pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16510 · v1 · pith:VXMBBWVEnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · astro-ph.CO· gr-qc

Is the Binary Black Hole Population Inference from Gravitational-Wave Data Robust?

Upasana Das , Suvodip Mukherjee This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 15:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.COgr-qc
keywords binary black holesgravitational wavespopulation inferencewaveform systematicsmass distributionpair-instability supernovaeastrophysical features
0
0 comments X

The pith

Waveform modelling uncertainties can distort the inferred binary black hole mass distribution more than statistical uncertainties do.

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

The paper investigates whether features in the binary black hole mass distribution inferred from gravitational wave observations are robust or affected by systematics. It demonstrates that uncertainties in the waveform models used to extract event parameters can lead to significant distortions in the population-level mass distribution. These distortions can exceed statistical uncertainties and are particularly noticeable near the lower edge of the pair instability supernovae mass gap, while also affecting the slope of the power-law component. A reader would care because such features are linked to different formation scenarios of black holes, so misattributing them could lead to incorrect astrophysical conclusions about how these systems form and evolve.

Core claim

Waveform modelling uncertainties can significantly distort inferred features in the BBH mass distribution, which can be more pronounced than the statistical uncertainty, even with the current generation detectors, which can peak close to the lower edge of the pair instability supernovae (PISN) mass gap, and also can impact the slope of the power-law distribution.

What carries the argument

Propagation of waveform modelling uncertainties through the population inference pipeline for binary black holes.

If this is right

  • Inferred peaks or features near the PISN gap may arise from modeling choices rather than astrophysics.
  • The power-law slope in the mass distribution can be biased by these uncertainties.
  • Standard population analyses that do not account for waveform systematics may produce unreliable features.
  • Confirmed links between mass distribution features and BBH formation channels require including waveform uncertainties.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future population studies with more events or better detectors should prioritize waveform model improvements to reduce such biases.
  • This effect could similarly impact inferences for other compact object populations where waveform accuracy is limited.
  • Developing methods to marginalize over waveform uncertainties in population analyses could be a key next step.

Load-bearing premise

The specific waveform models used have uncertainties that, when propagated through the population inference, create distortions peaking near the PISN gap and larger than statistical errors.

What would settle it

Observing whether population inferences from the same gravitational wave events change substantially when using alternative waveform models, particularly in the location and height of any peak near the PISN gap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16510 by Suvodip Mukherjee, Upasana Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Recovered detector-frame [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Same as Fig. 4, but for injection catalog drawn from realistic PL+G (row 1). In this case, all the 15 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Events from the injected PL+G catalog are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Gravitational-wave observations are playing an instrumental role in understanding the population of binary compact objects in the Universe. These observations have begun to hint at the mass distribution of binary black holes (BBHs), with tentative evidence for features in the mass distribution beyond a simple power-law. Such features, hence, can be connected with different formation scenarios of BBHs and lead to important astrophysical conclusions. However, it is crucial to understand whether these features are truly astrophysical or connected with any unknown systematics. We show in this work that waveform modelling uncertainties can significantly distort inferred features in the BBH mass distribution, which can be more pronounced than the statistical uncertainty, even with the current generation detectors, which can peak close to the lower edge of the pair instability supernovae (PISN) mass gap, and also can impact the slope of the power-law distribution. So, in order to have a confirmed detection of astrophysical features in the BBH mass distribution and connecting them with BBH formation channels, it is important to consider waveform systematics in the astrophysical population analysis. We show the typical scaling of the systematic error and discuss a few avenues to mitigate this effect for robust measurements in the future.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines whether waveform modeling uncertainties affect inferences of the binary black hole (BBH) population from gravitational-wave data. It claims that these uncertainties can distort features in the BBH mass distribution—such as a peak near the lower edge of the pair-instability supernova (PISN) gap and the slope of the power-law component—more strongly than statistical uncertainties, even with current-generation detectors. The authors conclude that waveform systematics must be incorporated into population analyses and discuss the scaling of the systematic error along with mitigation avenues.

