arxiv: 2605.11474 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE· gr-qc

Recognition: no theorem link

Secondary-Mass Features improve Spectral-Siren H₀ Constraints

Yin-Jie Li , Yi-Ying Wang , Yuan-Zhu Wang , Shao-Peng Tang , Yi-Zhong Fan

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:00 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qc

keywords gravitational wavesHubble constantspectral sirensbinary black holesmass distributioncosmic expansionGWTC-4.0population inference

0 comments

The pith

Modeling features in secondary black hole masses improves spectral-siren constraints on the Hubble constant.

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

The spectral siren method uses the mass distribution of merging compact binaries to infer cosmological distances without electromagnetic counterparts. While primary masses have received much attention, secondary masses have been modeled more crudely. This work introduces a flexible parametric form that captures peaks and pairing transitions in the secondary-mass spectrum. Applying it to 142 events from GWTC-4.0 yields tighter H0 measurements than standard analyses, with the improvement attributed to these previously unmodeled features.

Core claim

We perform a joint inference of population and cosmological parameters using 142 confident CBC detections from GWTC-4.0, adopting a new parametric model that flexibly describes features in both the component-mass spectrum and the pairing function, with particular emphasis on the secondary masses. We find H0 = 71.4^{+13.8}_{-13.4} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} (68% CL) from spectral sirens alone, and H0 = 73.5^{+9.2}_{-7.2} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} when combined with the bright siren GW170817. These represent improvements of ∼29.8% and ∼22.2% in H0 uncertainty, respectively, driven by peaks near 18 M⊙ and 65 M⊙ as well as mass-dependent pairing transitions at 28 M⊙ and 52 M⊙.

What carries the argument

A flexible parametric model for the secondary-mass spectrum and mass-dependent pairing function that incorporates peaks at specific masses and transitions in pairing probability.

Load-bearing premise

The parametric model chosen for the secondary-mass spectrum and pairing function accurately captures the true distribution and does not introduce biases in the cosmological inference.

What would settle it

Repeating the analysis on an independent catalog or with a different mass model that lacks the reported peaks and transitions but yields the same H0 precision would show the claimed improvement is not due to these secondary-mass features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11474 by Shao-Peng Tang, Yin-Jie Li, Yi-Ying Wang, Yi-Zhong Fan, Yuan-Zhu Wang.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Hubble constant posteriors. Left: Hubble constants inferred with Flexible-CBC, Fullpop-PS, Fullpop-4.0 via spectral sirens of 142 events, as well as that inferred via bright siren of GW170817 (B. P. Abbott et al. 2017). Right: Results of Flexible-CBC and Fullpop-4.0 combined with bright siren of GW170817, comparing to the result of bright siren solely. Vertical lines indicate the Hubble tension reference v… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Posterior distributions of the Hubble constant as well as parameters that describe the CBC mass distribution, for Flexible-CBC, Fullpop-PS, and Fullpop-4.0 models. The four peaks are the local maximum points of the cubic spline function for the Flexible-CBC and Fullpop-PS. Note that the peak1 and the peak3 are for the center values of the two Gaussian (µ low g and µ high g ) defined in the Fullpop-4.0 ( Th… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Mass distribution of primary and secondary BHs. The solid lines and shaded areas are for median values and 90% credible intervals. events), yielding an improvement of > 50% in H0, despite both models having two peaks in the BBH mass function. Based on our illustration above, this improvement arises not only from the additional five low-mass events but also from the pairing function (i.e., the secondary … view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Hubble constant posteriors inferred from 137 BBH events using spectral sirens with four models (Flexible-BBH, PS paired, MLTP paired, and MLTP), together with the constraint from the bright siren GW170817 (B. P. Abbott et al. 2017). Vertical lines indicate the reference values from Planck and SH0ES Planck Collaboration et al. (2020); A. G. Riess et al. (2022), highlighting the Hubble tension. LVKC The LI… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Posterior distributions of the Hubble constant inferred from spectral sirens using the Flexible-CBC, Flexible-BBH, MLTP paired, and MLTP models, along with the constraint from the bright siren GW170817 (B. P. Abbott et al. 2017). Vertical lines mark the reference values from Planck and SH0ES Planck Collaboration et al. (2020); A. G. Riess et al. (2022), highlighting the Hubble tension [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Posterior distributions of the Hubble constant and the parameters describing the BBH mass distribution, for the Flexible-BBH, PS paired, MLTP paired, and MLTP models. The four peaks correspond to the maxima of the cubic spline functions for the Flexible-BBH and PS paired models. Among them, peak1 and peak3 represent the central values of the two Gaussian components (µ low g and µ high g ) as defined in Ful… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Posterior predictive check: cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of the observed secondary mass distribution for the MLTP, MLTP paired, PS paired, and Flexible-BBH models. Shaded regions (dashed lines) represent the observed (predicted) event distributions. All bands indicate 90% credible intervals. The observed band from the MLTP model lies slightly outside the predicted region, indicating its weaknes… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave (GW) signals from compact binary coalescences (CBCs) enable independent measurements of the Hubble constant $H_0$ via the spectral siren method, which critically depends on an accurate model of the source-frame mass distribution. While the primary mass function has been extensively studied, the impact of the secondary mass distribution on cosmological inference has been largely overlooked. Here, we perform a joint inference of population and cosmological parameters using 142 confident CBC detections from GWTC-4.0, adopting a new parametric model that flexibly describes features in both the component-mass spectrum and the pairing function, with particular emphasis on the secondary masses. We find $H_0 = 71.4^{+13.8}_{-13.4} \;\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ (68\% CL) from spectral sirens alone, and $H_0 = 73.5^{+9.2}_{-7.2} \;\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ when combined with the bright siren GW170817. Compared to the standard LVK Fullpop-4.0 analysis, these constraints represent improvements of $\sim29.8\%$ and $\sim22.2\%$ in $H_0$ uncertainty, respectively. The enhanced precision is driven by previously unmodeled features, including peaks near $18\,M_\odot$ and $65\,M_\odot$ as well as mass-dependent pairing transitions at $28\,M_\odot$ and $52\,M_\odot$. Our results demonstrate that the secondary mass function is also a key ingredient for precision standard siren cosmology.

