Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Reconstructing the origin of black hole mergers using sparse astrophysical models

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the 87 binary black hole mergers observed by LIGO-Virgo are best described as a near-even mixture of AGN-assisted and isolated-binary formation channels, and that this split can be inferred from a sparse grid of

desk verdict Sparse-grid mixture analysis is a useful step, but the abstract's AGN rate is not robust once an empirical component is added, and the paper has internal arithmetic errors. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09647 v1 pith:UTL2F3N4 submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

V. Gayathri , Giuliano Iorio , Hiromichi Tagawa , Daniel Wysocki , Jeremiah Anglin , Imre Bartos , Shubhagata Bhaumik , Zolt'an Haiman
show 3 more authors
Michela Mapelli R. O'Shaughnessy LingQin Xue
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords binaryblackholemergersgravitational-waveastronomyLIGO-VirgoAGN-assistedisolatedevolutionSEVNpopulationsynthesismixturemodelinferencemergerrates
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Binary black hole mergers are the most abundant gravitational-wave sources, but their astrophysical origin is contested. This paper argues that the 87 mergers from LIGO-Virgo's first three observing runs can be statistically decomposed into two formation channels: mergers assisted by the gas disk of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) and mergers of isolated binary stars modeled with the SEVN population-synthesis code. Using a mixture-model analysis that treats each simulated model as a discrete population component, it infers a total merger rate of 46.2 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹, of which 21.2 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ come from AGN-assisted mergers and 25.0 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ from isolated binaries. These two channels occupy different regions of the mass-ratio plane, so a correct split would let future detections be classified by origin.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a hierarchical Bayesian mixture model built on a discrete grid of simulations. Each of the 14 AGN and 19 SEVN runs supplies a probability distribution over binary parameters (masses, mass ratio, spins), and the total merger rate is written as a weighted sum of these distributions, with one weight (rate) per model plus a small number of empirical components. The likelihood for all 87 events is then used to sample posterior weights and per-model hyperparameters. This lets a sparse, theory-driven set of simulations—not a continuous analytical function—carry the astrophysical uncertainty in the population.

What would settle it

Count the mass-ratio distribution of high total-mass mergers in the upcoming O4 catalog: the model predicts a clear excess of low-q (q ≲ 0.5) systems above roughly 60 M☉, supplied by the AGN channel. If the observed set shows no such excess—for instance, all events with M ≳ 60 M☉ have q ≳ 0.8—the claimed AGN contribution of about 21 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ would be excluded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim of the paper is that the observed binary black hole population is consistent with a mixture of AGN-assisted and isolated-binary (SEVN) formation, and the paper estimates the mixing fractions from the 87 detections. The reported best-fit rates are a total of 46.2 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹, with 21.2 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ from AGN-assisted mergers and 25.0 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ from SEVN isolated binaries. The two channels separate cleanly in parameter space: AGN-assisted mergers dominate high total masses and low mass ratios, while SEVN mergers dominate low masses and near-equal mass ratios. The analysis also yields posterior estimates for the AGN disk parameters (f_v ≈ 0.09, τ ≈ 932 × 10⁵ yr, λ ≈ 0.74) and a S

Load-bearing premise

The inference rests on the discrete grid of 14 AGN and 19 SEVN simulations spanning the true space of merger distributions; if the real formation-channel parameters lie off this grid, or if the six omitted AGN models are not simply under-sampled, the reported rates and parameter values are biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the inferred split is correct, roughly half of future BBH detections should trace to AGN-assisted origins, giving electromagnetic and host-galaxy follow-up a concrete rate to test.
  • The AGN channel's preference for low mass ratios and high total masses predicts that the most asymmetric, heaviest mergers will preferentially come from AGN disks, a signature that can be checked as the catalog grows.
  • The inferred SEVN metallicity near Z ≈ 6 × 10⁻⁴ connects the isolated-binary channel to low-metallicity star-forming galaxies, which is testable with galaxy surveys.
  • Adding a generic power-law+peak empirical component drops the AGN contribution from 21.2 to 5.1 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹ while SEVN stays near 31.6 Gpc⁻³ yr⁻¹, so the AGN share depends on how completely alternative stellar-origin populations are modeled.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The credible intervals for the AGN parameters are discrete-grid-selected values, not continuum estimates; an interpolated or emulated model space would give smoother posteriors and likely broader uncertainty.
  • The six AGN simulations dropped for low BBH counts could hide viable regions of parameter space; re-running them with more Monte Carlo samples might move the AGN share.
  • If the SEVN spin model were replaced by a more realistic prescription, the mass-ratio/spin fingerprint separating the two channels could shift, so the 21/25 split should be read as conditional on the toy spin 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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper extends the mixture-model population inference of Gayathri et al. (2023) to a discrete set of simulated astrophysical formation models: 14 AGN-assisted merger simulations (from 20, with 6 discarded) and 19 SEVN isolated-binary models (15 metallicities and 4 common-envelope efficiencies). The authors analyze 87 BBH detections from O1–O3, estimating merger rates and channel fractions under AGN-only, AGN+SEVN, and PL+G+AGN+SEVN mixture models. The abstract reports a total rate of 46.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for the AGN+SEVN model, with AGN contributing 21.2 and SEVN 25.0 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, and the paper frames these as quantifying the relative contributions of the two formation channels.

