pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.17746 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-20 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Testing cosmological isotropy with gravitational waves and gamma-ray bursts

Brian H. Y. Cheng , Donniel C. Cruz , Otto A. Hannuksela , Davendra S. Hassan , Christian Heiderijk , Leo Q. Hu , Souvik Jana , Jinwon Kim
show 13 more authors
Albert K. H. Kong Peony K. K. Lai Samuel C. Lange Samson H. W. Leong Matteo Lulli Li-Ting Ma Paul Martens Boris H-L. Ng Thomas C. K. Ng Surojit Saha Gwangeon Seong Helen Xian Yanyan Zheng
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 04:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO gr-qc
keywords cosmological isotropygravitational wavesgamma-ray burstscosmological principleanisotropy testsangular power spectrumtwo-point correlation function
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gravitational wave and gamma-ray burst data show no significant cosmological anisotropy.

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

The paper tests the cosmological principle by checking whether the sky positions and properties of gravitational wave events and gamma-ray bursts appear uniform in all directions. After applying corrections for observational selection biases, the authors measure angular power spectra and two-point correlation functions on the latest O4a LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog plus the full GRBWeb record since 1991. They compare these statistics against synthetic catalogs drawn from an isotropic universe. The observed values match the isotropic simulations within uncertainties, yielding no evidence for preferred directions. A reader cares because this independent check with high-energy transients either reinforces the standard assumption of large-scale uniformity or would have flagged new physics if deviations appeared.

Core claim

With bias-corrected positions and properties from the O4a gravitational-wave catalog and the complete GRBWeb gamma-ray burst sample, the angular power spectra and two-point correlation functions are statistically indistinguishable from those measured in synthetic isotropic realizations.

What carries the argument

Angular power spectra and two-point correlation functions computed on bias-corrected sky distributions of GWs and GRBs, tested against synthetic isotropic mock catalogs.

If this is right

  • Future larger samples of gravitational waves and gamma-ray bursts will continue to be consistent with isotropy if the current null result holds.
  • Models that predict observable anisotropy from local inhomogeneities or exotic early-universe physics receive no support from these datasets.
  • The cosmological principle remains compatible with the distribution of these high-energy transients.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same statistical pipeline could be applied to other transient catalogs such as fast radio bursts to provide an additional cross-check.
  • Combining these results with supernova and cosmic microwave background anisotropy tests would tighten limits on any direction-dependent expansion.
  • If selection-bias models improve with better detector sensitivity, the same data could be reanalyzed for subtler signals.

Load-bearing premise

The corrections for selection biases in the gravitational-wave and gamma-ray burst observations are accurate and complete.

