Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

A systematic study of binary neutron star merger rate density history using simulated gravitational wave and short gamma-ray burst observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper forecasts that a near-term combination of roughly eight gravitational-wave detections and 571 short gamma-ray bursts can measure the binary neutron star merger rate density to about 50% between $z=0$ and $z=1$, and constrain…

desk verdict Useful injection-recovery forecast with a genuinely new parameter, but the accuracy numbers are model-conditional and the R_n bias is unaddressed. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.04019 v1 pith:ILWMHBN3 submitted 2025-07-05 astro-ph.HE

Yun-Fei Du , Emre Seyit Yorgancioglu , Shu-Xu Yi , Tian-Yong Cao , Shuang-Nan Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords binaryneutronstarmergersgravitationalwavesshortgamma-rayburstsmergerratedensitydelaytimedistributionFermi/GBMhierarchicalBayesianinferencer-processnucleosynthesis
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

Binary neutron star mergers can be observed in two ways: gravitational-wave chirps, which current ground-based detectors see only to $z\sim 0.1$, and short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs), which are visible to $z\sim 3$. This paper asks how precisely near-term observations of both channels can recover the cosmic BNS merger rate density history $R(z)$ together with $\eta$, the ratio of the jet-opening-angle-corrected sGRB rate density to the BNS merger rate density. Using simulated catalogs matched to two years of aLIGO-design data (8 GW events) and fifteen years of Fermi/GBM data (571 sGRBs), it claims a joint Bayesian analysis measures $R(z)$ to roughly 50% from $z=0$ to $z=1$ and $\eta$ to 45% relative uncertainty. With five years of GW data and twenty years of sGRB data (21 and 761 events), the claimed precision improves to about 26% on the local rate normalization, 28% on $\eta$, and roughly 35--40% on the rate density at $z=0$ and $z=1$. If these forecasts hold, they tell observers what accuracy is realistically within reach before third-generation detectors arrive, and they directly feed models of $r$-process heavy-element production from neutron-star mergers.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the joint likelihood $\mathcal{L}_{\rm GW}\times\mathcal{L}_{\rm sGRB}$, an inhomogeneous Poisson-process likelihood that multiplies per-event detection rates built from the detection fractions $\alpha_{\rm GW}(m_1,m_2,z)$ and $\alpha_{\rm sGRB}(\theta_c,z)$ and the neutron-star mass function $p(m_1)p(m_2)$. The rate density is parametrized as $R(z_m)=R_n\int_{z_m}^{\infty}\psi(z_f)P(z_m|z_f)\,dz_f$, with a Madau-Dickinson star-formation history $\psi$ and an exponential delay-time distribution $P$, so the inferred history can only change in normalization $R_n$ and width $\tau$. The parameter $\eta$, defined by $R_{\rm sGRB}=\eta R_{\rm BNS}$, enters through the sGRB likelihood and lets the analysis avoid assuming that every BNS merger produces a detectable jet. Redshift uncertainties are folded in by averaging the likelihood over lognormal resamplings of each source's redshift.

