arxiv: 2604.15885 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-17 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE· astro-ph.IM· physics.data-an

Recognition: unknown

Gravitational-wave astronomy requires population-informed parameter estimation

Matthew Mould , Rodrigo Tenorio , Davide Gerosa

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 08:15 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HEastro-ph.IMphysics.data-an

keywords gravitational waveshierarchical Bayesian inferencepopulation inferenceparameter estimationLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAastrophysical interpretationprior choice

0 comments

The pith

Gravitational-wave source properties are generically biased under standard priors, requiring hierarchical inference from the full catalog to correct them.

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

Standard Bayesian estimates of individual gravitational-wave events rely on fixed reference priors that do not match the true astrophysical population, producing biased source properties such as masses and spins when examined across many detections. These biases render the estimates unsuitable for direct astrophysical use or catalog statistics despite their role as intermediate data products. Hierarchical parameter estimation solves the issue by analyzing the entire catalog jointly, allowing the observations themselves to determine the prior distribution. This not only tightens uncertainties on each event but yields population-informed properties that are consistent and ready for scientific interpretation. The authors apply the method to the latest LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data to show that population-level inference is required rather than optional for any gravitational-wave observation.

Core claim

Gravitational-wave events are interpreted in terms of Bayesian posteriors for their source properties inferred under unphysical reference priors. Though these parameter estimates are important intermediate data products for downstream analyses, across the catalog they provide generically biased source properties and are therefore unsuitable for direct astrophysical interpretation. Hierarchical parameter estimation is the solution, where joint analysis of the entire catalog of observations not only reduces statistical uncertainties but actually informs the correct prior. Population-informed source properties derived this way are naturally suited to astrophysical interpretation and catalog use

What carries the argument

Hierarchical parameter estimation, which jointly models the full catalog to let the data inform the prior for individual source properties rather than using fixed reference priors.

If this is right

Population-informed estimates become suitable for direct astrophysical interpretation without catalog-wide bias.
Joint analysis reduces statistical uncertainties on individual source parameters.
Catalog statistics such as identification of exceptional events become reliable.
Standard individual-event posteriors must be treated as intermediate products requiring further hierarchical processing.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future observing runs may need to reprocess early catalogs with this method to avoid propagating biases into population studies.
The approach could highlight subpopulations or unexpected features in the data that single-event analyses obscure.
Similar hierarchical correction might apply to other transient catalogs where selection effects and unphysical priors distort aggregated results.

Load-bearing premise

That standard reference priors are unphysical and produce generically biased source properties across the catalog of events.

What would settle it

A controlled injection study in which standard single-event estimates show measurable bias relative to the injected population while hierarchical estimates recover the true values without residual bias.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.15885 by Davide Gerosa, Matthew Mould, Rodrigo Tenorio.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Posterior distributions from single-event (red) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3. Joint posteriors from GWTC-4 between select pop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effective spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave events are interpreted in terms of Bayesian posteriors for their source properties inferred under unphysical reference priors. Though these parameter estimates are important intermediate data products for downstream analyses, across the catalog they provide generically biased sourced properties and are therefore unsuitable for direct astrophysical interpretation. Hierarchical parameter estimation is the solution, where joint analysis of the entire catalog of observations not only reduces statistical uncertainties but actually informs the correct prior. Population-informed source properties from there derived are naturally suited to astrophysical interpretation and catalog statistics, such as identification of exceptional events from previous and ongoing observing runs. Using the latest LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data, we thus demonstrate that population inference is not optional to interpret gravitational-wave observations.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper flags a real issue with reference priors biasing GW event properties but needs to show the shifts are large enough to matter for most catalog events rather than just high-SNR ones.

read the letter

The main thing to know is that the authors argue standard single-event posteriors in gravitational-wave catalogs are generically biased by unphysical reference priors and that hierarchical population inference is required to produce usable source properties. They back this with an application to the latest LVK data and frame it as making population inference non-optional for interpretation and spotting outliers. That core methodological point is sound and worth stating clearly for the field. What the paper does well is connect the prior choice directly to downstream uses like astrophysical population studies and event classification, with a concrete demonstration on real observations rather than just theory. The writing is straightforward about why reference priors like uniform-in-volume or detector-frame masses can distort results across the catalog. The soft spot is the strength of the generic-bias claim. For many events the likelihood already dominates, so the prior-induced shift in medians or intervals may stay well inside the statistical errors and not change conclusions about formation channels or unusual sources. The paper would be stronger with explicit quantitative comparisons showing how often and by how much the population-informed posteriors differ from the standard ones in ways that affect actual science results. There is also mild dependence since the population model is fit to the same catalog, though they treat it as prior information rather than circular fitting. This is for GW data analysts and population modelers who work with catalog-level statistics. It deserves peer review because the practical pipeline implication is real and the argument is coherent on its own terms, even if the evidence for material impact needs tightening.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that gravitational-wave events are interpreted via Bayesian posteriors computed under unphysical reference priors, which produce generically biased source-property estimates across the catalog and are therefore unsuitable for direct astrophysical use. It proposes hierarchical parameter estimation as the remedy, in which joint analysis of the full catalog informs the prior from the inferred population, yielding posteriors that are naturally suited to interpretation and to catalog-level statistics such as outlier identification. The claim is supported by a demonstration on the latest LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data, from which the authors conclude that population inference is required to interpret gravitational-wave observations.

