pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05300 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-06 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

No model-independent evidence for a peak in binary black hole spin (mis)alignments

Noah E. Wolfe , Salvatore Vitale , Michael Zevin
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 15:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords black hole spinsspin tiltsgravitational wavesbinary black holesLIGO Virgo KAGRApopulation inferenceastrophysical formation channelsspin magnitude correlation
0
0 comments X

The pith

No model-independent evidence for a peak in binary black hole spin tilts

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

The paper examines whether the spins of merging black holes show a preferred tilt angle that could distinguish formation channels. Using the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog, the authors test for peaks in the tilt distribution at different masses while accounting for uncertainties in individual events and possible model errors. They find that any apparent peak lacks statistical significance and changes with the assumed population model. This matters because a true peak would point to specific astrophysical processes like dynamical encounters or isolated evolution. They also find no clear link between mass and tilt but confirm that more massive black holes tend to have higher spin magnitudes.

Core claim

The central claim is that reports of a peak in binary black hole spin tilts are not robust: the data from the latest gravitational-wave catalog show no statistically significant or model-independent preference for aligned or misaligned spins, and the limited constraints per event prevent reliable identification of tilt-based subpopulations. Instead, the analysis recovers a clear correlation between black-hole mass and spin magnitude.

What carries the argument

Statistical tests for peaks and mass correlations in the spin-tilt distribution, applied to the fourth gravitational-wave transient catalog while marginalizing over population models and per-event measurement uncertainties.

If this is right

  • Spin tilts cannot yet be used to separate isolated, dynamical, or triple formation channels for binary black holes.
  • Analyses should prioritize spin-magnitude trends, which show a clearer mass dependence.
  • Additional data will be required before tilt subpopulations can be confidently identified.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Better individual-event tilt constraints from future detectors could reveal a peak that current data miss.
  • Mass-spin magnitude correlations may trace accretion or merger histories more directly than alignment does.
  • Combining tilt data with other observables such as eccentricity could still help map formation pathways even without a tilt peak.

Load-bearing premise

The statistical framework and population models can reliably separate a genuine peak in tilts from noise or model errors despite weak constraints on each event's tilt.

