Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

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

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the clustering of gravitational wave sources can be used to infer which host-galaxy properties—stellar mass, star formation rate, or metallicity—control where binary black holes merge.

desk verdict Solid forward-modeling framework for GW bias from spectroscopic surveys, with a real sensitivity-ranking claim that is only tested within one factorized host-probability ansatz. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11201 v2 pith:PBJJOXDZ submitted 2025-06-12 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Dorsa Sadat Hosseini , Amir Dehghani , J. Leo Kim , Alex Krolewski , Suvodip Mukherjee , Ghazal Geshnizjani This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavebiasgalaxyclusteringpowerspectrumbinaryblackholeshostpropertiesstellarmassstarformationratemetallicity
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 tries to establish that the spatial clustering of gravitational wave sources, encoded in a 'gravitational wave bias' parameter, can be used to infer which properties of host galaxies control where binary black hole mergers happen. Working with a spectroscopic galaxy survey and mock GW catalogs built from a host-galaxy probability that factorizes over stellar mass, star formation rate, and metallicity, the authors claim that the GW bias is most sensitive to stellar mass, moderately sensitive to star formation rate, and essentially insensitive to metallicity. If true, future measurements of GW source clustering would let astronomers read off the stellar-mass and star-formation dependence of BBH host selection, and would warn that metallicity effects are hard to isolate at low redshift in magnitude-limited samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the product ansatz for the host-galaxy probability, $P_{\rm host}(\mathrm{GW}|M_*,\mathrm{SFR},Z)=P_{\rm host}(\mathrm{GW}|M_*)P_{\rm host}(\mathrm{GW}|\mathrm{SFR})P_{\rm host}(\mathrm{GW}|Z)$, with each factor a broken power law with a pivot ($M_K$, $\mathrm{SFR}_K$, $Z_K$) and low- and high-slope parameters. This ansatz translates a choice of astrophysical host-selection scenario into a mock siren catalog; the catalog's 3D power spectrum multipoles, fitted with a linear bias plus Kaiser redshift-space distortion and Finger-of-God damping model, then yield the GW bias. The broken power-law shape is the link between host-galaxy physics and clustering amplitude.

What would settle it

A concrete check: build a mock catalog with a non-factorizable host probability, for example $P_{\rm host}(\mathrm{GW}|M_*,\mathrm{SFR})$ that peaks at high mass and high SFR together, and recompute the GW bias ranking; if the stellar-mass pivot no longer dominates, the claimed ranking is ansatz-dependent. Observationally, if a future GW catalog with host associations shows $b_{\rm GW}$ decreasing while the mean host stellar mass increases, the claimed positive trend with $M_K$ would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within the M*-Z-SFR model, the GW bias parameter $b_{\rm GW}$ rises as the stellar-mass pivot $M_K$ of the host-galaxy probability increases, reaching up to about 30 percent above the galaxy bias; it also increases when the host probability favors low-SFR galaxies; and it shows no significant correlation with the metallicity pivot $Z_K$. The authors interpret this ranking as evidence that the clustering of GW sources at low redshift is set primarily by stellar mass and SFR, not metallicity, and that a measured $b_{\rm GW}$ could be inverted to constrain the shapes of the host-galaxy probability functions.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the joint host-galaxy probability factorizes into three independent broken power laws in stellar mass, SFR, and metallicity, with parameter ranges chosen by the authors; if real host selection is non-factorizable or differently shaped, the sensitivity ranking could be an artifact of that ansatz.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A measured $b_{\rm GW}$ higher than the galaxy bias by tens of percent would point to host selection that favors high-stellar-mass galaxies.
  • A rise in $b_{\rm GW}$ when low-SFR (quenched) hosts are preferred means GW clustering can be used to constrain the interplay between delay times and galaxy quenching.
  • The near-zero metallicity dependence implies that low-redshift clustering measurements will not easily constrain the metallicity sensitivity of BBH formation, so metallicity must be pursued at higher redshift or with better metallicity diagnostics.
  • The framework extends to binary neutron star and neutron star-black hole mergers, and the paper finds no significant bias difference between BBH chirp-mass bins, suggesting that mass-dependent clustering is not a strong effect in this model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors do not test non-factorizable host probabilities; if real host selection couples stellar mass and SFR, the claimed sensitivity ranking could be an artifact of the product ansatz.
  • A direct observational test would be to bin future GW host galaxies by stellar mass and SFR separately and compare clustering amplitudes; if $b_{\rm GW}$ tracks the mean host stellar mass rather than the pivot $M_K$, the broken power-law parametrization may need revision.
  • The strong stellar mass-SFR correlation in the survey (quenched galaxies have higher mean stellar mass) means the claimed SFR sensitivity may partly be a stellar-mass effect in disguise; separating the two requires samples where this correlation is broken, such as high-redshift or CO-selected hosts.
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. The paper presents a forward-modeling framework to connect gravitational-wave (GW) sources to galaxy properties through the GW bias parameter. Using the SDSS DR7 spectroscopic galaxy catalog, the authors populate mock binary-black-hole (BBH) host catalogs by sampling galaxies with a joint host-galaxy probability function P(GW|M*,SFR,Z) that factorizes into three broken power laws (Eq. 4.7), and measure the 3D redshift-space power spectrum multipoles of the resulting siren catalog. Fitting a Kaiser + Finger-of-God model to the monopole and quadrupole gives b_GW for each choice of host-probability parameters. The central result is a sensitivity ranking: b_GW responds most strongly to the stellar-mass pivot M_K (up to tens of percent above the galaxy bias), substantially to the SFR pivot (especially when low-SFR galaxies are favored), and weakly to metallicity. The pipeline is validated against the published SDSS DR7 power spectrum of Ross et al. (2015) (agreement within 0.25 sigma, Figure 13) and by a random-selection null test (Appendix B). The authors repeatedly note that the trends are model-dependent; nevertheless, the abstract and conclusion draw a stronger physical conclusion about what drives GW source clustering.

