Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

The fault in our sirens: Hierarchical diagnosis of waveform systematics in Hubble-Lema\^itre constant measurements

T0 review · 2 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 A 5% subpopulation of heavy, spin-precessing black holes can make dark-siren Hubble-constant measurements unreliable, even in the upcoming O5 and A# detector networks.

desk verdict Solid simulation study showing a small high-mass precessing subpopulation can break dark-siren H0 inference; the sigma diagnostic is borrowed but the application is new, and the quantitative thresholds rest on an approximation the authors flag. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.11278 v2 pith:Q36RV7HO submitted 2025-07-15 gr-qc

Arnab Dhani , Jonathan Gair , Alessandra Buonanno This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitational-wavecosmologydarksirensHubbleconstantwaveformsystematicshierarchicalBayesianinferencebinaryblackholepopulationspinprecessionnext-generationdetectors
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 argues that dark-siren measurements of the Hubble constant--which use binary black hole mergers and a galaxy catalog instead of electromagnetic counterparts--can be silently corrupted by waveform-model inaccuracies, and that the corruption is detectable from within the analysis. The authors test the hierarchical population inference by fitting a mean and a variance to the individual $H_0$ posteriors; because $H_0$ is a single universal constant, any fitted population variance $\sigma$ is a diagnostic of model inconsistency. In simulated observations for the upcoming O5 and A# detector networks, adding as little as 5% of a high-mass, spin-precessing subpopulation makes $\sigma$ exclude zero at 90% credibility, even though the mean $\mu$ remains close to the true value. For a next-generation XG network, even the standard GWTC-3-like population produces a biased $H_0$ estimate and a nonzero $\sigma$. If right, this means precision $H_0$ cosmology with dark sirens requires waveform models that are accurate precisely in the high-mass, precessing corner of parameter space that is least calibrated by numerical relativity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the population-variance hyperparameter $\sigma$ in a hierarchical Bayesian fit of the individual $H_0$ posteriors. In the simplified Gaussian case, the maximum-likelihood estimate of $\sigma^2$ is the scatter of the individual posterior means minus the measurement-error variance; since $H_0$ is a single common constant with true population variance zero, a nonzero $\sigma$ flags that the waveform model, population model, or galaxy weights are inconsistent with the data-generating process. Because $\sigma$ is estimated inside the same analysis, the diagnostic works without knowing the true value of $H_0$, and it absorbs part of the systematic into a wider uncertainty on the mean $\mu$ rather than forcing an obviously wrong central value.

