Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 6 cited by

Six AGN flares emerge as statistically plausible electromagnetic counterparts to the massive binary black hole merger GW231123.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 23:30 UTC pith:ALY3VIT6

load-bearing objection A useful target list for GW231123, but the 'very strong' odds ratios need a multiplicity correction before they can carry that weight. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.05144 v2 pith:ALY3VIT6 submitted 2025-11-07 astro-ph.HE

Searching for Electromagnetic Counterpart Candidates to GW231123

Lei He , Liang-Gui Zhu , Zheng-Yan Liu , Rui Niu , Chao Wei , Bing-Zhou Gao , Ming-Shen Zhou , Run-Duo Liang
show 9 more authors
Ken Chen Jian-Min Wang Ning Jiang Zhen-Yi Cai Ji-an Jiang Zi-Gao Dai Ye-Fei Yuan Jian Li Wen Zhao
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wave astronomyactive galactic nucleiAGN flareselectromagnetic counterpartsbinary black hole mergersGW231123Zwicky Transient Facilityhierarchical mergers
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper sets out to find an electromagnetic counterpart to GW231123, the most massive binary-black-hole merger detected to date, whose component masses fall inside the pair-instability gap and whose high spins suggest formation inside an active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk. The authors crossmatch the event's 99% credible localization with a catalog of AGN flares built from Zwicky Transient Facility data, then apply strict timing and morphology cuts to keep six flares that peak after the GW trigger and stand out from their host AGN's baseline. For most of the six, Bayesian odds ratios exceed the 'very strong evidence' threshold (lnO > 5) under at least one waveform model, though the paper is careful to say that at most one of these flares can be the true counterpart and that the high odds are driven mainly by the large primary mass. The practical payoff is a short, prioritized list of sky positions worth monitoring for recurrent flares, with the broader hope that a confirmed association would validate the AGN-assisted channel for building heavy, rapidly spinning black holes and open multi-messenger study of such mergers.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that six AGN flares—each located inside the 99% credible localization region of GW231123 and each peaking after the detector trigger—are plausible electromagnetic counterparts to this extreme merger. The case for each rests on three legs: the flare's significant photometric excess above its host AGN's variability baseline, its morphology as a single isolated outburst with rise and decay timescales between 3 and 200 days, and a Bayesian odds ratio computed for the association versus coincidence hypotheses. For five of the six candidates, at least one of the five waveform models yields lnO > 5, the conventional 'very strong evidence' threshold, with the highest val

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Bayesian odds ratio relating the association model to the coincidence model for each flare. It is computed following the odds-ratio procedure of the companion catalog work, and it combines the GW posterior (sky position, luminosity distance, primary mass), the AGN's position and redshift, the number of AGNs inside the 99% credible volume, and the flare's significance relative to its host's variability. The primary mass (≈137 M⊙) is the dominant driver of the high odds values; the waveform model that yields the smallest credible volume (IMRPhenomXPHM) produces the single highest lnO. Supporting machinery includes the flare search itself: Gaussian-process fitting

Load-bearing premise

The per-candidate odds ratios are computed without a trial-factor correction for the fact that 166 post-trigger AGN flares were screened and six selected; if that multiplicity is not accounted for, the quoted 'very strong evidence' values could be dominated by chance coincidences.

