pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.30144 · v1 · pith:257YX5FDnew · submitted 2026-06-29 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.IM· gr-qc

Joint population and strong-lensing inference for resolved gravitational-wave events probes the black-hole merger rate beyond the peak of star formation

Matthew Mould This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 05:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesblack hole mergersstrong lensingpopulation inferencemerger rateLIGO-Virgo-KAGRA
0
0 comments X

The pith

Joint inference of lensing and black-hole merger populations finds no strongly lensed events and modestly tighter rate constraints.

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

The paper introduces a method that simultaneously determines whether each resolved gravitational-wave event is strongly lensed, estimates its magnification if so, and infers the underlying binary black-hole population. It applies this method to the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog using both parametric and nonparametric population models along with two different lensing optical depth models. No event receives a posterior lensing probability above 1 percent, so the recovered population parameters—including mass and spin subpopulations—match those obtained when lensing is ignored entirely. The joint approach nevertheless reduces uncertainty on the redshift of the merger-rate peak by roughly 10 percent and tightens high-redshift rate upper limits by an order of magnitude, supplying the first population constraints at redshifts where current detectors are normally insensitive.

Core claim

By performing a joint Bayesian analysis over per-event lensing status, magnification, and global population parameters, the method shows that strong lensing does not affect any catalog event at more than the 1 percent level. Population inferences therefore remain unchanged from standard nondetection analyses, yet the same framework yields a 10 percent reduction in uncertainty on the redshift at which the merger rate peaks and an order-of-magnitude improvement in high-redshift rate upper limits, all derived solely from resolved events.

What carries the argument

Joint Bayesian inference that couples per-event lensing probability and magnification with global population parameters, using both parametric and nonparametric merger-rate models together with two lensing optical depth prescriptions.

If this is right

  • Population constraints, including multiple mass subpopulations and a high-spin component, stay consistent with analyses that assume no lensing occurs.
  • Uncertainty on the redshift at which the black-hole merger rate peaks shrinks by approximately 10 percent.
  • Upper limits on the merger rate at high redshifts tighten by roughly an order of magnitude.
  • These constraints reach redshifts at and beyond the peak of star formation using only currently resolved events.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework could be applied to future detector catalogs to extend rate measurements to still higher redshifts where lensing becomes more probable.
  • If different optical depth models were adopted, the same joint method might assign higher lensing probabilities to some events and alter the high-redshift limits.
  • The approach illustrates that resolved events alone can inform merger-rate behavior in regimes normally inaccessible without strong lensing.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen parametric and nonparametric population models plus the two lensing optical depth models are sufficient to capture all relevant physics.

What would settle it

An event whose posterior lensing probability exceeds a few percent under the same models, or a re-analysis in which the reported 10 percent and order-of-magnitude improvements disappear.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.30144 by Matthew Mould.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Posterior distributions for the population parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Inferred evolution of the merger rate per unit comoving volume and source-frame time as a function of redshift. Results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Posterior population-level distributions of logarithmic primary BH mass (left), logarithmic secondary BH mass (middle), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves can be lensed by intervening potentials of various scales. Strong lensing leads to underestimated distances and overestimated masses, biasing astrophysical results if not accounted for. I present a novel analysis of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog of binary black-hole mergers, simultaneously inferring (1) whether or not each event is strongly lensed, (2) their magnifications if so, and (3) the underlying merger population, using both parametric and nonparametric population models as well as two models for the lensing optical depth. Posterior lensing probabilities do not exceed 1% for any event, so population constraints are consistent with those assuming nondetection of strong lensing or that lensing never occurs. This includes multiple subpopulations over black-hole mass and a component with high aligned spins. Compared to standard analyses, however, there are reductions of order 10% in uncertainty on the redshift at which the merger rate peaks and an order of magnitude in high-redshift rate upper limits. Though modest, these are the first constraints using only resolved events at redshifts where current ground-based gravitational-wave detectors are usually insensitive, at and beyond the peak of star formation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a joint Bayesian framework for analyzing the LVK binary black-hole catalog that simultaneously infers per-event strong-lensing probabilities and magnifications together with the underlying merger population, using both parametric and nonparametric population models and two lensing optical-depth prescriptions. The central results are that no event has a posterior lensing probability exceeding 1%, population posteriors remain consistent with standard no-lensing analyses (including multiple subpopulations and high-spin components), and modest gains appear in the uncertainty on the redshift of the merger-rate peak (~10% reduction) and in high-redshift rate upper limits (order-of-magnitude tightening).