What would settle it

Recompute the same O5, A#, and XG simulations using full Bayesian posterior evaluation rather than Fisher-matrix covariances with the linear-signal bias approximation, and check the contamination fraction at which $\sigma$ excludes zero. If full posteriors keep $\sigma$ consistent with zero at 5% contamination in O5 and A#, or if the XG zero-contamination case returns $\sigma$ consistent with zero, the quantitative claim would be refuted; a complementary check would compare both waveform models against numerical-relativity waveforms in the high-mass precessing region to see whether the assumed model mismatch is realistic.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that waveform systematics propagate into a population-level inconsistency in $H_0$ inference that a hierarchical analysis can expose without knowing the true value of $H_0$. Using the SEOBNRv5PHM and IMRPhenomXPHM quasi-circular spin-precessing waveform models, with Fisher-matrix covariances and the linear-signal approximation for biases, the authors find that a subpopulation of massive, spin-precessing binaries at 5% of the full population makes the fitted population variance $\sigma$ exclude zero at 90% credibility in both the O5 and A# networks; for the XG network $\sigma$ is nonzero even with zero contamination, and the inferred $H_0$ shifts by a sub-percent amount. The same diagnostic applied to the 46 real events used in the GWTC-3 cosmology analysis returns $\sigma$ consistent with zero, so current data show no evidence of this systematic while future data are predicted to show it. The paper's stated conclusion is that a small high-mass, spin-precessing subpopulation, as little as 5%, can make $H_0$ measurement unreliable in the upcoming observing runs.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative thresholds rest on the linear-signal approximation, which assumes that the bias in estimated parameters from using the wrong waveform model is a small linear response; if that approximation fails for heavy, rapidly precessing binaries, the exact contamination fraction at which $\sigma$ excludes zero would shift, even though the qualitative direction of the effect would probably survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future dark-siren $H_0$ analyses should report the population-variance diagnostic $\sigma$ alongside the marginalized $H_0$ posterior, since $\sigma$ can flag waveform inconsistencies even when the mean looks unbiased.
  • A nonzero $\sigma$ in real O5 or A# data would signal that some event subpopulation is modeled incorrectly, but it cannot by itself say whether waveforms, galaxy weights, or the population model are at fault.
  • The accuracy requirement for next-generation detectors is set by the rare heavy, precessing corner of the population, not the bulk: the XG network shows bias even with the standard GWTC-3-like population at zero contamination.
  • The diagnostic is immediately applicable to real data: the reanalysis of the 46 GWTC-3 events shows $\sigma$ consistent with zero, establishing the current-data baseline.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A practical extension the paper leaves implicit: monitor $\sigma$ as O5/A# data accumulate; a nonzero value would be an early-warning sign that the catalog-based $H_0$ pipeline is not yet systematics-free even if the central value looks reasonable.
  • Because the mechanism is generic, the same population-variance test could be applied to other parameters assumed to be common across a population of gravitational-wave events, such as neutron-star equation-of-state parameters inferred from multiple mergers.
  • Since the diagnostic cannot isolate the source of inconsistency, a nonzero $\sigma$ in future data would motivate rerunning the analysis with different galaxy-weighting schemes; the paper shows that galaxy-weighting systematics produce the same kind of inconsistency.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops and applies a hierarchical diagnostic for waveform-model systematics in dark-siren Hubble constant measurements. The diagnostic, introduced by Hanselman et al. (2025), models the ensemble of individual-event H0 posteriors as drawn from a normal population with mean mu and variance sigma; since H0 is a universal constant, a nonzero sigma indicates that the individual posteriors scatter more than their measurement errors, flagging systematic bias. The authors simulate BBH populations from GWTC-3 plus a variable fraction of high-mass, spin-precessing systems, inject signals with SEOBNRv5PHM, analyze with IMRPhenomXPHM, compute parameter-estimation biases with the linear-signal approximation, and evaluate the hierarchical likelihood using MICECAT galaxies. In O5 and A# networks, a 5% intrinsic HMP fraction leads to a sigma posterior excluding zero at 90% credibility; in the XG network, even the standard GWTC-3 population yields a biased H0 and a nonzero sigma. Application to 46 real GWTC-3 events shows no evidence of such systematics. The central conclusion is that a small subpopulation of difficult-to-model binaries can compromise H0 measurements in upcoming detectors.

Significance. If the results hold, this is an important contribution to gravitational-wave cosmology: it identifies a concrete systematic risk for dark-siren H0 measurements, demonstrates a powerful internal consistency check that does not require knowledge of the true value, and makes quantitative predictions for O5/A#/XG networks. The simulation pipeline is carefully constructed, with no-bias baselines verifying that the diagnostic is unbiased in the absence of waveform mismatch, and the real-data application to GWTC-3 events is a valuable sanity check. The use of public tools (GWBENCH, MICECAT) and the clear description of the hierarchical likelihood support reproducibility. The main caveat is the reliance on the linear-signal approximation for the bias calculation, which the authors explicitly acknowledge. The qualitative conclusion that waveform mismatch produces detectable scatter is likely robust, but the quantitative thresholds (5% contamination; XG sigma=1.1 for 0% contamination) need additional validation before they can be used to set waveform accuracy requirements.

