Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Mining the Alerts: A Preliminary Catalog of Compact Binaries from the Fourth Observing Run

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that public alerts from the fourth observing run are enough to estimate source-frame chirp masses for over 200 compact-binary candidates to about 20% accuracy, and to update local merger rates.

desk verdict Honest O4 alert-based catalog; rate table omits dominant model systematic. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08778 v1 pith:ZW3HHLXD submitted 2025-07-11 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Aleyna Akyüz , Alex Correia , Jada Garofalo , Keisi Kacanja , Vikas Jadhav Y , Labani Roy , Kanchan Soni , Hung Tan
show 2 more authors
Collin D. Capano Alexander H. Nitz
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavescompactbinarymergerschirpmassO4observingrunpublicalertsblackholesneutronstarmergerrates
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 shows that the low-latency public alerts issued during the fourth observing run carry enough information to assemble a working compact-binary catalog before the full data release. It reports more than 200 new merger candidates, mostly binary black holes, with source-frame chirp masses estimated to within about 20% at 90% confidence. Combining these estimates with earlier observations yields updated local merger rates: $56^{+99}_{-40}\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for the neutron-star chirp-mass window, $36^{+32}_{-20}\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for the neutron-star-black-hole window, and $19^{+4}_{-2}\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for heavier black holes. This matters because it is an early, independent census of the run's population, and it sharpens the known features of the black-hole mass spectrum while flagging loud events that can anchor detailed follow-up.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is a fitted map from chirp mass--the mass combination that controls how a binary's gravitational-wave frequency sweeps upward--to the signal amplitude a detector should see. The paper calibrates the Bayestar skymap's Bayes-factor signal-to-noise against the measured signal-to-noise of earlier events with correlation coefficient $r=0.993$, then fixes every other source property to a fiducial choice: equal component masses, zero spins, the skymap's most probable distance, and an effective inclination of about 0.6 radians. With those fixed, the expected signal-to-noise is a function of chirp mass alone, and the lower-mass root is selected by comparing the predicted localization with the observed skymap. A second, independent route inverts the source-classification probabilities produced by the low-latency search pipelines to obtain a chirp mass, and the two routes are cross-checked. For the rate estimates, a Monte Carlo simulation of the network's time-dependent sensitivity converts the observed sample into a surveyed time-volume, and counting statistics with a scale-invariant prior on the rate produce the reported posteriors.

