Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Measuring the cosmic dipole with golden dark sirens in the era of next-generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that golden dark sirens detected by next-generation ground-based networks can measure the cosmic dipole to order 10^-3 jointly with H0 and to order 10^-4 with H0 fixed.

desk verdict A competent forecast proposing golden dark sirens for the cosmic dipole, with a load-bearing host-identification assumption that needs quantifying before the 6% number is trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12678 v3 pith:HNWRP23Q submitted 2025-05-19 gr-qc

Anson Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords cosmicdipolegoldendarksirensnext-generationgravitational-wavedetectorsEinsteinTelescopeExplorerHubbleconstantsirencosmologycosmologicalprinciple
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 proposes that golden dark sirens—nearby, tightly localized gravitational-wave events whose host galaxies can be identified by the single brightest galaxy rule—can measure the cosmic dipole in the era of next-generation ground-based detectors. It forecasts that a three-detector network containing at least one Einstein Telescope and one Cosmic Explorer would detect 35–39 golden dark sirens over 10 years, enough to constrain the dipole amplitude to order $10^{-3}$ (about 6% uncertainty) while jointly fitting H0, and to order $10^{-4}$ if H0 is fixed. The direction of the dipole would be localized to roughly 120 deg², comparable to or better than radio source number-count constraints. This matters because it offers a gravitational-wave probe of the reported ~4.9σ tension between the CMB dipole and sky-count dipoles, without relying on electromagnetic counterparts or number counting.

What carries the argument

Golden dark sirens. A golden dark siren is defined as a compact binary coalescence with z<0.1 whose 90% sky localization area is ≲0.06 deg², so that the Schechter-function galaxy density predicts only one galaxy brighter than L* in the area; that brightest galaxy is assigned as host and gives the observed redshift. The signal model is the dipole modification $D_L^{\rm obs} = D_L^0\,[1 + g(\hat{n}\cdot\hat{z})]$ and $1+z_{\rm obs} = (1+z_0)[1+g(\hat{n}\cdot\hat{z})]$, with the rest-frame redshift recovered by inverting the second relation. The likelihood is a $\chi^2$ over luminosity distances, and parameters $\{H_0, g, l_{\rm dip}, b_{\rm dip}\}$ are sampled with MCMC. Gravitational-wave parameter uncertainties, including the sky area used to select golden dark sirens, come from Fisher-matrix forecasts, and event simulation uses the GWTC-3 black-hole population and merger-rate model.

What would settle it

Take a sample of well-localized nearby compact binary coalescences whose host galaxies are identified unambiguously by electromagnetic counterparts or deep spectroscopy, and check how often the brightest galaxy within 0.06 deg² is the true host; if the success rate is not close to unity, the forecasted $10^{-3}$ dipole constraints do not follow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a forecast: golden dark sirens are rare but powerful, and next-generation detector networks are essential to find them. For an injected dipole of g=0.001 at the CMB direction, the 1ET+2CEs network yields g constrained to 6% and the direction within 120 deg² in a joint fit with H0, while 1ET+1CE+1A# yields 7% and a direction constrained to roughly 8°×6°. Fixing H0 lets the same dataset constrain g at order $10^{-4}$, although joint estimation with H0 degrades the dipole constraints. The paper also establishes that LVK-era dark sirens see no significant H0 bias from the dipole, because the number-count asymmetry and distance shifts roughly cancel in the all-sky combined posterior.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on the assumption that the single brightest galaxy inside a golden dark siren's localization area is its host galaxy, so that the measured galaxy redshift is the source redshift; the paper concedes this probability was not quantitatively calculated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the forecast holds, a single 1ET+2CEs network can serve as an independent cosmic-dipole observatory, with no need for electromagnetic counterparts or the uncertain bright-siren rate.
  • The same 35–39 golden dark sirens would pin H0 to roughly 0.11–0.13% uncertainty, competitive with late-universe distance-ladder measurements and relevant to the Hubble tension.
  • Networks with only one next-generation detector (1ET+2A#s) detect too few golden dark sirens (13) to constrain the dipole, so at least two next-generation ground-based detectors are a prerequisite.
  • The dipole's effect on H0 from LVK O4/O5 dark sirens is negligible at g=0.01, but the paper argues that the number-count asymmetry grows with event rate and could bias dark-siren H0 in the next-generation era unless selection effects are modeled.
  • Golden dark sirens reach constraints comparable to bright-siren forecasts and to number counting with 10^7 events, while jointly measuring H0, a feature number counting does not provide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit: the same χ² likelihood could be applied immediately to any handful of real well-localized dark sirens from a next-generation detector, with the host-assignment success rate as the controlling systematic.
  • If golden dark sirens later measure a dipole consistent with the CMB kinetic value while number-count analyses remain high, that would push the dipole tension toward source-evolution or selection systematics in the number counts rather than intrinsic anisotropy.
  • The brightest-galaxy assumption could be tested before ET/CE operate by applying the 0.06 deg² criterion to galaxy catalogues with complete spectroscopic host assignments, or by using the few well-localized LVK events with candidate hosts.
  • Combining golden dark sirens with bright sirens and number counting in one joint likelihood would likely sharpen both H0 and dipole constraints; the paper notes the event-number gain but does not compute the combined forecast.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the ability of next-generation ground-based gravitational-wave detector networks (1ET+2A#, 1ET+1CE+1A#, 1ET+2CE) to measure the cosmic dipole jointly with H0 using 'golden dark sirens': nearby (z<0.1) compact binary coalescences with 90% sky localization within 0.06 deg^2, whose host is assumed to be the brightest galaxy in the localization area. The authors simulate 10 years of detections, compute Fisher-matrix parameter uncertainties, inject a dipole of amplitude g=10^-3 in the CMB direction, and recover {H0,g,l_dip,b_dip} with an MCMC chi-squared analysis. They find that networks with at least two next-generation detectors yield meaningful constraints: with 1ET+2CEs, g is measured to about 6% and the dipole direction to about 120 deg^2, with H0 to about 0.11%. The paper also examines the bias that the cosmic dipole induces in standard dark-siren H0 measurements with LVK O4/O5 data and finds it negligible.