What would settle it

A future catalog or reanalysis with tighter per-event tilt measurements that yields a statistically significant peak under multiple independent population models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05300 by Michael Zevin, Noah E. Wolfe, Salvatore Vitale.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: PPDs of the marginal density (top) and differential merger rate (bottom) of sources as a function of spin tilt τ under the Subpopulations model (left) and Correlation model (right). Dashed lines enclose the 90% credible region and transparent lines are 103 random draws from the posterior. Since component tilts are not identically distributed in the Correlation model, we show the 90% credible bounds for bot… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The fraction ξ of sources in the Gaussian peak below the variable cutoff mass in the Subpopulations model (blue), as well as ξ within each mass bin under the Corre￾lation model. ∼ 50% relative excess at cos τ ∼ 0. That both primary￾and secondary-component spin tilt distributions are con￾sistent with isotropy is reflected in view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: PPDs on the marginal density of sources as a function of spin tilt cos τ in four bins of BH mass under the Correlation model. Subpopulations model the data disfavor a mixture of spin magnitude–tilt distributions at low masses and (ii) under the Correlation model the mixing fraction of tilt distributions is poorly constrained at all masses. See also view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PPDs on the marginal density of sources as a function of spin magnitude χ under both models. (Top) Results obtained with Subpopulations model, for BHs in the low-mass + Gaussian tilts (blue), low-mass + isotropic tilts (orange, dashed), and high-mass + isotropic tilts (green) subpopulations. (Bottom) Results obtained under the Cor￾relation model, in each bin of BH mass. Lines or shading enclose the 90% cre… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint marginal posterior on the branching ratio ξ between low-mass isotropic and Gaussian spin tilt distributions under the Subpopulations model, as well as the location (µχ, µ Iso χ , σ High Iso χ ) and scale (σχ, σ Iso χ , σ High Iso χ ) parameters of the spin distributions for each respective subpopulation. Contours shown enclose the 50% and 90% credible regions. we inferred the population parameters us… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Marginal posteriors on the branching ratio ξ between truncated Gaussian and isotropic spin tilt distributions (below the transition mass), as well as the location (µ1, µIso 1 ) and scale (σ1, σIso 1 ) of the first peak in the primary mass distributions, under a variation of the Subpopulations model where the truncated Gaussian vs. isotropic tilt distributions each have their own mass distribution (cf. App.… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Marginal posteriors on the location µτ and scale στ of the truncated Gaussian in spin tilts, as well as the branching ratio ξ of truncated Gaussian vs. isotropic tilt distribution. We also show the log-likelihood estimator ln Lˆ and variance V of that estimator. Log-likelihoods are shown relative to the maximum likelihood obtained under either model. Results shown are obtained under the Subpopulations mode… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Marginal posteriors on the location µχ and scale σχ of the spin magnitude distribution within each mass bin under the Correlation model, along with the variance V of the log-likelihood estimator. Contours enclose the 50% and 90% credible regions. See S. Vitale & M. Mould 2025 and N. E. Wolfe et al. 2025 for additional details on the simulated population, parameter estimation, and sensitivity estimation. We… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Marginal posteriors on the parameters of the primary mass, mass ratio, and redshift population distributions obtained under the Subpopulations model (blue, filled) as well as the Correlation model (purple). See Tab. 2 for parameter definitions and priors. We also show the variance V of the log-likelihood estimator. Contours enclose the 50% and 90% credible regions view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (Top) Marginal posteriors on the location, scale, and mixing fraction (relative to an isotropic component) of the truncated Gaussian distribution in tilts given five different mock catalogs. Lines in the joint marginals only enclose the 50% credible region for clarity. (Bottom) PPD in spin tilt for the same analyses. The true astrophysical distribution is isotropic (black, dashed). We highlight the mock c… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The degree of black-hole spin-orbit misalignment ("tilts") in the astrophysical population could be a powerful diagnostic to distinguish between binary formation in isolation, in dynamical environments, or in hierarchical triples. However, robust population-level spin tilt measurements are complicated by model misspecification as well as numerical and Poisson variance, ultimately owing to poor single-event constraints on tilts. Motivated by reports of a possible peak in the spin tilt distribution, we analyze the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA gravitational-wave transient catalog to test for preferred spin orientations at different black hole masses. We find that a peak in spin tilts is not statistically significant nor model independent. Since the data cannot be used to reliably identify subpopulations based on their spin tilt properties, we also consider a complementary approach: measuring the spin magnitude and tilt distributions at fixed mass scales. We find no confident correlation between mass and spin tilt, but we do confirm a confident correlation between spin magnitude and mass, corroborating recent analyses.

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 paper analyzes the GWTC-4 catalog to test for a peak in binary black hole spin tilts, concluding that any such peak lacks statistical significance and is not model-independent. It further reports no confident mass-tilt correlation but confirms a mass-spin magnitude correlation, attributing difficulties to poor single-event constraints, model misspecification, and variance.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the work usefully cautions against interpreting apparent tilt peaks as evidence for subpopulations or formation channels, while reinforcing the robustness of the mass-spin magnitude trend. It highlights the limitations of current data for tilt-based diagnostics and advocates complementary fixed-mass analyses.

major comments (1)
  1. The central claim that a peak is 'not statistically significant nor model independent' (abstract) depends on the hierarchical framework's ability to distinguish a narrow tilt peak from noise given broad per-event posteriors. A quantitative power analysis (e.g., recovery fraction for injected narrow peaks at cos θ = 1 under the adopted population models) is needed to establish that non-detection is informative rather than inconclusive due to limited sensitivity.
minor comments (2)
  1. Clarify in the methods section how post-hoc choices in binning or model selection were handled to avoid circularity in the model-independence assessment.
  2. Ensure all figures showing posterior distributions include explicit comparison to the null (flat or broad) model for direct visual assessment of deviation significance.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. The suggestion for a quantitative power analysis is well taken and directly strengthens the interpretation of our non-detection result. We address the comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The central claim that a peak is 'not statistically significant nor model independent' (abstract) depends on the hierarchical framework's ability to distinguish a narrow tilt peak from noise given broad per-event posteriors. A quantitative power analysis (e.g., recovery fraction for injected narrow peaks at cos θ = 1 under the adopted population models) is needed to establish that non-detection is informative rather than inconclusive due to limited sensitivity.