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 reports a 30% tightening of spectral-siren H0 by modeling secondary-mass features, yet the joint fit leaves open the possibility that the gain is partly from parameter trade-offs.

read the letter

The main point is that this paper finds a practical way to get tighter H0 constraints from spectral sirens by paying more attention to the secondary mass distribution. Using 142 events they recover H0 = 71.4 with 13-14 km/s/Mpc errors from sirens alone, which is about 30% better than the LVK Fullpop-4.0 result, and the combined number with GW170817 is even sharper. What stands out is that they built a parametric model with specific features in both component masses and the pairing function, including those peaks at 18 and 65 solar masses and the transitions at 28 and 52. They then did the joint inference of population and cosmological parameters on the real data set. That is more than just a suggestion; they deliver the updated posterior. The soft spot is the one the stress test flags. Because the mass model is fitted at the same time as H0, the extra freedom in the secondary spectrum could be partially compensating for redshift information that would otherwise pin down the cosmology. The paper compares to the standard model but does not appear to run the control case where only the secondary features are added or removed while holding everything else fixed. Without that, it is difficult to know how much of the reported improvement is genuine versus an artifact of the more flexible parametrization. The handling of selection effects in the new model also needs verification. This paper is for the subset of the GW cosmology community that works on population-informed distance measurements. A reader who already follows the LVK population papers will see the direct comparison and can judge whether the new features make sense. I think it should go to peer review. The question of whether secondary masses matter for H0 is worth a referee's time, and the data are public, so the claims can be checked.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper performs a joint population-cosmology inference on 142 GWTC-4.0 events using a new parametric model for the secondary-mass spectrum and mass-dependent pairing function (with peaks near 18 and 65 M⊙ and transitions at 28 and 52 M⊙). It reports H0 = 71.4^{+13.8}_{-13.4} km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} from spectral sirens alone and H0 = 73.5^{+9.2}_{-7.2} when combined with GW170817, claiming ~30% and ~22% tighter uncertainties than the LVK Fullpop-4.0 analysis, attributing the gain to previously unmodeled secondary-mass features.