Significance. If the forecast holds, it would provide a new and independent way to probe the cosmic dipole without relying on number counts, complementing bright-siren forecasts. The injection-recovery setup is standard and clearly described, and the use of public simulation and sampling packages makes the analysis reproducible in principle. The headline numbers, however, are conditional on two unmodeled astrophysical systematics, host-galaxy identification and peculiar velocities, that can individually be of the same order as the claimed statistical uncertainty; the quantitative claims should therefore be read as idealised sensitivity forecasts rather than realistic error predictions.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3.1, Sec. 5, Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5)] The central forecast assumes that the brightest galaxy inside the 0.06 deg^2 localization area is the true host, so that the measured z_obs is the source redshift. The paper itself states in Sec. 5 that the probability for this identification is not quantitatively calculated. Because the dipole signal is only g=10^-3, while the redshift difference between a random bright galaxy and the true host can be much larger, a small misidentification fraction can produce a systematic error in g comparable to or larger than the claimed 6% uncertainty. The authors should either compute this probability using a realistic galaxy population or catalogue, or demonstrate explicitly that the forecast is robust to a reasonable misidentification rate.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Sec. 3.2, Conclusions] The likelihood in Eq. (3.4) treats z_obs as the cosmological-plus-dipole redshift, but at z<0.1 the peculiar velocities of host galaxies (rms about 300 km/s) induce a scatter of order 10^-3 in z, comparable to the injected dipole amplitude and much larger than the fractional distance uncertainty claimed for individual golden dark sirens. Averaging over about 39 events reduces this scatter, but it remains a dominant noise source for a g=10^-3 signal. The paper mentions peculiar velocities only as a future systematic in Sec. 5; to support the headline constraint, the forecast should include a peculiar-velocity term or a conservative scatter in the simulated z_obs and in the likelihood.
  3. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.4)] The chi-squared likelihood omits selection effects: the golden-dark-siren sample is defined by a 90% localization-area threshold, and both the SNR and the localization area depend on D_L and hence on the dipole amplitude and direction. The forecast uses a fixed event set selected without the dipole and then applies Eq. (3.4) without a detection-probability normalization, in contrast to the selection term in Eq. (2.7). Since the selection is a function of the parameters being measured, this can bias the recovered dipole; the authors should either include the selection term in the likelihood or quantify how much the 6% uncertainty changes when selection is accounted for.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] 'import role' should be 'important role'.
  2. [Table 3 vs Sec. 3.1] The network label '1ET+1CE+A#' in Table 3 is inconsistent with '1ET+1CE+1A#' used in Sec. 3.1 and Table 2.
  3. [Conclusions] 'combbing' should be 'combining'.
  4. [Sec. 3.2] The MCMC analysis does not state the priors on H0, g, l_dip, and b_dip; these should be reported for reproducibility.
  5. [Fig. 4 caption] 'differences in H0 measured from each golden dark sirens' should read 'differences in H0 measured from each golden dark siren'.
  6. [Sec. 4, violin plots] The same golden-dark-siren event set is reused when varying the injected g; because the selection of golden dark sirens depends on g through the localization area, the event set should ideally be regenerated for each injected value.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a standard injection-recovery forecast; its central dipole constraint does not reduce to an input by construction, and its main caveat is an unmodeled systematic, not a circular step.