Significance. The methodological direction—using sparse simulated catalogs directly as components in a hierarchical mixture likelihood—is timely and potentially valuable for GW population inference, as it avoids restrictive parametric prescriptions and can incorporate realistic model uncertainties. The paper also makes explicit, falsifiable predictions for channel rates and model parameters using public LVK data. However, the numerical results are not internally self-consistent: the paper's own four-component analysis (Fig. 8) yields an AGN rate that is roughly a quarter of the headline value, and the abstract/conclusions omit this sensitivity. As presented, the central claim of a robust AGN/SEVN decomposition is not yet supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Fig. 7 caption; Fig. 8 caption] The abstract reports an AGN rate of 21.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 from the AGN+SEVN model, but the four-component PL+G+AGN+SEVN result in the Fig. 8 caption gives AGN = 5.1 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, a factor ~4 lower. Moreover, the Fig. 8 caption states a total of 58.1 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 while the listed components sum to 29.56 + 2.66 + 5.1 + 31.63 = 68.95 Gpc^-3 yr^-1. This arithmetic inconsistency makes the central rate claim irreproducible, and the model-dependence of the AGN rate is not reported in the abstract or conclusion.
  2. [Section 2.1, Table 1] Six of the 20 AGN simulations are excluded from the analysis solely because they produce a low number of BBH samples, with no quantitative threshold or justification. If the excluded models occupy a different region of parameter space, this post-hoc selection can bias the inferred channel fractions and parameter estimates. Please provide the selection criterion and a robustness test (e.g., repeating the analysis with all 20 models or with a minimum sample count).
  3. [Sections 4.1 and 4.3] The AGN parameter estimates are inconsistent between the AGN-only and AGN+SEVN analyses. Section 4.1 reports f_v = 0.86^{+0.05}_{-0.71}, τ ≈ 42.1×10^5 yr, λ ≈ 0.31, while Section 4.3 reports f_v = 0.09^{+0.21}_{-0.08}, τ ≈ 932×10^5 yr, λ ≈ 0.74. The text in §4.3 states these estimates are 'consistent', which is contradicted by the quoted values. This instability underlines the sensitivity of the inferred AGN parameters to the model set and undermines the conclusion's claim of consistent AGN parameter estimation.
  4. [Section 3.3] The likelihood uses Gaussian fits to the event posterior distributions in (M, η, χ_eff), referencing Delfavero et al. (2021). No validation is shown that these approximations are adequate for the 87 events, several of which have non-Gaussian or multi-modal posteriors (e.g., due to spin degeneracies and mass-ratio constraints). Since the quantitative rates and channel fractions rest on this likelihood, a comparison using full posterior samples for at least a subset of events is needed to rule out systematic bias.
minor comments (6)
  1. [References] There are duplicate bibliography entries: Bartos et al. (2017) appears twice, Iorio et al. (2023) twice, and Wysocki et al. (2019) twice.
  2. [Section 3.3] The text mentions a broken power-law empirical model, but no results for it are reported anywhere in the paper.
  3. [Notation] The symbol α is used for both the SEVN common-envelope efficiency and the disk viscosity parameter α_SS; please disambiguate to avoid confusion.
  4. [Equations (5) and (6)] There are typographical issues: in Eq. (5), 'p_sevn(X|Λ_sev)' is missing a closing brace, and in Eq. (6), 'Rg' and 'R pl' are inconsistently subscripted.
  5. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption defines N_i as the number of binaries in the i-th AGN model and N as the number in the highest-τ model, but the text uses N without clear definition.
  6. [Section 4.1] The rate is quoted as '39.5 +10.34 −11.06,Gpc−3,yr−1'; the punctuation and units should be formatted consistently as Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the analysis is an externally grounded mixture fit to LVK data using independently simulated model grids.