What would settle it

Count the number of AGN flares of comparable significance and timescale inside the same 99% credible volume using ZTF data from before the GW trigger; if the expected chance count is of order one or larger, the six candidates are consistent with background and the claimed odds ratios lose their evidential force. A complementary check is to monitor the six hosts for the predicted recurrent flares on the ~1.6 yr timescale; their absence would contradict the kicked-remnant model.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • A confirmed association would validate the AGN-disk formation channel for GW231123, endorsing hierarchical-merger assembly of ~100+ M⊙ black holes with high spins.
  • The BHL disk-density and scale-height estimates become testable: a recoiling remnant should produce a recurrent flare on a ~1.6 yr re-encounter timescale, so continued monitoring of the six hosts can confirm or rule out the interpretation.
  • A confirmed counterpart with a host redshift turns GW231123 into a standard siren, enabling an independent measurement of the Hubble constant from a single extreme event.
  • The search method—crossmatching multi-waveform localizations with a systematic AGN flare catalog—provides a template for future high-mass GW events where the localization is highly model-dependent.
  • If none of the six is confirmed, the null result constrains the rate and luminosity of EM-bright AGN mergers in the local universe.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The quoted odds ratios are per-candidate and do not include a trial-factor correction for the 166 post-trigger flares that were screened (from which six were selected). The paper itself says at most one can be real; a chance-coincidence calculation would likely lower the posterior evidence for the whole set, so the lnO>5 values are best read as a ranking of candidates rather than six independent d
  • The same pipeline, applied to historical high-mass GW events such as GW190521, could calibrate the false-positive rate of the odds-ratio framework and tell us whether a flare with lnO>5 in this catalog actually predicts a real association more often than chance.
  • For J203336.84-275303.9, the only candidate relying on a photometric redshift, a spectroscopic redshift could shift the source far outside the GW distance posterior and destroy its odds ratio; this is a quick, testable follow-up.
  • A more principled approach would be a hierarchical Bayesian model that accounts for all 166 screened flares simultaneously, yielding posterior inclusion probabilities instead of isolated odds ratios; this would naturally incorporate the multiplicity correction.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper searches the Zwicky Transient Facility AGN flare catalog for electromagnetic counterparts to the high-mass BBH merger GW231123. Crossmatching the GW localization (using five waveform models) with flares peaking after the trigger yields 166 candidate AGN flares; applying rise/decay timescale and isolation criteria reduces this list to six. For each of the six, the authors fit light curves, estimate SMBH masses from archival spectra (or adopt fiducial values), compute Bayesian odds ratios for association versus coincidence, and use a Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion model to infer local disk gas densities and scale heights. They conclude that most candidates show 'strong evidence' (ln O > 5) for association under their framework, while cautioning that at most one can be the true counterpart and that confirmation requires future observations.