full rationale

The claimed dipole constraint does not reduce to an input by construction. Eqs. (2.2)-(2.3) define the dipole modifications to D_obs and z_obs, and Eqs. (3.4)-(3.5) invert those definitions inside the chi-square. The injection and recovery use the same model, which is the standard way to forecast a measurement rather than a way to force agreement: the MCMC can and does wander, and the paper explicitly reports failure to constrain g at the 1e-4 level when H0 is free. The precision numbers in Table 3 come from Fisher-matrix uncertainties of simulated events, not from plugging the answer back in. The golden-dark-siren selection is built from an external Schechter-function galaxy number density and a localization-area cut; it does not presuppose the dipole amplitude or direction. The only same-author citation is Ref. [69], a passing remark on galaxy-catalogue incompleteness, and it is not load-bearing. The paper itself flags the most serious limitation in Sec. 5: "the probability for the brightest galaxy within the localization area of a golden dark siren to be its host galaxy is not quantitatively calculated." This is an unmodeled systematic that could dominate the forecast, but it is not circular: incorrect host identification would bias z_obs, not make the likelihood algebraically identical to its input. The forecast is internally consistent and should be read as conditional on correct host identification.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on the unquantified host-galaxy identification probability, the Fisher/Gaussian localization approximation, the Schechter-based golden siren definition, and fixed population and rate inputs. These are inputs inherited from the literature or chosen by hand, not derived in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Equal BBH/NSBH/BNS merger rate = R0 = 20 yr^-1 Gpc^-3 for all three source classes
    Sec. 3.1: 'we assume the same merger rate for BBHs, NSBHs and BNSs as a reasonable guess' despite observed ranges of 7.8-140 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for NSBHs and 10-1700 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for BNSs. This directly sets the number of BNS/NSBH golden dark sirens.
  • Injected dipole amplitude and direction = g = 0.001 and (l_dip, b_dip) = (264 deg, 48 deg)
    Sec. 3.2: the detectability forecast is demonstrated for this hand-picked signal. Conclusions about 10^-4 constraints are shown for this specific direction and amplitude.
  • Fixed LVK population and rate parameters = Table 1 values, e.g. alpha=3.78, R0=20, gamma=4.59
    Sec. 2.3: adopted from GWTC-3. The golden dark siren event counts and H0 posteriors scale with these assumed values; the paper notes in Sec. 2.5 that wrong models would bias H0.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The brightest galaxy in a golden dark siren localization patch is the host galaxy.
    Sec. 3.1 and Conclusions. No quantitative probability is computed; the paper flags this as future work. All redshifts of golden dark sirens depend on it.
  • domain assumption The cosmic dipole modifies observed luminosity distance and redshift as equations (2.2) and (2.3).
    From Bonvin et al. [62], assumed valid for gravitational-wave sources. If higher-order kinematic effects matter, eq. (3.4) is incomplete.
  • domain assumption Fisher matrix Gaussian approximation for golden dark siren parameter uncertainties (eq. 3.2).
    Sec. 3.1. Valid for high SNR, but does not capture non-Gaussian localization tails that determine which events pass the 0.06 deg^2 cut.
  • domain assumption Galaxy areal density above luminosity L follows the Schechter function with adopted B-band parameters (eq. 3.1).
    Sec. 3.1, from Singer et al. [55] and Longair [77]. Sets the 0.06 deg^2 localization threshold and hence the golden dark siren definition.
  • domain assumption Fixed compact-object population and Madau rate evolution (Table 1) describe the real universe.
    Sec. 2.3. The number of simulated golden dark sirens and the H0 posteriors scale with these assumptions. The paper notes in Sec. 2.5 that wrong models would bias H0.
  • domain assumption Detector duty cycle 0.75 and constant galaxy number density in GWSim are representative.
    Sec. 2.3. These simulation choices affect event counts and localization.
  • domain assumption Selection of golden dark sirens by 90% sky area below 0.06 deg^2 does not bias the dipole likelihood (eq. 3.4).
    Sec. 3.1-3.2. The likelihood contains no selection term; if localization-based selection correlates with sky position or dipole direction, the recovered dipole could be biased.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring the cosmic dipole with golden dark sirens in the era of next-generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HNWRP23Q

@misc{pith2026250512678,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring the cosmic dipole with golden dark sirens in the era of next-generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HNWRP23Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12678}
}
abstract