What would settle it

A statistically significant excess in any angular power spectrum multipole or deviation in the two-point correlation function when the same analysis is repeated on a future catalog that is several times larger.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.17746 by Albert K. H. Kong, Boris H-L. Ng, Brian H. Y. Cheng, Christian Heiderijk, Davendra S. Hassan, Donniel C. Cruz, Gwangeon Seong, Helen Xian, Jinwon Kim, Leo Q. Hu, Li-Ting Ma, Matteo Lulli, Otto A. Hannuksela, Paul Martens, Peony K. K. Lai, Samson H. W. Leong, Samuel C. Lange, Souvik Jana, Surojit Saha, Thomas C. K. Ng, Yanyan Zheng.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Skymap of the new events from GWTC-4.0 (O4a) The LIGO Scientific Collaboration et al. (2025b) GW events (top), GRBWeb (Coppin 2021; Abbasi et al. 2022) GRB events since 1991 (middle), and GLADE+ galaxies (bottom) in Galactic coordinates. Short GRBs designates burst lasting 2 seconds or less, and the rest are all long GRBs. The skymaps and parameter estimation data are used in tests for cosmological anisotr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Example synthetic skymap of 85 new GW events as introduced with GWTC-4.0 (top) and GRBWeb GRB events (bottom). coordinates for comparison with the raw data. The synthetic data is based on the spatial isotropy assumptions and other parameters sampled from the above catalog. We use this synthetic data to (1) test the methodol￾ogy against mock data and (2) quantify the expected statis￾tical variation in the t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: First modes of the harmonics decomposition of the cumulative GW skymap. Each panel shows the contribution from a single multipole moment ℓ, with all azimuthal orders m summed from −ℓ to ℓ. Summing over m yields the total power at each angular scale (approximately 180◦ /ℓ), removes dependence on the coordinate system, and reduces statistical noise (Eq. (2)). Low ℓ corresponds to large-scale structures acros… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Reconstruction from the 85 new events of GWTC-4.0 (left) and GRB (right) event density skymaps from their harmonics decomposition. The GRB skymap shows the raw data expansion in spherical harmonics, cut at the 26th order in multipoles to match the “GW” skymap resolution (Zheng et al. 2023). Both skymaps appear visually isotropic. Individual GW sky localisations have more significant uncertainties, as most … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The observed GW (top) and GRB (bot￾tom angular power spectrum for 1 ⩽ ℓ ⩽ 26). In both the GW and GRB, the synthetic data (median in blue; 1, 2 and 3 σ uncertainties in gray) contains the observed data (red/orange/green). Neither dataset shows deviations from anisotropy. There are slight discrepancies between the datasets, with less angular power in GWs at larger angular multipole ℓ corresponding to smalle… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The angular cross-correlation function between GRB and GW events, defined in Eq. (4). The dashed curve shows the cross-correlation for all GRBs; whereas the orange and green solid curves show respectively the cases for short and long GRBs. Generally, the short GRBs show larger fluc￾tuations and follow less closely with the overall distribution (black), for the reason explained in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The auto-correlation function between the ob￾served GW (top) and GRB (bottom) data against the fidu￾cial model built under the isotropic assumption (shaded 1, 2 and 3 σ regions). Apart from angles <20◦ , the close align￾ment indicates consistency with the isotropic distribution. The auto-correlation function of GRB events, with spatial positions approximated to ℓ ⩽ 26 to match the resolution of GWs positio… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The cosmological principle asserts that the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large enough scales. However, alternative cosmological models can bring about anisotropies through local inhomogeneities, anisotropic evolution, or exotic physics. In addition, select studies have also hinted at mild evidence of anisotropies in SNe Ia, CMB, and GRB data, though these remain unconfirmed. In this work, we test for cosmological anisotropies using gravitational waves and gamma-ray bursts, adopting the latest O4a release from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA collaboration and GRBWeb (including all known GRBs since 1991). If the cosmological principle holds, the sky localisation and the characteristics of the GRBs and GWs (masses, luminosities, redshifts) should be statistically isotropic when corrected for selection biases. We employ a couple statistical methods, including angular power spectra and two-point correlation functions, and compare the results against synthetic data. The work extends previous analyses by including the most recent datasets, and the use of multiple complementary statistical tests. We find no significant evidence for anisotropy in the current GW and GRB datasets, consistent with the cosmological principle.

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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript tests the cosmological principle of isotropy using the O4a LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational-wave catalog and the full GRBWeb gamma-ray burst catalog since 1991. After applying selection-bias corrections to sky positions and event properties (masses, luminosities, redshifts), the authors compute angular power spectra and two-point correlation functions and compare the results to synthetic isotropic realizations generated under the null hypothesis. The central claim is that no statistically significant anisotropy is detected, consistent with large-scale homogeneity and isotropy.

Significance. If the bias corrections prove robust, the work supplies an independent, multi-messenger null test of isotropy with the most recent GW and GRB releases and two complementary statistics. The explicit use of mock catalogs that incorporate selection effects is a strength, as is the extension beyond earlier single-probe analyses. A confirmed null result would tighten constraints on anisotropic cosmological models and local inhomogeneity scenarios.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (Bias corrections for GW events): The description of the completeness function for the O4a sample is high-level and does not provide the explicit functional form, the dependence on sky position or distance, or the validation metrics showing that the corrected distribution is statistically indistinguishable from the isotropic mocks in all relevant moments. Because the null result rests on these corrections, residual directional biases could systematically affect the low-ℓ power spectrum; a quantitative demonstration that the correction leaves no preferred direction is required.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (Angular power spectrum results): The reported significance levels for the GW and GRB C_ℓ measurements are given without a clear statement of the number of independent multipoles tested or any correction for multiple comparisons. If the p-values are uncorrected, the claim of “no significant evidence” at the quoted thresholds may be overstated; the authors should either apply a suitable correction or justify why it is unnecessary.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 caption: the coordinate system (equatorial vs. galactic) and the meaning of the color bar for event density are not stated; this should be added for reproducibility.
  2. [References] The GRBWeb reference in the bibliography lacks the publication year and arXiv identifier; please supply the full citation.
  3. [§2.1] §2.1: the phrase “statistically isotropic when corrected for selection biases” is repeated almost verbatim in the abstract and introduction; a single concise statement would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful review and constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript to address both major comments by expanding the description of bias corrections and clarifying the statistical analysis, including multiple-comparison considerations. These changes strengthen the presentation without altering the conclusions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §3.2 (Bias corrections for GW events): The description of the completeness function for the O4a sample is high-level and does not provide the explicit functional form, the dependence on sky position or distance, or the validation metrics showing that the corrected distribution is statistically indistinguishable from the isotropic mocks in all relevant moments.