Significance. If substantiated, the result would be significant for gravitational-wave astrophysics: it would indicate that current population inferences of BBH mass features may already be compromised by waveform-model choice, with direct consequences for connecting observations to formation channels. The reported scaling of systematic versus statistical error and the suggested mitigation paths could inform analysis strategies for ongoing and future observing runs.

major comments (2)
  1. [Simulation setup and population inference pipeline (referenced in abstract and skeptic note)] The central demonstration appears to rely on forward modeling with discrete pairs of waveform approximants (e.g., IMRPhenom versus SEOBNR families) without joint sampling of waveform parameters or inclusion of approximant choice as a discrete hyperparameter in the hierarchical likelihood. This setup risks producing an artifactual bias near the PISN edge that may not generalize to a continuous uncertainty budget or to analyses that already marginalize over model choice.
  2. [Results on mass-distribution features] The claim that systematic distortions 'can be more pronounced than the statistical uncertainty' and 'peak close to the lower edge of the PISN mass gap' requires quantitative comparison of the injected versus recovered population posteriors under controlled conditions. Without details on the exact injection-recovery mismatch, the number of events, and the precise location of the reported peak relative to the ~45–50 M⊙ PISN lower edge, it is difficult to assess whether the effect exceeds statistical errors in a representative way.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states the central result but omits any mention of the specific waveform models, population priors, or quantitative metrics used to compare systematic and statistical errors; adding these would improve clarity.
  2. [Introduction or Methods] Notation for the power-law slope and the PISN gap boundaries should be defined explicitly when first introduced to avoid ambiguity for readers unfamiliar with the exact conventions.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which help clarify the presentation of our results on waveform modeling uncertainties in binary black hole population inference. We address each major comment point by point below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Simulation setup and population inference pipeline (referenced in abstract and skeptic note)] The central demonstration appears to rely on forward modeling with discrete pairs of waveform approximants (e.g., IMRPhenom versus SEOBNR families) without joint sampling of waveform parameters or inclusion of approximant choice as a discrete hyperparameter in the hierarchical likelihood. This setup risks producing an artifactual bias near the PISN edge that may not generalize to a continuous uncertainty budget or to analyses that already marginalize over model choice.

    Authors: We agree that our analysis employs discrete pairs of waveform approximants to demonstrate the potential scale of the effect in a computationally tractable way. A full joint sampling over waveform parameters within the hierarchical likelihood remains prohibitively expensive for catalogs of the size considered here, and is not yet standard practice. Our results are intended to show that even this level of model variation can produce biases comparable to or larger than statistical uncertainties. We will revise the manuscript to include an expanded discussion of this methodological choice, its limitations, and the motivation it provides for future work that marginalizes over approximant choice or employs continuous uncertainty budgets. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Results on mass-distribution features] The claim that systematic distortions 'can be more pronounced than the statistical uncertainty' and 'peak close to the lower edge of the PISN mass gap' requires quantitative comparison of the injected versus recovered population posteriors under controlled conditions. Without details on the exact injection-recovery mismatch, the number of events, and the precise location of the reported peak relative to the ~45–50 M⊙ PISN lower edge, it is difficult to assess whether the effect exceeds statistical errors in a representative way.

    Authors: The manuscript presents controlled injection-recovery experiments using 100 events drawn from a population with a power-law plus peak feature, recovered with current-generation detector sensitivities. The systematic distortion produces a spurious peak near 47–48 M⊙, which lies close to the lower edge of the PISN gap, and the amplitude of this shift exceeds the statistical uncertainty in that mass range. We will add a dedicated table and supplementary figures that explicitly report the injection-recovery mismatch values, the exact number of events, and direct quantitative comparisons between systematic and statistical errors to improve clarity and allow readers to assess the magnitude of the effect. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on forward modeling of external waveform approximants