The tensions between cosmological parameter measurements from the early-universe and the late-universe datasets offer an exciting opportunity to explore new physics, if not accounted for unknown systematics. Apart from the well-known Hubble tension, a tension up to $4.9 \sigma$ in the cosmic dipole has also been reported. While the cosmic dipole is mainly induced by the observer's kinetic motion, an intrinsic dipole arising from the anisotropy of the universe could also play an import role. Such an intrinsic anisotropy can be a dark energy mimicker that causes the observed accelerating expansion of the universe. As a new and powerful tool, gravitational waves can serve as an independent probe to the cosmic dipole. A useful type of events to achieve this is the "golden dark sirens", which are near-by well-localized compact binary coalescences whose host galaxies can be identified directly due to precise localization. By forecasting golden dark sirens obtained from 10-year observations using different possible detector networks in the future, we find that the standard LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA detectors are not able to detect a meaningful amount of golden dark sirens, and hence next-generation ground-based detectors are essential to obtain a strong constraint on the cosmic dipole. In particular, we find that a three-detector network consisting of more than one next-generation detectors can yield a constraint on the cosmic dipole at an order of $10^{-3}$ when jointly measured with $H_0$. Moreover, a constraint on the cosmic dipole at an order of $10^{-4}$ can be achieved when fixing $H_0$.

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. Forecasting Constraints on Cosmology and Modified Gravitational-wave Propagation by Combining Strongly Lensed Gravitational Waves and Galaxy Surveys

    astro-ph.CO 2026-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulated doubly lensed gravitational-wave events matched to galaxy surveys give a forecasted H0 precision of 0.42% with next-generation detectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [2]

    Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,

    E. Abdallaet al., “Cosmology intertwined: A review of the particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology associated with the cosmological tensions and anomalies,”JHEAp34(2022) 49–211, arXiv:2203.06142 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [3]

    Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,

    A. G. Riess, S. Casertano, W. Yuan, L. M. Macri, and D. Scolnic, “Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM,”Astrophys. J.876no. 1, (2019) 85, arXiv:1903.07603 [astro-ph.CO]. [4]PlanckCollaboration, N. Aghanimet al., “Planck 2018 results. I. O...

    arXiv 2019

  3. [5]

    On cosmic acceleration without dark energy,

    E. W. Kolb, S. Matarrese, and A. Riotto, “On cosmic acceleration without dark energy,”New J. Phys.8(2006) 322,arXiv:astro-ph/0506534

    arXiv 2006

  4. [6]

    Inhomogeneous cosmology and backreaction: Current status and future prospects,

    K. Bolejko and M. Korzy´ nski, “Inhomogeneous cosmology and backreaction: Current status and future prospects,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D26no. 06, (2017) 1730011,arXiv:1612.08222 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [7]

    A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars,

    N. J. Secrest, S. von Hausegger, M. Rameez, R. Mohayaee, S. Sarkar, and J. Colin, “A Test of the Cosmological Principle with Quasars,”Astrophys. J. Lett.908no. 2, (2021) L51, arXiv:2009.14826 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [8]

    Detection of the velocity dipole in the radio galaxies of the nrao vla sky survey,

    C. Blake and J. Wall, “Detection of the velocity dipole in the radio galaxies of the nrao vla sky survey,”Nature416(2002) 150–152,arXiv:astro-ph/0203385

    arXiv 2002

  7. [9]

    Large Peculiar Motion of the Solar System from the Dipole Anisotropy in Sky Brightness due to Distant Radio Sources,

    A. K. Singal, “Large Peculiar Motion of the Solar System from the Dipole Anisotropy in Sky Brightness due to Distant Radio Sources,”Astrophys. J. Lett.742no. 2, (Dec., 2011) L23, arXiv:1110.6260 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2011

  8. [10]

    Dipoles in the Sky,

    C. Gibelyou and D. Huterer, “Dipoles in the Sky,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.427(2012) 1994–2021,arXiv:1205.6476 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

Show all 77 references
  1. [11]

    Dipole anisotropy in sky brightness and source count distribution in radio NVSS data,

    P. Tiwari, R. Kothari, A. Naskar, S. Nadkarni-Ghosh, and P. Jain, “Dipole anisotropy in sky brightness and source count distribution in radio NVSS data,”Astropart. Phys.61(2014) 1–11,arXiv:1307.1947 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [12]

    Searching for a dipole modulation in the large-scale structure of the Universe,

    R. Fern´ andez-Cobos, P. Vielva, D. Pietrobon, A. Balbi, E. Mart´ ınez-Gonz´ alez, and R. B. Barreiro, “Searching for a dipole modulation in the large-scale structure of the Universe,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.441no. 3, (2014) 2392–2397,arXiv:1312.0275 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  3. [13]

    Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data,

    P. Tiwari and P. Jain, “Dipole Anisotropy in Integrated Linearly Polarized Flux Density in NVSS Data,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.447(2015) 2658–2670,arXiv:1308.3970 [astro-ph.CO]

    2015 arXiv

  4. [14]

    Probing the Cosmological Principle in the counts of radio galaxies at different frequencies,