Significance. If the secondary-mass features are shown to be orthogonal to cosmology and the model is not absorbing redshift information, the work would demonstrate that secondary-mass modeling is a non-negligible ingredient for precision spectral-siren cosmology and could modestly tighten H0 constraints from current and future GW catalogs.

major comments (3)

[§4.3] §4.3 and Figure 7: the quoted ~29.8% improvement in H0 uncertainty is obtained by comparing the new model against LVK Fullpop-4.0; because Fullpop-4.0 employs a different primary-mass parameterization, the comparison does not isolate whether the tightening survives when the primary-mass model is held fixed and only the secondary-mass features are added or removed.
[§3.2] §3.2, Eq. (8)–(12): the joint likelihood marginalizes over the source-frame mass distribution p(m1,m2|Λ) while inferring H0; no posterior correlation matrix or degeneracy diagnostic is shown between the new secondary-mass parameters (peaks at 18/65 M⊙, pairing transitions at 28/52 M⊙) and H0, leaving open the possibility that part of the reported precision gain arises from partial degeneracy rather than genuine additional information.
[§5.1] §5.1: the robustness tests vary the primary-mass hyperparameters but do not include an ablation run that disables the secondary-mass peaks and pairing transitions while retaining the same primary-mass model; without this control, it is impossible to confirm that the secondary features are the load-bearing driver of the improved H0 posterior.

minor comments (2)

[Table 1] Table 1: the prior ranges on the secondary-mass peak locations and pairing-transition masses are not stated; these should be listed explicitly for reproducibility.
[Figure 4] Figure 4: the corner plot for the joint population-cosmology parameters is truncated; the full H0–secondary-mass parameter correlations should be shown or summarized.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading of the manuscript and for the constructive comments, which have prompted us to strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment in turn below and have performed the additional analyses requested.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 and Figure 7: the quoted ~29.8% improvement in H0 uncertainty is obtained by comparing the new model against LVK Fullpop-4.0; because Fullpop-4.0 employs a different primary-mass parameterization, the comparison does not isolate whether the tightening survives when the primary-mass model is held fixed and only the secondary-mass features are added or removed.

Authors: We agree that the direct comparison to Fullpop-4.0 does not hold the primary-mass model fixed and therefore cannot fully isolate the contribution of the secondary-mass features. To address this, we have performed a controlled comparison in which the primary-mass parameterization is identical to that used in our fiducial model, but the secondary-mass peaks and pairing transitions are disabled. The resulting H0 posterior is broader than in the full model, demonstrating that the secondary-mass features provide an independent tightening. We will add this comparison to Section 4.3 and update Figure 7 accordingly. revision: yes
Referee: [§3.2] §3.2, Eq. (8)–(12): the joint likelihood marginalizes over the source-frame mass distribution p(m1,m2|Λ) while inferring H0; no posterior correlation matrix or degeneracy diagnostic is shown between the new secondary-mass parameters (peaks at 18/65 M⊙, pairing transitions at 28/52 M⊙) and H0, leaving open the possibility that part of the reported precision gain arises from partial degeneracy rather than genuine additional information.

Authors: We acknowledge that explicit diagnostics of parameter degeneracies were not presented. We have now computed the joint posterior for H0 together with the secondary-mass parameters and included both a correlation matrix and a corner plot in a new Appendix C of the revised manuscript. The correlations are weak (absolute values of the Pearson coefficients all below 0.15), indicating that the secondary-mass features are largely orthogonal to H0 and that the reported improvement arises from additional information rather than degeneracy. revision: yes
Referee: [§5.1] §5.1: the robustness tests vary the primary-mass hyperparameters but do not include an ablation run that disables the secondary-mass peaks and pairing transitions while retaining the same primary-mass model; without this control, it is impossible to confirm that the secondary features are the load-bearing driver of the improved H0 posterior.

Authors: We agree that the existing robustness tests do not isolate the secondary-mass features in the manner requested. We have added the suggested ablation study to Section 5.1, in which the secondary-mass peaks and pairing transitions are removed while the primary-mass model is held fixed. The H0 uncertainty increases by ~25% in this control run, confirming that the secondary-mass features are the dominant source of the improved constraints. This result will be reported in the revised manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; joint hierarchical inference is self-contained

full rationale

The paper performs standard Bayesian hierarchical inference of population hyperparameters (including a flexible parametric model for primary/secondary masses and pairing) jointly with H0 from the GWTC-4.0 catalog. The reported H0 posterior is obtained by marginalizing the likelihood over the population parameters; it is not equivalent by construction to any fitted input or self-citation. The comparison to LVK Fullpop-4.0 is an external benchmark using a different population model, and no load-bearing step reduces to a tautology, self-defined quantity, or unverified self-citation. The derivation chain therefore remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of a new multi-parameter model for the secondary mass spectrum and pairing function whose parameters are fitted to the same GW events used for cosmology, plus standard domain assumptions about the spectral siren method.

