Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Thirteen LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA black-hole mergers are strongly preferred as happening inside active galactic nuclei, with cumulative Bayes factor around +81.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 00:45 UTC pith:6LTAMHB4

load-bearing objection Clean GW-side ranking of published AGN candidates; the cumulative ln B ≈ +81 is real for those pairs but is not a population-level result. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03674 v1 pith:6LTAMHB4 submitted 2026-07-04 astro-ph.GA gr-qc

A population of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA mergers happening inside active galactic nuclei

Dhruv Kumar , Alejandro Torres-Orjuela This is my paper
classification astro-ph.GA gr-qc
keywords binary black holesactive galactic nucleigravitational wavesmultimessenger astronomyBayes factorsenvironmental redshiftsky localisationLIGO-Virgo-KAGRA
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tests whether a set of already-proposed electromagnetic counterparts for eighteen gravitational-wave binary black-hole events are consistent with the gravitational-wave data themselves. The authors build a marginalised likelihood that can turn on two ingredients: a sky-localisation prior pinned to each candidate AGN, and the extra Doppler-plus-gravitational redshifts that a binary would acquire if it orbited close to the central supermassive black hole. Comparing four nested hypotheses against a pure vacuum baseline, they find that twenty-one of the twenty-eight candidate pairs are favoured, and that a clean set of thirteen unique associations survives after competing claims for the same AGN or the same event are resolved. Adding the individual log-Bayes factors for those thirteen preferred pairs yields a combined value of roughly +81, which the authors present as strong collective support for an AGN-hosted population. Sky localisation, not the environmental redshift correction, drives almost all of the evidence at present detector sensitivity; the redshift terms remain neither confirmed nor ruled out. If the associations hold, they open a route to standard-siren cosmology and to constraints on hierarchical black-hole growth inside AGN disks.

Core claim

Of twenty-eight pre-selected GW–AGN candidate pairs, thirteen unique associations are preferred by the gravitational-wave data once sky-localisation and optional supermassive-black-hole redshift corrections are included; their combined log Bayes factor against the vacuum baseline is approximately +81, establishing strong collective support for AGN-hosted binary black-hole mergers.

What carries the argument

A four-hypothesis Bayes-factor matrix that toggles environmental redshift corrections and an electromagnetic sky-localisation prior independently, evaluated via Monte-Carlo marginalisation of the joint GW–AGN likelihood at every sampling step.

Load-bearing premise

The twenty-eight candidate pairs taken from earlier photometric searches already form a fair sample, so that simply summing the individual Bayes factors for the thirteen preferred associations measures genuine population-level support without a full hierarchical selection correction over the AGN sky.

What would settle it

A future high-precision multimessenger campaign that either (a) finds higher-order gravitational-wave modes or centre-of-mass acceleration signatures that isolate the environmental redshift for several of the thirteen preferred hosts, or (b) shows that those same hosts fall outside the tighter sky localisations of next-generation detectors while new, previously unconsidered AGNs fall inside them.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyses 18 LVK BBH events (O3–O4b) paired with 28 pre-identified AGN counterpart candidates. It constructs a Monte-Carlo-marginalised GW likelihood (Eqs. 3–4) that can include SMBH-induced environmental redshifts (z_rel, z_grav) and a 2-D Gaussian EM sky prior pinned to the published AGN coordinates, then evaluates four nested hypotheses (N/Y z_eff × N/Y EM). Pairwise log Bayes factors are reported for every candidate; after resolving multi-candidate conflicts, 13 preferred associations remain, whose summed ln B(YY/NN) is quoted as ≈ +81 and interpreted as strong collective support for AGN-hosted mergers. Sky localisation is shown to dominate the evidence; environmental redshifts remain inconclusive at current SNR.