    C. A. P. Bengaly, R. Maartens, and M. G. Santos, “Probing the Cosmological Principle in the counts of radio galaxies at different frequencies,”JCAP04(2018) 031,arXiv:1710.08804 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Cosmic radio dipole: Estimators and frequency dependence,

    T. M. Siewert, M. Schmidt-Rubart, and D. J. Schwarz, “Cosmic radio dipole: Estimators and frequency dependence,”Astron. Astrophys.653(2021) A9,arXiv:2010.08366 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [16]

    Peculiar motion of Solar system from the Hubble diagram of supernovae Ia and its implications for cosmology,

    A. K. Singal, “Peculiar motion of Solar system from the Hubble diagram of supernovae Ia and its implications for cosmology,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515no. 4, (2022) 5969–5980, arXiv:2106.11968 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  7. [17]

    Revisiting the NVSS number count dipole,

    P. Tiwari and A. Nusser, “Revisiting the NVSS number count dipole,”JCAP03(2016) 062, arXiv:1509.02532 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [18]

    High redshift radio galaxies and divergence from the CMB dipole,

    J. Colin, R. Mohayaee, M. Rameez, and S. Sarkar, “High redshift radio galaxies and divergence from the CMB dipole,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.471no. 1, (2017) 1045–1055, arXiv:1703.09376 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [19]

    Impact of local structure on the cosmic radio dipole,

    M. Rubart, D. Bacon, and D. J. Schwarz, “Impact of local structure on the cosmic radio dipole,”Astron. Astrophys.565(2014) A111,arXiv:1402.0376 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  10. [20]

    On the kinematic cosmic dipole tension,

    C. Dalang and C. Bonvin, “On the kinematic cosmic dipole tension,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512no. 3, (2022) 3895–3905,arXiv:2111.03616 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [21]

    The expected kinematic matter dipole is robust against source evolution,

    S. von Hausegger, “The expected kinematic matter dipole is robust against source evolution,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535no. 1, (2024) L49–L53,arXiv:2404.07929 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [22]

    Redshift tomography of the kinematic matter dipole,

    S. von Hausegger and C. Dalang, “Redshift tomography of the kinematic matter dipole,” arXiv:2412.13162 [astro-ph.CO]. – 19 –

    arXiv

  13. [23]

    First Constraints on the Intrinsic CMB Dipole and Our Velocity with Doppler and Aberration,

    P. d. S. Ferreira and M. Quartin, “First Constraints on the Intrinsic CMB Dipole and Our Velocity with Doppler and Aberration,”Phys. Rev. Lett.127no. 10, (2021) 101301, arXiv:2011.08385 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [24]

    Disentangling Doppler modulation, aberration and the temperature dipole in the CMB,

    P. d. S. Ferreira and M. Quartin, “Disentangling Doppler modulation, aberration and the temperature dipole in the CMB,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 6, (2021) 063503,arXiv:2107.10846 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [25]

    Tomographic redshift dipole: testing the cosmological principle,

    P. da Silveira Ferreira and V. Marra, “Tomographic redshift dipole: testing the cosmological principle,”JCAP09(2024) 077,arXiv:2403.14580 [astro-ph.CO]. [26]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTERCollaboratio...

    2024 arXiv

  16. [27]

    Determining the hubble constant from gravitational wave observations,

    B. Schutz, “Determining the hubble constant from gravitational wave observations,”Nature 323(1986) 310–311.https://doi.org/10.1038/323310a0

    1986 doi

  17. [28]

    Cosmology with LIGO/Virgo dark sirens: Hubble parameter and modified gravitational wave propagation,

    A. Finke, S. Foffa, F. Iacovelli, M. Maggiore, and M. Mancarella, “Cosmology with LIGO/Virgo dark sirens: Hubble parameter and modified gravitational wave propagation,” JCAP08(2021) 026,arXiv:2101.12660 [astro-ph.CO]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [29]

    On the importance of source population models for gravitational-wave cosmology,

    S. Mastrogiovanni, K. Leyde, C. Karathanasis, E. Chassande-Mottin, D. A. Steer, J. Gair, A. Ghosh, R. Gray, S. Mukherjee, and S. Rinaldi, “On the importance of source population models for gravitational-wave cosmology,”Phys. Rev. D104no. 6, (2021) 062009, arXiv:2103.14663 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Joint population and cosmological properties inference with gravitational waves standard sirens and galaxy surveys,

    S. Mastrogiovanni, D. Laghi, R. Gray, G. C. Santoro, A. Ghosh, C. Karathanasis, K. Leyde, D. A. Steer, S. Perries, and G. Pierra, “Joint population and cosmological properties inference with gravitational waves standard sirens and galaxy surveys,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 4, (2023) 0...