full rationale

The paper's central demonstration proceeds by injecting simulated signals generated with one waveform family (e.g., IMRPhenom or SEOBNR) and recovering them with a different family inside a standard hierarchical population inference pipeline. This forward-modeling comparison is independent of the target result: the reported distortion near the PISN edge is an output of the mismatch between two externally supplied approximants, not a parameter fitted to the same data or a quantity defined in terms of itself. No equations, self-citations, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that would reduce the claimed systematic bias to a tautology or to a prior result authored by the same team. The analysis therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on standard domain assumptions in gravitational-wave astronomy about the existence and magnitude of waveform modeling errors and their propagation to hierarchical population inference.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Waveform models used for parameter estimation contain uncertainties that are not fully marginalized in current population analyses.
    Invoked to explain why systematic distortions can exceed statistical errors.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5748 in / 1220 out tokens · 56652 ms · 2026-05-20T15:42:34.985149+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/RealityFromDistinction.lean reality_from_one_distinction unclear
    ?
    unclear

    Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

    We show in this work that waveform modelling uncertainties can significantly distort inferred features in the BBH mass distribution, which can be more pronounced than the statistical uncertainty, even with the current generation detectors, which can peak close to the lower edge of the pair instability supernovae (PISN) mass gap

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

132 extracted references · 132 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    demonstrated that PN truncation errors, even in the inspiral phase, induce systematic errors in the phase of GWs. Kapilet al.[62] compared theIMRPhenomXAS andIMRPhenomDwaveform models and reported that for high SNR (>100) sources,∼3% to 20% of events will suffer statistically significant paramter biases and that to keep biases≤1σfor 99% of these loud dete...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Before assessing the impact of systemat- ics on a full astrophysical population, we need to under- stand how systematic bias behaves fundamentally at the single-event level

    Method The initial stage of our analysis involves injection- recovery tests to isolate waveform systematics across the mass spectrum. Before assessing the impact of systemat- ics on a full astrophysical population, we need to under- stand how systematic bias behaves fundamentally at the single-event level. As discussed in section II, waveform modelling in...

    work page

  3. [3]

    We construct a catalog of 110 events to be in- jected with component masses drawn from fixed mass bins of width ranging between 5−10M ⊙ be- tween 15−100M ⊙, which also forcedq∼0.8−0.9. All other intrinsic and extrinsic parameters are held fixed across injections, allowing us to systematically scan the mass range and directly assess the evolu- tion of wave...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The data in a given detectorI∈ 5 FIG

    The true event signals are constructed using the NRSur7dq4surrogate model and injected into a sim- ulated detector corresponding to the H1-L1 detec- tor network. The data in a given detectorI∈ 5 FIG. 3: Recovered detector-framem 1 plotted against true injected values for signals generated withNRSur7dq4and recovered independently withSEOBNRv5PHM(blue) andI...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Appropriate priors (check Table III, 2nd panel) are put in place with phase and time marginalised over

    For each event, we recover the source parameters mi, qandMusing bilby [74, 75] with waveform templates fromIMRPhenomTPHMandSEOBNRv5PHM. Appropriate priors (check Table III, 2nd panel) are put in place with phase and time marginalised over. Sampling is carried out using the Nessai sampler. Nessai is the Nested Sampling with AI sampler, which trains a norma...

    work page

  6. [6]

    The systematic bias ∆ is defined for each event as the difference between the median of the recovered posterior distribution and the true injected value: ∆θ ≡median(θ rec)−θ true.(4)

    work page

  7. [7]

    Figure 3 shows the recovered median m1,det against the true injected values for a simulated catalog, utilizing our recovery waveforms

    Result To establish a baseline understanding of waveform modelling systematics at the individual event level, we first examine the direct recovery of the detector-frame primary mass. Figure 3 shows the recovered median m1,det against the true injected values for a simulated catalog, utilizing our recovery waveforms. At lower masses (m 1,det <∼ 40M⊙), the ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    Using theGWSim[79] package, we simulate a universe consistent with ΛCDM cosmology, where BBH merger rates follow the Madau-Dickinson star formation history [80]

    Method Having established the behaviour of waveform system- atics at the event level, we extend the study to study the impact on realistic astrophysical populations. Using theGWSim[79] package, we simulate a universe consistent with ΛCDM cosmology, where BBH merger rates follow the Madau-Dickinson star formation history [80]. We consider a Power Law + Gau...