Significance. If the central claim is substantiated, the work would be significant for gravitational-wave astronomy because it identifies a systematic limitation in the standard single-event analysis pipeline and shows that hierarchical methods can correct it. The explicit demonstration with real LVK catalog data is a strength, as it moves the argument beyond purely theoretical considerations and provides a concrete, falsifiable test of the bias magnitude. The result, if robust, would affect how future catalogs are interpreted and how exceptional events are identified.

major comments (2)

[LVK data demonstration] The data demonstration (the section presenting the LVK analysis) must quantify the magnitude of the shift between reference-prior and population-informed posteriors for a representative sample of events, including high-SNR detections. Without explicit comparisons showing that the prior-induced change exceeds statistical uncertainty and alters astrophysical conclusions for a substantial fraction of the catalog, the assertion that reference priors are 'generically biased' and 'unsuitable' remains unproven.
[Methods] The construction of the population model used to inform the prior must be described in sufficient detail (including whether the model is fitted to the same events whose individual posteriors are being re-derived) to allow assessment of any circularity. If the hierarchical step and the individual-event re-analysis share the same catalog, the paper should demonstrate that the resulting population-informed posteriors are not tautological.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that reference priors 'provide generically biased source properties' but does not define the threshold (e.g., fractional shift in median or credible-interval overlap) used to classify a bias as generic or astrophysically consequential; a brief operational definition would improve clarity.
[Notation and figures] Notation for the reference prior versus the population-informed prior should be introduced consistently in the text and figures to avoid ambiguity when comparing the two sets of posteriors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. Their comments have prompted us to clarify and strengthen several aspects of the manuscript. Below we respond to each major comment in turn.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [LVK data demonstration] The data demonstration (the section presenting the LVK analysis) must quantify the magnitude of the shift between reference-prior and population-informed posteriors for a representative sample of events, including high-SNR detections. Without explicit comparisons showing that the prior-induced change exceeds statistical uncertainty and alters astrophysical conclusions for a substantial fraction of the catalog, the assertion that reference priors are 'generically biased' and 'unsuitable' remains unproven.

Authors: We agree with the referee that a more quantitative assessment of the shifts is necessary to fully support our claims. The current manuscript includes a demonstration with LVK data illustrating differences between standard and population-informed posteriors for selected events. However, to address this point directly, in the revised manuscript we will include an expanded analysis section with a table summarizing the median parameter shifts and the ratio of prior-induced change to statistical uncertainty for a representative sample of events, including high-SNR ones such as GW150914 and others from the catalog. We will also provide examples where the shift alters the interpretation, for instance in the context of outlier detection or mass estimates. This will make the evidence for generic bias more explicit and falsifiable. revision: yes
Referee: [Methods] The construction of the population model used to inform the prior must be described in sufficient detail (including whether the model is fitted to the same events whose individual posteriors are being re-derived) to allow assessment of any circularity. If the hierarchical step and the individual-event re-analysis share the same catalog, the paper should demonstrate that the resulting population-informed posteriors are not tautological.

Authors: We appreciate the referee's concern regarding potential circularity in the hierarchical analysis. The population model is indeed inferred from the same catalog of events, as is standard in hierarchical Bayesian inference for gravitational-wave populations. However, this does not render the individual posteriors tautological; rather, the population hyperparameters are estimated jointly, and the individual-event posteriors are then conditioned on the inferred population distribution. To clarify this, we will substantially expand the Methods section to detail the population model construction, including the specific functional form, the hyperprior, and the MCMC or nested sampling procedure used. Additionally, we will add a subsection demonstrating the non-circular nature through a controlled simulation where we inject a known population, recover the hyperparameters, and then re-analyze individual events, showing that the population-informed posteriors correctly reflect the updated knowledge without introducing artificial biases. We believe this will alleviate concerns about tautology. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on standard hierarchical methods and data demonstration