What would settle it

Run full parameter estimation on a sample of the loudest O4 candidates and compare the resulting source-frame chirp masses with this paper's alert-derived estimates; if the median relative discrepancy exceeds the claimed 20% at 90% confidence for systems that are consistent with equal masses and no spin, the accuracy claim fails. A targeted variant is to take a mass-gap candidate that the nonspinning model could not fit and check whether a full, spin-allowing analysis moves its chirp mass back into the ordinary black-hole distribution.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a deterministic chain from public alert products to source-frame chirp mass is accurate enough for population work. The authors invert the classification-probability mapping of the low-latency search pipelines and fit each candidate's observed signal-to-noise ratio, derived from Bayestar skymaps, against the signal-to-noise expected from a nonspinning, equal-mass binary at the map's most probable distance and an effective inclination of about 0.6 radians. Validated against the prior-run catalog and the published measurement of GW230529, the procedure recovers chirp masses within 20% at 90% confidence. The resulting O4 catalog is broadly consistent with previous runs, continues to show peaks near $8\,M_\odot$ and $30\,M_\odot$, adds support for an intermediate feature near $13\,M_\odot$, and includes the exceptionally loud candidate GW250114 with network signal-to-noise near 80. Combining O4 with earlier runs yields local merger-rate estimates of $56^{+99}_{-40}$, $36^{+32}_{-20}$, and $19^{+4}_{-2}\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$ for the neutron-star, neutron-star-black-hole, and black-hole chirp-mass windows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that every source is an equal-mass, non-spinning binary seen at an effective inclination of about 0.6 radians at its most probable distance; if a source has significant rotation or very unequal component masses, the inferred chirp mass, the source classification, and the merger rates can all be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The O4 alert stream alone more than doubles the number of known binary black hole mergers, with over 200 candidates at a false-alarm rate below $10^{-7}\,\mathrm{Hz}$.
  • The source-frame chirp mass distribution continues to show peaks near $8\,M_\odot$ and $30\,M_\odot$, with additional support for an intermediate feature near $13\,M_\odot$.
  • Several candidates fall in the upper mass gap, the roughly $60$--$120\,M_\odot$ range where single-star collapse is not expected to produce black holes, and while some can be shifted back into the ordinary black-hole distribution by allowing spin, others remain inside the gap.
  • Updated local merger rates for the chirp-mass windows $[1,1.5]\,M_\odot$, $[1.5,3.5]\,M_\odot$, and $[3.5,100]\,M_\odot$ are $56^{+99}_{-40}$, $36^{+32}_{-20}$, and $19^{+4}_{-2}\,\mathrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, respectively.
  • The loud candidate GW250114, with network signal-to-noise near 80, is flagged as a target for precision measurements of spin precession and possible deviations from general relativity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same alert-mining pipeline could be run continuously through the rest of O4, turning the snapshot catalog into a live population monitor that tracks rate and mass-spectrum changes on timescales of weeks rather than years; the authors present a snapshot, not a monitoring service.
  • The mass-gap candidates that resist the nonspinning model are natural targets for early full parameter estimation, and a spin-aware version of the alert-based fit could flag them automatically; the authors show the spin-shifted estimates but do not automate the flag.
  • Replacing the fixed 0.6-radian inclination with an inclination informed by the width of the distance posterior, a route the paper floats as an improvement, is a direct way to test how much of the claimed 20% uncertainty is caused by that single assumption.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compiles compact-binary merger candidates from public GraceDB alerts during the fourth observing run (O4) through May 2025, estimating source-frame chirp masses from low-latency products: source-classification probabilities, BAYESTAR skymaps, and a BSN-to-SNR calibration against 4-OGC events. The authors validate the chirp-mass estimates against full parameter estimation for O1-O3 events, reporting agreement to within 20% at 90% confidence, and then combine the O4 sample with previous catalogs to produce non-parametric local merger-rate estimates for several chirp-mass bins (Table 2), including a BBH rate of 19.3^{+3.8}_{-2.1} Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1} for chirp masses in [3.5,100] M_sun.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this is a valuable early population preview: it demonstrates that low-latency public data products can be mined to build a catalog of hundreds of O4 candidates before the official end-of-run release, and it identifies high-SNR events such as GW250114 for follow-up. The paper ships analysis scripts and a data release, and it validates against an independent published event (GW230529), which are concrete strengths. The non-parametric rate methodology and the explicit discussion of the fiducial-model limitations are also useful. However, the rate estimates, which are a headline result, currently omit the dominant systematic uncertainty in the per-event mass estimates, so the quoted 90% intervals in Table 2 are not yet supported as population-level statements.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.1, Table 2] The rate calculation is stated to marginalize over statistical uncertainties in individual event mass estimates, but it does not propagate the 20% (90% confidence) systematic calibration uncertainty established in Section 2.3. Because the chirp-mass bins in Table 2 are populated using estimates that carry this systematic, including the mass-gap bin [50,100] with only seven events, a systematic shift near the calibration limit can move events across bin boundaries and change the rates by more than the quoted intervals. The reported intervals for 19.3^{+3.8}_{-2.1} and especially 0.015^{+0.014}_{-0.009} are therefore understated unless the calculation is rerun with the systematic included, for example by shifting all O4 chirp masses by the calibration envelope or by explicitly convolving the per-event systematic distributions into the Poisson rate calculation.
  2. [Section 4, Figure 4, Section 3.1] The spin model introduced for several mass-gap candidates is not fed back into the selection function or the rate calculation. Section 4 states that some candidates cannot be fit with the nonspinning, fixed-inclination model and that allowing chi_eff up to 0.5 moves their inferred chirp masses into agreement with the broader BBH distribution, while Section 3.1 computes the sensitive volume assuming the fiducial nonspinning, equal-mass, fixed-inclination model. This makes the upper-mass-gap rate estimate partially circular: a model choice changes which candidates survive in the sample, but the effective surveyed volume is not updated to reflect that choice. The rate for [50,100] M_sun in Table 2 should either be presented as conditional on the fiducial model, or the selection Monte Carlo should be rerun under the spin model used for those candidates.
  3. [Section 2.2, Section 2.3, Table 1] The per-event chirp-mass uncertainties reported in this work are statistical uncertainties derived from the distance posterior only; the dominant systematic from the effective-inclination assumption (0.6 radians at the MAP distance) and from the equal-mass/nonspinning assumption is not included in the quoted credible intervals. This is acknowledged in Section 2.3, but the paper should state explicitly that the uncertainties in Table 1 and in the catalog are conditional on the fiducial model and do not include the 20% systematic. Without this caveat, readers may interpret the tight intervals (e.g., 1.93^{+0.04}_{-0.05} M_sun for GW230529) as total uncertainties.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 2] The text reports a correlation coefficient r=0.993 for the BSN-to-SNR fit but does not give the fit parameters (slope and intercept) or the scatter; reporting these values would make the calibration reproducible.
  2. [Section 2.2] The statement that the lower-mass chirp-mass solution is 'visually consistent' with the observed localization region should be quantified; since this choice resolves a degeneracy in the mass estimate, a quantitative skymap-overlap measure would be more appropriate.
  3. [Table 1] The uncertainty formatting in the table is inconsistent; for example, entries such as '2.77+.04−.04' should use a uniform superscript/subscript convention and specify that these are 90% credible intervals.
  4. [References] The reference list appears to duplicate the journal reference for Abbott et al. 2017a and 2017b, both listed as Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101; please verify that the two entries correspond to distinct papers.
  5. [Figure 4] The color scale used for the spin-model points ('red to green') is not defined in the caption; please add a legend or color bar indicating the chi_eff value represented by each color.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the table of merger rates is a non-parametric count, not a fitted input, and the 4-OGC self-citation is a calibration check rather than a load-bearing assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The chirp-mass estimates are produced by two independent routes (inverting public source-classification probabilities and fitting a skymap-derived SNR to a chirp-mass curve), and the estimates are validated against published full-parameter-estimation values from the 4-OGC catalog and against the externally published LVK measurement of GW230529 (Abac et al. 2024), with agreement at the quoted 20%/90% level. The merger rates in Table 2 are a straightforward non-parametric count of candidates above a network SNR threshold divided by a Monte Carlo sensitive volume, with a Poisson likelihood and a Jeffreys prior on the rate; this is not a fit whose output is fed back as its input. The main same-group dependency is the use of the 4-OGC catalog (Nitz et al. 2023), which shares authors with the present paper, both for the BSN-to-SNR calibration (Fig. 2) and for the O1-O3 event set in the rate calculation. This is an empirical calibration against an independent, previously published catalog, and the paper additionally checks internal consistency between its two O4 estimation methods and against an external LVK result, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The manuscript itself flags the genuine limitations: Section 2.3 states that the fixed-inclination, equal-mass, nonspinning assumptions yield a 20% chirp-mass uncertainty at 90% confidence, with outliers attributed to high-spin and unequal-mass sources, and that this systematic is not propagated into the rate calculation; Section 3 notes that a post hoc spin model with effective spin up to 0.5 is needed to fit some mass-gap candidates, and that model is not fed into the selection function. These are statistical robustness concerns about the quoted 90% intervals, not circularity of the derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The main inputs are calibrated relationships and modeling assumptions rather than first-principles derivations; see free parameters and axioms.

