Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Disentangling spinning and nonspinning binary black hole populations with spin sorting

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-19 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Gravitational-wave data rule out a fully nonspinning binary black hole population but allow up to 80 percent nonspinning systems.

desk verdict Spin sorting gives a workable way to separate spinning from nonspinning BBH populations in simulations even with the default model that cannot fit exact zero spins. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23663 v2 submitted 2025-07-31 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Lillie Szemraj , Sylvia Biscoveanu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE
keywords binaryblackholesgravitationalwavesspinsortingpopulationinferencenonspinningLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAcomponentspins
checked against Cost.FunctionalEquation
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 tests whether sorting the two black holes in each binary by spin magnitude rather than mass lets the standard population model separate spinning and nonspinning sources even when that model cannot handle an excess of zero-spin objects. Simulations of different populations show that this spin-sorting approach recovers the input spin properties reliably enough to compare with real observations. The analysis finds that existing data disagree with every black hole having zero spin. The same data stay consistent with a population in which only one component spins in each pair or with a population containing as many as 80 percent nonspinning systems.

What carries the argument

Spin sorting, the reordering of binary components by spin magnitude instead of mass, which reveals asymmetric spin distributions expected from tidal spin-up and other binary evolution processes.

What would settle it

A catalog containing many additional detections in which both black holes in each pair show spin magnitudes consistent with exactly zero would test whether the current exclusion of a fully nonspinning population holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

By coupling the Default spin magnitude population model with spin sorting on simulated binary black hole populations, spinning and nonspinning populations can be reliably distinguished despite the model's inability to formally accommodate an excess of zero-spin systems. Current observations of the BBH population are inconsistent with a fully nonspinning population but could be explained by a population with only one spinning black hole per binary or a population with up to 80 percent nonspinning sources.

Load-bearing premise

The Default spin magnitude population model remains reliable for distinguishing spinning and nonspinning populations when paired with spin sorting on simulated data, even though it cannot formally accommodate an excess of zero-spin systems.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mass-based sorting alone can miss spin asymmetries produced by tidal spin-up during binary evolution.
  • A population with only one spinning black hole per binary remains compatible with existing data.
  • Fractions of nonspinning systems as high as 80 percent are still allowed under the tested model.
  • Spin-sorting analyses can be applied to future catalogs to tighten constraints on the fraction of nonspinning sources.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The method could help isolate formation channels that naturally produce one rapidly spinning and one slowly spinning black hole.
  • Improved spin measurements in the next observing runs would allow tighter upper limits on the allowed fraction of nonspinning systems.
  • Extending spin sorting to alternative population models might expose additional signatures of spin alignment or misalignment.
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, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes multiple simulated BBH populations to demonstrate that sorting binary components by spin magnitude (rather than mass) enables the Default spin magnitude population model to distinguish spinning from nonspinning subpopulations, even though the model cannot formally place mass at exactly zero spin. Forward simulations are compared to real LVK observations, leading to the conclusion that current data are inconsistent with a fully nonspinning population but remain compatible with a population having only one spinning black hole per binary or up to 80% nonspinning sources.

Significance. If the central distinction holds under the tested conditions, the work provides a practical complementary inference method that mitigates the impact of spin-magnitude mismodeling in existing LVK population analyses. The use of several simulated populations and the explicit comparison to real-data conclusions are strengths that support falsifiability of the subpopulation claims.

major comments (1)
  1. [Simulation validation section] Simulation validation section: The load-bearing claim that spin sorting yields distinguishable posteriors on spinning vs. nonspinning fractions rests on the assumption that the injected simulated populations reproduce the precise form of model mismatch (excess systems at chi=0) that arises when the Default model is applied to real LVK data. If the simulated distributions remain closer to the Default parametric family than a true zero-spin subpopulation would be, the validation does not fully establish robustness for the observational conclusion.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claims would be easier to verify if quantitative measures such as posterior odds, credible intervals on the nonspinning fraction, or explicit simulation parameters were reported rather than qualitative statements alone.
  2. Notation: Clarify whether 'spin sorting' refers to sorting by the magnitude of the primary or secondary component after the fact or to a joint population model; the distinction affects how the results map to binary evolution predictions such as tidal spin-up.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of our manuscript and for providing constructive feedback. We address the major comment in detail below. We have made revisions to clarify and strengthen the simulation validation section as suggested.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The load-bearing claim that spin sorting yields distinguishable posteriors on spinning vs. nonspinning fractions rests on the assumption that the injected simulated populations reproduce the precise form of model mismatch (excess systems at chi=0) that arises when the Default model is applied to real LVK data. If the simulated distributions remain closer to the Default parametric family than a true zero-spin subpopulation would be, the validation does not fully establish robustness for the observational conclusion.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee pointing out this important consideration for the robustness of our validation. Our simulations are constructed by injecting populations with varying fractions of nonspinning black holes (including up to 100% nonspinning in some cases) into the Default spin magnitude model framework. The model mismatch, characterized by an excess of systems with chi approximately 0, arises naturally in these simulations because the Default model has difficulty accommodating exact zero spins, similar to its application to real data. We have examined the recovered posteriors and confirmed that the degree of mismatch is comparable, as evidenced by the distinguishable fractions of spinning and nonspinning components when using spin sorting. To address this concern more explicitly, we will add a new figure or subsection in the simulation validation section that directly compares the chi=0 excess in the simulated posteriors to that observed in the LVK data analysis. This will further demonstrate that our simulations capture the relevant mismodeling effects. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: conclusions rest on external data and forward simulations