    work page

  9. [9]

    By comparing the recovered pop- ulation hyperparameters Λ rec against the known true in- jected values Λtrue, we measure the distortion of popula- tion features

    Population-Level Analysis To quantify the cumulative impact of waveform sys- tematics on the inferred BBH mass distribution, we per- form Hierarchical Bayesian Estimation [83] on the mock catalog described in Sec III B, using a similar framework as in ICAROGW [84]. By comparing the recovered pop- ulation hyperparameters Λ rec against the known true in- je...

    work page

  10. [10]

    Results on population-level impact In this section, we explore the impact of waveform sys- tematics on the BBH mass distribution hyperparameters using the Bayesian approach discussed in the last sec- tion. Before proceeding with the analysis on the simu- lated data with GW source parameters inferred using ap- proximate waveform models, we validated the Ba...

    work page

  11. [11]

    This is an artefact of the well-knownM −qdegener- acy:Mis the best measured intrinsic parameter, meaning that a bias in the total mass is absorbed by a shift inq

    The parameterβsteepens in both cases (≈4) versus the injected value of 1.1, indicating that the model is driven towards extreme mass ratios. This is an artefact of the well-knownM −qdegener- acy:Mis the best measured intrinsic parameter, meaning that a bias in the total mass is absorbed by a shift inq. This degeneracy becomes more pro- nounced with high-m...

    work page arXiv

  12. [12]

    The systematic bias introduced by current wave- form families follows a power law relation|∆| ∝M γ (M∈ {m i,M}), due to the decreasing number of observable inspiral cycles at high mass, which shifts the signal power into the merger and ring- down phases where these models are less accurate. This scaling persists irrespective of controlled and realistic in...

    work page

  13. [13]

    When propagated through hierarchical inference on a power law and Gaussian (PL+G) population, these event-level biases shift the Gaussian peak location by 0.71M ⊙ and accurately recovers the Gaussian width. The most striking distortion is seen in the inflation of the Gaussian mixing frac- tion from the injectedλ g = 0.038 to∼0.9, the power-law slope flatt...

    work page

  14. [14]

    When provided with well-behaved posteriors cen- tred on the truth, the hierarchical analysis recovers 15 all population hyperparameters to within statisti- cal uncertainties

    work page

  15. [15]

    Most importantly, the biases in the hyperparam- eters reported in the main analysis are physical and arise entirely from the systematic mismatch between injection and recovery waveforms. Appendix C: Visualising the Artificial Mass Pile-Up To visually demonstrate the origin of the overestima- tion in the Gaussian mixing fraction (λ g), we plot the median r...

    work page

  16. [16]

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X11, 021053 (2021)

    work page 2021

  19. [19]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    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 Collab- oration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. Abac,et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18082 (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Living Rev. Rel.19, 1 (2016), arXiv:1304.0670 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  22. [22]

    T. L. S. Collaboration, J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Ab- bott,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  23. [23]

    T. L. S. Collaboration and J. Aasi, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    F. Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Acerneseet al.(Virgo Collaboration), Phys

    F. Acerneseet al.(Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 231108 (2019)

    work page 2019

  26. [26]

    Akutsuet al., Progress of Theoreti- cal and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A101/37974994/ptaa125.pdf

    T. Akutsuet al., Progress of Theoreti- cal and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2020), https://academic.oup.com/ptep/article- pdf/2021/5/05A101/37974994/ptaa125.pdf

    work page 2020

  27. [27]

    Y. Aso, Y. Michimura, K. Somiya, M. Ando, O. Miyakawa, T. Sekiguchi, D. Tatsumi, and H. Ya- mamoto (The KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 88, 043007 (2013)

    work page 2013

  28. [28]

    Somiya and (for the KAGRA Collaboration), Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity29, 124007 (2012)

    K. Somiya and (for the KAGRA Collaboration), Clas- sical and Quantum Gravity29, 124007 (2012)

    work page 2012

  29. [29]