free parameters (5)
  • effective inclination angle = ~0.6 radians
    Chosen from a prior amplitude consistency constraint; used to convert SNR into chirp mass for all events (Section 2.2).
  • mass ratio q = 1 (equal mass)
    Fixed to unity for all sources; not fitted, but a modeling choice that biases mass estimates for unequal-mass binaries.
  • component spins = 0 (nonspinning) or chi_eff up to 0.5 for special cases
    Nonspinning assumed for most sources; a spin model is used only for mass-gap candidates that cannot be fit otherwise (Section 3).
  • BSN-to-SNR calibration slope and intercept = Linear fit to ~40 O1-O3 events with correlation r=0.993
    Obtained by fitting BSN to measured SNR from 4-OGC; used to estimate SNR for all O4 candidates (Section 2.2, Fig. 2).
  • SNR threshold = 10
    Chosen to create a uniform event sample across pipelines with unspecified trial factors (Section 3.1).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The BAYESTAR skymap and BSN correctly represent the source's distance and signal amplitude
    Used in Section 2.2 to obtain SNR and distance for each candidate.
  • domain assumption The Villa-Ortega et al. (2022) mapping between source classification probabilities and source-frame chirp mass holds for O4 alerts
    Used in Section 2.1 to invert PyCBC Live and SPIIR probabilities.
  • domain assumption The population is uniformly distributed in luminosity volume (constant merger rate in comoving volume)
    Used in Section 3.1 to model the expected SNR distribution and selection effects; not constrained by the data here.
  • domain assumption Each detected event's true mass distribution can be represented by the sum of point estimates from individual observations
    Used in Section 3.1 following Nitz et al. (2023).
  • domain assumption The search pipelines' source classifications are computed under a prior uniform in source-frame component masses
    Inherited from Villa-Ortega et al. (2022); affects the inversion in Section 2.1.
  • standard math Poisson likelihood with Jeffreys prior for rate estimation
    Assumed in Section 3.1 for merger rate inference.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mining the Alerts: A Preliminary Catalog of Compact Binaries from the Fourth Observing Run." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZW3HHLXD

