Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 references

Third-generation gravitational-wave detector networks can shrink binary black hole localizations to volumes small enough to identify host galaxies out to ~1000 Mpc.

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 ↗

For 3G GW networks (ET/CE), simulated BBH mergers out to ~1000 Mpc are localized to volumes small enough that a host galaxy may be uniquely identified at ~100 events per year.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection Useful feasibility study with a plausible central message, but the ~100 yr^-1 host-identification rate is extrapolated from a best-case injection grid and needs population-weighted support. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.08459 v1 pith:RWY6BL3Z submitted 2026-02-09 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA

Identifying Host Galaxies of Binary Black Hole Mergers with Next-Generation Gravitational Wave Detector Networks

Sumedha Biswas , Andrew Levan , Peter G. Jonker , Kendall Ackley , Gregory Ashton , Nikhil Sarin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COastro-ph.GA
keywords gravitational wavesbinary black holeshost galaxy identificationthird-generation detectorslocalization volumesgalaxy stellar mass functionBBH formation channelscosmology
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 reading

Binary black hole mergers produce no electromagnetic flash, so finding their host galaxies currently requires sifting through enormous gravitational-wave localization volumes. This paper argues that the next generation of ground-based detectors changes the situation: for mergers out to ~1000 Mpc, the 3D localization volumes shrink below the volume that contains, on average, a single galaxy of characteristic stellar mass (the 'M*' knee of the galaxy mass function). The authors simulate BBH mergers in nearby M* galaxies, infer localization volumes with a Fisher-matrix estimator, and compare them to theoretical thresholds derived from galaxy stellar mass functions, including variants weighted by isolated and dynamical formation channels. They conclude that unique host identification becomes feasible for a large fraction of the detectable population, at a rate of about 100 events per year, and that population-level comparisons of host environments can then discriminate between formation channels.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that future detector networks combining current instruments with third-generation facilities such as the Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer will localize nearby BBH mergers to comoving volumes below the theoretical threshold V_min — the volume expected to contain, on average, one M* galaxy under Poisson statistics — out to ~1000 Mpc. Using two injection grids (one anchored to real M* hosts at 500, 750, and 1000 Mpc, one probing best- and worst-case sky positions), the authors find 90% credible volumes of roughly 0.1–10 Mpc^3 for high-mass equal-mass binaries, smaller than all three channel-weighted thresholds and usually smaller than the metallicity-based thr

What carries the argument

The load-bearing yardstick is the theoretical minimum comoving volume V_min(≥M) = λ / ∫_log M^∞ Φ(M′,z) d log M′, the volume that contains on average λ galaxies of stellar mass at least M, computed from double-Schechter galaxy stellar mass functions. Variants weight the mass function by isolated-evolution merger rates or by a globular-cluster scaling to represent dynamical formation, producing V_iso_min and V_dyn_min; a metallicity threshold (12+log(O/H)=8.3) yields V_Z_min. The paper compares simulated 90% and 50% localization volumes against these thresholds, and supplements them with two mass-fraction diagnostics (the host's mass divided by theoretical or catalogue-observed stellar mass i

Load-bearing premise

The forecasts of near-unity identifiable-host fraction and ~100 yr^-1 rest on treating the injection grid — equal-mass, nearly face-on, low-spin, quasi-circular BBHs in M* galaxies — as representative of the detectable BBH population; the paper itself calls the chosen inclination 'a best-case scenario for source localization'.

What would settle it

Run the same Fisher-matrix pipeline on a population-weighted injection set (isotropic sky positions, uniform cos(inclination), mass ratios down to ~0.5, spins and eccentricities drawn from current population inferences, hosts spanning 10^8–10^11 M_sun) and count the fraction with V90 below V_min; the central claim fails if that fraction falls well below unity or if the resulting annual rate drops far below ~100.