Significance. If the sensitivity ranking survives robustness checks, the framework would be a practical tool for interpreting future GW clustering measurements: a measured b_GW could be inverted to constrain the stellar-mass and SFR dependence of BBH host selection, and it would help control astrophysical bias in dark-standard-siren cosmological analyses. The paper's strengths include a validated 3D power-spectrum measurement pipeline (Figure 13), a null test for the selection procedure (Appendix B), and a direct comparison with the earlier angular-clustering analysis (Section 6.1). The extension from photometric to spectroscopic surveys with full 3D clustering is a genuine step forward. The main limitation is that the ranking is established only within the factorized broken-power-law family of host-galaxy probabilities, and the strong correlations among M*, SFR, and Z in the SDSS DR7 sample mean that the ranking could in principle be an artifact of the assumed functional form. Thus the significance is high if confirmed, but the current evidence is conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 4.2, Eq. (4.7)] The central claim of this paper is the sensitivity ranking in Section 6.2.3 (M* > SFR > Z). This ranking is measured under the product ansatz of Eq. (4.7), P(GW|M*,SFR,Z) = P(GW|M*) P(GW|SFR) P(GW|Z), with each factor a broken power law (Eqs. 4.8-4.10). The justification in the text, that BBH formation is not influenced by non-host galaxies, addresses independence across galaxies rather than conditional independence of M*, SFR, and Z within a host. Because M*, SFR, and Z are strongly correlated in the SDSS DR7 sample (Figures 4 and 6), varying one parameter at a time changes the selected host population along these correlations; the paper itself attributes the SFR effect to the higher mean stellar mass of low-SFR galaxies (Section 6.2.2). Without a control test against a non-factorized joint host probability (e.g., an interaction term that allows P(GW|M*,SFR) != P(GW|M*) P(GW|SFR)) or against alternative single-factor shapes, the observed ranking may be an artifact of the ansatz rather than a property of BBH host selection. Please add such a robustness test and state whether the ranking survives.
  2. [Abstract; Section 7] The abstract and the concluding section state that the spatial clustering of GW sources "is primarily driven by the stellar mass and SFR of their host galaxies" (abstract) and that stellar mass has "the strongest and consistent correlation" with GW bias (Section 7). These statements go beyond the model-dependent caveat given earlier in the same abstract ("within this framework"). Given that the only explored host probabilities are factorized broken power laws, the data do not exclude a scenario in which the apparent SFR sensitivity is a byproduct of the M*-SFR correlation in the sample (as acknowledged in Section 6.2.2). Please qualify these summary statements to refer to the model family explored, or provide additional evidence from a test that decorrelates the properties in the mock construction.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (5.6)] The integrand in Eq. (5.6) appears to have a typesetting error: the expression should be P_{XX,2}(k) = (1/2) integral_{-1}^{1} (3 mu^2 - 1) [b_X^2 P_m + 2 mu^2 b_X f P_m + mu^4 f^2 P_m] (1 + k^2 mu^2 sigma_p^2 / 2)^{-2} d mu, but the printed formula has a misplaced "1 2" and an unbalanced parenthesis.
  2. [Abstract; Section 7] The abstract quotes "up to ~O(10)%" while Section 7 says "up to ~30%" above the galaxy bias; please harmonize the quantitative statement so that the abstract and conclusion report the same range.
  3. [Figures 9-11] In Figures 9-11, the line styles and colors are described in captions, but some panels list parameter pairs without an explicit line-to-parameter mapping; in grayscale some curves may be indistinguishable. Please add explicit labels or a consistent legend in each panel.
  4. [Section 4.2.1, Eq. (4.8)] The low-mass branch of Eq. (4.8) is defined from log(M*) = 7, but the SDSS DR7 sample is incomplete below roughly 10^9-10^10 M_sun (Section 3.2). If this branch is intended purely as a normalization convention below the completeness limit, state this explicitly.
  5. [Appendix B] The null test uses T_obs = 900 and 140 years for the two redshift bins, giving 6% selection; the paper says that too large a T_obs would bias the mean galaxy properties. A brief statement of how the 6% value was chosen and how sensitive the conclusions are to this choice would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the GW bias sensitivity ranking is a forward-model output, not an input, and is explicitly qualified as model-dependent.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is forward: it takes SDSS DR7 galaxy properties, defines a factorized broken-power-law host probability (Eqs. 4.7–4.10), populates mock GW catalogs, measures the 3D power spectrum with pypower, and fits b_GW from a Kaiser+FoG model. The host-probability parameters are varied inputs; b_GW is not fitted to reproduce them, and no target ranking is imposed. The conclusion that b_GW is most sensitive to M*, then SFR, then Z (Section 6.2.3) is a computed output of these mocks and is explicitly confined to 'within the M*–Z–SFR model'. The abstract itself cautions that 'the resulting trends should be regarded as model-dependent', and the paper identifies survey incompleteness and the narrow metallicity range as drivers of the observed insensitivity. Self-citations to the authors' prior work [28] provide a comparison point and a shared M*-only framework, but they are not used to justify the new three-dimensional ranking; that ranking is derived from new mock power spectra. The factorization ansatz is a modeling assumption whose robustness is not tested against non-factorized forms, but that is a limitation or correctness caveat, not a circular reduction: no equation defines the sensitivity ranking in terms of the ansatz, and no host-probability parameter is fitted to the measured bias. Therefore the paper is self-contained against the enumerated circularity patterns, and the appropriate verdict is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger counts the parameters and assumptions the central sensitivity claim rests on. The host probability parameters (M_K, SFR_K, Z_K, and the slope pairs) are scanned by hand rather than fitted, so they are free inputs that shape every b_GW value in the paper. The factorization and broken power law forms are ad hoc modeling assumptions the paper itself flags as the source of model dependence. Several cosmological and RSD assumptions (linear bias, Kaiser plus Finger-of-God model) are standard in the field. No new physical entities are introduced; the host galaxy probability function is a statistical construct, not a new force, particle, or conserved quantity.