full rationale

The paper performs a standard hierarchical mixture-model inference: the observed 87 BBH events are taken from the independent GWTC catalog, and the AGN and SEVN component distributions are precomputed simulation outputs from prior work (Tagawa et al. 2021; Iorio et al. 2023). These model distributions are not constructed from the observed events nor defined in terms of the inferred rates; the mixture fractions and total rates are free parameters estimated from the data. The headline AGN/SEVN split (21.2 vs 25.0 Gpc^-3 yr^-1) is therefore a fitted result, not a prediction that reduces to its inputs by construction. The method generalizes the authors' earlier work (Gayathri et al. 2023), but the formalism is re-derived in Section 3 and is not imported as an unexamined uniqueness theorem. Self-citations to the authors' own simulations and code are present, but those cited results are independently produced and externally falsifiable, so they do not constitute load-bearing circularity. The internal inconsistency in Fig. 8 (component rates 29.56 + 2.66 + 5.1 + 31.63 = 68.95, not the stated 58.1) and the sensitivity of the AGN rate to inclusion of the PL+G empirical component are correctness/model-dependence concerns, not circularity. Similarly, the decision to discard six AGN models with low BBH sample counts is a modeling-choice concern. No equation defines a predicted quantity in terms of a fitted quantity, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained against external data and simulation outputs, and no significant circularity is found.

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

The analysis rests on the simulated model libraries (AGN from Tagawa et al. 2021, SEVN from Iorio et al. 2023), with mixture fractions and the overall rate fitted to 87 LVK events. The main free parameters are the rates; the model grids themselves are treated as fixed inputs. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Total merger rate R = 46.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 (AGN+SEVN case)
    Overall normalization fitted to the 87-detection sample.
  • AGN component rate R_agn = 21.2 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Mixture weight for the 14 AGN models, fitted to data.
  • SEVN component rate R_sevn = 25.0 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Mixture weight for the SEVN models, fitted to data.
  • Power-law+peak empirical model parameters = not reported in the paper
    Empirical model included in one analysis (Figure 8); parameters fitted to data, but values are not tabulated in the text.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Bayes' theorem and the likelihood formula (Eq. 4) as derived in Wysocki et al. 2019.
    The population inference formalism is taken as given from prior literature.
  • domain assumption The 14 AGN and 19 SEVN models adequately span the space of plausible formation-channel distributions, and the 6 excluded AGN models are unrepresentative.
    This is the weakest modeling assumption; it enters via the model selection in Table 1 and the fixed grid in Section 3.3.
  • domain assumption Gaussian approximations to single-event likelihoods in (M, eta, chi_eff) are sufficiently accurate for population inference.
    The paper states it uses 'simple Gaussian fits' (Section 3.3) without quantifying the approximation error.
  • domain assumption The selection function and detection efficiency are correctly folded into the expected detection count mu(R,X).
    The likelihood expression in Eq. 4 includes mu(R,X), but the paper does not show how the selection function is computed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing the origin of black hole mergers using sparse astrophysical models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UTL2F3N4

@misc{pith2026250909647,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing the origin of black hole mergers using sparse astrophysical models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UTL2F3N4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09647}
}
abstract