full rationale

The paper's chain proceeds from the premise that reference priors are unphysical (a modeling choice, not derived from the result), to the claim that they produce biased source properties (justified by the hierarchical re-analysis of the same catalog), to the conclusion that population-informed estimation is required for interpretation. This is demonstrated empirically on LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observations rather than by self-definition or tautological fitting. No equations reduce a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from self-citation, and the hierarchical step is a pre-existing technique whose validity does not presuppose the paper's conclusion. The demonstration therefore supplies independent content rather than circular confirmation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that reference priors produce biased estimates and that hierarchical modeling can recover unbiased population-informed properties; no explicit free parameters or invented entities are stated in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Reference priors used in standard single-event parameter estimation are unphysical and lead to generically biased source properties when applied across a catalog.
Directly stated in the abstract as the motivation for hierarchical inference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5422 in / 1282 out tokens · 47249 ms · 2026-05-10T08:15:33.091339+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 72 canonical work pages · 13 internal anchors

[1]

Advanced LIGO

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015
[2]

Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

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

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015
[3]

Akutsu et al

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

work page arXiv 2021
[4]

B. P. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[5]

GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[6]

GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run,

R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[7]

GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023
[8]

A. G. Abacet al., arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc] (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025
[9]

Ashton, arXiv:2510.11197 [gr-qc] (2025)

G. Ashton, arXiv:2510.11197 [gr-qc] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

Abbott, T

R. Abbottet al., Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2023
[11]

N. E. Wolfe, M. Mould, J. Heinzel, and S. Vitale, arXiv:2510.06220 [gr-qc] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[12]

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[13]

Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[14]

Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects

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]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[15]

A. G. Abacet al., arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[16]

An introduction to Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: parameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical models,

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

work page arXiv 2019
[17]

Talbot, S

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

work page arXiv 2025
[18]

A. G. Abacet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L18 (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[19]

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

work page arXiv 2019
[20]

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

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

work page arXiv 2021
[21]

Mancarella and D

M. Mancarella and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D111, 103012 (2025), arXiv:2502.12156 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2025
[22]

The Most Massive Binary Black Hole Detections and the Identification of Population Outliers,

M. Fishbach, W. M. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett.891, L31 (2020), arXiv:1911.05882 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[23]

Gravitational-wave inferenceinthecatalogera: evolving priors and marginal events,

S. Galaudage, C. Talbot, and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. D 102, 083026 (2020), arXiv:1912.09708 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[24]

Miller, T

S. Miller, T. A. Callister, and W. Farr, Astrophys. J.895, 128 (2020), arXiv:2001.06051 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[25]

C. J. Moore and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D104, 083008 (2021), arXiv:2108.02462 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[26]

Callister, LIGO DCC T2100301-v3, dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2100301/public (2021)

T. Callister, LIGO DCC T2100301-v3, dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2100301/public (2021)

2021
[27]

Essick and M

R. Essick and M. Fishbach, LIGO DCC T1900895-v2, dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1900895/public (2021)

2021
[28]

Essick, A

R. Essick, A. Farah, S. Galaudage, C. Talbot, M. Fish- bach, E. Thrane, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.926, 34 (2022), arXiv:2109.00418 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[29]

Mandel, Astrophys

I. Mandel, Astrophys. J. Lett.996, L4 (2026), arXiv:2509.05885 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2026
[30]

Tenorio and D

R. Tenorio and D. Gerosa, arXiv:2601.02467 [astro- ph.HE] (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[31]

A. G. Abacet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L25 (2025), arXiv:2507.08219 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[32]

Biscoveanu, M

S. Biscoveanu, M. Isi, S. Vitale, and V. Varma, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 171103 (2021), arXiv:2007.09156 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[33]

J. I. Katz, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.508, 69 (2021), arXiv:2106.05212 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2021
[34]

A. G. Abacet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.993, L21 (2025), arXiv:2510.26931 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

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

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

work page arXiv 2020
[36]

A. G. Abacet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.970, L34 (2024), arXiv:2404.04248 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2024
[37]

Analysis of spin precession in binary black hole systems including quadrupole-monopole interaction

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

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[38]

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

work page arXiv 2019
[39]

Precision Requirements for Monte Carlo Sums within Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

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

work page arXiv 2022
[40]

Talbot and J

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

work page arXiv 2023
[41]

Heinzel and S

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

work page arXiv 2025
[42]

Kobayashi, M

K. Kobayashi, M. Iwaya, S. Morisaki, K. Hotokezaka, and T. Kinugawa, arXiv:2602.12509 [gr-qc] (2026)

work page arXiv 2026
[43]

T. J. Loredo, inAstrostatistical Challenges for the New Astronomy(Springer, New York, 2013) pp. 15–40, arXiv:1208.3036 [astro-ph.IM]. 6

work page arXiv 2013
[44]