Significance. If the association evidence were as strong as claimed, this would be a landmark result: six viable EM-counterpart targets for the most massive BBH detected, with implications for the AGN-assisted formation channel and multi-messenger astronomy. The candidate list itself is a useful output for follow-up, and the use of public ZTF/LVK data with a clearly described selection pipeline is a strength. The paper also explicitly acknowledges the inconclusive nature of the candidates, which is commendable. However, the statistical interpretation of the odds ratios is the load-bearing element of the 'strong evidence' claim, and that interpretation is currently not supported by the analysis as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Table 3] The odds ratios are computed per candidate without any multiplicity or trial-factor correction for the fact that 166 post-trigger AGN flares were screened and the six most promising were then selected. Under the null hypothesis that none of the flares is physically associated with GW231123, the maximum ln O across 166 independent trials will have a substantial tail, so quoting ln O > 5 for five of six candidates as 'very strong evidence' overstates the support. Section 3 states that 'most of our results exceed this threshold' and attributes this to the large primary mass, but the same large mass enters the odds-ratio calculation for every one of the 166 tested AGNs. A corrected false-positive rate, a Bayesian hierarchical model, or at minimum a sensitivity analysis showing how the odds ratios behave under a trial factor is needed before the headline association claim can be accepted.
  2. [Table 2] Table 2 reports t_exit, t_g, t_e, log10(E_tot), rho, and H with no uncertainties, despite the fact that these are derived from light-curve fits and model assumptions. The SMBH masses for three sources are explicitly fiducial (log10(M_SMBH)=8), and the photometric redshift for J203336.84-275303.9 is itself uncertain. The absence of error bars makes it impossible to assess whether the inferred disk densities and scale heights are actually consistent with AGN disk models, as claimed in Section 4, or are simply consistent within arbitrarily wide ranges.
  3. [Section 4, Eq. (4)] The disk density and scale-height estimates (Table 2) are obtained by equating the observed flare luminosity to L_BHL = eta Mdot c^2 and then inverting Eq. (3) for rho. This is a direct, model-dependent transformation, not an independent constraint: the resulting rho is exactly what is needed to make the observed flare match the BHL model. The text should be clearer that this is an illustrative exercise rather than a measurement of the disk environment. Additionally, the use of a single fiducial radiative efficiency eta~0.1 and the assumption v_rel ~ v_k, with no discussion of systematic uncertainties, should be stated explicitly as assumptions that propagate directly into the quoted rho and H values.
  4. [Section 2.1 / Section 2.2] There is an apparent inconsistency in the localization threshold: the text in Section 2.1 says the 90% credible area spans 400–1000 deg^2, but the search in Section 2.2 selects flares within the 99% credible region. The figure caption in Figure 1 also refers to '90% credible localization regions' while the search uses 99%. Please clarify which threshold is used and why, and ensure the text and figures are consistent. If the 99% volume is used, the effective number of tested AGNs and the resulting trial factor should be stated consistently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 1] The phrase 'The 90% confidence area' in Section 2.1 should be 'credible area' for consistency with Bayesian terminology. Also, 'nealy' in Section 4 should be 'nearly'.
  2. [Table 3] The table would benefit from a note explaining what the values in parentheses (2D confidence levels) mean relative to the 3D values, and why some 2D values are absent. Currently the note says only that they are 2D results, but the reader must infer the selection logic.
  3. [Figure 2] The light-curve panels would be easier to interpret if the GW trigger time were marked with a vertical line, and if the fitted model (Eq. 1) were overlaid on the photometry rather than only shown implicitly through the selected parameters in Table 2.
  4. [Appendix A] The spectra in Figure 3 are said to be 'fit using PyQSOFit' to derive virial masses, but the figure does not show the fits. Including the model overplotted on the spectra or providing the fit parameters would allow readers to assess the reliability of the reported SMBH masses.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the candidate search is an empirical crossmatch against public ZTF/LVK data, and the self-cited catalog and odds-ratio method are independently published, code-reproduced tools.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical search: AGN flares from the public ZTF AGN-FCC are crossmatched with the LVK localization of GW231123, and the six candidates are selected by spatial/temporal coincidence and light-curve criteria. The candidates are not defined in terms of the quantities the paper claims to infer (odds ratios, disk densities), so there is no self-definitional reduction. The odds ratios follow the published Bayesian procedure of He et al. (2025a), which is not fitted to these six candidates, and the AGN flare catalog (He et al. 2025b) is public with code available; under the review rules these citations count as real external evidence rather than circular self-citation. The disk-density 'constraint' is an explicit inversion of the Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton luminosity formula (L_BHL -> rho), but it is not presented as a prediction; the subsequent comparison with Sirko & Goodman/Thompson et al. disk models is an independent order-of-magnitude consistency check, not a derivation from the same equation. The lack of a multiplicity/trial-factor correction for testing 166 flares is a statistical validity concern—the paper itself concedes 'at most one could represent the true EM counterpart'—but it is not a definitional equivalence or a fitted-input-renamed-as-prediction, so it does not constitute circularity under the specified criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on the authors' own catalog and odds-ratio method plus literature disk parameters. No new physical entity is introduced; the main fragility is treating each candidate as an independent statistical test while also acknowledging at most one can be real.

free parameters (4)
  • Gaussian-rise/exponential-decay light-curve parameters (r0, A, t0, tg, te) for each candidate = e.g., t_exit = 28.9–274.8 d, tg = 3.2–79.4 d, te = 14.3–140.3 d
    Fitted to ZTF forced photometry for each of the six flares; these define the temporal coincidence and selection criteria.
  • Fiducial SMBH mass log10(M_SMBH) = 8.0 (M_sun)
    Assumed for the three AGNs lacking archival spectra; affects derived disk scale height and recurrence timescale estimates.
  • Disk optical depth at merger point tau_mp = 10^4.5
    Adopted from Cabrera et al. 2024 to convert texit into a disk scale height H in Table 2.
  • Radiative efficiency eta in L_BHL = eta Mdot c^2 = 0.1
    Chosen as a typical value in the Bondi accretion model; directly scales the inferred gas densities.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The AGNFCC catalog and its Gaussian-process flare-significance estimates are valid.
    The search inherits candidate selection from He et al. 2025b; any systematics or contamination in that catalog propagate directly into this analysis.
  • domain assumption The 99% credible volumes from all five waveform models bracket the true source location and distance.
    Figure 1 shows large disagreement among waveform models; if the true source lies outside the searched volumes, all six candidates are spurious.
  • ad hoc to paper Per-candidate odds ratios need no multiplicity/trial-factor correction for testing 166 flares.
    The odds-ratio calculation as described includes the number of AGNs in the volume but not the number of flares tested or the fact that six were selected; the paper implicitly assumes each candidate can be evaluated independently.
  • domain assumption The Bondi-Hoyle-Lyttleton accretion model with eta~0.1 and v_rel~v_k describes the EM emission from a kicked BH in an AGN disk.
    Used in Section 4 to convert observed flare luminosities into gas densities and scale heights.
  • domain assumption Literature values for AGN disk density profiles and tau_mp are representative.
    The consistency check with Sirko & Goodman and Thompson et al. models depends on these adopted disk parameters.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 13257 in / 14564 out tokens · 128666 ms · 2026-08-03T23:30:52.458218+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Electromagnetic Counterpart Candidates to GW231123." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ALY3VIT6

