint distribution for exactly this distribution, and the reanalysis inherits it from the GWTC-3 PE and injection setups.
  • domain assumption The effective spin definitions in Eqs. (1) and (2) are the correct parameters for the population model.
    The analytic joint prior is for χeff and χp with these definitions; the Gaussian spin model of Ref. [15] uses them.
  • standard math The delta-function reduction, step-function manipulations, and complex analysis in Appendix A are algebraically correct, including the branch choices for log and dilogarithm in Eq. (A21).
    The derivation is not machine-checked and the branch handling is intricate; the paper validates against random samples but does not provide a formal proof.
  • domain assumption The KDE implementation with Gaussian kernel, ε=0.02, and boundary conditions represents the method used in GWTC-3.
    The comparison in Sec. II.C and the reanalysis in Sec. III measure errors of this specific numerical implementation; a better-tuned KDE could reduce the discrepancies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An analytical joint prior for effective spins for inference on the spin distribution of binary black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXWGSWME

@misc{pith2026241214551,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An analytical joint prior for effective spins for inference on the spin distribution of binary black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXWGSWME}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.14551}
}
abstract

We derive an analytical form of the joint prior of effective spin parameters, $\chi_\mathrm{eff}$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$, assuming an isotropic and uniform-in-magnitude spin distribution. This is a vital factor in performing hierarchical Bayesian inference for studying the population properties of merging compact binaries observed with gravitational waves. In previous analyses, this was evaluated numerically using kernel density estimation (KDE). However, we find that this numerical approach is inaccurate in certain parameter regions, where both $|\chi_\mathrm{eff}|$ and $\chi_\mathrm{p}$ are small. Our analytical approach provides accurate computations of the joint prior across the entire parameter space and enables more reliable population inference. Employing our analytic prior, we reanalyze binary black holes in the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog 3 (GWTC-3) by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration. While the results are largely unchanged, log-likelihood errors due to the use of the inaccurate prior evaluations are $\mathcal{O}(1)$. Since these errors accumulate with the increasing number of events, our analytical prior will be crucial in the future analyses.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.14551 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The analytical joint prior on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison of different evaluation methods for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Same as Fig. 2, but we give [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Posterior distribution for hyper parameters that impact the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The recovered distributions for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The differences between the values of log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Structure and Skewness of the Effective Inspiral Spin Distribution of Binary Black Hole Mergers

    astro-ph.HE 2025-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The effective inspiral spin distribution of GWTC-3 black hole binaries is skewed toward positive values, implying a modest preferentially aligned subpopulation, no strong bimodality, and at least about 20% negative-sp...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Physical Review X 9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Physical Re- view X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Physical Re- view X 13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Aasi et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Acernese et al

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

    arXiv 2015

  8. [8]

    Akutsu et al., Progress of Theoreti- cal and Experimental Physics 2021, 05A101 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A101/37974994/ptaa125.pdf

    T. Akutsu et al., Progress of Theoreti- cal and Experimental Physics 2021, 05A101 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A101/37974994/ptaa125.pdf

    work page 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel. 19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Chatziioannou, T

    K. Chatziioannou, T. Dent, M. Fishbach, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, V. Raymond, and J. Veitch, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.02037 (2024), arXiv:2409.02037 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Zevin, S

    M. Zevin, S. S. Bavera, C. P. L. Berry, V. Kalogera, T. Fragos, P. Marchant, C. L. Rodriguez, F. Antonini, D. E. Holz, and C. Pankow, Astrophys. J. 910, 152 (2021), arXiv:2011.10057 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Iwaya, T

    M. Iwaya, T. Kinugawa, and H. Tagoshi, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2312.17491 (2023), arXiv:2312.17491 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters 882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), The Astrophysical Journal Letters 913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and VIRGO Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration), Physical Review X 13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. Ray, I. M. Hernandez, S. Mohite, J. Creighton, and S. Kapadia, Astrophys. J. 957, 37 (2023), arXiv:2304.08046 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Rinaldi, W

    S. Rinaldi, W. Del Pozzo, M. Mapelli, A. Lorenzo- Medina, and T. Dent, A&A 684, A204 (2024), arXiv:2310.03074 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Hotokezaka and T