major comments (2)
  1. [Systematic biases in upcoming observations / Table I / Discussion] The central quantitative claims of the paper, namely the 5% contamination threshold in O5/A# and the XG sigma=1.1+0.09-0.07 for the 0% contamination case in Table I, are computed using the linear-signal approximation for parameter-estimation biases (methodology of Dhani et al. 2024). This approximation is a first-order expansion around the maximum-likelihood point and is not validated in the high-mass, high-precession region (M up to 200 Msun, q up to 30, chi_p up to 1) that drives the diagnostic. In this regime the Fisher matrix can be ill-conditioned and the bias may be nonlinear. The Discussion acknowledges this explicitly: 'The main limitation of our study is the reliance on the linear-signal approximation to model the impact of biases... we need to better quantify its validity throughout that parameter space.' Because a factor-of-2 error in the bias estimate would shift the headline threshold from 5% to 2% or 10%, and could alter the XG 0% result, this limitation is load-bearing. I request a targeted validation: for a representative set of events spanning the relevant mass/spin/SNR ranges, compute the posterior shift with full Bayesian inference (e.g., DINGO or nested sampling) using the same injection/analysis models, and compare the inferred biases with the linear-signal prediction. Alternatively, the authors should present the thresholds as indicative and soften the abstract's quantitative claim.
  2. [Table I / Diagnosing population systematics] The claim that sigma 'excludes zero at 90% credibility' is based on the median over 100 realizations of the MAP value and the median of the 90% HPD interval endpoints. This does not directly quantify the diagnostic's detection efficiency: the median lower HPD bound can exceed zero even if in a substantial fraction of realizations the HPD includes zero. Since the paper's central statement is that a 5% subpopulation 'can result' in an unreliable measurement, the relevant statistic is the fraction of realizations in which the 90% HPD of sigma lies entirely above zero (and, ideally, the distribution of the lower bound). Please report this detection efficiency for each network and contamination fraction, and for the XG 0% case. This will also help readers assess how robust the threshold is to realization-to-realization noise.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix C, Eq. (C3)] The sentence following Eq. (C3) contains the typo 'galalxy' for 'galaxy'; also, the notation p(z_j) is introduced as the redshift posterior and then assumed to be a delta-function, which is fine but could be stated before the equation to avoid confusion.
  2. [Table I and surrounding text] The paper does not report the number of events that pass the SNR thresholds (70, 100, 600) for each network and contamination fraction. These counts are important for interpreting the precision of mu and the power of the sigma diagnostic; please include the mean and range of event counts across the 100 realizations.
  3. [Figure 3] The caption 'Mixture population crossing SNR threshold' is vague; please specify that the histograms show the detected (above-threshold) populations and define the color scheme and the quantities plotted.
  4. [Introduction] The text contains minor language issues: 'to asses this consistency' should be 'to assess this consistency', and 'cross-correlation the inferred statistical distribution' should be 'cross-correlating the inferred statistical distribution'.
  5. [Figure 2] Add a vertical line at H0=70 km/s/Mpc as a reference, since the injected cosmology in the simulations uses this value; this would make the mu-axis comparison easier for the real-event analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the sigma diagnostic is an external consistency test applied to simulated waveform-mismatch biases; the 5% threshold is a simulation outcome, not an input.

full rationale

Walked the derivation chain. The authors simulate BBH populations (GWTC-3 plus a high-mass spin-precessing subpopulation), inject signals with SEOBNRv5PHM, recover with IMRPhenomXPHM using GWBENCH Fisher matrices, and compute parameter-estimation biases via the linear-signal approximation following Dhani et al. [33]. The individual H0 posteriors are then combined through the hierarchical likelihood of Eq. (C1) and the sigma diagnostic of Eq. (3)/Eq. (D1). The central output—sigma excluding zero at 90% credibility for 5% contamination in O5/A# and for the GWTC-3 population in XG—is a measured consequence of the simulation, not an input: the fractions are injected population weights, and sigma is inferred from the resulting posteriors. The only same-author citation in the load-bearing path is [33] for the bias approximation; that prior work computes biases from the waveform models themselves, and the approximation is explicitly flagged as a limitation ('The main limitation of our study is the reliance on the linear-signal approximation to model the impact of biases'), so it is a correctness risk, not a circular reduction. The sigma diagnostic itself is taken from Hanselman et al. [37], an external source. No equation sets the output equal to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Score 1 reflects the non-trivial self-citation in the pipeline rather than any circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The analysis fits the hyperparameters mu and sigma to the simulated data; these are the inference targets of the diagnostic, not hidden inputs. All other choices (population fractions, SNR thresholds, waveform model pair, galaxy catalog cuts) are explicitly stated simulation or analysis settings taken from the literature or varied as controlled scenarios.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The linear-signal approximation gives an accurate estimate of the systematic bias in parameter estimation caused by waveform model differences.
    Used to compute per-event biases (Section 'Systematic biases in upcoming observations'). The authors state in the Discussion that this is the main limitation and its validity across the parameter space needs better quantification.
  • domain assumption Fisher-matrix covariances adequately describe the posterior widths of the binary parameters at the selected high SNR thresholds.
    The analysis approximates individual event posterior distributions by multivariate normals from the Fisher matrix (Section 'Systematic biases in upcoming observations').
  • domain assumption The hyper-distribution on H0 is Gaussian with mean mu and variance sigma^2 (Eq. D1).
    This is the diagnostic model; the authors argue by the Central Limit Theorem that it is broadly applicable (Discussion).
  • domain assumption Galaxy redshifts and sky positions from MICECAT are known exactly, and the catalog is complete within the localization volumes.
    Assumed in Eq. (C3) where redshifts and sky positions are treated as delta functions; the paper restricts to high-SNR events so the detection horizon stays inside the catalog (Appendix C).
  • domain assumption The mismatch between SEOBNRv5PHM and IMRPhenomXPHM is representative of true waveform modeling error.
    The authors note they can only highlight shortcomings of current models relative to each other, not the direction of real bias (Discussion).
invented entities (1)
  • High-mass spin-precessing (HMP) BBH subpopulation
    purpose: A simulated contamination added to the GWTC-3-like population to model rare binaries with large masses, mass ratios, and precessing spins, which are poorly modeled by current waveforms and predicted by hierarchical merger scenarios.
    The paper treats this as an anticipated but not yet confidently observed population; it cites GW190521, GW190403, and GW200208 as hints (Introduction). The quantitative conclusions (5% threshold) depend on this scenario existing at the assumed fraction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The fault in our sirens: Hierarchical diagnosis of waveform systematics in Hubble-Lema\^itre constant measurements." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q36RV7HO