@misc{pith2026250708778,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mining the Alerts: A Preliminary Catalog of Compact Binaries from the Fourth Observing Run},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZW3HHLXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08778}
}
abstract

We present a preliminary catalog of compact binary merger candidates from the ongoing fourth observing run (O4) of Advanced LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA, based on an analysis of public alerts distributed through GraceDB as of May 2025. We developed and applied methods to estimate the source-frame chirp mass for each candidate by utilizing information from public data products, including source classification probabilities, sky localizations, and observatory status. Combining our O4 analysis with previous catalogs, we provide updated estimates for the local merger rate density. For sources with chirp mass characteristic of binary neutron stars ($[1, 1.5]\,M_\odot$), we find a rate of $56^{+99}_{-40}$ $\textrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}$. For systems in the expected neutron star--black hole chirp mass range ($[1.5, 3.5]\,M_\odot$), the rate is $36^{+32}_{-20}$ $\textrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}$, and for heavier binary black holes ($[3.5, 100]\,M_\odot$), we estimate a rate of $19^{+4}_{-2}$ $\textrm{Gpc}^{-3}\,\textrm{yr}^{-1}$. This work provides an early glimpse into the compact binary population being observed in O4; we identify a number of high-value candidates up to signal-to-noise $\sim 80$, which we expect to enable precision measurements in the future.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08778 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The number of compact binary merger observations as a function of observing time. For the first three observing runs (O1-O3) these are sourced from the 4-OGC catalog and for O4 they are sourced from the Gravitational-Wave Candidate Event Database (GraceDB) using a false alarm rate threshold of 10−7Hz (dashed) or 10−6Hz (dotted). The O1-O4 observing runs are shown (various colors). The O4 run is split into three part… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (Left) The signal-to-noise (SNR) of known gravitational-wave signals from the 4-OGC catalog compared to the Bayestar-derived BSN (orange). There is a nearly linear relationship between the SNR and √ 2 ∗ BSN; the correlation coefficient r = 0.993. The best fit line (green dashed) along with the 2-sigma standard deviation in the χ 2 fit to the data (blue) are shown. (Right) The distribution of signal-to-noise ratio fo… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The relative difference in chirp mass between the published values from full parameter estimation and our skymap-informed method (blue) and between our source and skymap derived methods (orange). Several outliers exist, which are associated with sources that prefer either a high spin component (positive outliers) or a highly unequal mass ratio (negative outliers). These are both cases where our model would be expect… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The population of observed compact binary mergers from O1-O4 through May 2025 as a function of source-frame chirp mass and SNR (left) or redshift z (right). Observations from O1-O3 use the values from the 4-OGC catalog (blue). Sources observed in O4 (yellow) are either…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Identifying Kilonovae in the Presence of Optical Afterglow for the Wide-Field Survey Telescope

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Fisher-matrix simulation of WFST kilonova identification shows >80% recovery efficiency within ~600 Mpc for AT2017gfo-like events, with a fast-saturating color filter and a proposed g/r→z observing strategy.