Significance. If the results hold, the work supplies the first population-level constraints on black-hole merger rates at redshifts at and beyond the peak of star formation that are derived solely from resolved gravitational-wave events. The joint-inference approach is novel and the low lensing probabilities provide direct support for the robustness of existing LVK population analyses. The use of both parametric and nonparametric models plus two optical-depth prescriptions is a positive step toward robustness.

major comments (1)
  1. [§3 and §4] §4 (Results) and §3 (Methods): The headline claims that all posterior lensing probabilities remain below 1% and that the reported tightening of the peak-redshift uncertainty and high-z rate limits are obtained only after marginalizing over one specific pair of population models and exactly two optical-depth prescriptions. No sensitivity test to alternative population models (e.g., additional subpopulations or different mass-function parametrizations) or to a different strong-lensing cross-section scaling is presented; such a test is required because the central claim that population constraints are consistent with a no-lensing analysis rests on the sufficiency of these model families.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§2] The notation for the lensing optical depth and magnification priors should be made fully explicit in §2 so that readers can reproduce the exact functional forms used.
  2. [Figure captions] Figure captions for the posterior corner plots should state the exact prior ranges and the number of live points used in the nested sampling runs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their positive assessment and recommendation for minor revision. We respond to the single major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3 and §4] §4 (Results) and §3 (Methods): The headline claims that all posterior lensing probabilities remain below 1% and that the reported tightening of the peak-redshift uncertainty and high-z rate limits are obtained only after marginalizing over one specific pair of population models and exactly two optical-depth prescriptions. No sensitivity test to alternative population models (e.g., additional subpopulations or different mass-function parametrizations) or to a different strong-lensing cross-section scaling is presented; such a test is required because the central claim that population constraints are consistent with a no-lensing analysis rests on the sufficiency of these model families.

    Authors: The nonparametric population model is constructed to be highly flexible, allowing it to capture additional subpopulations, varied mass-function shapes, and rate evolution without being restricted to a fixed parametric form; results are shown to be consistent between the parametric and nonparametric cases. The two optical-depth prescriptions are the dominant choices in the literature. We will add explicit discussion in §§3–4 on the representativeness of these choices and why they suffice to support the consistency claim with no-lensing analyses. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper performs a joint Bayesian inference using external LVK catalog events, parametric/nonparametric population models, and two standard lensing optical-depth prescriptions. No derivation step reduces by construction to its inputs, no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction, and no load-bearing premise rests on self-citation chains. The central results (posterior lensing probabilities <1% and modest tightening of rate constraints) follow directly from marginalization over the chosen models applied to independent data, satisfying the criteria for a self-contained analysis against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides insufficient detail to identify specific free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; analysis appears to build on standard Bayesian population inference techniques.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5747 in / 1136 out tokens · 38101 ms · 2026-06-30T05:21:30.294638+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

150 extracted references · 66 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    are the source (apparent detector-frame) primary and secondary masses. Lensing nondetection—Given that targeted strong lensing searches find no significant detections [9], a rea- sonable assumption is instead thatL i = 0 and thus µi = 1 for each eventi= 1, ..., N obs. The likelihood in this case isL l({µi = 1, Li = 0}Nobs i=1 ,Λ). No lensing—Results are a...

  2. [2]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, New York, 1992)

    1992

  3. [3]

    Treu, Ann

    T. Treu, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.48, 87 (2010), arXiv:1003.5567 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  4. [4]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L18 (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Class

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  6. [6]

    Acerneseet al., Class

    F. Acerneseet al., Class. Quantum Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  7. [7]

    Akutsuet al.(KAGRA Collaboration), Prog

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA Collaboration), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys.2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv:2605.27225 [gr-qc] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), arXiv:2512.16347 [gr-qc] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, T. Broadhurst, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. D97, 023012 (2018), arXiv:1703.06319 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    G. P. Smith, M. Jauzac, J. Veitch, W. M. Farr, R. Massey, and J. Richard, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 475, 3823 (2018), arXiv:1707.03412 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  13. [13]