    Authors: We agree that additional detail is warranted. In the revised §3.2 we now give the explicit functional form of the completeness function (a position- and distance-dependent selection probability derived from the O4a network sensitivity map and SNR threshold). We also add quantitative validation: Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests on the corrected sky-position and distance distributions versus isotropic mocks, plus direct comparison of the low-ℓ angular power spectrum of the corrected catalog, which remains consistent with zero. These additions demonstrate that the corrections do not imprint a preferred direction. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §4.1 (Angular power spectrum results): The reported significance levels for the GW and GRB C_ℓ measurements are given without a clear statement of the number of independent multipoles tested or any correction for multiple comparisons.

    Authors: We have revised §4.1 to state explicitly that we evaluate multipoles ℓ = 2–10 (9 multipoles) and apply a conservative Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Even after correction, no C_ℓ exceeds the 3σ threshold for either dataset. We note that the multipoles are not fully independent given the limited event numbers, but the correction is included for transparency and does not change the null-result conclusion. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Data-driven statistical test with no self-referential derivation

full rationale

The paper applies standard angular power spectra and two-point correlation function tests to bias-corrected GW (O4a) and GRB (GRBWeb) catalogs, then compares observed statistics against synthetic isotropic realizations that incorporate the same selection effects. No parameter is fitted to the target isotropy signal and then re-used as a prediction; the null result follows directly from the data comparison rather than from any internal definition, self-citation chain, or ansatz. The central claim is therefore externally benchmarked and self-contained.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard statistical assumptions for isotropy tests and data selection from public catalogs; no free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Sky localizations and characteristics of GRBs and GWs should be statistically isotropic when corrected for selection biases if the cosmological principle holds.
    This is the core premise of the isotropy test stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5608 in / 1332 out tokens · 36495 ms · 2026-05-10T04:32:36.216646+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

69 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [3]

    NASA GCN Circular , author =

  2. [7]

    Two-dimensional correlation function of binary black hole coalescences

    Cavaglia, Marco and Modi, Ashini. Two-dimensional correlation function of binary black hole coalescences. Universe. 2020. doi:10.3390/universe6070093. arXiv:2005.06004

    work page doi:10.3390/universe6070093 2020

  3. [14]

    2020c, Astron

    Aghanim, N. and others , year =. Planck 2018 results: I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck , volume =. Astronomy & Astrophysics , publisher =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 , url =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833880 2018

  4. [19]

    Yang, K. Z. and others , year = 2025, month = nov, eprint =. Euclid:

    2025

  5. [20]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=

    GLADE+: an extended galaxy catalogue for multimessenger searches with advanced gravitational-wave detectors , author=. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  6. [21]

    Physical Review D , volume=

    Rapid Bayesian position reconstruction for gravitational-wave transients , author=. Physical Review D , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

    2016

  7. [22]

    , keywords =

    GLADE: A galaxy catalogue for multimessenger searches in the advanced gravitational-wave detector era. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1703 , archivePrefix =. 1804.05709 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1703

  8. [32]

    The Astrophysical Journal , volume=

    Searches for neutrinos from gamma-ray bursts using the IceCube Neutrino Observatory , author=. The Astrophysical Journal , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

    2022

  9. [37]

    , keywords =

    Targeted search for the kinematic dipole of the gravitational-wave background. , keywords =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.082005 , archivePrefix =. 2208.01330 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.082005

  10. [43]

    Comptes Rendus Physique , keywords =

    Open questions in GRB physics. Comptes Rendus Physique , keywords =. doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2011.03.004 , archivePrefix =. 1104.0932 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1016/j.crhy.2011.03.004 2011

  11. [52]

    Testing the anisotropy in the angular distribution of Fermi /GBM gamma-ray bursts , volume =

    Tarnopolski, Mariusz , year =. Testing the anisotropy in the angular distribution of Fermi /GBM gamma-ray bursts , volume =. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society , doi =

  12. [58]

    2022 , url =

    LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration , title =. 2022 , url =

    2022

  13. [61]

    Solar system peculiar motion from the Hubble diagram of quasars and testing the cosmological principle

    Singal, Ashok K. Solar system peculiar motion from the Hubble diagram of quasars and testing the cosmological principle. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2022. doi:10.1093/mnras/stac144. arXiv:2107.09390