    Saleem, J

    M. Saleem, J. Rana, V. Gayathri, A. Vijayku- mar, S. Goyal, S. Sachdev, J. Suresh, S. Sudhagar, A. Mukherjee, G. Gaur, B. Sathyaprakash, A. Pai, R. X. Adhikari, P. Ajith, and S. Bose, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 025004 (2022), arXiv:2105.01716 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Pandey, I

    S. Pandey, I. Gupta, K. Chandra, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, ApJL985, L17 (2025), arXiv:2411.10349 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Punturoet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    M. Punturoet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity27, 194002 (2010)

    work page 2010

  32. [32]

    Hildet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 094013 (2011)

    S. Hildet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 094013 (2011)

    work page 2011

  33. [33]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    M. Evanset al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2109.09882 (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  34. [34]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 044001 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    LISA Definition Study Report

    M. Colpiet al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2402.07571 (2024), arXiv:2402.07571 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [36]

    Corsi, L

    A. Corsi, L. Barsotti, E. Berti, M. Evans, I. Gupta, K. Kritos, K. Kuns, A. H. Nitz, B. J. Owen, B. Rajbhan- dari, J. Read, B. S. Sathyaprakash, D. H. Shoemaker, 16 J. R. Smith, and S. Vitale, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences11, 1386748 (2024), arXiv:2402.13445 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  37. [37]

    Guptaet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    I. Guptaet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity41, 245001 (2024), arXiv:2307.10421 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Kunert, J

    N. Kunert, J. Gair, P. T. H. Pang, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D110, 043520 (2024)

    work page 2024

  39. [39]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D103, 122002 (2021)

    work page 2021

  40. [40]

    Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D112, 084080 (2025)

    work page 2025

  41. [41]

    B. J. Owen and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D60, 022002 (1999)

    work page 1999

  42. [42]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO-Virgo Scientific Collaboration), Phys

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO-Virgo Scientific Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D88, 062001 (2013)

    work page 2013

  43. [43]

    Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, Y. Chen, and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D69, 104017 (2004)

    work page 2004

  44. [44]

    Y. Pan, A. Buonanno, J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, B. J. Kelly, S. T. McWilliams, F. Pretorius, and J. R. van Meter, Phys. Rev. D77, 024014 (2008)

    work page 2008

  45. [45]

    P¨ urrer and C.-J

    M. P¨ urrer and C.-J. Haster, Physical Review Research 2, 023151 (2020), arXiv:1912.10055 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2020

  46. [46]

    C. Hoy, S. Ak¸ cay, J. Mac Uilliam, and J. E. Thompson, Nature Astronomy9, 1256 (2025), arXiv:2409.19404 [gr- qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. P¨ urrer, X. J. Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Phys. Rev. D93, 044007 (2016)

    work page 2016

  48. [48]

    S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. P¨ urrer, F. Ohme, X. J. Forteza, and A. Boh´ e, Phys. Rev. D93, 044006 (2016)

    work page 2016

  49. [49]

    Ramos-Buades, A

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

    work page 2023

  50. [50]

    Blackman, S

    J. Blackman, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, C. R. Galley, C. D. Ott, M. Boyle, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and B. Szil´ agyi, Phys. Rev. D96, 024058 (2017)

    work page 2017

  51. [51]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D57, 4566 (1998)

    work page 1998

  52. [52]

    Miller, Phys

    M. Miller, Phys. Rev. D71, 104016 (2005)

    work page 2005

  53. [53]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Col- laboration, the KAGRA Collaboration, A. Abac, et al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18083 (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    B. P. Abbott, T. L. S. Collaboration, and the Virgo Col- laboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters882, L24 (2019)

    work page 2019

  55. [55]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbott, T. L. S. Collaboration, and the Virgo Col- laboration, The Astrophysical Journal Letters913, L7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023)

    work page 2023

  57. [57]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, Phys. Rev. D112, 023531 (2025), arXiv:2411.07304 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    S. E. Woosley, The Astrophysical Journal836, 244 (2017)

    work page 2017

  59. [59]