The astrophysical origin of binary black hole mergers discovered by LIGO and Virgo remains uncertain. Efforts to reconstruct the processes that lead to mergers typically rely on either astrophysical models with fixed parameters, or continuous analytical models that can be fit to observations. Given the complexity of astrophysical formation mechanisms, these methods typically cannot fully take into account model uncertainties, nor can they fully capture the underlying processes. Here, we present a merger population analysis that can take a discrete set of simulated model distributions as its input to interpret observations. The analysis can take into account multiple formation scenarios as fractional contributors to the total set of observations, and can naturally account for model uncertainties. We apply this technique to investigate the origin of black hole mergers observed by LIGO Virgo. Specifically, we consider a model of AGN assisted black hole merger distributions, exploring a range of AGN parameters along with several {{SEVN}} population synthesis models that vary in common envelope efficiency parameter ($\alpha$) and metallicity ($Z$). We estimate the posterior distributions for AGN+SEVN models using $87$ BBH detections from the $O1--O3$ observation runs. The inferred total merger rate is $46.2 {Gpc}^{-3} {yr}^{-1}$, with the AGN sub-population contributing $21.2{Gpc}^{-3}{yr}^{-1}$ and the SEVN sub-population contributing $25.0 {Gpc}^{-3} {yr}^{-1}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09647 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The probability density of AGN-assisted black hole merger properties for AGN models with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Extremal binaries produced in our models, versus AGN duration. Panels show the maximum mass of the component objects, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Binary merger parameter distributions for SEVN models with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The merger rate fraction for AGN models with 87 BBH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Its fractional contribution varies from ∼ 3% to ∼ 17%, with the lowest contribution at Z = 0.0001 and the highest at Z = 0.017. The population being studied, observed BBHs, matches best with the predictions of the stellar evolution model that assumes solar-like metalli…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The merger rate fraction for SEVN models with di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The merger rate estimation for SEVN and AGN with 87 BBH detections from O1-O3 observation runs. The left figure shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The posterior distribution estimation for AGN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The merger rate estimation for PL+G+AGN+SEVN models with 87 BBH detection from O1-O3 observation runs. The total estimated rate is 58.1 Gpc−3 yr−1 , the PL sub-population rate is 29.56 Gpc−3 yr−1 , the Gaussian sub-population rate 2.66 Gpc−3 yr−1 , the AGN sub-populati…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. Assessing the waveform systematics from parameter estimation to population inference with eccentricity

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

    Eccentric waveform-model differences, small per event, accumulate across the GWTC-4 catalog and alter inferred redshift evolution and effective-spin population distributions.

  2. Uncovering Hierarchical Sub-Population of Binary Black Holes

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

    A flexible six-component fit to 259 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA black-hole mergers finds a roughly geometric sequence of mass peaks but no aligned-spin signal except in the lowest-mass component.

  3. Properties of black hole mergers in disks of active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.HE 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Black hole merger properties in AGN disks match observed distributions when gas accretion and hierarchical mergers are included, varying strongly with disk parameters.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Aasi, J. et al. 2015, Class. Quantum Grav., 32, 074001

    2015

  2. [2]

    Abac, A. G. et al. 2025 [arXiv:2508.18082]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040

    2019

  4. [4]

    Abbott, B. P. et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    2017

  5. [5]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, arXiv:2010.14527

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    Abbott, R. et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 913, L7

    2021

  7. [7]

    Abbott, R. et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 022001

    2024

  8. [8]

    Acernese, F. et al. 2015, Class. Quantum Grav., 32, 024001

    2015

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Akutsu, T. et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 35

    2019

  2. [10]

    2014, Astrophys

    Antonini, F. 2014, Astrophys. J., 794, 106

    2014

  3. [11]

    Artymowicz, P., Lin, D. N. C., & Wampler, E. J. 1993, Astrophys. J., 409, 592

    1993

  4. [12]

    2017, Nature Comm., 8, 831

    Bartos, I., Haiman, Z., Marka, Z., et al. 2017, Nature Comm., 8, 831

    2017

  5. [13]

    2017, Astrophys

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & Márka, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 835, 165

    2017

  6. [14]

    2017, ApJ, 835, 165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & Márka, S. 2017, ApJ, 835, 165

    2017

  7. [15]

    2021, Mon

    Bouffanais, Y ., Mapelli, M., Santoliquido, F., et al. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 505, 3873

    2021

  8. [16]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  9. [17]

    2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    Chen, Y ., Bressan, A., Girardi, L., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1068

    2015

  10. [18]

    Colloms, S., Berry, C. P. L., Veitch, J., & Zevin, M. 2025, Astrophys. J., 988, 189

    2025

  11. [19]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 4641

    Costa, G., Girardi, L., Bressan, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4641

    2019

  12. [20]

    2023, Mon

    Costa, G., Mapelli, M., Iorio, G., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 525, 2891

    2023

  13. [21]