free parameters (9)
  • M_K (stellar mass pivot) = scanned 10^9 to 10^12 M_sun
    Turnover mass of the broken power law in Eq. (4.8); the central b_GW versus M_K trend is defined by this scan (Section 6.2.1).
  • delta_l and delta_h (M* slopes) = delta_l in [0.5,10], delta_h in [0.5,4.5]
    Slopes below and above M_K that set how sharply the selection prefers massive galaxies; changing them shifts b_GW by up to several percent (Figures 9 and 10).
  • SFR_K (SFR pivot) = scanned 10^-2 to 10^2 M_sun/yr
    Turnover of the SFR broken power law in Eq. (4.9); the SFR sensitivity result is parameterized by this pivot (Figure 11).
  • epsilon_l and epsilon_h (SFR slopes) = epsilon_l in [0.5,10], epsilon_h in {1, infinity}
    Selection strength below and above SFR_K; epsilon_h = infinity corresponds to flat selection on the high side.
  • Z_K (metallicity pivot) = scanned 0.01 to 0.3
    Turnover of the metallicity broken power law in Eq. (4.10); the null result for metallicity is established across this scan (Figure 12).
  • zeta_l and zeta_h (Z slopes) = scanned [0.5,10]
    Metallicity selection strengths; the paper reports the bias is insensitive to them.
  • sigma_p (Finger-of-God velocity dispersion) = fitted and marginalized
    Free parameter in the redshift-space power spectrum model of Eq. (5.4), varied together with b_X in the likelihood (Section 5.2).
  • T_obs (effective observing time) = 900 yr (bin 1), 140 yr (bin 2)
    Chosen so 6 percent of galaxies become sirens (Table 1); it changes shot noise and the FKP-weight offset in the null test, not the bias value in the paper's argument.
  • kappa and t_d,min (delay time parameters) = kappa = 1, t_d,min = 500 Myr
    Fixed by hand in Section 4.1; the paper argues they only set merger counts and do not change b_GW.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Linear, constant bias: delta_X = b_X delta_m on scales up to k = 0.5 h/Mpc
    Eqs. (2.2) and (2.4); the paper does not test scale dependence because the empirical RSD model breaks down on small scales (footnote 1).
  • domain assumption Kaiser plus Finger-of-God redshift-space distortion model
    Eq. (5.4); a standard but approximate treatment of RSD, with sigma_p free.
  • ad hoc to paper Joint host probability factorizes as P(GW|M*) P(GW|SFR) P(GW|Z)
    Eq. (4.7); the central ansatz, with the paper acknowledging expected degeneracies because the three properties are correlated in the data.
  • ad hoc to paper Broken power law shapes for the three host probabilities
    Eqs. (4.8) to (4.10); motivated by quenching and delay time physics, but the exact shapes and parameter ranges are chosen by the authors.
  • domain assumption BBH merger rate density from the Madau cosmic SFR convolved with a power law delay time distribution
    Eqs. (4.1) to (4.3), taken from cited literature; affects only the mock sample size in this framework.
  • ad hoc to paper Stellar mass completeness threshold scales as inverse luminosity distance squared
    Section 3.2; used to identify the low-M_K plateau as an observational completeness effect and to interpret the redshift dependence of b_GW.
  • domain assumption Present-day observed SFR and metallicity are the relevant host properties at merger time
    Used throughout; explicitly acknowledged as a limitation in Appendix C, where Eq. (C.7) assumes metallicity does not evolve between formation and merger.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modeling Gravitational Wave Bias from 3D Power Spectra of Spectroscopic Surveys." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBJJOXDZ

@misc{pith2026250611201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modeling Gravitational Wave Bias from 3D Power Spectra of Spectroscopic Surveys},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBJJOXDZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11201}
}
abstract

We present a framework for relating gravitational wave (GW) sources to the astrophysical properties of spectroscopic galaxy samples. We show how this can enable using clustering measurements of GW sources to infer the relationship between the GW sources and the astrophysical properties of their host galaxies. We accomplish this by creating mock GW catalogs from the spectroscopic Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR7 galaxy survey. We populate the GWs using a joint host-galaxy probability function defined over stellar mass, star formation rate (SFR), and metallicity. This probability is modeled as the product of three broken power-law distributions, each with a turnover point motivated by astrophysical processes governing the relation between current-day galaxy properties and binary black hole (BBH) mergers, such as galaxy quenching and BBH delay time. Given that our analysis is anchored in the specific properties and selection characteristics of the adopted galaxy sample, as well as assumptions regarding the host-galaxy probability functions and BBH merger rate prescriptions, the resulting trends should be regarded as model-dependent. Within this framework, our results show that GW bias is most sensitive to host-galaxy probability dependence on stellar mass, with increases of up to $\sim O (10)\%$ relative to galaxy bias as the stellar mass pivot scale rises. We also find a notable relationship between GW bias and SFR: when the host-galaxy probability favors low-SFR galaxies, the GW bias significantly increases. In contrast, we observe no strong correlation between GW bias and metallicity. These findings suggest that the spatial clustering of GW sources is primarily driven by the stellar mass and SFR of their host galaxies and shows how GW bias measurements can inform models of the host-galaxy probability function.

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Controlling polymerization-induced phase separation in the synthesis of porous gels

    cond-mat.soft 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Phase separation during gel polymerization occurs when precursor concentration is below the overlap concentration, with solvent quality controlling pore size.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

123 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [13]

    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

  2. [14]

    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]. – 36 – [15]LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTERcollaboration,A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the...

    arXiv 2016

  3. [16]

    H.-Y. Chen, M. Fishbach and D.E. Holz,A two per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within five years,Nature562(2018) 545 [1712.06531]. [17]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]

    arXiv 2018

  4. [18]

    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. [19]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 ...

    arXiv 2019

  5. [20]

    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]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [21]

    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]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [22]

    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

  8. [23]

    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

Show all 123 references
  1. [24]

    Artale, M

    M.C. Artale, M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, N. Giacobbo, M. Pasquato and M. Spera,Mass and star formation rate of the host galaxies of compact binary mergers across cosmic time, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society491(2019) 3419–3434

    2019

  2. [25]

    DiCarlo, M

    U.N. DiCarlo, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, M. Spera, Y. Bouffanais, S. Rastello et al.,Binary black holes in young star clusters: the impact of metallicity,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society498(2020) 495–506

    2020

  3. [26]

    Santoliquido, M

    F. Santoliquido, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, Y. Bouffanais and M.C. Artale,The cosmic merger rate density of compact objects: impact of star formation, metallicity, initial mass function, and binary evolution,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502(2021) 4877–4889

    2021

  4. [27]

    Vitale, W.M

    S. Vitale, W.M. Farr, K.K.Y. Ng and C.L. Rodriguez,Measuring the star formation rate with gravitational waves from binary black holes,The Astrophysical Journal Letters886(2019) L1

    2019

  5. [28]

    Dehghani, J.L

    A. Dehghani, J.L. Kim, D.S. Hosseini, A. Krolewski, S. Mukherjee and G. Geshnizjani,The gravitational wave bias parameter from angular power spectra: Bridging between galaxies and binary black holes,2411.11965

    arXiv

  6. [29]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society506(2021) 3751–3759

    2021

  7. [30]

    Mukherjee and J

    S. Mukherjee and J. Silk,Time-dependence of the astrophysical stochastic gravitational wave background,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society491(2020) 4690 [1912.07657]