    Buscicchio, C

    R. Buscicchio, C. J. Moore, G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D102, 081501 (2020), arXiv:2008.12621 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), As- trophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    A. Ray, S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, arXiv:2510.07228 [gr-qc] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    A. Jan, S. Nicolella, D. Shoemaker, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Phys. Rev. D113, 084052 (2026), arXiv:2512.20060 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Q. Hu, H. Narola, J. Heynen, M. Wright, J. Veitch, J. Janquart, and C. Van Den Broeck, Astrophys. J. 1003, 187 (2026), arXiv:2512.17550 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Malagon and R

    N. Malagon and R. O’Shaughnessy, arXiv:2605.12818 [astro-ph.HE] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Wang and T

    B. Wang and T. Yang, arXiv:2604.08179 [gr-qc] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    Chandra, J

    K. Chandra, J. Fernandes, A. Mittal, and G. Carullo, arXiv:2606.15150 [gr-qc] (2026)

    arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    Liu and K

    A. Liu and K. Kim, Phys. Rev. D110, 123008 (2024), arXiv:2301.07253 [gr-qc]. 6

    arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    X. Shan, H. Yang, S. Mao, and O. A. Hannuksela, As- trophys. J.1004, 35 (2026), arXiv:2508.21262 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  23. [23]

    J. C. L. Chan, J. M. Ezquiaga, R. K. L. Lo, J. Bowman, L. Maga˜ na Zertuche, and L. Vujeva, arXiv:2512.16916 [gr-qc] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Goyal, H

    S. Goyal, H. Villarrubia-Rojo, and M. Zumalacarregui, arXiv:2512.17631 [astro-ph.GA] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Chakraborty and S

    A. Chakraborty and S. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J.1003, 20 (2026), arXiv:2512.19077 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    X. Shan, H. Yang, and S. Mao, arXiv:2512.19118 [astro- ph.GA] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Barsode, arXiv:2605.10333 [gr-qc] (2026)

    A. Barsode, arXiv:2605.10333 [gr-qc] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    A. Liu, M. Wright, J. Heynen, E. Seo, I. C. F. Wong, D. Hegde, L. E. Uronen, H. Narola, M. Hendry, T. G. F. Li, O. A. Hannuksela, and J. Janquart (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    S. Bini, K. Kr´ ol, K. Chatziioannou, and M. Isi, Phys. Rev. D113, 083036 (2026), arXiv:2601.09678 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    A. M. Farah, J. M. Ezquiaga, M. Fishbach, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D113, 042006 (2026), arXiv:2507.07964 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    A. K. Y. Li, R. K. L. Lo, S. Sachdev, J. C. L. Chan, E. T. Lin, T. G. F. Li, and A. J. Weinstein, Phys. Rev. D107, 123014 (2023), arXiv:1904.06020 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), arXiv:2508.20721 [gr-qc] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Buscicchio, C

    R. Buscicchio, C. J. Moore, G. Pratten, P. Schmidt, M. Bianconi, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 141102 (2020), arXiv:2006.04516 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Mukherjee, T

    S. Mukherjee, T. Broadhurst, J. M. Diego, J. Silk, and G. F. Smoot, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.501, 2451 (2021), arXiv:2006.03064 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2021

  35. [35]

    S.-S. Li, S. Mao, Y. Zhao, and Y. Lu, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.476, 2220 (2018), arXiv:1802.05089 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  36. [36]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, arXiv:2605.27226 [astro- ph.HE] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.900, L13 (2020), arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    X. Liu, I. Magana Hernandez, and J. Creighton, As- trophys. J.908, 97 (2021), arXiv:2009.06539 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  40. [40]

    R. K. L. Lo and I. Magana Hernandez, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123015 (2023), arXiv:2104.09339 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  41. [41]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, J. Janquart, H. Narola, H. Phurailatpam, J. D. E. Creighton, and C. Van Den Broeck, Astrophys. J.1002, 42 (2026), arXiv:2510.15463 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  42. [42]