@misc{pith2026250711278,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The fault in our sirens: Hierarchical diagnosis of waveform systematics in Hubble-Lema\^itre constant measurements},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q36RV7HO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.11278}
}
read the original abstract

Cosmological inference using a population of binary black-hole mergers, combined with a galaxy catalog, presents an exciting opportunity for precision cosmology with the possibility of resolving the Hubble tension. However, the accuracy of these measurements heavily relies on the quality of the model used to infer the binary parameters, including the model of the gravitational-wave signal. We use state-of-the-art waveform models to explore the impact of inaccurate modeling in measuring the Hubble-Lema\^itre constant for the upcoming and future ground-based gravitational-wave observatories. We diagnose the presence of inaccuracies within a hierarchical population-analysis framework, without a priori knowing the true value of the parameter, by assessing the consistency of the distribution of individual posteriors in relation to their measurement errors. Our findings indicate that even a small high-mass, spin-precessing subpopulation -- comprising as little as 5\% of the population generating the events observed by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration so far -- can result in an unreliable measurement of the Hubble-Lema\^itre constant in the upcoming observing runs of these detectors, with even more pronounced effects expected in future facilities on the ground.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.11278 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The posterior distribution of the hyperparameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mixture population crossing SNR threshold [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The posterior predictive distributions (PPD) of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The posterior predictive distribution, the marginal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

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.

  1. The impact of precession and higher-order multipoles for gravitational wave cosmological inference

    astro-ph.CO 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For H0 inference via the black-hole mass-spectrum method, waveform models with spin precession and higher-order multipoles offer no significant advantage over the simplest quadrupole-only model, at up to six times low...

  2. Shape of U: Measuring the Curvature of the Universe with Gravitational Waves

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Next-generation GW detector networks can constrain the spatial curvature parameter Ω_k to 1σ uncertainty of 0.029 using intermediate-mass binary black hole bright sirens.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, 1M2H, Dark Energy Camera GW-E, DES, DLT40, Las Cumbres Observatory, VINROUGE, MASTER), A gravitational- wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble con- stant, Nature551, 85 (2017), arXiv:1710.05835 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KA- GRA), Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion His- tory from GWTC–3, Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KA- GRA), Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion His- tory from GWTC–3, Astrophys. J.949, 76 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    B. F. Schutz, Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations, Nature (London)323, 310 (1986)

    work page 1986

  4. [4]

    Fishbachet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), A Stan- dard Siren Measurement of the Hubble Constant from GW170817 without the Electromagnetic Counterpart, Astrophys

    M. Fishbachet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), A Stan- dard Siren Measurement of the Hubble Constant from GW170817 without the Electromagnetic Counterpart, Astrophys. J. Lett.871, L13 (2019), arXiv:1807.05667 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Del Pozzo, Inference of the cosmological parameters from gravitational waves: application to second gener- ation interferometers, Phys

    W. Del Pozzo, Inference of the cosmological parameters from gravitational waves: application to second gener- ation interferometers, Phys. Rev. D86, 043011 (2012), arXiv:1108.1317 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2012

  6. [6]

    Borhanian, A

    S. Borhanian, A. Dhani, A. Gupta, K. G. Arun, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Dark Sirens to Resolve the Hub- ble–Lema ˆ ıtre Tension, Astrophys. J. Lett.905, L28 (2020), arXiv:2007.02883 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    Mukherjee, B