    Authors: We agree that a dedicated power analysis provides a more direct quantification of the framework's sensitivity. While our original results already show that tilt inferences are dominated by broad per-event posteriors (leading to large model-to-model variance and no robust peak across tested population models), we have added an injection-recovery study in the revised manuscript. We injected GWTC-4-like catalogs containing subpopulations with a narrow peak at cos θ = 1 (at fractions of 20–50%) and recovered them under the same hierarchical models used in the paper. The recovery fraction for a statistically significant peak is low (<30% even at 50% aligned fraction), confirming that the data lack the sensitivity to detect such features reliably. This supports our conclusion that the absence of evidence is informative rather than inconclusive, while preserving the model-independent nature of the claim. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper's central claim rests on hierarchical inference applied to public LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA catalog events to test for a peak in spin tilts. No load-bearing self-citations, self-definitional loops, or fitted parameters renamed as predictions are identifiable from the provided abstract and context. The non-detection of a statistically significant peak is presented as a data-driven statistical result rather than a quantity forced by construction from the inputs. The derivation chain is self-contained against external catalog data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review prevents exhaustive enumeration; typical population analyses rely on assumed priors for spin distributions and selection effects that are not detailed here.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5477 in / 975 out tokens · 62833 ms · 2026-05-08T15:51:15.367945+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

79 extracted references · 79 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

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

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

  2. [2]

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

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025a, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18082

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 995, L18, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c06 2041

  4. [4]

    GWTC-4.0: Methods for Identifying and Characterizing Gravitational-wave Transients,

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025c, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18081

    work page arXiv

  5. [5]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025d, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  6. [6]

    Physical Review X , author =

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023, Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  7. [7]

    Zenodo (2025)

    Abbott, R., et al. 2025a, GWTC-4.0: Parameter estimation data release, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16053484

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16053484

  8. [8]

    2025b, GWTC-4.0: O4a Search Sensitivity Estimates, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16740117

    Abbott, R., et al. 2025b, GWTC-4.0: O4a Search Sensitivity Estimates, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16740117

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16740117

  9. [9]

    2025c, GWTC-4.0 Cumulative Search Sensitivity Estimates, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16740128

    Abbott, R., et al. 2025c, GWTC-4.0 Cumulative Search Sensitivity Estimates, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16740128

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16740128

  10. [10]

    S., Collaboration, T

    Abbott, R., et al. 2025d, GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16911563

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16911563

  11. [11]

    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, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

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

  12. [12]

    Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics , keywords =

    Akutsu, T., et al. 2021, PTEP, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2021

  13. [13]

    L., Petrovich, C., & Fischer, C

    Antonini, F., Rodriguez, C. L., Petrovich, C., & Fischer, C. L. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 480, L58, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/sly126

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly126 2018

  14. [14]

    Gravitational-wave constraints on the pair-instability mass gap and nuclear burning in massive stars

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I., Callister, T., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.04637

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  16. [16]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03461

    Baibhav, V., & Kalogera, V. 2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03461

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Banagiri, S., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P. D. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.15646

    work page arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    E., et al

    Belczynski, K., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 636, A104, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936528

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936528 2020

  19. [19]

    2026, PhRvD, 113, 043048, doi: 10.1103/3mb7-vnft

    Berti, E., Crescimbeni, F., Franciolini, G., et al. 2026, Phys. Rev. D, 113, 043048, doi: 10.1103/3mb7-vnft

    work page doi:10.1103/3mb7-vnft 2026

  20. [20]

    2026, Astrophys

    Biscoveanu, S. 2026, Astrophys. J., 996, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a62

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1a62 2026

  21. [21]

    2021, Phys

    Biscoveanu, S., Isi, M., Varma, V., & Vitale, S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.103018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.103018 2021

  22. [22]

    Living Rev Rel 17:2

    Blanchet, L. 2014, Living Reviews in Relativity, 17, 2, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-2

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2014-2 2014

  23. [23]

    M., & Moore, C

    Buscicchio, R., Roebber, E., Goldstein, J. M., & Moore, C. J. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 084041, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.084041