    K. Hotokezaka and T. Piran, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1707.08978 (2017), arXiv:1707.08978 [astro- ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    B. Farr, D. E. Holz, and W. M. Farr, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 854, L9 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Tiwari, S

    V. Tiwari, S. Fairhurst, and M. Hannam, Astrophys. J. 868, 140 (2018), arXiv:1809.01401 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J

    J. Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J. F. Nu˜ no Siles, and E. Ruiz Morales, Physics of the Dark Universe31, 100791 (2021), arXiv:2010.13811 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kinugawa, T

    T. Kinugawa, T. Nakamura, and H. Nakano, MNRAS 15 498, 3946 (2020), arXiv:2005.09795 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Tagawa, Z

    H. Tagawa, Z. Haiman, I. Bartos, B. Kocsis, and K. Omukai, MNRAS 507, 3362 (2021), arXiv:2104.09510 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Olejak and K

    A. Olejak and K. Belczynski, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 921, L2 (2021), arXiv:2109.06872 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Samsing, I

    J. Samsing, I. Bartos, D. J. D’Orazio, Z. Haiman, B. Koc- sis, N. W. C. Leigh, B. Liu, M. E. Pessah, and H. Tagawa, Nature (London) 603, 237 (2022), arXiv:2010.09765 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    A. A. Trani, S. Quaini, and M. Colpi, A&A 683, A135 (2024), arXiv:2312.13281 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Damour, Phys

    T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124013 (2001)

    2001

  20. [28]

    Gerosa and E

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06223 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Gerosa, E

    D. Gerosa, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, K. Belczynski, M. Kesden, D. Wysocki, and W. Gladysz, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084036 (2018), arXiv:1808.02491 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Schmidt, F

    P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015)

    2015

  23. [31]

    Gerosa, M

    D. Gerosa, M. Mould, D. Gangardt, P. Schmidt, G. Pratten, and L. Thomas, Physical Review D 103, 10.1103/PHYSREVD.103.064067 (2020)

    2020 doi

  24. [32]

    Fairhurst, R

    S. Fairhurst, R. Green, M. Hannam, and C. Hoy, Phys. Rev. D 102, 041302 (2020), arXiv:1908.00555 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Fairhurst, R

    S. Fairhurst, R. Green, C. Hoy, M. Hannam, and A. Muir, Phys. Rev. D 102, 024055 (2020), arXiv:1908.05707 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    L. M. Thomas, P. Schmidt, and G. Pratten, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083022 (2021), arXiv:2012.02209 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Miller, T

    S. Miller, T. A. Callister, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. 895, 128 (2020), arXiv:2001.06051 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mandel, W

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, mnras 486, 1086 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, pasa 36, e010 (2019), arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Vitale, D

    S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Taylor, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, edited by C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, and K. D. Kokkotas (Springer,

  31. [39]

    T. A. Callister, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2104.09508 (2021), arXiv:2104.09508 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Azimuthal angles are marginalized

  33. [41]

    B. W. Silverman, Density estimation for statistics and data analysis (Chapman and Hall, 1986)

    1986

  34. [42]

    Callister, effective-spin-priors (2021)

    T. Callister, effective-spin-priors (2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration), apjs 267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, and K. Collabora- tion, 10.5281/zenodo.7890398 (2023)

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    Callister, o3b-pop-studies (2021)

    T. Callister, o3b-pop-studies (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Foreman-Mackey, D

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Good- man, PASP 125, 306 (2013), arXiv:1202.3665 [astro- ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  39. [47]

    P. C. et al., A&A 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., A&A 558, A33 (2013), arXiv:1307.6212 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., AJ 156, 123 (2018), arXiv:1801.02634 [astro-ph.IM]

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., Astrophys. J. 935, 167 (2022), arXiv:2206.14220 [astro-ph.IM]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Kish, Survey Sampling (Wiley, 1965)

    L. Kish, Survey Sampling (Wiley, 1965)

    1965

  44. [52]

    W. M. Farr, Research Notes of the American Astronomi- cal Society 3, 66 (2019), arXiv:1904.10879 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.