    2020 arXiv

  8. [31]

    Gunn and J.R

    J.E. Gunn and J.R. Gott, III,On the Infall of Matter Into Clusters of Galaxies and Some Effects on Their Evolution,Astrophys. J.176(1972) 1. – 37 –

    1972

  9. [32]

    Sheth, H.J

    R.K. Sheth, H.J. Mo and G. Tormen,Ellipsoidal collapse and an improved model for the number and spatial distribution of dark matter haloes,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society323(2001) 1 [astro-ph/9907024]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [33]

    Bardeen, J.R

    J.M. Bardeen, J.R. Bond, N. Kaiser and A.S. Szalay,The Statistics of Peaks of Gaussian Random Fields,Astrophys. J.304(1986) 15

    1986

  11. [34]

    Mo and S.D.M

    H.J. Mo and S.D.M. White,An analytic model for the spatial clustering of dark matter haloes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society282(1996) 347 [astro-ph/9512127]

    1996 arXiv

  12. [35]

    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,The Astrophysical Journal724(2010) 878–886

    2010

  13. [36]

    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

  14. [37]

    Benson and R

    A.J. Benson and R. Bower,Galaxy formation spanning cosmic history: Galaxy formation spanning cosmic history,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society(2010) no

    2010

  15. [38]

    Rees and J.P

    M.J. Rees and J.P. Ostriker,Cooling, dynamics and fragmentation of massive gas clouds: clues to the masses and radii of galaxies and clusters.,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society179(1977) 541

    1977

  16. [39]

    Kauffmann, S.D.M

    G. Kauffmann, S.D.M. White and B. Guiderdoni,The formation and evolution of galaxies within merging dark matter haloes.,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society264 (1993) 201

    1993

  17. [40]

    S. Cole, A. Aragon-Salamanca, C.S. Frenk, J.F. Navarro and S.E. Zepf,A recipe for galaxy formation.,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society271(1994) 781 [astro-ph/9402001]

    1994 arXiv

  18. [41]

    Benson, S

    A.J. Benson, S. Cole, C.S. Frenk, C.M. Baugh and C.G. Lacey,The Nature of galaxy bias and clustering,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society311(2000) 793 [astro-ph/9903343]

    2000 arXiv

  19. [42]

    Sheth and G

    R.K. Sheth and G. Tormen,Large scale bias and the peak background split,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society308(1999) 119 [astro-ph/9901122]

    1999 arXiv

  20. [43]

    Cole, C.G

    S. Cole, C.G. Lacey, C.M. Baugh and C.S. Frenk,Hierarchical galaxy formation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society319(2000) 168 [astro-ph/0007281]

    2000 arXiv

  21. [44]

    Peacock and R.E

    J.A. Peacock and R.E. Smith,Halo occupation numbers and galaxy bias,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society318(2000) 1144 [astro-ph/0005010]

    2000 arXiv

  22. [45]

    Vale and J.P

    A. Vale and J.P. Ostriker,Linking halo mass to galaxy luminosity,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society353(2004) 189 [astro-ph/0402500]

    2004 arXiv

  23. [46]

    Gao and S.D.M

    L. Gao and S.D.M. White,Assembly bias in the clustering of dark matter haloes,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society377(2007) L5 [astro-ph/0611921]

    2007 arXiv

  24. [47]

    Croton, L

    D.J. Croton, L. Gao and S.D.M. White,Halo assembly bias and its effects on galaxy clustering,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society374(2007) 1303 [astro-ph/0605636]

    2007 arXiv

  25. [48]

    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

  26. [49]

    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

  27. [50]

    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]. – 38 –

    2013 arXiv

  28. [51]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society488(2019) 3143 [1806.07893]

    2019 arXiv

  29. [52]

    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,The Astrophysical Journal572(2002) 407–431

    2002

  30. [53]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society490(2019) 3740 [1906.08136]

    2019 arXiv

  31. [54]

    O’Shaughnessy, V

    R. O’Shaughnessy, V. Kalogera and K. Belczynski,Binary compact object coalescence rates: The role of elliptical galaxies,The Astrophysical Journal716(2010) 615–633

    2010

  32. [55]

    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

  33. [56]

    Mapelli, N

    M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, E. Ripamonti and M. Spera,The cosmic merger rate of stellar black hole binaries from the illustris simulation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 472(2017) 2422–2435

    2017

  34. [57]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society474(2018) 2959 [1711.03556]

    2018 arXiv

  35. [58]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society474(2018) 4997 [1711.09190]

    2018 arXiv

  36. [59]

    Fishbach, D.E

    M. Fishbach, D.E. Holz and W.M. Farr,Does the black hole merger rate evolve with redshift?, The Astrophysical Journal Letters863(2018) L41

    2018

  37. [60]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society516(2022) 3297–3317

    2022

  38. [61]

    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

  39. [62]