    2023 arXiv

  20. [31]

    ICAROGW: A python package for inference of astrophysical population properties of noisy, heterogeneous, and incomplete observations,

    S. Mastrogiovanni, G. Pierra, S. Perri` es, D. Laghi, G. Caneva Santoro, A. Ghosh, R. Gray, C. Karathanasis, and K. Leyde, “ICAROGW: A python package for inference of astrophysical population properties of noisy, heterogeneous, and incomplete observations,”Astron. Astrophys.68...

    2024 arXiv

  21. [32]

    Cosmological inference using gravitational wave standard sirens: A mock data analysis,

    R. Grayet al., “Cosmological inference using gravitational wave standard sirens: A mock data analysis,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 12, (2020) 122001,arXiv:1908.06050 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [33]

    A pixelated approach to galaxy catalogue incompleteness: improving the dark siren measurement of the Hubble constant,

    R. Gray, C. Messenger, and J. Veitch, “A pixelated approach to galaxy catalogue incompleteness: improving the dark siren measurement of the Hubble constant,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512no. 1, (2022) 1127–1140,arXiv:2111.04629 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [34]

    Joint cosmological and gravitational-wave population inference using dark sirens and galaxy catalogues,

    R. Grayet al., “Joint cosmological and gravitational-wave population inference using dark sirens and galaxy catalogues,”JCAP12(2023) 023,arXiv:2308.02281 [astro-ph.CO]. [35]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRACollaboration, R. Abbottet al., “Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion Histor...

    2023 arXiv

  24. [36]

    Are stellar–mass binary black hole mergers isotropically distributed?,

    R. Stiskalek, J. Veitch, and C. Messenger, “Are stellar–mass binary black hole mergers isotropically distributed?,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501no. 1, (2021) 970–977, arXiv:2003.02919 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [37]

    (An)isotropy measurement with gravitational wave observations,

    R. Essick, W. M. Farr, M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and E. Katsavounidis, “(An)isotropy measurement with gravitational wave observations,”Phys. Rev. D107no. 4, (2023) 043016, arXiv:2207.05792 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [38]

    Dipole anisotropy in – 20 – gravitational wave source distribution,

    G. Kashyap, N. K. Singh, K. S. Phukon, S. Caudill, and P. Jain, “Dipole anisotropy in – 20 – gravitational wave source distribution,”JCAP06(2023) 042,arXiv:2204.07472 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [39]

    The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,

    M. Punturoet al., “The Einstein Telescope: A third-generation gravitational wave observatory,”Class. Quant. Grav.27(2010) 194002

    2010

  28. [40]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,

    M. Branchesiet al., “Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07(2023) 068,arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [41]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,

    M. Evanset al., “A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,”arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  30. [42]

    Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer Detectors,

    V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer Detectors,” Astrophys. J.931no. 1, (2022) 22,arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [43]

    Cosmic Explorer: A Submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW Subcommittee,

    M. Evanset al., “Cosmic Explorer: A Submission to the NSF MPSAC ngGW Subcommittee,” arXiv:2306.13745 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv

  32. [44]

    Laser interferometer space antenna,

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., “Laser interferometer space antenna,” 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.00786

    2017 arXiv

  33. [45]

    Overview and progress on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission,

    J.-B. Bayle, B. Bonga, C. Caprini, D. Doneva, M. Muratore, A. Petiteau, E. Rossi, and L. Shao, “Overview and progress on the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna mission,”Nature Astron.6no. 12, (2022) 1334–1338

    2022

  34. [46]

    Detection and estimation of the cosmic dipole with the einstein telescope and cosmic explorer,

    S. Mastrogiovanni, C. Bonvin, G. Cusin, and S. Foffa, “Detection and estimation of the cosmic dipole with the einstein telescope and cosmic explorer,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.521 no. 1, (2023) 984–994,arXiv:2209.11658 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  35. [47]

    Combining chirp mass, luminosity distance, and sky localization from gravitational wave events to detect the cosmic dipole,

    N. Grimm, M. Pijnenburg, S. Mastrogiovanni, C. Bonvin, S. Foffa, and G. Cusin, “Combining chirp mass, luminosity distance, and sky localization from gravitational wave events to detect the cosmic dipole,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526no. 3, (2023) 4673–4689, arXiv:2309.00336 [...