    S. Mukherjee, B. D. Wandelt, S. M. Nissanke, and A. Sil- vestri, Accurate precision cosmology with redshift un- known gravitational wave sources, Phys. Rev. D103, 043520 (2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Mukherjee, A

    S. Mukherjee, A. Krolewski, B. D. Wandelt, and J. Silk, Cross-correlating dark sirens and galaxies: constraints on H0 from GWTC-3 of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, Astrophys. J.975, 189 (2024), arXiv:2203.03643 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    D. F. Chernoff and L. S. Finn, Gravitational radiation, inspiraling binaries, and cosmology, Astrophys. J. Lett. 411, L5 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304020

    1993 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. R. Taylor and J. R. Gair, Cosmology with the lights off: standard sirens in the Einstein Telescope era, Phys. Rev. D86, 023502 (2012), arXiv:1204.6739 [astro-ph.CO]

    2012 arXiv

  3. [11]

    W. M. Farr, M. Fishbach, J. Ye, and D. Holz, A Future Percent-Level Measurement of the Hubble Expansion at Redshift 0.8 With Advanced LIGO, Astrophys. J. Lett. 883, L42 (2019), arXiv:1908.09084 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and D. E. Holz, Spectral Sirens: Cosmol- ogy from the Full Mass Distribution of Compact Binaries, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 061102 (2022), arXiv:2202.08240 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    H. Tong, M. Fishbach, and E. Thrane, Spinning Spec- tral Sirens: Robust Cosmological Measurement Using Mass–Spin Correlations in the Binary Black Hole Pop- ulation, Astrophys. J.985, 220 (2025), arXiv:2502.10780 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Cousins, K

    B. Cousins, K. Schumacher, A. K.-W. Chung, C. Talbot, T. Callister, D. E. Holz, and N. Yunes, The Stochas- tic Siren: Astrophysical Gravitational-Wave Back- ground Measurements of the Hubble Constant, (2025), arXiv:2503.01997 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025

  7. [15]

    Messenger and J

    C. Messenger and J. Read, Measuring a cosmological distance-redshift relationship using only gravitational wave observations of binary neutron star coalescences, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 091101 (2012), arXiv:1107.5725 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Messenger, K

    C. Messenger, K. Takami, S. Gossan, L. Rezzolla, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Source Redshifts from Gravitational-Wave Observations of Binary Neutron Star Mergers, Phys. Rev. X4, 041004 (2014), arXiv:1312.1862 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  9. [17]

    T. G. F. Li, W. Del Pozzo, and C. Messenger, Measuring the redshift of standard sirens using the neutron star de- formability, in13th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Astrophysics, and Relativistic Field Theori...

    2015 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. Borhanian, A. Gupta, and B. Sathyaprakash, Cosmography with bright and Love sirens, arXiv:2212.13183 [gr-qc] (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Advanced LIGO, Class

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

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Advanced Virgo: a second- generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: Detec- tor design and construction history, PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), Overview of KAGRA: Detec- tor design and construction history, PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  14. [22]

    Borhanian and B

    S. Borhanian and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Listening to the Universe with next generation ground-based gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D110, 083040 (2024), arXiv:2202.11048 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S

    D. Reitzeet al., Cosmic Explorer: The U.S. Contribu- tion to Gravitational-Wave Astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc.51, 035 (2019), arXiv:1907.04833 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Evanset al., A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community, arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM] (2021)

    M. Evanset al., A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community, arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM] (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Srivastava, D

    V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans, E. D. Hall, J. Read, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer De- tectors, Astrophys. J.931, 22 (2022), arXiv:2201.10668 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Class

    M. Punturoet al., The Einstein Telescope: A third- generation gravitational wave observatory, Class. Quant. 7 Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Maggioreet al., Science Case for the Einstein Tele- scope, JCAP03, 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    M. Maggioreet al., Science Case for the Einstein Tele- scope, JCAP03, 050, arXiv:1912.02622 [astro-ph.CO]

    1912 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Branchesiet al., Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07, 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    M. Branchesiet al., Science with the Einstein Tele- scope: a comparison of different designs, JCAP07, 068, arXiv:2303.15923 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    Muttoni, D

    N. Muttoni, D. Laghi, N. Tamanini, S. Marsat, and D. Izquierdo-Villalba, Dark siren cosmology with bi- nary black holes in the era of third-generation gravita- tional wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D108, 043543 (2023), arXiv:2303.10693 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    A. G. Riesset al., A Comprehensive Measurement of the Local Value of the Hubble Constant with 1 km s −1 Mpc−1 Uncertainty from the Hubble Space Telescope and the SH0ES Team, Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [32]