  2. Potential science with GW250114 -- the loudest binary black hole merger detected to date

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    This simulation study forecasts that GW250114 can reveal measurable orbital eccentricity, decisive ringdown overtones, and tight black hole area theorem constraints.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2015, Class

    Aasi, J., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  2. [2]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 970, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad5beb 2024

  3. [3]

    2020 a , Astrophys

    Abbott, B., et al. 2020 a , Astrophys. J. Lett., 892, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f5 2020

  4. [5]

    2017 b , Phys

    ---. 2017 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  5. [6]

    2017 c , Astrophys

    ---. 2017 c , Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c 2017

  6. [7]

    2017 d , Astrophys

    ---. 2017 d , Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2017

  7. [8]

    2020 b , Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020 b , Astrophys. J. Lett., 900, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 2020

  8. [9]

    2020 c , Phys

    ---. 2020 c , Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 101102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

Show all 64 references
  1. [10]

    2020 d , Astrophys

    ---. 2020 d , Astrophys. J. Lett., 896, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    2020 doi

  2. [11]

    2021, Astrophys

    ---. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 915, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac082e

    2021 doi

  3. [12]

    2023, Phys

    ---. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    D., Acernese , F., et al

    Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., Acernese , F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    2023 doi

  5. [14]

    2023, Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 267, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    2023 doi

  6. [15]

    2015, Class

    Acernese, F., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2015 doi

  7. [16]

    2019, Nature Astron., 3, 35, 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

    Akutsu, T., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 35, 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

    2019 doi

  8. [17]

    2025 a , In prep

    Akyüz, A., Correia, A., Kacanja, K., et al. 2025 a , In prep

    2025

  9. [18]

    2025 b , Data Release for: Mining the Alerts , https://github.com/sugwg/O4_preview_population

    ---. 2025 b , Data Release for: Mining the Alerts , https://github.com/sugwg/O4_preview_population

    2025

  10. [19]

    2022, Class

    Andres, N., et al. 2022, Class. Quant. Grav., 39, 055002, 10.1088/1361-6382/ac482a

    2022 doi

  11. [20]

    1967, Phys

    Barkat, Z., Rakavy, G., & Sack, N. 1967, Phys. Rev. Lett., 18, 379, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.18.379

    1967 doi

  12. [21]

    2017, Astrophys

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & M \'a rka, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    2017 doi

  13. [22]

    E., Bulik, T., & O'Shaughnessy, R

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T., & O'Shaughnessy, R. 2016, Nature, 534, 512, 10.1038/nature18322

    2016 doi

  14. [23]

    R., Arnett, W

    Bond, J. R., Arnett, W. D., & Carr, B. J. 1984, Astrophys. J., 280, 825, 10.1086/162057

    1984 doi

  15. [24]

    R., et al

    Chatterjee, D., Ghosh, S., Brady, P. R., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 896, 54, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab8dbe

    2020 doi

  16. [25]

    S., et al

    Chaudhary, S. S., et al. 2024, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 121, e2316474121, 10.1073/pnas.2316474121

    2024 doi

  17. [26]

    H., Gadre, B., et al

    Dal Canton, T., Nitz, A. H., Gadre, B., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 923, 254, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2f9a

    2021 doi

  18. [27]

    2021, Astrophys

    Edelman, B., Doctor, Z., & Farr, B. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 913, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/abfdb3

    2021 doi

  19. [28]

    2023, Astrophys

    Edelman, B., Farr, B., & Doctor, Z. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    2023 doi

  20. [29]

    M., & Holz, D

    Ezquiaga, J. M., & Holz, D. E. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 909, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe638

    2021 doi

  21. [30]

    2021, Astrophys

    Fishbach, M., Doctor, Z., Callister, T., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 912, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abee11

    2021 doi

  22. [31]

    S., Chaty, S., Porter, E., & Chassande-Mottin, E

    Garc \' a, F., Bunzel, A. S., Chaty, S., Porter, E., & Chassande-Mottin, E. 2021, Astron. Astrophys., 649, A114, 10.1051/0004-6361/202038357

    2021 doi

  23. [32]

    2022, Nature Astron., 6, 344, 10.1038/s41550-021-01568-w

    Gayathri, V., Healy, J., Lange, J., et al. 2022, Nature Astron., 6, 344, 10.1038/s41550-021-01568-w

    2022 doi

  24. [33]

    2021, Nature Astron., 5, 749, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    Gerosa, D., & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astron., 5, 749, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    2021 doi

  25. [34]

    J., et al

    Graham, M. J., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 251102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    2020 doi

  26. [35]