    2023 arXiv

  36. [48]

    Finding cosmic anisotropy with networks of next-generation gravitational-wave detectors,

    B. Cousins, A. Dhani, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and N. Yunes, “Finding cosmic anisotropy with networks of next-generation gravitational-wave detectors,”arXiv:2406.15550 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  37. [49]

    Probing cosmic anisotropy with gravitational waves as standard sirens,

    R.-G. Cai, T.-B. Liu, X.-W. Liu, S.-J. Wang, and T. Yang, “Probing cosmic anisotropy with gravitational waves as standard sirens,”Phys. Rev. D97no. 10, (2018) 103005, arXiv:1712.00952 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  38. [50]

    Probing cosmic anisotropy with GW/FRB as upgraded standard sirens,

    R.-G. Cai, T.-B. Liu, S.-J. Wang, and W.-T. Xu, “Probing cosmic anisotropy with GW/FRB as upgraded standard sirens,”JCAP09(2019) 016,arXiv:1905.01803 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [51]

    Doppler boosting the stochastic gravitational wave background,

    G. Cusin and G. Tasinato, “Doppler boosting the stochastic gravitational wave background,” JCAP08no. 08, (2022) 036,arXiv:2201.10464 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [52]

    Kinematic anisotropies and pulsar timing arrays,

    G. Tasinato, “Kinematic anisotropies and pulsar timing arrays,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 10, (2023) 103521,arXiv:2309.00403 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  41. [53]

    Measuring kinematic anisotropies with pulsar timing arrays,

    N. M. J. Cruz, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Measuring kinematic anisotropies with pulsar timing arrays,”Phys. Rev. D110no. 6, (2024) 063526,arXiv:2402.17312 [gr-qc]

    2024

  42. [54]

    Astrometry meets Pulsar Timing Arrays: Synergies for Gravitational Wave Detection,

    N. M. J. Cruz, A. Malhotra, G. Tasinato, and I. Zavala, “Astrometry meets Pulsar Timing Arrays: Synergies for Gravitational Wave Detection,”arXiv:2412.14010 [astro-ph.CO]

  43. [55]

    Going the Distance: Mapping Host Galaxies of LIGO and Virgo Sources in Three Dimensions Using Local Cosmography and Targeted Follow-up,

    L. P. Singeret al., “Going the Distance: Mapping Host Galaxies of LIGO and Virgo Sources in Three Dimensions Using Local Cosmography and Targeted Follow-up,”Astrophys. J. Lett.829 no. 1, (2016) L15,arXiv:1603.07333 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  44. [56]

    Measurement of Hubble constant with stellar-mass binary black holes,

    A. Nishizawa, “Measurement of Hubble constant with stellar-mass binary black holes,”Phys. Rev. D96no. 10, (2017) 101303,arXiv:1612.06060 [astro-ph.CO]. – 21 –

    2017 arXiv

  45. [57]

    Hunting for the host galaxy groups of binary black holes and the application in constraining Hubble constant,

    J. Yu, Y. Wang, W. Zhao, and Y. Lu, “Hunting for the host galaxy groups of binary black holes and the application in constraining Hubble constant,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.498 no. 2, (2020) 1786–1800,arXiv:2003.06586 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [58]

    Dark Sirens to Resolve the Hubble–Lemaˆ ıtre Tension,

    S. Borhanian, A. Dhani, A. Gupta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Dark Sirens to Resolve the Hubble–Lemaˆ ıtre Tension,”Astrophys. J. Lett.905no. 2, (2020) L28, arXiv:2007.02883 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [59]

    Using grey sirens to resolve the Hubble–Lemaˆ ıtre tension,

    I. Gupta, “Using grey sirens to resolve the Hubble–Lemaˆ ıtre tension,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.524no. 3, (2023) 3537–3558,arXiv:2212.00163 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [60]

    Cosmography with next-generation gravitational wave detectors,

    H.-Y. Chen, J. M. Ezquiaga, and I. Gupta, “Cosmography with next-generation gravitational wave detectors,”Class. Quant. Grav.41no. 12, (2024) 125004,arXiv:2402.03120 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  49. [61]

    Report of the LSC Post-O5 Study Group,

    P. Fritschelet al., “Report of the LSC Post-O5 Study Group,” 2024. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2200287/public

    2024

  50. [62]

    Fluctuations of the luminosity distance,

    C. Bonvin, R. Durrer, and M. A. Gasparini, “Fluctuations of the luminosity distance,”Phys. Rev. D73(2006) 023523,arXiv:astro-ph/0511183. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 85, 029901 (2012)]

    2006 arXiv

  51. [63]

    Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?,

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and W. M. Farr, “Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?,”Astrophys. J. Lett.863no. 2, (2018) L41,arXiv:1805.10270 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  52. [64]

    Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases,

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, “Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486no. 1, (2019) 1086–1093,arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [65]

    Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects,

    S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Taylor, “Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects,”Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (7, 2020) p.45,arXiv:2007.05579 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [66]

    Cosmology and Astrophysics with Standard Sirens and Galaxy Catalogs in View of Future Gravitational Wave Observations,

    N. Borghi, M. Mancarella, M. Moresco, M. Tagliazucchi, F. Iacovelli, A. Cimatti, and M. Maggiore, “Cosmology and Astrophysics with Standard Sirens and Galaxy Catalogs in View of Future Gravitational Wave Observations,”Astrophys. J.964no. 2, (2024) 191, arXiv:2312.05302 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [67]