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

If this is right

  • With 3G networks, BBH mergers out to ~1000 Mpc are routinely localized to volumes below the M* single-galaxy threshold, making host association feasible rather than exceptional.
  • The expected rate of BBH mergers with identifiable hosts is about 100 yr^-1 for z ≲ 0.23, opening a statistical sample rather than isolated anecdotes.
  • Sub-threshold localization volumes enable population-level discrimination between isolated and dynamical (globular-cluster) formation channels by comparing host mass distributions.
  • Localization volumes below the metallicity threshold can isolate low-metallicity host environments; failure to find a bright galaxy in such a volume disfavors high-mass hosts.
  • Theoretical mass fractions and chance-alignment probabilities give practical ranking tools for candidate hosts, even when a definitive single assignment is not possible.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Inference — The headline rate and f_host ≈ 1 are upper bounds: the injection grid fixes a nearly face-on inclination (θ_JN = 0.4 rad), equal masses, low spins, quasi-circular orbits and M* hosts, so a population-weighted simulation would likely lower the identifiable-host fraction; the paper itself calls the inclination choice 'a best-case scenario for source localization'.
  • Inference — If even a few dozen hosts are identified, the same redshift–distance pairs give an independent Hubble-constant measurement that avoids the peculiar-velocity corrections that plagued the single nearby neutron-star merger; the paper mentions cosmology as motivation but does not quantify the H0 reach.
  • Inference — The threshold framework assumes a homogeneous galaxy distribution and Poisson statistics; in the small volumes that now matter, large-scale structure and galaxy-catalogue incompleteness will modulate candidate counts, and coupling the volume thresholds to a full catalogue with selection functions would sharpen the predictions.
  • Inference — The same diagnostics (V_min, p_c, mass fractions) could be applied to existing second-generation events to rank candidate hosts today, giving an early test of the method before 3G detectors exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript simulates binary black hole (BBH) mergers in nearby (z<0.25) M* galaxies and uses Fisher-matrix parameter estimation via BILBY to infer 3D localization volumes for three detector networks (HLV, HLVKIEC, EC). It introduces GSMF-based theoretical volume thresholds, a metallicity-based threshold, mass-fraction diagnostics, and a chance-alignment probability. The main claim is that networks containing ET and CE localize BBH events to volumes below these thresholds out to ~1000 Mpc, enabling potentially unique host identification at ~100 yr^-1 and population-level formation-channel constraints.