What would settle it

Run the pipeline on simulated catalogs drawn from a broken power-law delay-time distribution that lies outside the two-parameter family, and check whether the quoted 50% credible intervals actually cover the injected rate density from $z=0$ to $z=1$; systematically missing the injection would show the precision claim is an artifact of the assumed model shape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the unknown fraction of BNS mergers that produce detectable sGRBs does not have to be assumed away: by treating $\eta$ as a free hyperparameter in a joint inhomogeneous Poisson likelihood over gravitational-wave events and sGRBs, the two channels together constrain both the BNS merger rate density history and $\eta$ at once. Under the assumed population model---Madau-Dickinson star formation convolved with an exponential delay-time distribution, jet core angles of about 1--9 degrees, and a luminosity function with an exponential cutoff---the simulation yields posterior widths of roughly 50% for $R(z)$ at $z=0$ and $z=1$ with 8 GW events and 571 sGRBs, and constrains the characteristic delay time $\tau$ to about 18%. The authors also find that 50% redshift-estimation errors on the sGRB sample bias $\tau$ unless there are more than roughly 550 sGRBs, and that larger sGRB samples mainly tighten $\tau$ and $\eta$ while additional GW events mainly tighten $R_n$ and the low-redshift rate curve.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted accuracies assume the true merger rate history has the shape of a Madau-Dickinson star-formation history convolved with a single exponential delay-time distribution, so the recovered curve can only move up or down and widen or narrow; if the real history has a different shape, the numbers do not transfer.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With roughly 8 GW detections and 571 sGRBs, the BNS merger rate density can be measured to about 50% from $z=0$ to $z=1$, giving a first handle on the redshift evolution of heavy-element production by mergers.
  • Increasing the sGRB sample to 761 bursts mainly sharpens the constraints on the characteristic delay time $\tau$ and on $\eta$, while adding GW events (up to 42) mainly tightens the local rate normalization and the low-redshift curve.
  • A measured $\eta$ above roughly 2 would indicate that many sGRBs come from non-BNS processes such as black-hole-neutron-star mergers or collapsar-like events, while $\eta$ below 0.5 would indicate that many BNS mergers fail to produce sGRB jets.
  • At least about 550 sGRBs are needed to constrain $\tau$ without bias when sGRB redshifts carry 50% relative errors; smaller samples produce biased delay-time estimates.
  • GW-only catalogs cannot constrain $\eta$, so the joint analysis with sGRBs is the path to measuring this ratio.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The quoted 50% and 45% accuracies are conditional on the two-parameter family for $R(z)$; a real rate history with a slope break, a non-exponential delay-time distribution, or a star-formation tracer different from Madau-Dickinson would not be recovered with the same meaning for the posterior widths.
  • The same joint-likelihood machinery could be run with $\eta$ allowed to vary with redshift, which the paper keeps fixed; a redshift-dependent $\eta$ would break the simple proportionality between sGRB and GW rates and could change the reconstructed history.
  • A direct test is to regenerate the sGRB catalog under broken power-law or double-Gaussian jet structures, which the paper notes have wider wings and higher detectability of off-axis events, and to check how much the inferred $\eta$ shifts.
  • If real data reach the simulated sample sizes and the recovered $z=0$ rate disagrees with the local GW-only rate density beyond the quoted 50%, that disagreement would signal that the assumed shape of $R(z)$ is too rigid.
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. This paper presents a simulation-based forecast of how well the binary neutron star (BNS) merger rate density history R(z) and the ratio eta of the jet-opening-angle-corrected short gamma-ray burst (sGRB) rate density to the BNS merger rate density can be measured by combining gravitational-wave (GW) detections with aLIGO at design sensitivity and sGRB detections with Fermi/GBM. The authors generate synthetic GW and sGRB catalogs from a parametric population model where R(z) is given by a Madau-Dickinson star formation history convolved with an exponential delay-time distribution (Eqs. 2-4), with free parameters R_n (normalization) and tau (characteristic delay). The sGRB rate is related to the BNS rate by an additional free parameter eta (Eq. 22). They analyze the simulated catalogs with a Poisson-process likelihood (Eqs. 18, 21, 23) and Markov-chain Monte Carlo, recovering the parameters for five combinations of GW and sGRB observation durations. The central claim is that with about 8 GW detections and 571 sGRBs, the merger rate density can be measured to roughly 50% accuracy from z=0 to z=1, and eta to 45% relative uncertainty; larger samples improve these numbers. The paper also reports that roughly 550 sGRBs are needed to constrain tau given 50% redshift uncertainties.