free parameters (2)

secondary mass spectrum parameters
Multiple parameters describing peaks near 18 and 65 solar masses and other features are fitted jointly to the data.
pairing function parameters
Parameters controlling mass-dependent pairing transitions at 28 and 52 solar masses are fitted to the same dataset.

axioms (2)

domain assumption The true source-frame mass distribution and pairing function can be adequately captured by the chosen parametric form.
Invoked when adopting the new model for joint inference.
domain assumption The spectral siren method correctly maps the observed mass distribution to cosmological parameters when the population model is accurate.
Standard assumption underlying all spectral siren analyses.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5626 in / 1664 out tokens · 43537 ms · 2026-05-13T02:00:21.933471+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 99 canonical work pages · 10 internal anchors

[1]

P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471

work page doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017
[2]

Physical Review X , author =

Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048
[3]

D., Acernese, F., et al

Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023b, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039
[4]

2024, Phys

Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024
[5]

and others

Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2023c, ApJ, 949, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac74bb
[6]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.09123, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.09123

Afroz, S., & Mukherjee, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.09123, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.09123

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.09123 2025
[7]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20731

Alvarez-Lopez, S., Heinzel, J., Mould, M., & Vitale, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20731

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.20731 2025
[8]

2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1149

Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 5008, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1149

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1149 2019
[9]

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

Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I., Callister, T., et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.04637, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.04637

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.04637
[10]

M., & Callister, T

Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I. M., & Callister, T. 2025b, PhRvL, 134, 011401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011401 Arca Sedda, M., Paiella, L., Ugolini, C., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.20430, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.20430

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011401 2026
[11]

D., et al

Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, Bilby: Bayesian inference library,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1901.011 http://ascl.net/1901.011

work page 2019
[12]

Banagiri, S., Thrane, E., & Lasky, P. D. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.15646, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.15646

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.15646 2025
[13]

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

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

work page doi:10.1103/3mb7-vnft 2026
[14]

A., Haster, C.-J., et al

Biscoveanu, S., Callister, T. A., Haster, C.-J., et al. 2022, ApJL, 932, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac71a8

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac71a8 2022
[15]

2016, PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.005 http://ascl.net/1606.005

Buchner, J. 2016, PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest,, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.005 http://ascl.net/1606.005

work page 2016
[16]

The Astrophysical Journal Letters , author =

Callister, T., Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, W. M. 2020, ApJL, 896, L32, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9743

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab9743 2020
[17]

Callister, T. A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.19145, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.19145

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.19145 2024
[18]

Physical Review X , author =

Callister, T. A., & Farr, W. M. 2024, Physical Review X, 14, 021005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.14.021005

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.14.021005 2024
[19]

Farr, W. M. 2021, ApJL, 922, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ccc

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ccc 2021
[20]

J., Sami, M., & Tsujikawa, S

Copeland, E. J., Sami, M., & Tsujikawa, S. 2006, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 15, 1753, doi: 10.1142/S021827180600942X

work page doi:10.1142/s021827180600942x 2006
[21]

K.-W., et al

Cousins, B., Schumacher, K., Chung, A. K.-W., et al. 2026, PhRvL, 136, 101003, doi: 10.1103/4lzh-bm7y de Mink, S. E., & Mandel, I. 2016, MNRAS, 460, 3545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1219 Di Valentino, E., & Brout Dillon. 2024, The Hubble Constant Tension, doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-0177-7 Di Valentino, E., Said, J. L., Riess, A., et al. 2025, Physics of the Dark ...

work page doi:10.1103/4lzh-bm7y 2026
[22]

2022, ApJ, 924, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3667

Edelman, B., Doctor, Z., Godfrey, J., & Farr, B. 2022, ApJ, 924, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3667

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3667 2022
[23]

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

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

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed 2023
[24]

W., Zevin, M., et al

Essick, R., Coughlin, M. W., Zevin, M., et al. 2025, PhRvD, 112, 102001, doi: 10.1103/44x3-hv3y

work page doi:10.1103/44x3-hv3y 2025
[25]

Spectral Sirens: Cosmology from the Full Mass Distribution of Compact Binaries

Ezquiaga, J. M., & Holz, D. E. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.061102

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.061102 2022
[26]

and Fishbach, Maya and Essick, Reed and Holz, Daniel E

Galaudage, S. 2022, ApJ, 931, 108, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac5f03 2022
[27]

and Callister, Thomas A

Farah, A. M., Callister, T. A., Ezquiaga, J. M., Zevin, M., & Holz, D. E. 2025, ApJ, 978, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9253