Significance. If the ~100 yr^-1 rate were robust, this would be a major step: host-galaxy identification for BBH mergers would become a realistic science driver for 3G networks, enabling independent H0 measurements and formation-channel constraints. The paper's simulation framework is clearly specified and the FIM-based procedure is internally coherent; the diagnostics (V_min, p_c, mass fractions) are a useful addition. The explicit comparison against external GSMF data and the promise of a reproduction package on GitHub are strengths. However, the rate and f_host≈1 conclusion are extrapolated from a deliberately favorable injection grid, and a numerical inconsistency in V_Z^min must be resolved before the headline results can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2.5, Eq. (11); Table 4; Appendix A4] The rate forecast R_host ~ 100 yr^-1 assumes f_host≈1, i.e., that essentially every detectable BBH out to z≈0.23 has a uniquely identifiable host. This is not supported by the simulated grid. The injections are all equal-mass (q=1), low-spin (a=0.1), quasi-circular, and placed at θ_JN=0.4 rad; Appendix A4 explicitly labels this inclination "a best-case scenario for source localization." Inclination and mass ratio strongly affect SNR and distance/volume precision, so the simulated volume distributions are not representative of the detectable BBH population. To sustain the rate claim, the authors should either sample a population prior over inclination, q, spins, and host masses when computing the fraction of events below the thresholds, or present a conservative lower bound. As written, the result supports identification for favorable events, not the population-averaged rate.
  2. [§2.6.1 vs. Fig. 5/Fig. 8 captions] V_Z^min is quoted as 54.42 Mpc^3 in Section 2.6.1 and Section 5.2.2, but as 370.70 Mpc^3 (Fig. 5) and 370.73 Mpc^3 (Fig. 8). This factor ~7 discrepancy changes statements such as "almost all injections ... meet this criterion" (§4.1.1) and which injections are above/below V_Z^min in Grid II. Please recompute, harmonize the values, and re-check the affected comparisons in Sections 4 and 5.2.2.
  3. [§2.6, Table 6] The theoretical thresholds V_min, V_iso_min, V_dyn_min and the p_c values are derived from double-Schechter parameters that differ across surveys (Table 6) and formation-channel weighting prescriptions (§2.5), but no uncertainties are propagated. Because a central claim is that simulated volumes fall "below threshold," a threshold uncertainty should be shown, e.g., by recomputing with the B12, W16, and M21 parameter sets. This is particularly relevant for the 5+5 M⊙ injections at 1000 Mpc, where volumes sit near the thresholds.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.3] Typo: "probability of change alignment" should be "probability of chance alignment."
  2. [§5.2.5] The rate calculation would benefit from explicitly stating that the assumed R_BBH ≈ 50 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 lies between the LVK empirical range (14–26 Gpc^-3 yr^-1) and the upper end of theoretical estimates, and from showing how R_host scales with this choice.
  3. [§2.4] In the description of the 3D volume construction, it would be clearer to state explicitly that the distance shell volume is computed for the full sky before multiplying by the fractional solid angle.
  4. [§5.1] The sentence "Branchesi et al. 2023 showed that two L-shaped ET detectors ... is likely to provide an improved ... distance uncertainty" has a citation formatting issue ("Branchesi et al. 2023" appears as "branchesietal.2023" in the compiled text) and the comparison with the single-triangle ET assumption is only qualitative. Clarify the quantitative reference.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No load-bearing circularity: the p_c diagnostic is a redundant restatement of the volume-threshold comparison, and the central threshold/rate claim is otherwise self-contained.

specific steps
  1. other [Section 3.2 (Eq. 9) vs Section 2.6 (Eq. 5); used in §4.1.3, Figs. 7 and 10]
    "Bloom et al. (2002) define P_c =1−exp(−η_i)... η_i(≥M_host)=V ∫∞_{M_host} Φ(M)dM ... The minimum comoving volume required to contain, on average, λ such galaxies is Vmin(≥M,z)=λ/∫∞_{log10 M} Φ(M′,z)dlog10M′."

    Setting λ=1 in Eq. 5 gives V_min=1/n(≥M), where n(≥M) is the same cumulative GSMF integral that appears in Eq. 9. Therefore η_i = V/V_min and p_c = 1−exp(−V/V_min). The p_c values are thus a deterministic monotone transform of the V/V_min comparison already used as the paper's central threshold test, so they cannot independently corroborate host identification or formation-channel separation. This is a redundant restatement rather than a fitted-input or load-bearing circularity; the paper itself notes p_c 'does not independently distinguish formation channels.'

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained: localization volumes are computed from FIM/BILBY injections and compared with externally derived GSMF-based thresholds (Baldry et al. 2012; Weigel et al. 2016; McLeod et al. 2021). No parameter is fitted to the headline 'host identification' result, and the rate estimate R_host=R_BBH V_c D f_host uses an explicitly assumed volumetric rate and a duty cycle. The one mild redundancy is the p_c diagnostic, which is mathematically the same GSMF-volume integral as V_min (Eq. 9 vs Eq. 5) and therefore adds no independent evidence; this does not affect the central threshold comparison. The f_host≈1 and ~100 yr^-1 rate do rely on an extrapolation from a favorable injection grid — equal-mass, low-spin, quasi-circular, nearly face-on (θ_JN=0.4) sources, which Appendix A4 itself calls 'a best-case scenario for source localization' — but this is a population-representativeness limitation, not circularity. The internal inconsistency in V_Z^min (54.42 Mpc^3 in §2.6.1 vs 370.70/370.73 Mpc^3 in figure captions) is a correctness issue, not a circularity. Self-citations (e.g., BILBY/Ashton et al. 2019) are standard software and not load-bearing. Overall, the derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central feasibility conclusion rests on a small set of externally supplied inputs: a cosmology, the GSMF and MZR, formation-channel weighting models, and the assumed 3G detector sensitivities. The paper introduces no new physical entities. The main freedom is in choices that bias the result optimistic: the adopted BBH rate, the face-on inclination, M* hosts, and the metallicity threshold.