Significance. If the forecast is robust, the paper demonstrates that near-term joint GW and sGRB observations can meaningfully constrain the redshift evolution of the BNS merger rate density, which is relevant for heavy-element nucleosynthesis and for understanding the connection between BNS mergers and sGRBs. The explicit inclusion of eta as a free parameter is a useful step beyond previous analyses that assume the sGRB rate equals the BNS merger rate. The likelihood construction is standard, and the injection-recovery framework provides an internally consistent check of the statistical method. However, as detailed in the major comments, the single-realization nature of the forecast, the systematic offset in the recovered R_n, and the unqualified model dependence of the headline accuracy numbers limit the generalizability of the quantitative claims without revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Table 2, Figure 5] The analysis uses a single simulated catalog per observing scenario. The quoted accuracies (50% for R_n, 45% for eta, etc.) are the widths of the posterior credible intervals from one Poisson realization. They do not include the sampling variance of these widths across independent realizations. For a forecast, the expected precision should be characterized by the distribution of posterior widths over many realizations (e.g., the median and scatter of the 68% interval widths). I recommend repeating the injection-recovery with at least ~100 realizations per scenario and reporting the median and spread of the recovered uncertainties, otherwise the headline accuracy numbers could be specific to the particular simulated catalog.
  2. [Table 2, Figure 3] In all five scenarios the recovered median R_n is below the injected value of 50 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 (e.g., 32.36 for 2 yr GW + 15 yr sGRB), while the recovered median eta is above the injected value of 1 (e.g., 1.585). The product R_n*eta is close to the injected value (about 51), which indicates a strong degeneracy between R_n and eta, visible in Figure 3. The paper reports the width of the marginal posterior as 'accuracy' but does not discuss this systematic offset. The offset may arise from the log-uniform prior on eta, the degeneracy, or a selection-effect modeling issue. The authors should investigate the origin of this bias, report the joint posterior in the R_n-eta plane, and discuss the implications for the claim that R_n can be measured with 50% accuracy.
  3. [Abstract, Section 4, Discussion] The headline accuracy numbers (50% at z=0-1, 35-40% for larger samples) are derived under the two-parameter model of Eqs. (2)-(4). Section 4 states that the model 'cannot reproduce alternative histories (e.g. different slope breaks)', and the Discussion acknowledges the model dependence, but the abstract and conclusions present the 50% accuracy as a general measurement capability. If the true rate history has a different shape (e.g., a broken power-law delay-time distribution or a redshift-dependent eta), the quoted accuracies would not transfer. I recommend either adding an explicit qualification to the abstract that the numbers are conditional on the assumed parametric family, or extending the analysis to test alternative rate shapes and show how the recovered accuracy and bias change. This is important because the paper's main message is the achievable measurement precision.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The derivative 'dt/dz' in the delay-time distribution is ambiguous; it should be labeled as dt_m/dz_m to indicate that it converts the merger-time distribution to redshift.
  2. [Section 2.2] There is a typo: 'simualted' should be 'simulated'.
  3. [Section 4 (after Table 1)] The sentence 'There exists a strong degeneracy' is vague; it would be clearer to specify which parameter pairs are degenerate (e.g., R_n and eta, tau and eta).
  4. [Table 2 and text] The definition of 'relative uncertainty' is not stated explicitly. It appears to be (upper error + lower error)/(2*median); this should be defined in the text or table caption.
  5. [Discussion (paragraph on eta)] The statement that 'detecting 42 BNS merger GW sources and 761 sGRBs would constrain the relative uncertainty of eta to approximately 25%' is inconsistent with Table 2, which yields about 23% for that scenario, based on the reported credible interval.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data are available upon request and points to the general GW-Universe Toolbox website, but it would be helpful to provide the specific scripts or a link to a repository for the simulation and analysis code used in this study.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Injection-recovery forecast; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and the model-family limitation is an acknowledged conditionality rather than a circular reduction.

full rationale

This paper is a simulation-based forecast, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs. The quoted accuracy numbers (about 50% for the merger rate density through z=0 to 1, and 45% for eta with 8 GWs and 571 sGRBs) are posterior widths obtained by Bayesian inference on simulated catalogs. The simulated events are generated from injected values (R_n = 50 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, tau = 3 Gyr, eta = 1), and the likelihood is then evaluated on those same catalogs. This is standard injection-recovery: the posterior widths measure how well the model parameters could be constrained if the model family is correct. They are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, nor is Eq. (2)-(4) defined in terms of the posterior output. The paper explicitly states the key limitation: 'By construction, our model yields a merger-rate curve of fixed shape, capable only of varying in width (via tau) and normalization (via R_n), and cannot reproduce alternative histories (e.g. different slope breaks).' This is model dependence, not circularity: the forecast would not transfer to out-of-family histories, but the internal derivation is self-consistent and does not rely on its own conclusion. The self-citations to Yi et al. (2022) and Du et al. (2024) provide open-source simulation tools and a structured Gaussian jet model; these are prior modeling choices, not unverified uniqueness theorems, and the jet-model dependence is openly discussed with alternative jet structures in Section 5. No specific equation-to-equation reduction or fitted-input-as-prediction step can be exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The forecast is conditional on three fitted hyperparameters (R_n, tau, eta), a hand-chosen redshift-error model, and a set of literature-derived modeling assumptions including the Madau-Dickinson SFR, exponential delay-time distribution, structured Gaussian jet, Fermi/GBM flux threshold, and Planck 2020 cosmology. The paper flags the most fragile assumptions itself: the fixed-shape rate model (Section 4), the sGRB redshift-completeness assumption (Section 2.2 and Discussion), and the jet structure (Section 5). No new physical entities are introduced; eta is a dimensionless ratio, not a new object.