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac144 2022

  14. [62]

    and Sheikh-Jabbari, M

    Krishnan, Chethan and Mohayaee, Roya and Colg \'a in, Eoin \'O . and Sheikh-Jabbari, M. M. and Yin, L. Hints of FLRW breakdown from supernovae. Phys. Rev. D. 2022. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.063514. arXiv:2106.02532

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.063514 2022

  15. [68]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  16. [69]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025. 2508.20721

    work page arXiv 2025

  17. [70]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 116

    Abbasi, R., Ackermann, M., Adams, J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 939, 116

    2022

  18. [72]

    Living Reviews in Relativity , keywords =

    ---. 2016 b , Living Rev. Rel., 19, 1, 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9 2016

  19. [73]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023 a , Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  20. [74]

    Physical Review X , author =

    ---. 2023 b , Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  21. [75]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  22. [76]

    2023, Astrophys

    Agazie, G., et al. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 956, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4fd

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acf4fd 2023

  23. [77]

    2020, Astron

    Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A7, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935201

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201935201 2020

  24. [78]

    I., S \'a nchez , F

    Alonso , D., Salvador , A. I., S \'a nchez , F. J., et al. 2015, , 449, 670, 10.1093/mnras/stv309

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv309 2015

  25. [79]

    DOI 10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc

    Aluri, P. K., et al. 2023, Class. Quant. Grav., 40, 094001, 10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc 2023

  26. [80]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 043007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Aso, Y., Michimura, Y., Somiya, K., et al. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 043007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043007 2013

  27. [81]

    K., et al

    Axelsson, M., Fantaye, Y., Hansen, F. K., et al. 2013, Astrophys. J. Lett., 773, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/L3

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/773/1/l3 2013

  28. [82]

    Banagiri, S., Mandic, V., Scarlata, C., & Yang, K. Z. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 063007, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063007

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.063007 2020

  29. [83]

    J., Tiwari, P., et al

    B \"o hme, L., Schwarz, D. J., Tiwari, P., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 135, 201001, 10.1103/6z32-3zf4

    work page doi:10.1103/6z32-3zf4 2025

  30. [84]

    Calder \'o n Bustillo, J., del Rio, A., Sanchis-Gual, N., Chandra, K., & Leong, S. H. W. 2025, Phys. Rev. Lett., 134, 031402, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.031402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.031402 2025

  31. [85]

    Capote, W

    Capote, E., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 062002, 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.062002 2025

  32. [86]

    2019, , 631, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936373

    Colin , J., Mohayaee , R., Rameez , M., & Sarkar , S. 2019, , 631, L13, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936373

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936373 2019

  33. [87]

    2021, GRBweb [Online] , https://icecube.wisc.edu/ grbweb_public

    Coppin , P. 2021, GRBweb [Online] , https://icecube.wisc.edu/ grbweb_public

    2021

  34. [88]

    2022, Mon

    Dalang, C., & Bonvin, C. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 512, 3895, 10.1093/mnras/stac726

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac726 2022

  35. [89]

    2022, Astrophys

    Darling, J. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 931, L14, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6f08 2022

  36. [90]

    Ellis, G. F. R., & Baldwin, J. E. 1984, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 206, 377, 10.1093/mnras/206.2.377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/206.2.377 1984

  37. [91]

    M., Fishbach, M., Holz, D

    Essick, R., Farr, W. M., Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Katsavounidis, E. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 043016, 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.043016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.043016 2023

  38. [92]

    M., Hivon , E., Banday , A

    G \'o rski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, Astrophys. J., 622, 759, 10.1086/427976

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.1086/427976 2005

  39. [93]

    Gupta , S., & Saini , T. D. 2010, , 407, 651, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16945.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16945.x 2010

  40. [94]

    K., Phukon, K

    Kashyap, G., Singh, N. K., Phukon, K. S., Caudill, S., & Jain, P. 2023, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, 042, 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/042

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/06/042 2023

  41. [95]

    Kouveliotou,et al., Identification of two classes of gamma-ray bursts.Astrophys

    Kouveliotou , C., Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., et al. 1993, , 413, L101, 10.1086/186969

    work page doi:10.1086/186969 1993

  42. [96]

    2005, Phys

    Land, K., & Magueijo, J. 2005, Phys. Rev. Lett., 95, 071301, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.071301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.071301 2005

  43. [97]

    Cosmic dipole tensions: confronting the cosmic microwave background with infrared and radio populations of cosmological sources

    Land-Strykowski, M., Lewis, G. F., & Murphy, T. 2025. 2509.18689

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [98]