free parameters (5)
  • Assumed local BBH merger rate R_BBH = 50 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 (adopted; LVK local rate 14-26, models span 0.5-5e3)
    Used directly in Equation 11 to obtain R_host ~ 100 yr^-1; chosen centrally but on the high side of the LVK range.
  • Metallicity threshold 12+log(O/H)=8.3 = 8.3 (chosen; maps to log(M/M_sun)=7.97 via Zahid+14 MZR)
    Sets M_Z and V_Z^min in §2.6.1; representative LGRB-motivated threshold, not independently justified in this paper.
  • Binary inclination angle θ_JN = 0.4 rad
    Fixed injection parameter; Appendix A4 acknowledges it is a best-case near-face-on configuration that inflates localization performance.
  • Duty cycle D = 0.85
    Used in the rate estimate §5.2.5; external 3G assumption that scales R_host linearly.
  • Double-Schechter GSMF parameters = Table 6 values from B12/W16/M21
    External fits to galaxy surveys; Vmin, p_c and mass fractions all scale with these parameters, whose uncertainties are not propagated.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Flat ΛCDM cosmology with Ω_m=0.3 and H0=69.6 km/s/Mpc
    Used for comoving volumes, distance-redshift conversion, and consistency with NED-LVS distances (§2).
  • domain assumption Galaxies are homogeneously and isotropically distributed and galaxy counts follow Poisson statistics
    Central to Equation 5 and all Vmin thresholds; the paper itself notes this breaks down on small scales where host identification would occur (§2.6).
  • domain assumption FIM approximation gives an accurate Gaussian posterior in the high-SNR limit
    Justifies replacing nested sampling with FIM-based PE for sharply peaked posteriors (§2.3).
  • domain assumption BBH formation-channel efficiency weights: isolated channel from Santoliquido+22 MZR fits; dynamical channel from Harris+13 GC scaling
    These weights build Φ_iso and Φ_dyn, so V_iso^min and V_dyn^min inherit the assumed channel models (§2.5).
  • domain assumption The mass-metallicity relation of Zahid+14 maps the adopted metallicity threshold uniquely to a stellar mass
    Used to derive M_Z and V_Z^min (§2.6.1).

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Identifying Host Galaxies of Binary Black Hole Mergers with Next-Generation Gravitational Wave Detector Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RWY6BL3Z