free parameters (4)
  • R_n (merger rate normalization) = Injected 50 Gpc^-3 yr^-1; recovered medians 30.9 to 42.7 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Normalization of the merger rate density in equation (2) and the primary inference target; recovery is systematically low in all five scenarios of Table 2.
  • tau (characteristic delay time) = Injected 3 Gyr; recovered 3.19 to 4.26 Gyr
    Delay-time parameter in equation (4) that sets the shape of the rate history; the paper finds tau is biased when only 10 years of sGRB data are used with 50% redshift errors.
  • eta (sGRB-to-BNS rate ratio) = Injected 1; recovered 1.18 to 1.82
    Ratio defined in equation (22) and the paper's main new inference target; recovery accuracy ranges from 28% to 45% depending on the scenario.
  • sGRB redshift error magnitude and fraction = 50% relative error for 90% of sGRBs, 0% for the remaining 10%
    Hand-chosen redshift uncertainty model following Dainotti et al. (2024); the magnitude of this error drives the reported bias in tau and the conclusion that about 550 sGRBs are needed.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BNS merger rate density follows R(z_m) = R_n times the integral of the Madau-Dickinson star formation rate with an exponential delay-time distribution (equations 2 to 4).
    The entire forecast is conditional on this functional family; the paper itself notes in Section 4 that the model cannot reproduce alternative rate histories with different slope breaks.
  • domain assumption The ratio eta, the neutron star mass function, and the jet core angle distribution do not depend on redshift (Section 3).
    Stated in Section 3: 'there are assumptions that the neutron star mass function, sGRB jet's core angle, and eta do not depend on redshift.' If eta evolves with redshift, the inference target is mis-specified.
  • domain assumption The structured Gaussian jet model with the Salafia et al. (2023) luminosity function describes sGRB detectability (equations 6 to 12).
    The paper itself notes that broken power-law or double-Gaussian jets would change the detection probability and hence the forecasts (Section 5).
  • domain assumption sGRBs without measured redshifts have the same redshift distribution as sGRBs with measured redshifts (Section 2.2).
    The paper flags this as likely false in reality: nearby sGRBs are more likely to have measured redshifts, so the simulated high-z sGRB sample may be optimistic (Discussion).
  • domain assumption The GW detection fraction follows equation (19) of Yi et al. (2022), the luminosity-distance error is Delta D ~ D/rho (Cutler and Flanagan 1994), and the cosmology is Planck 2020.
    Tooling assumption: the GW catalog realism is inherited from the GW-Universe Toolbox, and the forecasts are only as good as this detector model and the chosen cosmology.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A systematic study of binary neutron star merger rate density history using simulated gravitational wave and short gamma-ray burst observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ILWMHBN3

@misc{pith2026250704019,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A systematic study of binary neutron star merger rate density history using simulated gravitational wave and short gamma-ray burst observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ILWMHBN3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.04019}
}
abstract