A. W. Criswell, S. Banagiri, V. Delfavero, M. J. Bustamante-Rosell, S. R. Taylor, and R. Rosati, arXiv:2604.03390 [astro-ph.IM] (2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[45]

Essick and P

R. Essick and P. Landry, Astrophys. J.904, 80 (2020), arXiv:2007.01372 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2020
[46]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Publ. Astron. Soc. Aust.39, e025 (2022), arXiv:2202.05479 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2022
[47]

S. J. Miller, S. Winney, K. Chatziioannou, and P. M. Meyers, arXiv:2604.06090 [gr-qc] (2026)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[48]

I. M. Romero-Shaw, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, As- trophys. J.940, 171 (2022), arXiv:2206.14695 [astro- ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2022
[49]

Evidence for eccentricity in the population of binary black holes observed by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA

N. Gupteet al., Phys. Rev. D112, 104045 (2025), arXiv:2404.14286 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[50]

Morras, G

G. Morras, G. Pratten, and P. Schmidt, Astrophys. J. Lett.1000, L2 (2026), arXiv:2503.15393 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2026
[51]

Xu et al., Phys

Y. Xuet al., arXiv:2512.19513 [gr-qc] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[52]

Mould, github.com/mdmould/lvk-data, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14241583 (2026)

M. Mould, github.com/mdmould/lvk-data, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14241583 (2026)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.14241583 2026
[53]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collabo- ration, LIGO DCC P2000223-v7, dcc.ligo.org/LIGO- P2000223/public (2021)

2021
[54]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, 10.5281/zenodo.6513631 (2022)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.6513631 2022
[55]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, 10.5281/zenodo.8177023 (2023)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8177023 2023
[56]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, 10.5281/zenodo.17014085 (2025)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17014085 2025
[57]

LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, 10.5281/zenodo.16740128 (2025)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16740128 2025
[58]

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

work page arXiv 2018
[59]

Essick and M

R. Essick and M. Fishbach, Astrophys. J.962, 169 (2024), arXiv:2310.02017 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2024
[60]

T. A. Callister, inEncyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition)(Elsevier, Oxford, 2026) pp. 546–569, arXiv:2410.19145 [astro-ph.HE]

work page arXiv 2026
[61]

Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration), Open data from the first and second observing runs of Ad- vanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo (2019), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

R. Abbottet al., SoftwareX13, 100658 (2021), arXiv:1912.11716 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2021
[62]

Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys

R. Abbottet al., Astrophys. J. Supp. S.267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[63]

A. G. Abacet al., arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc] (2025)

work page arXiv 2025
[64]

Surrogate mod- els for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses,

V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Research.1, 033015 (2019), arXiv:1905.09300 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2019
[65]

Computationally efficient models for the dominant and sub-dominant harmonic modes of precessing binary black holes

G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021
[66]

Ramos-Buades, A

A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estell´ es, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D108, 124037 (2023), arXiv:2303.18046 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2023
[67]

Ossokineet al., Phys

S. Ossokineet al., Phys. Rev. D102, 044055 (2020), arXiv:2004.09442 [gr-qc]

work page arXiv 2020
[68]

Mould, github.com/mdmould/gwax, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12770127 (2026)

M. Mould, github.com/mdmould/gwax, doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.12770127 (2026)

work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12770127 2026
[69]

Essicket al., Compact binary coalescence sensitivity estimates with injection campaigns during the LIGO- Virgo-KAGRA Collaborations’ fourth observing run, Phys

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

work page arXiv 2025
[70]

Tiwari, Estimation of the Sensitive Volume for Gravitational-wave Source Populations Using Weighted Monte Carlo Integration, Class

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

work page arXiv 2018
[71]

Bilby: A user-friendly Bayesian inference library for gravitational-wave astronomy

G. Ashtonet al., Astrophys. J. Supp. S.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2019
[72]

J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]

work page arXiv 2020
[73]

Fishbach, D

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

work page arXiv 2018
[74]

P. A. R. Adeet al., Astron. Astrophys.594, A13 (2016), arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[75]

p pop” is used to denote both probability density functions in Eq. (5). On the left-hand side, “p pop

V. De Renzis, F. Iacovelli, D. Gerosa, M. Mancar- ella, and C. Pacilio, Phys. Rev. D111, 044048 (2025), arXiv:2410.17325 [astro-ph.HE]. 7 End Matter Hierarchical likelihood—The likelihood for the GW catalog can be derived as follows [12–14, 58–60]. Assum- ingNindependent observations, the joint distribution of observed data{d n}N n=1 and corresponding uno...

work page arXiv 2025