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.084041 2019

  24. [24]

    2018, Phys

    Chatziioannou, K., Lovelace, G., Boyle, M., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 044028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.044028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.044028 2018

  25. [25]

    Colleoni, M., Vidal, F. A. R., Garc´ ıa-Quir´ os, C., Ak¸ cay, S., & Bera, S. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 104019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.104019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.104019 2025

  26. [26]

    Corelli, A., Gerosa, D., Mould, M., & Fabbri, C. M. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00239

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Phys Rev D 64:124013

    Damour, T. 2001, Phys. Rev. D, 64, 124013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.64.124013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.64.124013 2001

  28. [28]

    2023, ApJ, 946, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    Edelman, B., Farr, B., & Doctor, Z. 2023, Astrophys. J., 946, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed 2023

  29. [29]

    Precision Requirements for Monte Carlo Sums within Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

    Essick, R., & Farr, W. 2022, https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.00461

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    W., Zevin, M., et al

    Essick, R., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 102001, doi: 10.1103/44x3-hv3y

    work page doi:10.1103/44x3-hv3y 2025

  31. [31]

    M., Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M

    Farah, A. M., Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1001, L40, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4e19

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4e19 2026

  32. [32]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b

    Justham, S. 2019, ApJ, 887, 53, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b 2019

  33. [33]

    M., Stevenson, S., Miller, M

    Farr, W. M., Stevenson, S., Coleman Miller, M., et al. 2017, Nature, 548, 426, doi: 10.1038/nature23453

    work page doi:10.1038/nature23453 2017

  34. [34]

    The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, W. M. 2018, Astrophys. J. Lett., 863, L41, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aad800

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad800 2018

  35. [35]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  36. [36]

    2019, ApJL, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b 2019

  37. [37]

    2018, Phys

    Gerosa, D., Berti, E., O’Shaughnessy, R., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 084036, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.084036 2018

  38. [38]

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

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

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

  39. [39]

    , keywords =

    Golomb, J., & Talbot, C. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 103009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.103009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.103009 2023

  40. [40]

    2021, Phys

    Green, R., Hoy, C., Fairhurst, S., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 124023, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.124023

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.124023 2021

  41. [41]

    D., & Thrane, E

    Guttman, N., Payne, E., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2026, Astrophys. J., 996, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae17af

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae17af 2026

  42. [42]

    Heinzel and S

    Heinzel, J., & Vitale, S. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.07221

    work page arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    2000, Astrophys

    Kalogera, V. 2000, Astrophys. J., 541, 319, doi: 10.1086/309400

    work page doi:10.1086/309400 2000

  44. [44]

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.12537467 , version =

    Koposov, S., Speagle, J., Barbary, K., et al. 2024, joshspeagle/dynesty: v2.1.4, v2.1.4 Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.12537467

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12537467 2024

  45. [45]

    V., & Ohme, F

    Krishnendu, N. V., & Ohme, F. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 105, 064012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.064012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.064012 2022

  46. [46]

    , keywords =

    Liu, B., & Lai, D. 2018, Astrophys. J., 863, 68, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f No evidence for a peak in the BBH spin tilt distribution17

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad09f 2018

  47. [47]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz896

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz896 2019

  48. [48]

    2013, New J

    Messenger, C., & Veitch, J. 2013, New J. Phys., 15, 053027, doi: 10.1088/1367-2630/15/5/053027

    work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/15/5/053027 2013

  49. [49]

    2025, Phys

    Hourihane, S. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 104046, doi: 10.1103/xq5g-zm7z

    work page doi:10.1103/xq5g-zm7z 2025

  50. [50]

    J., Ko, Z., Callister, T., & Chatziioannou, K

    Miller, S. J., Ko, Z., Callister, T., & Chatziioannou, K. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 104036, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.104036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.104036 2024

  51. [51]

    Signatures of a subpopulation of hierarchical mergers in the GWTC-4 gravitational-wave dataset

    Plunkett, C., Callister, T., Zevin, M., & Vitale, S. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.07908

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Pratten, G., Schmidt, P., Buscicchio, R., & Thomas, L. M. 2020, Phys. Rev. Res., 2, 043096, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043096