    2022, Nature, 610, 652, 10.1038/s41586-022-05212-z

    Hannam, M., et al. 2022, Nature, 610, 652, 10.1038/s41586-022-05212-z

    2022 doi

  27. [36]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09773, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09773

    Harry , I., & Hoy , C. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.09773, 10.48550/arXiv.2503.09773

    2025 doi

  28. [37]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, Astrophys. J., 591, 288, 10.1086/375341

    2003 doi

  29. [38]

    K., Luan, J., et al

    Hooper, S., Chung, S. K., Luan, J., et al. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 024012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.024012

    2012 doi

  30. [39]

    J., et al

    Kapadia, S. J., et al. 2020, Class. Quant. Grav., 37, 045007, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab5f2d

    2020 doi

  31. [40]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Rev. Rel., 25, 1, 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    2022 doi

  32. [41]

    2019, Astrophys

    Mangiagli, A., Bonetti, M., Sesana, A., & Colpi, M. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 883, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab3f33

    2019 doi

  33. [42]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 884, L50, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    2019 doi

  34. [43]

    K., Buonanno, A., Gair, J., et al

    Mehta, A. K., Buonanno, A., Gair, J., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 924, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3130

    2022 doi

  35. [44]

    K., Olsen, S., Wadekar, D., et al

    Mehta, A. K., Olsen, S., Wadekar, D., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 024049, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.024049

    2025 doi

  36. [45]

    2014, GraceDB: A Gravitational Wave Candidate Event Database , https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400365/public

    Moe, B., Brady, P., Stephens, B., et al. 2014, GraceDB: A Gravitational Wave Candidate Event Database , https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400365/public

    2014

  37. [46]

    Morras, G., Pratten, G., & Schmidt, P. 2025. 2503.15393

    2025

  38. [47]

    H., & Capano, C

    Nitz, A. H., & Capano, C. D. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 907, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/abccc5

    2021 doi

  39. [48]

    H., Kumar, S., Wang, Y.-F., et al

    Nitz, A. H., Kumar, S., Wang, Y.-F., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 59, 10.3847/1538-4357/aca591

    2023 doi

  40. [49]

    2022, Phys

    Olsen, S., Venumadhav, T., Mushkin, J., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 043009, 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.043009

    2022 doi

  41. [50]

    Planas, M. d. L., Husa, S., Ramos-Buades, A., & Valencia, J. 2025. 2506.01760

    2025

  42. [51]

    L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043027, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043027

    2019 doi

  43. [52]

    Romero-Shaw, I., Stegmann, J., Tagawa, H., et al. 2025. 2506.17105

    2025

  44. [53]

    M., Lasky, P

    Romero-Shaw, I. M., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2022, Astrophys. J., 940, 171, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9798

    2022 doi

  45. [54]

    Sachdev, S., et al. 2019. 1901.08580

    2019 arXiv

  46. [55]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 024013, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013

    2016 doi

  47. [56]

    A., & Kinugawa, T

    Tanikawa, A., Susa, H., Yoshida, T., Trani, A. A., & Kinugawa, T. 2021, Astrophys. J., 910, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40d

    2021 doi

  48. [57]

    2021, Astrophys

    Tiwari, V., & Fairhurst, S. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 913, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/abfbe7

    2021 doi

  49. [58]

    2002, Astrophys

    Umeda, H., & Nomoto, K. 2002, Astrophys. J., 565, 385, 10.1086/323946

    2002 doi

  50. [59]

    A., Mills, J

    Usman, S. A., Mills, J. C., & Fairhurst, S. 2019, Astrophys. J., 877, 82, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0b3e

    2019 doi

  51. [60]

    Villa-Ortega, V., Dent, T., & Barroso, A. C. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 515, 5718, 10.1093/mnras/stac2120

    2022 doi

  52. [61]

    Wadekar, D., Roulet, J., Venumadhav, T., et al. 2023. 2312.06631

    2023 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, Astrophys. J., 836, 244, 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  54. [63]

    E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., Blinnikov, S., & Heger, A. 2007, Nature, 450, 390, 10.1038/nature06333

    2007 doi

  55. [64]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 912, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf2c4

    2021 doi

  56. [65]

    S., Berry, C

    Zevin, M., Bavera, S. S., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 910, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40e

    2021 doi

Pith tools

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