Significance. If the cumulative claim is correctly interpreted, the work supplies the first systematic GW-side ranking of published AGN counterparts and a clean, reproducible four-hypothesis matrix that correctly rejects sky- or redshift-incompatible candidates. The nested-sampling pipeline, waveform choices, and Monte-Carlo marginalisation are carefully specified and produce internally consistent rankings. The result would be useful for prioritising multimessenger follow-up and for future hierarchical population studies. The paper does not, however, deliver a population-level rate constraint or a look-elsewhere-corrected Bayes factor over the full AGN catalog; that distinction is load-bearing for the abstract’s strongest sentence.

major comments (2)
  1. Abstract and Results & Discussion: the cumulative ln B_comb ≈ +81 is obtained by summing the 13 preferred ln B(YY/NN) values after (i) restricting the sample to 28 photometrically pre-selected candidates and (ii) retaining only the highest-evidence pairing for each multi-candidate conflict. The vacuum baseline H_Nz,NEM is ordinary GW-only PE and does not include a prior over the full AGN catalog or a rate of chance spatial coincidences. Consequently the product quantifies support for these particular hosts relative to vacuum, not the evidence that a non-negligible fraction of the LVK BBH population occurs in AGN disks. The abstract and concluding paragraphs should rephrase the claim accordingly (or supply an explicit hierarchical selection function / look-elsewhere correction).
  2. Methodology (definition of L_EM) and Results: the dominant evidence channel is the 2-D Gaussian sky prior centred on AGN coordinates that were themselves chosen because they lie near the GW localisation contours. This introduces a mild circularity between candidate selection and the GW-side Bayes factor. The paper already notes that sky localisation drives the numbers; it should quantify (or at least discuss) how much of the cumulative evidence would survive if the same analysis were repeated on a control sample of random AGN drawn from the same parent catalog, or if a proper chance-coincidence rate were folded into the baseline.
minor comments (4)
  1. Figure 2 caption and surrounding text: the classification symbols (▲▲▲, ■, ▼▼▼) follow Kass & Raftery, but the numerical thresholds are stated only in the caption; a short sentence in the main text would help readers who consult the figure first.
  2. Methodology: the partition of the separation axis into overlapping windows and the subsequent median over windows is sensible, but the precise window edges and the number of Monte-Carlo samples N used for the log-mean-exp (Eq. 4) are not stated; both should be given for reproducibility.
  3. Results: four of the thirteen favoured pairs are said to show ‘marginal near-SMBH tendencies’; the corresponding Δln B values should be listed explicitly so the reader can judge the strength of that secondary claim.
  4. Typographical consistency: event names appear both with and without underscores (GW190412 053044 vs GW190412_053044); a uniform convention would improve readability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Cumulative ln B_comb ≈ +81 largely follows by construction from pre-selecting sky-coincident AGN candidates and then driving model selection with a 2-D Gaussian sky prior pinned to those same coordinates.

specific steps
  1. other [Abstract; Results & Discussion (cumulative claim and classification of preferred associations)]
    "From the 21 positive-to-strong-favoured binary black hole (BBH) AGN pairs, 13 unique associations can be identified as the preferred ones. The cumulative Bayes factor across all 13 BBH-AGN confirmed associations yields lnB_comb ≈ +81, establishing strong collective support for AGN-hosted merger associations. ... Sky localisation is the dominant driver of model selection"

    The 13 associations are the post-selection winners from a list of 28 candidates that were pre-filtered by earlier photometric searches for spatial coincidence with the GW localisation contours. The Bayes factors that are then summed are themselves dominated by the 2-D Gaussian EM sky prior centred on exactly those coordinates (ln B(NY/NN) ≈ ln B(YY/NN)). The vacuum baseline contains no full-catalog prior or chance-coincidence term. The large positive cumulative therefore largely restates the pre-selection criterion rather than independently measuring a population fraction of AGN-hosted mergers.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is the sum of ln B(YY/NN) over 13 preferred pairs. Those pairs are the winners after (i) restricting analysis to 28 candidates already published by photometric EM searches that themselves used spatial correlation with the GW sky maps and (ii) retaining only the highest-evidence pairing when multiple candidates compete. The vacuum baseline is ordinary GW-only PE with no prior over the full AGN catalog and no chance-coincidence rate. The paper itself states that sky localisation alone drives the numbers (ln B(NY/NN) and ln B(YY/NN) track each other to within ~0.1 in cumulative sum) while environmental redshifts remain inconclusive. Consequently the large positive cumulative is the expected reward for having pre-selected positionally consistent hosts and then inserting a sky prior centred on them; it is not an independent hierarchical population inference. This is mild circularity of selection + evidence channel, not a definitional identity or a fitted-parameter-as-prediction, so the score is 4 rather than 6+. The redshift sector and the discrimination of out-of-contour candidates are independent of this loop and correctly reported as non-decisive.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Bayesian model comparison plus a set of domain assumptions about AGN-disk kinematics and on the pre-compiled candidate list. No new physical entities are invented; free parameters are limited to prior widths and windowing choices that are stated explicitly.