    Toffano, M

    M. Toffano, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, M.C. Artale and G. Ghirlanda,The host galaxies of double compact objects across cosmic time,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 489(2019) 4622–4631

    2019

  40. [63]

    McCarthy, Z

    K.S. McCarthy, Z. Zheng and E. Ramirez-Ruiz,Constraining delay time distribution of binary neutron star mergers from host galaxy properties,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society499(2020) 5220–5229

    2020

  41. [64]

    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

  42. [65]

    Gerosa and E

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti,Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?,prd95(2017) 124046 [1703.06223]

    2017 arXiv

  43. [66]

    Y. Yang, I. Bartos, V. Gayathri, K.E.S. Ford, Z. Haiman, S. Klimenko et al.,Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in Active Galactic Nuclei,prl123(2019) 181101 [1906.09281]

    2019 arXiv

  44. [67]

    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,apj893(2020) 35 [1911.04424]. – 39 –

    2020 arXiv

  45. [68]

    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

  46. [69]

    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

  47. [70]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society494(2020) 1956 [1908.08951]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [71]

    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

  49. [72]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society502(2021) 1136 [2012.15316]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [73]

    Scelfo, L

    G. Scelfo, L. Boco, A. Lapi and M. Viel,Exploring galaxies-gravitational waves cross-correlations as an astrophysical probe,JCAP10(2020) 045 [2007.08534]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [74]

    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 Physics2021(2021) 035–035

    2021

  52. [75]

    Diaz and S

    C.C. Diaz and S. Mukherjee,Mapping the cosmic expansion history from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA in synergy with DESI and SPHEREx,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society511(2022) 2782 [2107.12787]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [76]

    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

  54. [77]

    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

  55. [78]

    Iacovelli, M

    F. Iacovelli, M. Mancarella, S. Foffa and M. Maggiore,Forecasting the detection capabilities of third-generation gravitational-wave detectors using gwfast,The Astrophysical Journal941 (2022) 208

    2022

  56. [79]

    S. Hild, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, P. Amaro-Seoane, N. Andersson, K. Arun et al., Sensitivity studies for third-generation gravitational wave observatories,Classical and Quantum Gravity28(2011) 094013

    2011

  57. [80]

    Abbott, R

    B.P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T.D. Abbott, M.R. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams et al., Exploring the sensitivity of next generation gravitational wave detectors,Classical and Quantum Gravity34(2017) 044001

    2017

  58. [81]

    Maggiore, C.V.D

    M. Maggiore, C.V.D. Broeck, N. Bartolo, E. Belgacem, D. Bertacca, M.A. Bizouard et al., Science case for the einstein telescope,Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2020 (2020) 050–050

    2020

  59. [82]

    Desjacques, D

    V. Desjacques, D. Jeong and F. Schmidt,Large-scale galaxy bias,Physics Reports733(2018) 1–193

    2018

  60. [83]

    Sales, A

    L.V. Sales, A. Wetzel and A. Fattahi,Baryonic solutions and challenges for cosmological models of dwarf galaxies,Nature Astronomy6(2022) 897 [2206.05295]

    2022 arXiv

  61. [84]

    Nagamine,Feedback models in galaxy simulations and probing their impact by cosmological hydrodynamic simulations,Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union17(2021) 283–292

    K. Nagamine,Feedback models in galaxy simulations and probing their impact by cosmological hydrodynamic simulations,Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union17(2021) 283–292. – 40 –

    2021

  62. [85]

    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

  63. [86]

    J.E. Gunn, M. Carr, C. Rockosi, M. Sekiguchi, K. Berry, B. Elms et al.,The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Photometric Camera,The Astronomical Journal116(1998) 3040 [astro-ph/9809085]

    1998 arXiv

  64. [87]

    Gunn, W.A

    J.E. Gunn, W.A. Siegmund, E.J. Mannery, R.E. Owen, C.L. Hull, R.F. Leger et al.,The 2.5 m Telescope of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,The Astronomical Journal131(2006) 2332 [astro-ph/0602326]

    2006 arXiv

  65. [88]

    Padmanabhan, D.J

    N. Padmanabhan, D.J. Schlegel, D.P. Finkbeiner, J.C. Barentine, M.R. Blanton, H.J. Brewington et al.,An Improved Photometric Calibration of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Imaging Data,Astrophys. J.674(2008) 1217 [astro-ph/0703454]

    2008 arXiv

  66. [89]

    Abazajian, J.K

    K.N. Abazajian, J.K. Adelman-McCarthy, M.A. Agüeros, S.S. Allam, C. Allende Prieto, D. An et al.,The Seventh Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,Astrophys. J. Suppl. 182(2009) 543 [0812.0649]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [90]

    Strauss, D.H

    M.A. Strauss, D.H. Weinberg, R.H. Lupton, V.K. Narayanan, J. Annis, M. Bernardi et al., Spectroscopic Target Selection in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey: The Main Galaxy Sample,The Astronomical Journal124(2002) 1810 [astro-ph/0206225]