full rationale

The paper validates the Default spin magnitude model plus spin sorting by injecting and recovering several simulated BBH populations, then applies the same pipeline to real LVK observations. No step equates a claimed prediction or population inference to a fitted parameter or self-citation by algebraic construction; the simulation tests are independent checks against the model's known inability to place mass at exactly zero spin. The observational conclusions therefore remain externally anchored rather than self-referential.

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

The work rests on the standard assumptions of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA population inference and on the fidelity of the simulated binary populations used to test the sorting procedure.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption The Default spin magnitude population model remains usable for population distinction even though it cannot formally accommodate an excess of systems with zero spin.
    Explicitly stated in the abstract as the model employed in current LIGO analyses.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Disentangling spinning and nonspinning binary black hole populations with spin sorting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2507.23663

@misc{pith2026250723663,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Disentangling spinning and nonspinning binary black hole populations with spin sorting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2507.23663}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23663}
}
read the original abstract

The individual component spins of binary black holes (BBHs) are difficult to resolve using gravitational-wave observations but carry key signatures of the processes shaping their formation and evolution. Recent analyses have found conflicting evidence for a sub-population of black holes with negligible spin, but the Default spin magnitude population model used in LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA analyses cannot formally accommodate an excess of systems with zero spin. In this work, we analyze several different simulated BBH populations to demonstrate that even in the face of this mismodeling, spinning and nonspinning populations can be reliably distinguished using the Default spin magnitude population model coupled with spin sorting. While typical analyses sort the binary components by their masses, sorting the components by their spin magnitudes instead offers a complementary view of the properties of individual systems consistent with equal mass and of population-level properties, given binary evolution processes like tidal-spin up that predict asymmetric spin magnitudes among the binary components. We conclude that current observations of the BBH population are inconsistent with a fully nonspinning population, but could be explained by a population with only one spinning black hole per binary or a population with up to 80% nonspinning sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.23663 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. PPDs for χA (blue, left), χB (green, middle) and χ1/2 (yellow, right) inferred by the LVK for the GWTC-3 BBH population fit with a Beta distribution (the Default model), shown in the solid lines. The shaded regions correspond to the 90% credible intervals. Figure adapted from Figs. 15, 17 of [33]. when allowing for singular Beta distributions in the hyper-parameter prior (bottom panel) are much more strongly peaked … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Solid lines show the PPDs for χA (blue, left), χB (green, middle) and χ1/2 (yellow, right) inferred for the nonspinning BBH population when limiting the hyper-parameter prior to nonsingular Beta distributions (top) and including singular Beta distributions (bottom). The shaded regions (dotted lines) correspond to the 90% credible intervals for the posteriors (priors), and the magenta lines show the true distribution… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posteriors on the hyper-parameters αχ, βχ for the nonspinning (spinning) population in purple (red). The solid lines show the results obtained using the priors including singular Beta distributions, and the dotted lines show the nonsingular results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Solid lines show the PPDs for χA (blue, left), χB (green, middle) and χ1/2 (yellow, right) inferred for the nonspinning (top) and singly-spinning (bottom) BBH populations analyzed using a Truncated Gaussian population model. The shaded regions (dotted lines) correspond…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: PPDs for χA (left) and χB (right) for eleven different simulated populations with a varying fraction of nonspinning events, ranging from all nonspinning to all spinning. The top (bottom) row shows the results obtained when singular Beta distributions are excluded (incl…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 99th percentile of the inferred χA distributions (left) and 1st percentile of the inferred χB distributions as a function of the fraction of events in the population that are nonspinning. The shaded region bounds the 90% posterior credible interval, and the black marke…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

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. GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Pith review generated a malformed one-line summary.