free parameters (3)
  • M_SMBH log-normal width σ = 0.5 dex
    Fixed at 0.5 dex around literature virial masses; controls the prior volume of the environmental redshift correction.
  • separation prior windows r/R_s = Δ(r/R_s) ∈ {2,4,8,16,32,64}
    Six overlapping windows [3.1,67] with 50 % overlap for the strong-field case and three far-field windows; the reported ln B is the median over windows.
  • Monte-Carlo sample size N for marginalization
    Number of draws from π(Λ_AGN) used in the log-mean-exp estimator (Eq. 4); not numerically specified but required for the evidence.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption BBH orbits the SMBH on a circular trajectory; spin corrections to z_grav are negligible.
    Stated in Methodology immediately before Eqs. (1)–(2); allows the simple product form of the effective redshift and luminosity distance.
  • domain assumption Planck 2018 cosmology converts luminosity distance to cosmological redshift.
    Explicitly adopted throughout; the paper checks that switching cosmologies does not change the favored associations.
  • domain assumption Uniform prior on BBH–SMBH separation r and isotropic prior on the velocity angle.
    Chosen as least-informative; partitions the prior volume into the windows listed above.
  • ad hoc to paper L_EM is a 2-D Gaussian pinned exactly to the published AGN coordinates.
    Defines the sky-localization hypothesis classes; no uncertainty on the AGN position itself is propagated.
  • standard math Kass & Raftery (1995) thresholds convert ln B into positive/strong/very-strong language.
    Used for all classification symbols in Fig. 2 and the text.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 16312 in / 3114 out tokens · 35161 ms · 2026-07-12T00:45:54.999866+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Multimessenger observations of compact binary mergers in active galactic nuclei (AGN) offer unique probes of black hole formation channels and cosmology. We analyse 18 gravitational-wave events from LVK observing runs O3--O4b paired with 28 candidate AGN counterparts, incorporating supermassive black hole (SMBH)-induced environmental redshift corrections and electromagnetic sky-localisation constraints. Of the 28 candidate pairs, 21 are positive-to-strong-favoured (the most compelling being GW190412\_053044 $\leftrightarrow$ J143041.67$+$355703.8 at $\ln\mathcal{B} = +17.35$), three are inconclusive, and four are negative-to-strong-disfavoured. From the 21 positive-to-strong-favoured binary black hole (BBH) AGN pairs, 13 unique associations can be identified as the preferred ones. The cumulative Bayes factor across all 13 BBH-AGN confirmed associations yields $\ln\mathcal{B}_{\rm comb} \approx +81$, establishing strong collective support for AGN-hosted merger associations. Sky localisation is the dominant driver of model selection; at current detector sensitivity, the environmental redshift corrections are neither decisively confirmed nor ruled out, motivating future high-precision multimessenger follow-up.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03674 by Alejandro Torres-Orjuela, Dhruv Kumar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: These searches, however, operate at the photometric level and do not directly interrogate what the AGN envi￾ronment imprints on the GW posteriors. In this letter, we construct a marginalised GW likelihood that simultane￾ously accounts for SMBH-induced redshifts and an EM sky-localisation constraint, to compute three log Bayes factors referenced to the vacuum baseline from four hy￾pothesis classes that inde… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: GW sky-localisation contours (50% and 90% credible regions, shaded) with candidate AGN positions (red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Bayes factor matrix for all 28 event ↔ AGN pairs across ln B(NY/NN), ln B(YY/YN), and ln B(YY/NN). Rows are sorted by ln B(YY/NN) in descending order. Arrows (↔) mark the preferred counterpart for each GW event; crosses (×) mark non-preferred candidates. Classification symbols follow Kass and Raftery [52]: ▼▼▼ (ln B < −5), ▼▼ (−5 to −3), ▼ (−3 to −1) indicate preference for the baseline model; ■ (−1 to +1)… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Hubble constant measurement with 13 bright standard sirens from binary black hole mergers inside active galactic nuclei

    astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Thirteen BBH–AGN bright standard sirens give H0 = 70.50^{+3.37}_{-2.89} (stat) ± 1.56 (cal) km s^{-1} Mpc^{-1} (4.4%), consistent with both Planck and SH0ES with no significant preference.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L12 (2017), arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), As- trophys. J.1004, 232 (2026), arXiv:2508.18079 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [5]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Astrophys. J. Suppl.267, 29 (2023), arXiv:2302.03676 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    and Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    J. and Aasiet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)