@misc{pith2026260208459,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Identifying Host Galaxies of Binary Black Hole Mergers with Next-Generation Gravitational Wave Detector Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RWY6BL3Z}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.08459}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Identifying the host galaxy of a binary black hole (BBH) merger detected via gravitational waves (GWs) remains a challenge due to the absence of electromagnetic counterparts and the large localization volumes produced by current-generation detectors. A confident host association would provide stellar population properties to constrain BBH formation channels and enable measurements of cosmological parameters such as the Hubble constant, H0. We simulate BBH mergers in nearby (z<0.25) host galaxies to evaluate the feasibility of host identification with future GW detector networks, including configurations with the planned LIGO-India detector and third-generation detectors such as the Einstein Telescope (ET) and Cosmic Explorer (CE). We construct two injection grids to explore variations in BBH mass, distance, and directional sensitivity, and infer localization volumes using the Fisher Information Matrix (FIM)-based parameter estimation implemented through BILBY. To assess the prospects for unique host identification, we introduce a set of diagnostics: theoretical comoving volume thresholds for galaxies of a given stellar mass, derived from galaxy stellar mass functions, a metallicity-based volume threshold motivated by progenitor environment models, stellar mass fractions to quantify candidate host prominence, and the probability of chance alignment (p_c). These metrics provide ways to evaluate host associations and constrain BBH formation channels. We find that future networks that include ET and CE localize BBH mergers to volumes smaller than those theoretical thresholds, implying potentially unique host identification, out to ~1000 Mpc at a rate of ~100 yr^{-1}. While associations for individual events may remain uncertain, our framework is well-suited to population-level analyses, enabling constraints on BBH formation scenarios in the era of next-generation GW detector networks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.08459 by Andrew Levan, Gregory Ashton, Kendall Ackley, Nikhil Sarin, Peter G. Jonker, Sumedha Biswas.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Heatmap of the network optimal SNRs for the injected BBH mergers across masses and distances. Black vertical lines separate Grids I and II (maximum and minimum sensitivity), and the white vertical lines separate the GW detector networks. Each triplet of columns within a network corresponds to distances of 500, 750, and 1000 Mpc (left to right), and rows correspond to mass configurations from 50+50 M⊙ (top)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Antennae pattern maps for the three GW detector networks consid￾ered in this study: (A) HLVKIEC, (B) HLV, and (C) EC. Each panel shows the combined network antenna amplitude response, defined as √︃Í 𝑗 𝐹 2 +, 𝑗 + 𝐹 2 ×, 𝑗 (Finn 2001; Schutz 2011), as a function of sky position in equatorial co￾ordinates at time t. The red, green, and blue crosses mark the locations of the three injected M∗ galaxies at 1000 … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Weighted and unweighted GSMFs at 𝑧 = 0.2; The black curve shows the original GSMF Φ(𝑀) (Equation 1), modeled using a redshift￾interpolated double Schechter function. The blue curve, Φiso (𝑀) (Equa￾tion 2), represents the mass function weighted by a BBH merger efficiency model for the isolated formation channel, normalized over stellar mass. The red curve, Φdyn (𝑀) (Equation 4), is weighted by a globular cl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Minimum comoving volumes 𝑉min required to contain, on average, one galaxy of mass 𝑀 as a function of galaxy stellar mass and redshift. Each panel corresponds to a different injected host at distances of 500 Mpc, 750 Mpc, and 1000 Mpc. Coloured curves show 𝑉min (𝑀) (Equation 5) scaled by different values of 𝜆. The black dashed line denotes the fiducial case of 𝜆 = 1. The vertical blue dashed line marks the … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Localization volumes for simulated BBH mergers in Grid I, at luminosity distances of 500, 750, and 1000 Mpc (Panels a–c). For each mass configuration and network: HLVKIEC (red), HLV (blue), EC (green), we plot 𝑉50 (hollow marker) and 𝑉90 (filled marker), with a vertical line connecting the two. Horizontal shaded bands indicate the minimum comoving volume required to contain, on average, one galaxy of mass … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Theoretical (Mhost,Φ) mass fractions (Section 3.1) for simulated BBH mergers in Grid I at 500 Mpc, 750 Mpc and 1000 Mpc (Panels a - c). Mhost,Φ is the ratio between the mass of the injected M∗ galaxy and the total theoretical mass enclosed within the GW localization volumes 𝑉50 and 𝑉90.Colours denote the GW detector networks: HLVKIEC (red), HLV (blue), EC (green). The hollow markers correspond to values ev… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Probability of chance alignment, 𝑝𝑐, for Grid I BBH injections at 500 Mpc, 750 Mpc, and 1000 Mpc (Panels a-c). Colours denote the GW detector networks: HLVKIEC (red), HLV (blue), EC (green). The line style/marker encodes the different GSMFs across BBH formation channels used in Equation 9: Φ(𝑀) (solid/circle, Equation 1), Φiso (𝑀) (dashed/triangle, Equation 2), Φdyn (𝑀) (dotted/square, Equation 4). For eac… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Localization volumes for simulated BBH mergers in Grid II, Top row (Panels a–c) corresponds to the maximum sensitivity injections, and the bottom row (Panels d–f) corresponds to the minimum sensitivity injections ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Theoretical mass fractions Mhost,Φ for Grid II injections. Top row (Panels a - c) corresponds to the maximum sensitivity injections, and the bottom row (Panels d - f) corresponds to the minimum sensitivity injections ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Probability of chance alignment, 𝑝𝑐, for Grid II BBH injections in maximum (top row, Panels a–c) and minimum (bottom row, Panels d–f) sensitivity sky regions, within a range of 𝑝𝑐 = 0 - 0.6. The three columns (left to right) correspond to 500, 750, and 1000 Mpc. Colours denote the GW detector networks: HLVKIEC (red) and EC (green). The line style/marker encodes the different GSMFs across BBH formation cha… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Source-frame chirp mass M𝑐 vs 𝑧 for BBH events in GWTC-4.0 (Abbott et al. 2019, 2021a, 2024, 2023b; Abac et al. 2025c) (scatter points). Redshifts are computed from the reported luminosity distances using the cos￾mology adopted in this work. Using the detector-frame chirp mass values Mc,det, we recompute the source-frame chirp mass as M𝑐 = Mc,det/(1+ 𝑧) using those redshifts. The top and right panels give… view at source ↗