    Yang, Z.-Q

    Q. Yang, Z.-Q. You, and X. Fan, arXiv:2512.20890 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Haris, A

    K. Haris, A. K. Mehta, S. Kumar, T. Venumadhav, and P. Ajith, arXiv:1807.07062 [gr-qc] (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    O. A. Hannuksela, K. Haris, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Kumar, A. K. Mehta, D. Keitel, T. G. F. Li, and P. Ajith, Astro- phys. J. Lett.874, L2 (2019), arXiv:1901.02674 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  45. [45]

    E. L. Turner, J. P. Ostriker, and J. R. Gott, III, Astro- phys. J.284, 1 (1984)

    1984

  46. [46]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.36, e010 (2019), arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2019

  47. [47]

    Talbotet al., Class

    C. Talbotet al., Class. Quantum Grav.42, 235023 (2025), arXiv:2508.11091 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    T. J. Loredo, AIP Conf. Proc.735, 195 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0409387

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  49. [49]

    S. R. Taylor and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D98, 083017 (2018), arXiv:1806.08365 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  50. [50]

    Mandel, W

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.486, 1086 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Vitale, D

    S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Taylor, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy(Springer, Singapore, 2022) pp. 1709–1768, arXiv:2007.05579 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Ashton, RAS Tech

    G. Ashton, RAS Tech. Instrum.5, rzag012 (2026), arXiv:2510.11197 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  53. [53]

    Tiwari, Class

    V. Tiwari, Class. Quantum Grav.35, 145009 (2018), arXiv:1712.00482 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc] (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    Mould, R

    M. Mould, R. Tenorio, and D. Gerosa, arXiv:2604.15885 [gr-qc] (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Essicket al., Phys

    R. Essicket al., Phys. Rev. D112, 102001 (2025), arXiv:2508.10638 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    W. M. Farr, Res. Notes Am. Astron. Soc.3, 66 (2019), arXiv:1904.10879 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  58. [58]

    Essick and W

    R. Essick and W. Farr, arXiv:2204.00461 [astro-ph.IM] (2022)

    arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    Talbot and J

    C. Talbot and J. Golomb, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 526, 3495 (2023), arXiv:2304.06138 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2023

  60. [60]

    Heinzel and S

    J. Heinzel and S. Vitale, arXiv:2509.07221 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  62. [62]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    Racine, Phys

    E. Racine, Phys. Rev. D78, 044021 (2008), arXiv:0803.1820 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  65. [65]

    Mould, J

    M. Mould, J. Heinzel, S. Alvarez-Lopez, C. Plunkett, N. E. Wolfe, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D113, 103021 (2026), arXiv:2602.11282 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Madau and M

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astro- phys.52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  67. [67]

    Madau and T

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, Astrophys. J.840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    Fishbach, D

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.863, L41 (2018), arXiv:1805.10270 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    Callister, M

    T. Callister, M. Fishbach, D. Holz, and W. Farr, Astro- phys. J. Lett.896, L32 (2020), arXiv:2003.12152 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Besag, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society

    J. Besag, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological)36, 192 (1974)

    1974

  71. [71]

    Besag and C

    J. Besag and C. Kooperberg, Biometrika82, 733 (1995)

    1995

  72. [72]

    Heinzel, M

    J. Heinzel, M. Mould, S. ´Alvarez-L´ opez, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D111, 063043 (2025), arXiv:2406.16813 [astro-ph.HE]. 7

    arXiv 2025

  73. [73]

    Heinzel, M

    J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D111, L061305 (2025), arXiv:2406.16844 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  74. [74]

    Alvarez-Lopez, J

    S. Alvarez-Lopez, J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, arXiv:2506.20731 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Jeffreys,The Theory of Probability(Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 1939)

    H. Jeffreys,The Theory of Probability(Oxford Univer- sity Press, Oxford, 1939)

    1939

  76. [76]

    Jeffreys, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    H. Jeffreys, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences186, 453 (1946)

    1946

  77. [77]

    Gelman, J

    A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, and D. B. Rubin, Bayesian data analysis(Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, 1995)

    1995

  78. [78]

    https://github.com/mdmould/gwax

  79. [79]

    https://github.com/pyro-ppl/numpyro

  80. [80]

    https://github.com/jax-ml/jax

Showing first 80 references.