    C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cornish, and N. Yunes, Waveform accuracy and systematic uncer- tainties in current gravitational wave observations, Phys. Rev. D108, 044018 (2023), arXiv:2301.11941 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. V¨ olkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, System- atic Biases in Estimating the Properties of Black Holes Due to Inaccurate Gravitational-Wave Models, (2024), arXiv:2404.05811 [gr-qc]

    2024

  26. [34]

    Kapil, L

    V. Kapil, L. Reali, R. Cotesta, and E. Berti, Systematic bias from waveform modeling for binary black hole pop- ulations in next-generation gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D109, 104043 (2024), arXiv:2404.00090 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    P¨ urrer and C.-J

    M. P¨ urrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform ac- curacy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr- qc]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neu- tron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  29. [37]

    We illustrate this in Fig

    explored systematic biases due to inaccurate galaxy weights. We illustrate this in Fig. 1 where it is clear that in the absence of systematic biases due to inaccurate waveform models, theH 0 posteriors cluster around the injected value of 70 km s−1 Mpc−1 with a spread typical ...

  30. [38]

    A. G. Hanselman, A. Vijaykumar, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, Gravitational-wave Dark Siren Cosmology Systematics from Galaxy Weighting, Astrophys. J.979, 9 (2025), arXiv:2405.14818 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150M ⊙, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150M ⊙, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]

    2020

  33. [41]

    Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scien- tific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scien- tific), GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Rinaldi, W

    S. Rinaldi, W. Del Pozzo, M. Mapelli, A. Lorenzo- Medina, and T. Dent, Evidence of evolution of the black hole mass function with redshift, Astron. Astrophys.684, A204 (2024), arXiv:2310.03074 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Lalleman, K

    M. Lalleman, K. Turbang, T. Callister, and N. van Re- mortel, No evidence that the binary black hole mass dis- tribution evolves with redshift, (2025), arXiv:2501.10295 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    J. S. Vink, E. R. Higgins, A. A. C. Sander, and G. N. Sabhahit, Maximum black hole mass across cos- mic time, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.504, 146 (2021), arXiv:2010.11730 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    N. C. Weatherford, G. Fragione, K. Kremer, S. Chatter- jee, C. S. Ye, C. L. Rodriguez, and F. A. Rasio, Black Hole Mergers from Star Clusters with Top-Heavy Ini- tial Mass Functions, Astrophys. J. Lett.907, L25 (2021), arXiv:2101.02217 [astro-ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Zevin, S

    M. Zevin, S. S. Bavera, C. P. L. Berry, V. Kalogera, T. Fragos, P. Marchant, C. L. Rodriguez, F. Antonini, D. E. Holz, and C. Pankow, One Channel to Rule Them All? Constraining the Origins of Binary Black Holes Us- ing Multiple Formation Pathways, Astrophys. J.910, 152 (2021),...

    2021 arXiv

  39. [47]

    S. S. Bavera, M. Fishbach, M. Zevin, E. Zapartas, and T. Fragos, Theχeff−z correlation of field binary black hole mergers and how 3G gravitational-wave detectors can constrain it, Astron. Astrophys.665, A59 (2022), arXiv:2204.02619 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Biscoveanu, T

    S. Biscoveanu, T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, The Binary Black Hole Spin Distribution Likely Broadens with Redshift, Astrophys. J. Lett.932, L19 (2022), arXiv:2204.01578 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    C. S. Ye and M. Fishbach, The Redshift Evolution of the Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution from Dense Star Clusters, Astrophys. J.967, 62 (2024), arXiv:2402.12444 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    J. R. Gair and C. J. Moore, Quantifying and mitigating bias in inference on gravitational wave source popula- tions, Phys. Rev. D91, 124062 (2015), arXiv:1504.02767 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  43. [51]

    M. Isi, W. M. Farr, and K. Chatziioannou, Comparing Bayes factors and hierarchical inference for testing gen- eral relativity with gravitational waves, Phys. Rev. D 106, 024048 (2022), arXiv:2204.10742 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    high-mass spin-precessing

    M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, M. P¨ urrer, J. Wildberger, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Sch¨ olkopf, Neural Im- portance Sampling for Rapid and Reliable Gravitational- Wave Inference, Physical Review Letters130, 171403 (2022), arXiv:2210.05686 [gr-qc]. 8 SUPPLEMENT AR Y MA ...

    2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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