Measuring the merger rate density history of binary neutron stars (BNS) can greatly aid in understanding the history of heavy element formation in the Universe. Currently, second-generation Gravitational Wave (GW) detectors can only measure the BNS merger rate density history at low redshifts ($z$ $\sim$ 0.1). Short gamma-ray bursts (sGRBs) may trace the BNS merger to higher redshifts ($z$ $\sim$ 3). However, not all BNS mergers result in sGRBs, and it is not certain that all sGRBs originate from BNS mergers. In this study, we simultaneously utilize simulated BNS merger GW signals detected by the advanced LIGO design and sGRB signals detected by {\it Fermi}/GBM to constrain the BNS merger rate density history up to $z$ $\sim$ 3. The results indicate that with $\sim$ 8 GWs and 571 sGRBs, the BNS merger rate density can be measured with an accuracy of about 50\% through $z=0$ to $z=1$. The ratio of the jet opening angle-corrected sGRB event rate density to the BNS merger rate density, denoted as $\eta$, can be constrained to a relative uncertainty of 45\%. With $\sim$ 21 GWs and 761 sGRBs, the BNS merger rate density can be measured to approximately 35\% and 40\% at $z=0$ and $z=1$, respectively. Meanwhile, $\eta$ can be constrained to a relative uncertainty of 28\%. Additionally, in our parameterized simulation, we find that at least approximately $\sim$550 sGRBs are needed to constrain the characteristic delay time in the star formation rate model, given a relative error of 50\% in the estimated redshift.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.04019 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The BNS merger rate density as the function of redshift under different R𝑛 and 𝜏. 10 2 10 1 10 0 z 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Number GWs (20 yrs) sGRBs (20 yrs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The redshift histogram of the simulated GWs and sGRBs. The observation durations for both GWs and sGRBs are 20 years. The GW detector is aLIGO design and S/N threshold is 8. The GRB detector is Fermi/GBM. The total number of GWs and sGRBs are 75 and 761. (Cutler & Flanagan 1994), where 𝜌 represents the S/N of the GW. Consequently, in a low-redshift approximation, the redshift error of GWs, denoted as Δ𝑧GW, is approx… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The posterior distributions of log10R𝑛, log10𝜏, and log10𝜂. The grey dashed lines represent the injected values of the parameters used in the simulation. Upper Left: The simulation data consists of 2 years of GW data and 10 years of sGRB data or 2 years of GW data and 15 years of sGRB data. The dotted line represents the 2 years of GW data and 15 years of sGRB data. Upper Right: The simulation data consists of 2 yea… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The posterior distributions of log10R𝑛, log10𝜏, and log10𝜂. The simulation data consists of 2 years of GW data and 10 years of sGRB data. Left: The estimated redshift’s relative error of sGRB we used is 20% or 50%. The dashed line represents the 50% relative error. Rig…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The BNS merger rate density as the function of redshift for different observation durations. The solid red line represents the injected curve based on the parameters used in the simulation. The dashed red line represents the curve obtained using 2 years of GW observati…

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. Binary neutron stars in the next-generation era: Multi-messenger detection prospects and constraints on the equation of state, mass distribution, and cosmology

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

    With ET (and ET+CE), mock multi-messenger BNS catalogues yield ~40–500 EM counterparts per year and, under ideal recovery, constrain R1.4 to ~0.2 km and H0 to ~1 km s−1 Mpc−1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A 848, L12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  3. [3]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.091101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.120i1101A 120, 091101

    Abbott B. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.091101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PhRvL.120i1101A 120, 091101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.091101 2018

  4. [4]

    Abbott R., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/abe949 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...913L...7A 913, L7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abe949 2021

  5. [5]

    Abbott R., et al., 2023, @doi [Physical Review X] 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023PhRvX..13a1048A 13, 011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  6. [6]

    Ahumada T., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..917A 5, 917

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01428-7 2021

  7. [7]

    Aldowma T., Razzaque S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae535 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.2676A 529, 2676

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae535 2024

  8. [8]

    J., Sanglas A., Triantafyllou N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105l3522A 105, 123522

    Atal V., Blanco-Pillado J. J., Sanglas A., Triantafyllou N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123522 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PhRvD.105l3522A 105, 123522

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123522 2022

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Berger E., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081913-035926 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52...43B 52, 43

    2014 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Goldstein A., Pelassa V., Troja E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..110B 818, 110

    Burns E., Connaughton V., Zhang B.-B., Lien A., Briggs M. S., Goldstein A., Pelassa V., Troja E., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.3847/0004-637X/818/2/110 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...818..110B 818, 110

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    Chen Z.-C., Huang F., Huang Q.-G., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf581 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...871...97C 871, 97

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Chen M.-H., Li L.-X., Chen Q.-H., Hu R.-C., Liang E.-W., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae475 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.529.1154C 529, 1154

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    C \^o t \'e B., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaad67 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...99C 855, 99

    2018 doi

  6. [14]

    M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2668C 425, 2668

    Coward D. M., et al., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21604.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012MNRAS.425.2668C 425, 2668

    2012

  7. [15]