@misc{pith2026251105144,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for Electromagnetic Counterpart Candidates to GW231123},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ALY3VIT6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.05144}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The detection of GW231123, a gravitational-wave (GW) event with exceptionally massive and rapidly spinning black holes, suggests the possible formation within an active galactic nucleus (AGN) disk, which provides a favorable environment for potentially generating an observable electromagnetic (EM) counterpart. We conduct a search for such a counterpart by crossmatching the GW localization with a comprehensive catalog of AGN flares from the Zwicky Transient Facility. Our analysis yields six plausible optical flare candidates that are spatially and temporally coincident with GW231123 and exhibit significant deviations from their AGN baseline flux. Although these candidates represent a crucial first step, their true nature remains inconclusive. Confirming any one of these flares via future observations would provide a landmark validation of the AGN formation channel and unlock the multi-messenger potential of this extraordinary merger.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.05144 by Bing-Zhou Gao, Chao Wei, Ji-an Jiang, Jian Li, Jian-Min Wang, Ken Chen, Lei He, Liang-Gui Zhu, Ming-Shen Zhou, Ning Jiang, Rui Niu, Run-Duo Liang, Wen Zhao, Ye-Fei Yuan, Zheng-Yan Liu, Zhen-Yi Cai, Zi-Gao Dai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The 90% credible localization regions (left) and the luminosity distance posterior distributions (right) from different waveforms. The grey points in left panel mark the positions of AGNFCC flares whose peak times occur after the trigger of GW231123. to 2024 October 316 . It contains the source positions, red￾shifts (when available), and fitted peak times of the flares. For sources without redshifts, we su… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: ZTF g-band photometry, r-band photometry, and g-r color for AGN flares that are selected as potential EM counterparts of GW231123. models (E. Sirko & J. Goodman 2003; T. A. Thompson et al. 2005). Given the deep gravitational potential well of the SMBH, the recoil velocity of the merged remnant is expected to be insufficient for it to escape the AGN disk. Consequently, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Wavelength (Å) 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Flu x (1 0 1 7 e r g s 1 c m 2 Å 1 ) J164911.49+492438.9 2015-06-14, SDSS 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Wavelength (Å) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Flu x (1 0 1 7 e r g s 1 c m 2 Å 1 ) J121013.51+012337.5 2022-03-22, DESI 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 Wavelength (Å) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Flu x (1 0 1 7 e r g s 1 c m 2 Å 1 ) J140528.43+… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 6 Pith papers

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

  1. A population of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA mergers happening inside active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.GA 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Thirteen preferred LVK BBH–AGN associations yield cumulative ln B ≈ +81, with sky localization dominating model selection while SMBH environmental redshifts remain inconclusive.

  2. Observational Properties of Nonthermal Emission from Relativistic Jets Escaping Active Galactic Nucleus Disks

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Jets escaping AGN disks decelerate rapidly in the dense wind-like medium, producing a downshifted spectrum with strong synchrotron self-absorption that creates a quasi-thermal hump, yielding detectable multi-wavelengt...

  3. Exploring Hierarchical Merger Scenarios for GW241011 and GW241110

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.5

    GW241011 and GW241110 favor 2G+1G hierarchical-merger models over a fiducial 1G+1G population, with mild AGN-disk preference and one weak optical flare candidate.

  4. Observational Properties of Nonthermal Emission from Relativistic Jets Escaping Active Galactic Nucleus Disks

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Modeling of jets escaping AGN disks reveals distinct nonthermal emission signatures that support multi-messenger detection and diagnostics of the AGN environment.