    2021, Normal Approximate Likelihoods to Gravitational Wave Events

    Delfavero, V ., O’Shaughnessy, R., Wysocki, D., & Yelikar, A. 2021, Normal Approximate Likelihoods to Gravitational Wave Events

    2021

  14. [22]

    2021, ApJ, 913, L23

    Edelman, B., Doctor, Z., & Farr, B. 2021, ApJ, 913, L23

    2021

  15. [23]

    E., & Galaudage, S

    Farah, A., Fishbach, M., Essick, R., Holz, D. E., & Galaudage, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 108

    2022

  16. [24]

    L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al

    Fryer, C. L., Belczynski, K., Wiktorowicz, G., et al. 2012, ApJ, 749, 91

    2012

  17. [25]

    2023, Astrophys

    Gayathri, V ., Wysocki, D., Yang, Y ., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 945, L29

    2023

  18. [26]

    2021, Astrophys

    Gayathri, V ., Yang, Y ., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Bartos, I. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 920, L42

    2021

  19. [27]

    C., Metzger, B

    Generozov, A., Stone, N. C., Metzger, B. D., & Ostriker, J. P. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 478, 4030

    2018

  20. [28]

    2022, in 56th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation

    Ghosh, A. 2022, in 56th Rencontres de Moriond on Gravitation

    2022

  21. [29]

    & Tan, J

    Goodman, J. & Tan, J. C. 2004, Astrophys. J., 608, 108

    2004

  22. [30]

    J., Mori, K., Bauer, F

    Hailey, C. J., Mori, K., Bauer, F. E., et al. 2018, Nature, 556, 70

    2018

  23. [31]

    2023, MNRAS, 524, 426

    Iorio, G., Mapelli, M., Costa, G., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 524, 426

    2023

  24. [32]

    Iorio, G. et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524, 426

    2023

  25. [33]

    2023, Mon

    Karathanasis, C., Mukherjee, S., & Mastrogiovanni, S. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 523, 4539

    2023

  26. [34]

    2025, Astron

    Korb, E., Mapelli, M., Iorio, G., Costa, G., & Dall’Amico, M. 2025, Astron. Astrophys., 695, A199

    2025

  27. [35]

    2021, Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes

    Mapelli, M. 2021, Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes

    2021

  28. [36]

    2021, Symmetry, 13, 1678

    Mapelli, M., Santoliquido, F., Bouffanais, Y ., et al. 2021, Symmetry, 13, 1678

    2021

  29. [37]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Kocsis, B., Lyra, W., & Winter, L. M. 2014, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 441, 900

    2014

  30. [38]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 460 Miralda-Escudé, J. & Gould, A. 2000, ApJ, 545, 847

    2012

  31. [39]

    1993, Astrophys

    Morris, M. 1993, Astrophys. J., 408, 496

    1993

  32. [40]

    T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al

    Nguyen, C. T., Costa, G., Girardi, L., et al. 2022, A&A, 665, A126

    2022

  33. [41]

    L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Morscher, M., Pattabiraman, B., et al. 2015, Phys. Rev. Lett., 115, 051101, [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 029901 (2016)]

    2015

  34. [42]

    1991, MNRAS, 250, 505

    Smith, J. 1991, MNRAS, 250, 505

    1991

  35. [43]

    2022, SEVN: Stellar EV olution for N- body, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2206.019

    Spera, M., Mapelli, M., & Bressan, A. 2022, SEVN: Stellar EV olution for N- body, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:2206.019

    2022

  36. [44]

    2019, Mon

    Spera, M., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 889

    2019

  37. [45]

    2021, MNRAS, 507, 3362 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, & the KAGRA Col- laboration

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., & Omukai, K. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3362 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, & the KAGRA Col- laboration. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.08219

    2021 arXiv

  38. [46]

    & Talbot, C

    Thrane, E. & Talbot, C. 2019, PASA, 36, e010

    2019

  39. [47]

    Wong, K. W. K., Breivik, K., Kremer, K., & Callister, T. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 083021

    2021

  40. [49]

    2019, Phys

    Wysocki, D., Lange, J., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043012

    2019

  41. [50]

    2019, Phys

    Yang, Y ., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V ., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 181101

    2019

  42. [51]

    S., Berry, C

    Zevin, M., Bavera, S. S., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 910, 152 Article number, page 9

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.