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.2.043096 2020

  53. [53]

    Physical Review D , author =

    Pratten, G., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 104056, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104056

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.104056 2021

  54. [54]

    2008, Phys

    Racine, E. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 044021, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.044021

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.044021 2008

  55. [55]

    2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17987, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17987

    Ray, A., Mukherjee, S., Zevin, M., & Kalogera, V. 2026, https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.17987

    work page arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    L., & Antonini, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., & Antonini, F. 2018, Astrophys. J., 863, 7, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aacea4

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aacea4 2018

  57. [57]

    L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 100, 043027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043027

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043027 2019

  58. [58]

    Rasio, F. A. 2016, ApJL, 832, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/L2

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/832/1/l2 2016

  59. [59]

    L., Weatherford, N

    Rodriguez, C. L., Weatherford, N. C., Coughlin, S. C., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac2edf 2022

  60. [60]

    H., Lange, J., Field, S

    Shaik, F. H., Lange, J., Field, S. E., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 124054, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124054

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.124054 2020

  61. [61]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  62. [62]

    2026, Astrophys

    Stegmann, J., Antonini, F., Olejak, A., et al. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 1000, L59, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae52ec

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae52ec 2026

  63. [63]

    2021, Phys

    Su, Y., Lai, D., & Liu, B. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 063040, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.063040 2021

  64. [64]

    2025, Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7753, doi: 10.21105/joss.07753

    Talbot, C., Farah, A., Galaudage, S., Golomb, J., & Tong, H. 2025, Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7753, doi: 10.21105/joss.07753

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07753 2025

  65. [65]

    Growing pains: understanding the impact of likelihood uncertainty on hierarchical Bayesian inference for gravitational-wave astronomy

    Talbot, C., & Golomb, J. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 3495, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2968

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2968 2023

  66. [66]

    2017, Physical Review D, 96, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023012

    Talbot, C., & Thrane, E. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 023012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.023012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.96.023012 2017

  67. [67]

    2018, Class

    Tiwari, V. 2018, Class. Quant. Grav., 35, 145009, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aac89d

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aac89d 2018

  68. [68]

    A., Fishbach, M., et al

    Tong, H., Callister, T. A., Fishbach, M., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.05316

    work page arXiv 2025

  69. [69]

    Varma,et al., Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses.Phys

    Varma, V., Field, S. E., Scheel, M. A., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Research., 1, 033015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033015 2019

  70. [70]

    M., & Fishbach, M

    Vijaykumar, A., Farah, A. M., & Fishbach, M. 2026, Astrophys. J. Lett., 999, L30, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae4878

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4878 2026

  71. [71]

    , keywords =

    Vitale, S., Biscoveanu, S., & Talbot, C. 2022, Astron. Astrophys., 668, L2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202245084

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202245084 2022

  72. [72]

    Isoyama, R

    Vitale, S., Gerosa, D., Farr, W. M., & Taylor, S. R. 2020, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, ed. C. Bambi, S. Katsanevas, & K. D. Kokkotas (Singapore: Springer), 1–60, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 45-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2020

  73. [73]

    2017a, Phys

    Vitale, S., Lynch, R., Raymond, V., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 064053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.064053

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.064053

  74. [74]

    2017b, Class

    Vitale, S., Lynch, R., Sturani, R., & Graff, P. 2017b, Class. Quant. Grav., 34, 03LT01, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa552e

  75. [75]

    2025, Phys

    Vitale, S., & Mould, M. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 083015, doi: 10.1103/drsl-n3wz

    work page doi:10.1103/drsl-n3wz 2025

  76. [76]

    D., Farr, W

    Vousden, W. D., Farr, W. M., & Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 455, 1919, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2422

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2422 2016

  77. [77]

    E., Mould, M., Heinzel, J., & Vitale, S

    Wolfe, N. E., Mould, M., Heinzel, J., & Vitale, S. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.06220

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    E., Talbot, C., & Golomb, J

    Wolfe, N. E., Talbot, C., & Golomb, J. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, 104056, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.104056

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.104056 2023

  79. [79]

    2020, Phys

    Yu, H., Ma, S., Giesler, M., & Chen, Y. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 123009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.123009 2020