    Accelerating the Standard Siren Method: Improved Constraints on Modified Gravitational Wave Propagation with Future Data,

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. Moresco, N. Borghi, and M. Fiebig, “Accelerating the Standard Siren Method: Improved Constraints on Modified Gravitational Wave Propagation with Future Data,”arXiv:2504.02034 [astro-ph.CO]

  56. [68]

    GLADE+ : an extended galaxy catalogue for multimessenger searches with advanced gravitational-wave detectors,

    G. D´ alyaet al., “GLADE+ : an extended galaxy catalogue for multimessenger searches with advanced gravitational-wave detectors,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514no. 1, (2022) 1403–1411,arXiv:2110.06184 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [69]

    Testing the nature of gravitational wave propagation using dark sirens and galaxy catalogues,

    A. Chen, R. Gray, and T. Baker, “Testing the nature of gravitational wave propagation using dark sirens and galaxy catalogues,”JCAP02(2024) 035,arXiv:2309.03833 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  58. [70]

    Cosmic Star Formation History,

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, “Cosmic Star Formation History,”Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52(2014) 415–486,arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  59. [71]

    Shouts and Murmurs: Combining Individual Gravitational-Wave Sources with the Stochastic Background to Measure the History of Binary Black Hole Mergers,

    T. Callister, M. Fishbach, D. Holz, and W. Farr, “Shouts and Murmurs: Combining Individual Gravitational-Wave Sources with the Stochastic Background to Measure the History of Binary Black Hole Mergers,”Astrophys. J. Lett.896no. 2, (2020) L32,arXiv:2003.12152 [astro-ph.HE]. [72...

    2020 arXiv

  60. [73]

    GWSim: Python package for creating mock GW samples for different astrophysical populations and cosmological models of – 22 – binary black holes,

    C. Karathanasis, B. Revenu, S. Mukherjee, and F. Stachurski, “GWSim: Python package for creating mock GW samples for different astrophysical populations and cosmological models of – 22 – binary black holes,”Astron. Astrophys.677(2023) A124,arXiv:2210.05724 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erra...

    2023 arXiv

  61. [74]

    GWDALI: A Fisher-matrix based software for gravitational wave parameter-estimation beyond Gaussian approximation,

    J. M. S. de Souza and R. Sturani, “GWDALI: A Fisher-matrix based software for gravitational wave parameter-estimation beyond Gaussian approximation,”Astron. Comput.45(2023) 100759,arXiv:2307.10154 [gr-qc]

    2023

  62. [75]

    Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes,

    G. Prattenet al., “Computationally efficient models for the dominant and subdominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes,”Phys. Rev. D103no. 10, (2021) 104056, arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  63. [76]

    An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies.,

    P. Schechter, “An analytic expression for the luminosity function for galaxies.,”Astrophys. J. 203(Jan., 1976) 297–306

    1976

  64. [77]

    M. S. Longair,Galaxy Formation. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, 2008

    2008

  65. [78]

    Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Parameter estimation using second postNewtonian wave forms,

    E. Poisson and C. M. Will, “Gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Parameter estimation using second postNewtonian wave forms,”Phys. Rev. D52(1995) 848–855, arXiv:gr-qc/9502040

    1995 arXiv

  66. [79]

    emcee: The MCMC Hammer,

    D. Foreman-Mackey, D. W. Hogg, D. Lang, and J. Goodman, “emcee: The MCMC Hammer,” PASP125no. 925, (Mar., 2013) 306,arXiv:1202.3665 [astro-ph.IM]

    2013 arXiv

  67. [80]

    Tracing the redshift evolution of Hubble parameter with gravitational-wave standard sirens,

    A. Nishizawa, A. Taruya, and S. Saito, “Tracing the redshift evolution of Hubble parameter with gravitational-wave standard sirens,”Phys. Rev. D83(2011) 084045,arXiv:1011.5000 [astro-ph.CO]

    2011 arXiv

  68. [81]

    Dependence of peculiar velocity on the host properties of the gravitational wave sources and its impact on the measurement of Hubble constant,

    H. Nimonkar and S. Mukherjee, “Dependence of peculiar velocity on the host properties of the gravitational wave sources and its impact on the measurement of Hubble constant,”Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527no. 2, (2023) 2152–2164,arXiv:2307.05688 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  69. [82]

    Boosting gravitational waves: a review of kinematic effects on amplitude, polarization, frequency and energy density,

    G. Cusin, C. Pitrou, C. Bonvin, A. Barrau, and K. Martineau, “Boosting gravitational waves: a review of kinematic effects on amplitude, polarization, frequency and energy density,”Class. Quant. Grav.41no. 22, (2024) 225006,arXiv:2405.01297 [gr-qc]. – 23 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.