  5. Gravitational-wave standard sirens and application in cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Gravitational-wave events from binary mergers act as standard sirens to independently measure luminosity distances and constrain cosmological parameters such as the Hubble constant and dark energy.

  6. Gravitational-wave standard sirens and application in cosmology

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 2.0

    Review of gravitational-wave standard sirens from binary mergers for cosmology, covering distance/redshift methods, detector capabilities, and prospects for bright, dark, and lensed sirens.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, ApJL, 900, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 2020

  2. [2]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  3. [3]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3466

    Antoni, A., MacLeod, M., & Ramirez-Ruiz, E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 884, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab3466

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab3466 2019

  4. [4]

    M., & Piotrzkowski, B

    Ashton, G., Ackley, K., Hernandez, I. M., & Piotrzkowski, B. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 235004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac33bb Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 9 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018,...

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac33bb 2021

  5. [5]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.08558

    Bartos, I., & Haiman, Z. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.08558

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.08558 2025

  6. [6]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & M´arka, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 2017

  7. [7]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2587

    Beck, R., Szapudi, I., Flewelling, H., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 1633, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2587

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2587 2021

  8. [8]

    2024, Physical Review D, 110, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    Cabrera, T., Palmese, A., Hu, L., et al. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.123029 2024

  9. [9]

    M., & Isi, M

    Chen, H.-Y ., Haster, C.-J., Vitale, S., Farr, W. M., & Isi, M. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac989

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac989 2022

  10. [10]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd 2024

  11. [11]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10088

    Croon, D., Sakstein, J., & Gerosa, D. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.10088

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.10088 2025

  12. [12]

    E., et al

    Delfavero, V ., Ray, S., Cook, H. E., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.13412 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14745

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.13412 2025

  13. [13]

    J., Dempsey, A

    Dittmann, A. J., Dempsey, A. M., & Li, H. 2024, ApJ, 964, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad23ce

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad23ce 2024

  14. [14]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817

    Duras, F., Bongiorno, A., Ricci, F., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 636, A73, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936817

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936817 2020

  15. [15]

    2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    Edgar, R. 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 843, doi: 10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001

    doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.06.001 2004

  16. [16]

    S., Caban, F., et al

    Fabj, G., Nasim, S. S., Caban, F., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 2608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3004

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3004 2020

  17. [17]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

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

    doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w 2021

  18. [18]

    D., Issa, D., et al

    Gottlieb, O., Metzger, B. D., Issa, D., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.15887

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.15887 2025

  19. [19]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.251102 2020

  20. [20]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca480 2023

  21. [21]

    2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1809.008

    Guo, H., Shen, Y ., & Wang, S. 2018, Astrophysics Source Code Library, ascl:1809.008

    2018

  22. [22]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  23. [23]

    2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf284

    He, L., Liu, Z., Niu, R., et al. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf284

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf284

  24. [24]

    2025b, arXiv, ApJS in press, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.20232

    He, L., Liu, Z.-Y ., Niu, R., et al. 2025b, arXiv, ApJS in press, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.20232

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.20232

  25. [25]

    C., & Kim, M

    Ho, L. C., & Kim, M. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 123, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/2/123

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/2/123 2015

  26. [26]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´c, ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  27. [27]

    2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 470, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066068

    Karas, V ., &ˇSubr, L. 2007, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 470, 11, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20066068

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20066068 2007

  28. [28]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572

    arXiv 1995

  29. [29]

    S., Murase, K., & Bartos, I

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Bartos, I. 2021, ApJ, 916, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0535

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0535 2021

  30. [30]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d1

    Li, F.-L., Liu, Y ., Fan, X., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 950, 161, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d1

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acd2d1 2023

  31. [31]

    2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08298

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08298

  32. [32]

    2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adda46

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adda46

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adda46

  33. [33]

    M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S

    Li, J., Dempsey, A. M., Li, H., Lai, D., & Li, S. 2023, ApJL, 944, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acb934

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acb934 2023

  34. [34]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17551

    Li, Y .-J., Tang, S.-P., Xue, L.-Q., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.17551

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.17551 2025

  35. [35]

    Liu, S., Wang, L., Tanikawa, A., Wu, W., & Fujii, M. S. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05634

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.05634 2025

  36. [36]

    D., Franciolini, G., & Riotto, A

    Luca, V . D., Franciolini, G., & Riotto, A. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.09965