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

5 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    arXiv:2503.12263 Abac A

    Abac A., et al., 2025a, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2503.12263 Abac A. G., et al., 2025b, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2508.18081 Abac A. G., et al., 2025c, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2508.18082 Abac A. G., et al., 2025d, arXiv e-prints, p. arXiv:2509.04348 Abbott B. P., et al., 2009, Reports on Progress in Physics, 72, 076901 Abbott B. P., et al., 2016, Phys. Rev...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  2. [2]

    In our injections, we fix the dimensionless spin magnitudes of both BHs to𝑎 1 =𝑎 2 =0.1, corresponding to nearly non-spinning BHs. Thisismotivatedbypopulation-levelanalysesoftheGWTC-3.0cat- alog(Abbottetal.2023b),whichsuggestthatlowspinmagnitudesare preferentiallyassociatedwithsymmetricmass-ratiobinaries(𝑞=1) (Abbott et al. 2023a) (see their figure 21). O...

    1994

  3. [5]

    As an example, Figure A1 shows the 2D localization areas of a 50+50M⊙ Grid I injection at 1000 Mpc

    This sub- section evaluates how these modelling assumptions influence our analysis outcomes and compares the chosen parameter values to those inferred from observed GW events. As an example, Figure A1 shows the 2D localization areas of a 50+50M⊙ Grid I injection at 1000 Mpc. MNRAS000, 1–19 (2025) 18S. Biswas et al. 312.55 312.90 313.25 313.60 313.95 314.3...

    2025

  4. [2017]

    216 Sun H., Li Y., Zhang B.-B., Zhang B., Bauer F

    p. 216 Sun H., Li Y., Zhang B.-B., Zhang B., Bauer F. E., Xue Y., Yuan W., 2019, ApJ, 886, 129 Sun H., et al., 2024, National Science Review, 12, nwae401 Tanikawa A., 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1358 Tanikawa A., Kinugawa T., Yoshida T., Hijikawa K., Umeda H., 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 2170 TanvirN.R.,LevanA.J.,FruchterA.S.,Hjort...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [2021]

    Sun et al

    and understanding its impact on GW lo- calization regions (e.g. Sun et al. 2015; Ma et al. 2017; Yang et al. 2024). Dynamical channels, such as those involving GCs or hier- archical triples, can retain measurable eccentricity by the time the binaryenterstheground-basedGWdetectorband,especiallyatlower GW frequencies (e.g. Dall’Amico, Marco et al. 2024). In...

    2015

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.