  2. The first decade of gravitational-wave measurements of black hole spins

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 1.0 of 10

    A review summarizing formation-channel predictions, waveform effects, and population-level constraints on stellar-mass black hole spins from the first decade of gravitational-wave observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Tutukov A V and YungelSon L R 1993 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 260 675–678 ISSN 0035-8711 URL https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/260.3.675

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/260.3.675 1993

  2. [2]

    Kalogera V 2000 Astrophys. J. 541 319–328 (Preprint astro-ph/9911417)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Grandclement P, Ihm M, Kalogera V and Belczynski K 2004 Phys. Rev. D 69 102002 (Preprint gr-qc/0312084)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  4. [4]

    Postnov K A and Yungelson L R 2014 Living Rev. Rel. 17 3 (Preprint 1403.4754)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

  5. [5]

    Belczynski K, Holz D E, Bulik T and O’Shaughnessy R 2016 Nature 534 512 (Preprint 1602.04531)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  6. [6]

    Mandel I and de Mink S E 2016 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 458 2634–2647 (Preprint 1601.00007)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  7. [7]

    Marchant P, Langer N, Podsiadlowski P, Tauris T M and Moriya T J 2016 A&A 588 A50 (Preprint 1601.03718)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  8. [8]

    Rodriguez C L, Zevin M, Pankow C, Kalogera V and Rasio F A 2016 Astrophys. J. Lett. 832 L2 (Preprint 1609.05916)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    8 14906 (Preprint 1704.01352)

    Stevenson S, Vigna-G´ omez A, Mandel I, Barrett J W, Neijssel C J, Perkins D and de Mink S E 2017 Nature Commun. 8 14906 (Preprint 1704.01352)

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Sigurdsson S and Hernquist L 1993 Nature 364 423–425

    1993

  3. [11]

    Miller M and Lauburg V M 2009 Astrophys. J. 692 917–923 (Preprint 0804.2783)

    2009 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Portegies Zwart S F, McMillan S and Gieles M 2010 ARA&A 48 431–493 (Preprint 1002.1961)

    2010 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Benacquista M J and Downing J M 2013 Living Rev. Rel. 16 4 ( Preprint 1110.4423)

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Fuller J and Ma L 2019 Astrophys. J. Lett. 881 L1 (Preprint 1907.03714)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Qin Y, Fragos T, Meynet G, Andrews J, Sørensen M and Song H F 2018 A&A 616 A28 (Preprint 1802.05738)

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Bavera S S, Fragos T, Qin Y, Zapartas E, Neijssel C J, Mandel I, Batta A, Gaebel S M, Kimball C and Stevenson S 2020 A&A 635 A97 (Preprint 1906.12257)

    2020

  9. [17]

    2021 A&A 647 A153 (Preprint 2010.16333)

    Bavera S S et al. 2021 A&A 647 A153 (Preprint 2010.16333)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Bavera S S, Zevin M and Fragos T 2021 RNAAS 5 127 (Preprint 2105.09077)

    2021

  11. [19]

    Buonanno A, Kidder L E and Lehner L 2008 Phys. Rev. D 77 026004 ( Preprint 0709.3839)

    2008 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Tichy W and Marronetti P 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 081501 (Preprint 0807.2985)

    2008 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Lousto C O, Nakano H, Zlochower Y and Campanelli M 2010 Phys. Rev. D 81 084023 [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 82, 129902 (2010)] ( Preprint 0910.3197) REFERENCES 18

    2010 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Hofmann F, Barausse E and Rezzolla L 2016 Astrophys. J. Lett. 825 L19 (Preprint 1605.01938)

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Fishbach M, Holz D E and Farr B 2017 Astrophys. J. Lett. 840 L24 ( Preprint 1703.06869)

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    (LIGO Scientific) 2015 Class

    Aasi J et al. (LIGO Scientific) 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 074001 ( Preprint 1411.4547)

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    (VIRGO) 2015 Class

    Acernese F et al. (VIRGO) 2015 Class. Quant. Grav. 32 024001 (Preprint 1408. 3978)

    2015

  18. [26]

    Aso Y, Michimura Y, Somiya K, Ando M, Miyakawa O, Sekiguchi T, Tatsumi D and Yamamoto H (KAGRA) 2013 Phys. Rev. D 88 043007 (Preprint 1306.6747)

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Somiya K (KAGRA) 2012 Class. Quant. Grav. 29 124007 (Preprint 1111.7185)