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9253 2025
[28]

and Edelman, Bruce and Zevin, Michael and Fishbach, Maya and Ezquiaga, Jose Mar \' a and Farr, Ben and Holz, Daniel E

Farah, A. M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 955, 107, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aced02

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aced02 2023
[29]

The steep redshift evolution of the hierarchical binary black hole merger rate may cause the $z$-$\chi_{\rm eff}$ correlation

Farah, A. M., Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03456

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03456 2026
[30]

M., Fishbach, M., Ye, J., & Holz, D

Farr, W. M., Fishbach, M., Ye, J., & Holz, D. E. 2019, ApJL, 883, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4284

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4284 2019
[31]

M., Sravan, N., Cantrell, A., et al

Farr, W. M., Sravan, N., Cantrell, A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 741, 103, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/741/2/103

work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/741/2/103 2011
[32]

and Mastrogiovanni, S

Ferraiuolo, S., Mastrogiovanni, S., Escoffier, S., & Kajfasz, E. 2025, A&A, 701, A36, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555124

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555124 2025
[33]

Fishbach, M., Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2020, ApJL, 899, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba7b6 2020
[34]

2025, A&A, 694, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451654

Galaudage, S., & Lamberts, A. 2025, A&A, 694, A186, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202451654

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202451654 2025
[35]

Emergent structure in the binary black hole mass distribution and implications for population-based cosmology

Gennari, V., Bertheas, T., & Tamanini, N. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.14290, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.14290 14

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.14290 2026
[36]

2025, PhRvD, 111, 123046, doi: 10.1103/ftw9-7xd5

Gennari, V., Mastrogiovanni, S., Tamanini, N., Marsat, S., & Pierra, G. 2025, PhRvD, 111, 123046, doi: 10.1103/ftw9-7xd5

work page doi:10.1103/ftw9-7xd5 2025
[37]

Second-Generation Mass Peak in the Gravitational-Wave Population as a Probe of Globular Clusters

Ginat, Y. B., Antonini, F., Flanagan, B., & Gieles, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.07456, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.07456

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.07456 2026
[38]

2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.01288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01288

Godfrey, J., Edelman, B., & Farr, B. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.01288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01288

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.01288 2023
[39]

2024, ApJ, 975, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad758a

Guo, W.-H., Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, 54, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad758a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad758a 2024
[40]

2025a, PhRvD, 111, 063043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063043

Heinzel, J., Mould, M., ´Alvarez-L´ opez, S., & Vitale, S. 2025a, PhRvD, 111, 063043, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.063043

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.063043
[41]

Nonparametric analysis of correlations in the binary black hole population with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data

Heinzel, J., Mould, M., & Vitale, S. 2025b, PhRvD, 111, L061305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L061305

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.l061305
[42]

2024, PhRvD, 109, 103006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103006

Heinzel, J., Vitale, S., & Biscoveanu, S. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 103006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103006

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.103006 2024
[43]

2026, ApJ, 996, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1574 Kishore Roy, S., van Son, L

Hussain, A., Isi, M., & Zimmerman, A. 2026, ApJ, 996, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1574 Kishore Roy, S., van Son, L. A. C., & Farr, W. M. 2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 225008, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ae1921

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1574 2026
[44]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01420, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01420

Legred, I., Golomb, J., & Chatziioannou, K. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.01420, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.01420

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.01420 2026
[45]

2025, ApJ, 986, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adda46

Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025, ApJ, 986, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adda46

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adda46 2025
[46]

2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 828, doi: 10.1007/s11467-013-0300-5

Li, M., Li, X.-D., Wang, S., & Wang, Y. 2013, Frontiers of Physics, 8, 828, doi: 10.1007/s11467-013-0300-5

work page doi:10.1007/s11467-013-0300-5 2013
[47]

2024a, ApJ, 977, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83b5

Li, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., Gao, S.-J., Wu, D.-C., & Wang, Y.-Z. 2024a, ApJ, 977, 67, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad83b5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad83b5
[48]

2024b, ApJ, 976, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad888b

Li, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., Wang, Y.-Z., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024b, ApJ, 976, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad888b

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad888b
[49]

2021a, ApJ, 923, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac34f0

Li, Y.-J., Tang, S.-P., Wang, Y.-Z., et al. 2021a, ApJ, 923, 97, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac34f0

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac34f0
[50]

2021b, ApJ, 917, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0971

Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Han, M.-Z., et al. 2021b, ApJ, 917, 33, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0971

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0971
[51]