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.09965 2025

  37. [37]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore), 1–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore), 1–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2021

  38. [38]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, MNRAS, 425, 460, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    arXiv 2012

  40. [40]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886 2019

  41. [41]

    2010, scipy, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    McKinney, W. 2010, scipy, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  42. [42]

    L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al

    Morton, S. L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 123039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123039 2023

  43. [43]

    J., et al

    Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, A., Graham, M. J., et al. 2020, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.14199

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.14199 2020

  44. [44]

    Nojiri, S., & Odintsov, S. D. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.07524

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.07524 2025

  45. [45]

    J., Annis, J

    Palmese, A., Fishbach, M., Burke, C. J., Annis, J. T., & Liu, X. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 914, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0883 10 L. HE ET AL

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0883 2021

  46. [46]

    A., & de Mink, S

    Popa, S. A., & de Mink, S. E. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.00154

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.00154 2025

  47. [47]

    2022, ApJL, 940, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca025 Rodr´ıguez-Ram´ırez, J

    Ren, J., Chen, K., Wang, Y ., & Dai, Z.-G. 2022, ApJL, 940, L44, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aca025 Rodr´ıguez-Ram´ırez, J. C., Bom, C. R., Fraga, B., & Nemmen, R. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3575 Rodr´ıguez-Ram´ırez, J. C., Nemmen, R., & Bom, C. R. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 083020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.083020

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aca025 2022

  48. [48]

    Ryu, T., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 8103, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3487 S´anchez-S´aez, P., Reyes, I., Valenzuela, C., et al. 2021, The Astronomical Journal, 161, 141, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abd5c1 SDSS Collaboration, Pallathadka, G. A., Aghakhanloo, M., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.4855...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07093 2024

  49. [49]

    Shan, X., Yang, H., Mao, S., & Hannuksela, O. A. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.21262

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.21262 2025

  50. [50]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 024013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.024013 2016

  51. [51]

    2003, MNRAS, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    Sirko, E., & Goodman, J. 2003, MNRAS, 341, 501, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2003.06431.x

    arXiv 2003

  52. [52]

    Stegmann, J., Olejak, A., & de Mink, S. E. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15967

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.15967 2025

  53. [53]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, ApJ, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c 2020

  54. [54]

    S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b 2024

  55. [55]

    S., & Wang, L

    Tanikawa, A., Liu, S., Wu, W., Fujii, M. S., & Wang, L. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.01135 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, The Virgo Collaboration, & The KAGRA Collaboration. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.08219 The LSST Science Collaborations, Marshall, P., Anguita, T., et al. 2017,, https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.04058v1 doi: 10.5281/zeno...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.01135 2025

  56. [57]

    A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N

    Thompson, T. A., Quataert, E., & Murray, N. 2005, ApJ, 630, 167, doi: 10.1086/431923

    doi:10.1086/431923 2005

  57. [58]

    Vajpeyi, A., Thrane, E., Smith, R., McKernan, B., & Saavik Ford, K. E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6180

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6180 2022

  58. [59]

    2022, Physical Review Letters, 128, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191102

    Varma, V ., Biscoveanu, S., Islam, T., et al. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 128, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.128.191102 2022

  59. [60]

    C., Li, Y .-R., & Du, P

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., Li, Y .-R., & Du, P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 916, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46 2021

  60. [61]

    2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    Wang, T., Liu, G., Cai, Z., et al. 2023, Science China Physics, Mechanics & Astronomy, 66, 109512, doi: 10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5

    doi:10.1007/s11433-023-2197-5 2023

  61. [62]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 2017

  62. [63]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1df

    Wu, W., Wang, L., Liu, S., et al. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 986, 163, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add1df

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add1df 2025

  63. [64]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15701

    Yuan, C., Chen, Z.-C., & Liu, L. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.15701

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.15701 2025

  64. [65]

    2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer, Singapore), 86, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    Yuan, W., Zhang, C., Chen, Y ., & Ling, Z. 2022, in Handbook of X-ray and Gamma-ray Astrophysics (Springer, Singapore), 86, doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 151-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-16-4544-0 2022

  65. [66]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abff5a

    Zhu, J.-P., Yang, Y .-P., Zhang, B., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abff5a

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abff5a 2021