    2012

  20. [28]

    (KAGRA) 2021 PTEP 2021 05A101 (Preprint 2005.05574)

    Akutsu T et al. (KAGRA) 2021 PTEP 2021 05A101 (Preprint 2005.05574)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Damour T 2001 Phys. Rev. D 64 124013 (Preprint gr-qc/0103018)

    2001 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Racine E 2008 Phys. Rev. D 78 044021 (Preprint 0803.1820)

    2008 arXiv

  23. [31]

    2011 Phys

    Ajith P et al. 2011 Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 241101 (Preprint 0909.2867)

    2011 arXiv

  24. [32]

    (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Phys. Rev. X 13 041039 (Preprint 2111.03606)

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Phys

    Abbott R et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific) 2023 Phys. Rev. X 13 011048 (Preprint 2111.03634)

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Biscoveanu S, Isi M, Vitale S and Varma V 2021 Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 171103 (Preprint 2007.09156)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Tong H, Galaudage S and Thrane E 2022 Phys. Rev. D 106 103019 ( Preprint 2209.02206)

    2022

  28. [36]

    Mould M, Gerosa D, Broekgaarden F S and Steinle N 2022 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 517 2738–2745 (Preprint 2205.12329)

    2022

  29. [37]

    2021 Astrophys

    Galaudage S et al. 2021 Astrophys. J. Lett. 921 L15 [Erratum: Astrophys.J.Lett. 936, L18 (2022), Erratum: Astrophys.J. 936, L18 (2022)] ( Preprint 2109.02424)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Vitale S, Biscoveanu S and Talbot C 2022 A&A 668 L2 (Preprint 2209.06978)

    2022

  31. [39]

    Golomb J and Talbot C 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 103009 (Preprint 2210.12287)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Edelman B, Farr B and Doctor Z 2023 Astrophys. J. 946 16 (Preprint 2210.12834)

    2023

  33. [41]

    Callister T A and Farr W M 2024 Phys. Rev. X 14 021005 (Preprint 2302.07289)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Miller S, Callister T A and Farr W 2020 Astrophys. J. 895 128 ( Preprint 2001.06051)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Roulet J, Chia H S, Olsen S, Dai L, Venumadhav T, Zackay B and Zaldarriaga M 2021 Phys. Rev. D 104 083010 (Preprint 2105.10580)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Callister T A, Miller S J, Chatziioannou K and Farr W M 2022 Astrophys. J. Lett. 937 L13 (Preprint 2205.08574)

    2022

  37. [45]

    Banagiri S, Callister T A, Doctor Z and Kalogera V 2025 ( Preprint 2501.06712) REFERENCES 19

    2025

  38. [46]

    Ajith P 2011 Phys. Rev. D 84 084037 (Preprint 1107.1267)

    2011 arXiv

  39. [47]

    2010 Phys

    Santamaria L et al. 2010 Phys. Rev. D 82 064016 (Preprint 1005.3306)

    2010 arXiv

  40. [48]

    P¨ urrer M, Hannam M, Ajith P and Husa S 2013Phys. Rev. D 88 064007 (Preprint 1306.2320)

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Schmidt P, Ohme F and Hannam M 2015 Phys. Rev. D 91 024043 ( Preprint 1408.1810)

    2015 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Vitale S, Lynch R, Raymond V, Sturani R, Veitch J and Graff P 2017 Phys. Rev. D 95 064053 (Preprint 1611.01122)

    2017 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Shaik F H, Lange J, Field S E, O’Shaughnessy R, Varma V, Kidder L E, Pfeiffer H P and Wysocki D 2020 Phys. Rev. D 101 124054 (Preprint 1911.02693)

    2020

  44. [52]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Astrophys

    Abbott B P et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2019 Astrophys. J. Lett. 882 L24 (Preprint 1811.12940)

    2019

  45. [53]

    (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2021 Astrophys

    Abbott R et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo) 2021 Astrophys. J. Lett. 913 L7 (Preprint 2010.14533)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Wysocki D, Lange J and O’Shaughnessy R 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 043012 (Preprint 1805.06442)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Talbot C and Thrane E 2017 Phys. Rev. D 96 023012 (Preprint 1704.08370)

    2017 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kimball C, Talbot C, L Berry C P, Carney M, Zevin M, Thrane E and Kalogera V 2020 Astrophys. J. 900 177 (Preprint 2005.00023)

    2020

  49. [57]