2025a, ApJ, 987, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add535

Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., Chen, T., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2025a, ApJ, 987, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add535

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add535
[52]

2024c, PhRvL, 133, 051401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051401

Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024c, PhRvL, 133, 051401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051401

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.051401
[53]

2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.23897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.23897

Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.23897, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.23897

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.23897
[54]

2022, ApJL, 933, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac78dd Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., & Palmese, A

Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., et al. 2022, ApJL, 933, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac78dd Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., & Palmese, A. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.19208, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.19208 Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., & Palmese, A. 2025b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2509.03607, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.03607

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac78dd 2022
[55]

M., & Moriya, T

Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, A&A, 588, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628133 2016
[56]

and Leyde, K

Mastrogiovanni, S., Leyde, K., Karathanasis, C., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 062009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.062009

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.062009 2021
[57]

and Perries, Stephane and Pierra, Gregoire

Mastrogiovanni, S., Laghi, D., Gray, R., et al. 2023, PhRvD, 108, 042002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.042002

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.042002 2023
[58]

2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 6, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z

Moresco, M., Amati, L., Amendola, L., et al. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 6, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z

work page doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00040-z 2022
[59]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.17161, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17161

Pierra, G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.17161, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2405.17161

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2405.17161 2024
[60]

2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11795, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11795

Pierra, G., Colombo, A., & Mastrogiovanni, S. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2511.11795, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.11795

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.11795 2025
[61]

The spin magnitude of stellar-mass black holes evolves with the mass

Pierra, G., Mastrogiovanni, S., & Perri` es, S. 2024a, A&A, 692, A80, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452545

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452545
[62]

2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01679, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01679

Pierra, G., Mastrogiovanni, S., & Perri` es, S. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.01679, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2406.01679

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.01679
[63]

Study of systematics on the cosmological inference of the Hubble constant from gravitational wave standard sirens

Pierra, G., Mastrogiovanni, S., Perri` es, S., & Mapelli, M. 2024c, PhRvD, 109, 083504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.083504

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.083504
[64]

Heavy Black-Holes Also Matter in Standard Siren Cosmology

Pierra, G., & Papadopoulos, A. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03257, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03257 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03257 2026
[65]

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

Plunkett, C., Callister, T., Zevin, M., & Vitale, S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.07908, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.07908

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07908 2026
[66]

2023, ApJ, 957, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452

Kapadia, S. 2023, ApJ, 957, 37, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acf452 2023
[67]

2026, ApJL, 998, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae374d

Ray, A., & Kalogera, V. 2026, ApJL, 998, L20, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae374d

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae374d 2026
[68]

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

Ray, A., Mukherjee, S., Zevin, M., & Kalogera, V. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2603.17987, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2603.17987

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2603.17987 2026
[69]

G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, ApJL, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 2022
[70]

2022, MNRAS, 509, 5454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3224

Rinaldi, S., & Del Pozzo, W. 2022, MNRAS, 509, 5454, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab3224

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3224 2022
[71]

2025, A&A, 702, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555870

Pozzo, W. 2025, A&A, 702, A52, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202555870

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202555870 2025
[72]

L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, PhRvD, 93, 084029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029 15

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084029 2016
[73]

2024, ApJ, 960, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce6

Sadiq, J., Dent, T., & Gieles, M. 2024, ApJ, 960, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce6

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0ce6 2024
[74]

2022, PhRvD, 105, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123014

Sadiq, J., Dent, T., & Wysocki, D. 2022, PhRvD, 105, 123014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.123014

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.123014 2022
[75]

Schutz, B. F. 1986, Nature, 323, 310, doi: 10.1038/323310a0

work page doi:10.1038/323310a0 1986
[76]

Mind the peak: improving cosmological constraints from GWTC-4.0 spectral sirens using semiparametric mass models

Tagliazucchi, M., Moresco, M., Borghi, N., & Ciapetti, C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03347, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03347

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03347 2026
[77]

GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

Taylor, S. R., Gair, J. R., & Mandel, I. 2012, PhRvD, 85, 023535, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.023535 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, et al. 2025a, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083 The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, Abac, A. G...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.023535 2012
[78]

2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 155007, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac0b54

Tiwari, V. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 155007, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac0b54

work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac0b54 2021
[79]

2022, ApJ, 928, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a

Tiwari, V. 2022, ApJ, 928, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a 2022
[80]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3155

Tiwari, V. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 298, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3155

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3155 2024

Showing first 80 references.