    E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhRvD..49.2658C 49, 2658

    Cutler C., Flanagan \'E . E., 1994, @doi [ ] 10.1103/PhysRevD.49.2658 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994PhRvD..49.2658C 49, 2658

    1994 doi

  8. [16]

    G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1aaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...22D 271, 22

    Dainotti M. G., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4365/ad1aaf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJS..271...22D 271, 22

    2024 doi

  9. [17]

    Deng C., Huang Y.-F., Xu F., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acaefd , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...943..126D 943, 126

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    F., Yorgancioglu E

    Du Y. F., Yorgancioglu E. S., Rao J. H., Kumar A., Yi S. X., Zhang S. N., Zhang S., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stae2261 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.534.2715D 534, 2715

    2024 doi

  11. [19]

    A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..102F 815, 102

    Fong W., Berger E., Margutti R., Zauderer B. A., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...815..102F 815, 102

    2015 doi

  12. [20]

    W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    Foreman-Mackey D., Hogg D. W., Lang D., Goodman J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1086/670067 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013PASP..125..306F 125, 306

    2013 doi

  13. [21]

    Goldstein A., et al., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..14G 848, L14

    2017 doi

  14. [22]

    Hayes L., et al., 2023, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5b7 , 954, 92

    2023 doi

  15. [23]

    Hendriks K., Yi S.-X., Nelemans G., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...672A..74H 672, A74

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Iacovelli F., Mancarella M., Foffa S., Maggiore M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9cd4 , 941, 208

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Lan L., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/accf93 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...949L...4L 949, L4

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    Madau P., Dickinson M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ARA&A..52..415M 52, 415

    2014 doi

  19. [27]

    Margutti R., Chornock R., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-112420-030742 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ARA&A..59..155M 59, 155

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    Mennekens N., Vanbeveren D., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322198 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014A&A...564A.134M 564, A134

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.561..355M 561, 355

    Mooley K. P., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-018-0486-3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Natur.561..355M 561, 355

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    arXiv:2410.13985

    Narendra A., et al., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2410.13985 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv241013985N p. arXiv:2410.13985

    2024 doi arXiv

  23. [31]

    E., Dietz A., Cavagli \`a M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..140P 767, 140

    Petrillo C. E., Dietz A., Cavagli \`a M., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/767/2/140 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013ApJ...767..140P 767, 140

    2013 doi

  24. [32]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...641A...1P 641, A1

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Punturo M., et al., 2010, @doi [Classical and Quantum Gravity] 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010CQGra..27s4002P 27, 194002

    2010 doi

  26. [34]

    M., Mohite S., Creighton J., Kapadia S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...37R 957, 37

    Ray A., Hernandez I. M., Mohite S., Creighton J., Kapadia S., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...957...37R 957, 37

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    Rouco Escorial A., et al., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/acf830 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...959...13R 959, 13

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    Safarzadeh M., Berger E., Ng K. K. Y., Chen H.-Y., Vitale S., Whittle C., Scannapieco E., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ab22be , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...878L..13S 878, L13

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

    Safarzadeh M., Biscoveanu S., Loeb A., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abb1af , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020ApJ...901..137S 901, 137

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    S., Ravasio M

    Salafia O. S., Ravasio M. E., Ghirlanda G., Mandel I., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202347298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A&A...680A..45S 680, A45

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    N., 1982, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApL....22..143S 22, 143

    Symbalisty E., Schramm D. N., 1982, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982ApL....22..143S 22, 143

    1982

  32. [40]

    T., Stoppa F., Rossi E

    Yi S.-X., Nelemans G., Brinkerink C., Kostrzewa-Rutkowska Z., Timmer S. T., Stoppa F., Rossi E. M., Portegies Zwart S. F., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202141634 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...663A.155Y 663, A155

    2022 doi

  33. [41]

    B., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01395-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..911Z 5, 911

    Zhang B. B., et al., 2021, @doi [Nature Astronomy] 10.1038/s41550-021-01395-z , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021NatAs...5..911Z 5, 911

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Alaryani O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-018-3449-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Ap&SS.363..223Z 363, 223

    Zitouni H., Guessoum N., AlQassimi K. M., Alaryani O., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s10509-018-3449-0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018Ap&SS.363..223Z 363, 223

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.