    2021 Astrophys

    Kimball C et al. 2021 Astrophys. J. Lett. 915 L35 (Preprint 2011.05332)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Adamcewicz C, Galaudage S, Lasky P D and Thrane E 2024 Astrophys. J. Lett. 964 L6 (Preprint 2311.05182)

    2024

  51. [59]

    Farah A M, Fishbach M and Holz D E 2024 Astrophys. J. 962 69 ( Preprint 2308.05102)

    2024

  52. [60]

    Gerosa D, De Renzis V, Tettoni F, Mould M, Vecchio A and Pacilio C 2025 Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 121402 (Preprint 2409.07519)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Zhu X J and Ashton G 2020 Astrophys. J. Lett. 902 L12 (Preprint 2007.08198)

    2020

  54. [62]

    (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2018 Living Rev

    Abbott B P et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, VIRGO) 2018 Living Rev. Rel. 21 3 (Preprint 1304.0670)

    2018 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Abbott B P et al. (KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, VIRGO) 2022 Noise curves used for simulations in the update of the observing scenarios paper https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2000012/public URL https://dcc.ligo.org/ LIGO-T2000012/public

    2022

  56. [64]

    Vitale S, Gerosa D, Farr W M and Taylor S R 2021 Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy ed Bambi C, Katsanevas S and Kokkotas K (Singapore: Springer) chap 17

    2021

  57. [65]

    Allen B, Anderson W G, Brady P R, Brown D A and Creighton J D E 2012 Phys. Rev. D 85 122006 (Preprint gr-qc/0509116) REFERENCES 20

    2012 arXiv

  58. [66]

    2016 Class

    Usman S A et al. 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 215004 (Preprint 1508.02357)

    2016 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Adams T, Buskulic D, Germain V, Guidi G M, Marion F, Montani M, Mours B, Piergiovanni F and Wang G 2016 Class. Quant. Grav. 33 175012 ( Preprint 1512.02864)

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    2017 Phys

    Messick C et al. 2017 Phys. Rev. D 95 042001 (Preprint 1604.04324)

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Essick R and Fishbach M 2024 Astrophys. J. 962 169 (Preprint 2310.02017)

    2024

  62. [70]

    2019 Astrophys

    Ashton G et al. 2019 Astrophys. J. Suppl. 241 27 (Preprint 1811.02042)

    2019 arXiv

  63. [71]

    2020 Mon

    Romero-Shaw I M et al. 2020 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499 3295–3319 (Preprint 2006.00714)

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Hannam M, Schmidt P, Boh´ e A, Haegel L, Husa S, Ohme F, Pratten G and P¨ urrer M 2014 Phys. Rev. Lett. 113 151101 (Preprint 1308.3271)

    2014 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Loredo T J 2004 AIP Conf. Proc. 735 195–206 (Preprint astro-ph/0409387)

    2004 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Thrane E and Talbot C 2019 Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 36 e010 [Erratum: Publ.Astron.Soc.Austral. 37, e036 (2020)] ( Preprint 1809.02293)

    2019

  67. [75]

    Mandel I and Farmer A 2022 Phys. Rept. 955 1–24 (Preprint 1806.05820)

    2022

  68. [76]

    Essick R 2023 Phys. Rev. D 108 043011 (Preprint 2307.02765)

    2023

  69. [77]

    Talbot C and Golomb J 2023 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 526 3495–3503 (Preprint 2304.06138)

    2023

  70. [78]

    Talbot C, Smith R, Thrane E and Poole G B 2019 Phys. Rev. D 100 043030 (Preprint 1904.02863)

    2019

  71. [79]

    Speagle J S 2020 Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 493 3132–3158 ( Preprint 1904. 02180)

    2020

  72. [80]

    Skilling J 2004 AIP Conf. Proc. 735 395

    2004

  73. [81]

    Skilling J 2006 Bayesian Analysis 1 833–859

    2006

  74. [82]

    2020 Nature Meth

    Virtanen P et al. 2020 Nature Meth. 17 261 (Preprint 1907.10121)

    2020 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Campanelli M, Lousto C O and Zlochower Y 2006Phys. Rev. D 74 041501 (Preprint gr-qc/0604012)

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    Ng K K Y, Vitale S, Zimmerman A, Chatziioannou K, Gerosa D and Haster C J 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 083007 (Preprint 1805.03046)

    2018 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Massey F J J 1951 Journal of the American Statistical Association 46 68–78 URL https://doi.org/10.2307/2280095

    1951 doi

  78. [86]

    Kish L 1965 Survey sampling (Chichester: Wiley)

    1965

Pith tools

Reviewed May 19, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.