    D., et al

    Lien , A., Sakamoto , T., Barthelmy , S. D., et al. 2016, , 829, 7, 10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/7

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/829/1/7 2016

  45. [99]

    2025, GWTC-4.0 Cumulative Search Sensitivity Estimates, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.16740127

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration , Virgo Collaboration , & KAGRA Collaboration . 2025, GWTC-4.0 Cumulative Search Sensitivity Estimates, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.16740127

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16740127 2025

  46. [100]

    2012, , 2012, 036, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/036

    Marinoni , C., Bel , J., & Buzzi , A. 2012, , 2012, 036, 10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/036

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2012/10/036 2012

  47. [101]

    A., Fishman , G

    Meegan , C. A., Fishman , G. J., Wilson , R. B., et al. 1992, , 355, 143, 10.1038/355143a0

    work page doi:10.1038/355143a0 1992

  48. [102]

    2016, Rev

    Migkas, K., & Plionis, M. 2016, Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis., 52, 133. 1602.02310

    work page arXiv 2016

  49. [103]

    2022, NASA GCN Circular

    NASA . 2022, NASA GCN Circular. https://gcn.nasa.gov/circulars

    2022

  50. [104]

    P., Cline T

    Norris , J. P., Cline , T. L., Desai , U. D., & Teegarden , B. J. 1984, , 308, 434, 10.1038/308434a0

    work page doi:10.1038/308434a0 1984

  51. [105]

    2020, Phys

    Payne, E., Banagiri, S., Lasky, P., & Thrane, E. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 102004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.102004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.102004 2020

  52. [106]

    2022, New Astron

    Perivolaropoulos, L., & Skara, F. 2022, New Astron. Rev., 95, 101659, 10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659

    work page doi:10.1016/j.newar.2022.101659 2022

  53. [107]

    2021, , 913, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    Poolakkil , S., Preece , R., Fletcher , C., et al. 2021, , 913, 60, 10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf24d 2021

  54. [108]

    D., Tadayyoni, H

    Rasouli, A. D., Tadayyoni, H. S., Baghram, S., & Rahvar, S. 2025. 2508.18259

    work page arXiv 2025

  55. [109]

    2019, , 483, 2453, 10.1093/mnras/sty3272

    Sarkar , S., Pandey , B., & Khatri , R. 2019, , 483, 2453, 10.1093/mnras/sty3272

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3272 2019

  56. [110]

    J., Copi , C

    Schwarz , D. J., Copi , C. J., Huterer , D., & Starkman , G. D. 2016, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33, 184001, 10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/33/18/184001 2016

  57. [111]

    2025, Rev

    Secrest, N., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S. 2025, Rev. Mod. Phys., 97, 041001, 10.1103/9ygx-z2yq

    work page doi:10.1103/9ygx-z2yq 2025

  58. [112]

    J., Hausegger, S

    Secrest, N. J., Hausegger, S. v., Rameez, M., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L51, 10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abdd40 2021

  59. [113]

    J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S

    Secrest, N. J., von Hausegger, S., Rameez, M., Mohayaee, R., & Sarkar, S. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 937, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac88c0 2022

  60. [114]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 024013

    2016

  61. [115]

    2021, Mon

    Stiskalek, R., Veitch, J., & Messenger, C. 2021, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 501, 970, 10.1093/mnras/staa3613

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3613 2021

  62. [116]

    2017, , 472, 4819, 10.1093/mnras/stx2356

    Tarnopolski , M. 2017, , 472, 4819, 10.1093/mnras/stx2356

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2356 2017

  63. [117]

    2025 a , GWTC-4.0: Parameter estimation data release , 10.5281/zenodo.17014085

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , & the KAGRA Collaboration . 2025 a , GWTC-4.0: Parameter estimation data release , 10.5281/zenodo.17014085

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.17014085 2025

  64. [118]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration , the Virgo Collaboration , the KAGRA Collaboration , et al. 2025 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18082, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18082

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18082 2025

  65. [119]

    2017, , 851, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9708

    R \' pa , J., & Shafieloo , A. 2017, , 851, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9708

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9708 2017

  66. [120]

    2022, Phys

    Yeung, S., & Chu, M.-C. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 083508, 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.083508

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.083508 2022

  67. [121]

    2015, The Universe, 9

    Zhao, W., & Santos, L. 2015, The Universe, 9. 1604.05484

    work page arXiv 2015

  68. [122]

    2023, Phys

    Zheng, Y., Kouvatsos, N., Golomb, J., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. Lett., 131, 171403, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.131.171403

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.171403 2023

  69. [123]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019