    2002 arXiv

  68. [91]

    Schlegel, D.P

    D.J. Schlegel, D.P. Finkbeiner and M. Davis,Maps of dust infrared emission for use in estimation of reddening and cosmic microwave background radiation foregrounds,The Astrophysical Journal500(1998) 525–553

    1998

  69. [92]

    Blanton, D.J

    M.R. Blanton, D.J. Schlegel, M.A. Strauss, J. Brinkmann, D. Finkbeiner, M. Fukugita et al., New York University Value-Added Galaxy Catalog: A Galaxy Catalog Based on New Public Surveys,The Astronomical Journal129(2005) 2562 [astro-ph/0410166]

    2005 arXiv

  70. [93]

    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

  71. [94]

    Blanton and S

    M.R. Blanton and S. Roweis,K-corrections and filter transformations in the ultraviolet, optical, and near infrared,Astron. J.133(2007) 734 [astro-ph/0606170]

    2007 arXiv

  72. [95]

    Aghanim, Y

    N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini et al., Planck2018 results: Vi. cosmological parameters,Astronomy and Astrophysics641(2020) A6

    2020

  73. [96]

    Weigel, K

    A.K. Weigel, K. Schawinski and C. Bruderer,Stellar mass functions: methods, systematics and results for the local Universe,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society459 (2016) 2150 [1604.00008]

    2016 arXiv

  74. [97]

    Chang, A

    Y.-Y. Chang, A. van der Wel, E. da Cunha and H.-W. Rix,Stellar Masses and Star Formation Rates for 1M Galaxies from SDSS+WISE,Astrophys. J. Suppl.219(2015) 8 [1506.00648]

    2015 arXiv

  75. [98]

    Dominik, K

    M. Dominik, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D.E. Holz, E. Berti, T. Bulik et al.,Double compact objects. i. the significance of the common envelope on merger rates,The Astrophysical Journal 759(2012) 52

    2012

  76. [99]

    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,The Astrophysical Journal806(2015) 263

    2015

  77. [100]

    Madau,Cosmic star formation history,AIP Conf

    P. Madau,Cosmic star formation history,AIP Conf. Proc.393(1997) 481 [astro-ph/9612157]. [101]LIGO Scientific, Virgocollaboration,GW190425: Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with Total Mass∼3.4M⊙,Astrophys. J. Lett.892(2020) L3 [2001.01761]. – 41 –

    1997 arXiv

  78. [102]

    Banerjee, H

    S. Banerjee, H. Baumgardt and P. Kroupa,Stellar-mass black holes in star clusters: implications for gravitational wave radiation,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society402(2010) 371 [0910.3954]

    2010 arXiv

  79. [103]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi et al.,Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters,Astron. Astrophys.641(2020) A6 [1807.06209]

    2020 arXiv

  80. [104]

    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

  81. [105]

    Vijaykumar, M

    A. Vijaykumar, M. Fishbach, S. Adhikari and D.E. Holz,Inferring host galaxy properties of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA’s black holes,arXiv e-prints(2023) arXiv:2312.03316 [2312.03316]

    2023 arXiv

  82. [106]

    L. Rauf, C. Howlett, T.M. Davis and C.D.P. Lagos,Exploring binary black hole mergers and host galaxies with SHARK and COMPAS,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 523(2023) 5719 [2302.08172]

    2023 arXiv

  83. [107]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society530(2024) 1129 [2305.18003]

    2024 arXiv

  84. [108]

    Artale, M

    M.C. Artale, M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, N.B. Sabha, M. Spera, F. Santoliquido et al.,Host galaxies of merging compact objects: mass, star formation rate, metallicity, and colours, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society487(2019) 1675–1688

    2019

  85. [109]

    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,The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series173 (2007) 267–292

    2007

  86. [110]

    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,The Astrophysical Journal721(2010) 193–221

    2010

  87. [111]

    Fishbach and V

    M. Fishbach and V. Kalogera,The time delay distribution and formation metallicity of ligo-virgo’s binary black holes,The Astrophysical Journal Letters914(2021) L30

    2021

  88. [112]

    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, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society482(2018) 5012–5017

    2018

  89. [113]

    L. Rauf, C. Howlett, T.M. Davis and C.D.P. Lagos,Exploring binary black hole mergers and host galaxies with<scp>shark</scp>and compas,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society523(2023) 5719–5737

    2023

  90. [114]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society408(2010) 2115 [1005.0006]

    2010 arXiv

  91. [115]

    Beutler and P

    F. Beutler and P. McDonald,Unified galaxy power spectrum measurements from 6dFGS, BOSS, and eBOSS,JCAP2021(2021) 031 [2106.06324]

    2021 arXiv

  92. [116]