    D. D. Hendriks, L. A. C. van Son, M. Renzo, R. G. Izzard, and R. Farmer, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society526, 4130 (2023), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/526/3/4130/52189080/stad2857.pdf

    work page 2023

  60. [60]

    Farmer, M

    R. Farmer, M. Renzo, S. E. de Mink, P. Marchant, and S. Justham, The Astrophysical Journal887, 53 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Wanget al., Potential Subpopulations and Assem- bling Tendency of the Merging Black Holes, ApJL941, L39 (2022), arXiv:2208.11871

    Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-J. Li, J. S. Vink, Y.-Z. Fan, S.-P. Tang, Y. Qin, and D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J. Lett.941, L39 (2022), arXiv:2208.11871 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  62. [62]

    Wanget al., Black Hole Mass Function of Co- alescing Binary Black Hole Systems: Is there a Pulsa- tional Pair-instability Mass Cutoff?, ApJ913, 42 (2021), arXiv:2104.02566

    Y.-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, Y.-F. Liang, M.-Z. Han, X. Li, Z.-P. Jin, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, ApJ913, 42 (2021), arXiv:2104.02566 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  63. [63]

    Karathanasis, S

    C. Karathanasis, S. Mukherjee, and S. Mastrogio- vanni, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523, 4539 (2023), arXiv:2204.13495 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    2025b, https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09123

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, (2025), arXiv:2509.09123 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

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

    F. Antonini, I. Romero-Shaw, T. Callister, F. Dosopoulou, D. Chattopadhyay, Y. B. Ginat, M. Gieles, and M. Mapelli, (2025), arXiv:2509.04637 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Evidence of the pair instability gap from black hole masses

    H. Tonget al., Nature652, 874 (2026), arXiv:2509.04151 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  67. [67]

    Magana Hernandez and A

    I. Magana Hernandez and A. Palmese, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083031 (2025)

    work page 2025

  68. [68]

    Y. B. Ginat, F. Antonini, E. Flanagan, and M. Gieles, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.07456 (2026), arXiv:2604.07456 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  69. [69]

    Where are LIGO's Big Black Holes?

    M. Fishbach and D. E. Holz, ApJL851, L25 (2017), arXiv:1709.08584 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  70. [70]

    E. J. Baxter, D. Croon, S. D. McDermott, and J. Sakstein, The Astrophysical Journal Letters916, L16 (2021)

    work page 2021

  71. [71]

    Golomb, M

    J. Golomb, M. Isi, and W. M. Farr, The Astrophysical Journal976, 121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  72. [73]

    Burrows, T

    A. Burrows, T. Wang, and D. Vartanyan, The Astro- physical Journal987, 164 (2025)

    work page 2025

  73. [74]

    Hu and J

    Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D106, 044042 (2022)

    work page 2022

  74. [75]

    P¨ urrer and C.-J

    M. P¨ urrer and C.-J. Haster, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023151 (2020)

    work page 2020

  75. [76]

    C. B. Owen, C.-J. Haster, S. Perkins, N. J. Cornish, and N. Yunes, PRD108, 044018 (2023), arXiv:2301.11941 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  76. [77]

    Kapil, L

    V. Kapil, L. Reali, R. Cotesta, and E. Berti, Phys. Rev. D109, 104043 (2024)

    work page 2024

  77. [78]

    Dhani, S

    A. Dhani, S. H. V¨ olkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, Phys. Rev. X15, 031036 (2025)

    work page 2025

  78. [79]

    Puecher, A

    A. Puecher, A. Samajdar, G. Ashton, C. Van Den Broeck, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D109, 023019 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [80]

    Islam, A

    T. Islam, A. Vajpeyi, F. H. Shaik, C.-J. Haster, V. Varma, S. E. Field, J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and R. Smith, Phys. Rev. D112, 044001 (2025)

    work page 2025

  80. [81]

    Varma, P

    V. Varma, P. Ajith, S. Husa, J. C. Bustillo, M. Hannam, and M. P¨ urrer, Phys. Rev. D90, 124004 (2014)

    work page 2014

Showing first 80 references.