    N. Hand, Y. Li, Z. Slepian and U. Seljak,An optimal FFT-based anisotropic power spectrum estimator,JCAP2017(2017) 002 [1704.02357]

    2017 arXiv

  93. [117]

    Yamamoto, M

    K. Yamamoto, M. Nakamichi, A. Kamino, B.A. Bassett and H. Nishioka,A Measurement of the Quadrupole Power Spectrum in the Clustering of the 2dF QSO Survey,pasj58(2006) 93 [astro-ph/0505115]

    2006 arXiv

  94. [118]

    Feldman, N

    H.A. Feldman, N. Kaiser and J.A. Peacock,Power-spectrum analysis of three-dimensional redshift surveys,The Astrophysical Journal426(1994) 23. – 42 –

    1994

  95. [119]

    Jing,Correcting for the Alias Effect When Measuring the Power Spectrum Using a Fast Fourier Transform,Astrophys

    Y.P. Jing,Correcting for the Alias Effect When Measuring the Power Spectrum Using a Fast Fourier Transform,Astrophys. J.620(2005) 559 [astro-ph/0409240]

    2005 arXiv

  96. [120]

    Sefusatti, M

    E. Sefusatti, M. Crocce, R. Scoccimarro and H.M.P. Couchman,Accurate estimators of correlation functions in Fourier space,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society460 (2016) 3624 [1512.07295]

    2016 arXiv

  97. [121]

    N. Hand, Y. Feng, F. Beutler, Y. Li, C. Modi, U. Seljak et al.,nbodykit: An Open-source, Massively Parallel Toolkit for Large-scale Structure,The Astronomical Journal156(2018) 160 [1712.05834]

    2018 arXiv

  98. [122]

    Wadekar and R

    D. Wadekar and R. Scoccimarro,Galaxy power spectrum multipoles covariance in perturbation theory,Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 123517 [1910.02914]

    2020 arXiv

  99. [123]

    Analytical covariance matrices of desi galaxy power spectrum multipoles

    O. Alves and DESI Collaboration, “Analytical covariance matrices of desi galaxy power spectrum multipoles.” 2024

    2024

  100. [124]

    Jackson,Fingers of God: A critique of Rees’ theory of primoridal gravitational radiation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society156(1972) 1P [0810.3908]

    J.C. Jackson,Fingers of God: A critique of Rees’ theory of primoridal gravitational radiation, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society156(1972) 1P [0810.3908]

    1972 arXiv

  101. [125]

    Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society227(1987) 1

    N. Kaiser,Clustering in real space and in redshift space,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society227(1987) 1

    1987

  102. [126]

    Percival,Large Scale Structure Observations,1312.5490

    W.J. Percival,Large Scale Structure Observations,1312.5490

    arXiv

  103. [127]

    A.J. Ross, F. Beutler, C.-H. Chuang, M. Pellejero-Ibanez, H.-J. Seo, M. Vargas-Magaña et al., The clustering of galaxies in the completed sdss-iii baryon oscillation spectroscopic survey: observational systematics and baryon acoustic oscillations in the correlation function,Mo...

    2016

  104. [128]

    Howlett, A.J

    C. Howlett, A.J. Ross, L. Samushia, W.J. Percival and M. Manera,The clustering of the sdss main galaxy sample – ii. mock galaxy catalogues and a measurement of the growth of structure from redshift space distortions at z = 0.15,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society...

    2015

  105. [129]

    Thanjavur, L

    K. Thanjavur, L. Simard, A.F.L. Bluck and T. Mendel,Stellar mass functions of galaxies, discs and spheroids atz∼0.1,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society459(2016) 44–69

    2016

  106. [130]

    Zazzera, J

    S. Zazzera, J. Fonseca, T. Baker and C. Clarkson,Exploring future synergies for large-scale structure between gravitational waves and radio sources,2505.15645

  107. [131]

    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

  108. [132]

    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

  109. [133]

    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,apj935(2022) 167 [2206.14220]

    2022 arXiv

  110. [134]

    Kroupa,On the variation of the initial mass function,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society322(2001) 231 [astro-ph/0009005]

    P. Kroupa,On the variation of the initial mass function,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society322(2001) 231 [astro-ph/0009005]

    2001 arXiv

  111. [135]

    McClintock and R.A

    J.E. McClintock and R.A. Remillard,Black hole binaries,astro-ph/0306213

    arXiv

  112. [136]

    Rakavy and G

    G. Rakavy and G. Shaviv,Instabilities in Highly Evolved Stellar Models,Astrophys. J.148 (1967) 803. – 43 –

    1967

  113. [137]

    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,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society523(2023) 4539 [2204.13495]

    2023 arXiv

  114. [138]

    S. Mukherjee,The redshift dependence of black hole mass distribution: is it reliable for standard sirens cosmology?,Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society515(2022) 5495 [2112.10256]

    2022 arXiv

  115. [139]

    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]. – 44 –

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.