    2015

  8. [8]

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

    F. Acerneseet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014). 7

    2014

  9. [9]

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  10. [10]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

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

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  12. [12]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Astrophys. J. Lett.1004, L22 (2026), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    L. S. Collaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, the KA- GRA Collaboration, A. G. Abac,et al., Gwtc-5.0: An introduction to version 5.0 of the gravitational-wave tran- sient catalog (2026), arXiv:2605.27223 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Veitchet al., Phys

    J. Veitchet al., Phys. Rev. D91, 042003 (2015), arXiv:1409.7215 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Ashtonet al., Astrophys

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

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    Kumaret al., Accelerating parameter estima- tion for parameterized tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations (2025), arXiv:2511.16879 [gr-qc]

    D. Kumaret al., Accelerating parameter estima- tion for parameterized tests of general relativity with gravitational-wave observations (2025), arXiv:2511.16879 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    McKernanet al., Astrophys

    B. McKernanet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.884, L50 (2019), arXiv:1907.03746 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    Rowanet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society544, 4576–4589 (2025)

    C. Rowanet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society544, 4576–4589 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    Gr¨ obneret al., Astronomy & Astrophysics638, A119 (2020)

    M. Gr¨ obneret al., Astronomy & Astrophysics638, A119 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Torres-Orjuelaet al., Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.043027 (2023)

    A. Torres-Orjuelaet al., Physical Review D107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.043027 (2023)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.043027 2023

  21. [21]

    McKernanet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society425, 460–469 (2012)

    B. McKernanet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society425, 460–469 (2012)

    2012

  22. [22]

    J. M. Bellovaryet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters 819, L17 (2016)

    2016

  23. [23]

    Chenet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society: Letters485, L141–L145 (2019)

    X. Chenet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronom- ical Society: Letters485, L141–L145 (2019)

    2019

  24. [24]

    M. J. Grahamet al., The Astrophysical Journal942, 99 (2023)

    2023

  25. [25]

    Mortonet al., Gw190521: a binary black hole merger inside an active galactic nucleus? (2023), arXiv:2310.16025 [gr-qc]

    S. Mortonet al., Gw190521: a binary black hole merger inside an active galactic nucleus? (2023), arXiv:2310.16025 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Cabreraet al., Searching for electromagnetic emis- sion in an agn from the gravitational wave binary black hole merger candidate s230922g (2025), arXiv:2407.10698 [astro-ph.HE]

    T. Cabreraet al., Searching for electromagnetic emis- sion in an agn from the gravitational wave binary black hole merger candidate s230922g (2025), arXiv:2407.10698 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Heet al., Searching for electromagnetic counterpart candidates to gw231123 (2025), arXiv:2511.05144 [astro- ph.HE]

    L. Heet al., Searching for electromagnetic counterpart candidates to gw231123 (2025), arXiv:2511.05144 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Bommireddyet al., A broker integrated algorithm for gravitational wave - electromagnetic counterpart searches in o4a and o4b runs (2026), arXiv:2603.04342 [astro- ph.HE]

    H. Bommireddyet al., A broker integrated algorithm for gravitational wave - electromagnetic counterpart searches in o4a and o4b runs (2026), arXiv:2603.04342 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Piotrzkowskiet al., LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S241125n: Update on Coincidence False Alarm Method, GCN Cir- cular 38356 (2024)

    B. Piotrzkowskiet al., LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S241125n: Update on Coincidence False Alarm Method, GCN Cir- cular 38356 (2024)

    2024

  30. [30]

    Zhanget al., The Astrophysical Journal998, 171 (2026)

    S.-R. Zhanget al., The Astrophysical Journal998, 171 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    Ghoshet al., LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S250328ae: Iden- tification of a GW Compact Binary Merger Candidate, GCN Circular 39898 (2025)

    S. Ghoshet al., LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA S250328ae: Iden- tification of a GW Compact Binary Merger Candidate, GCN Circular 39898 (2025)

    2025

  32. [32]

    H. Zhanget al., A joint search for the electromag- netic counterpart to the gravitational-wave binary black- hole merger candidate s250328ae with the dark en- ergy camera and the prime focus spectrograph (2025), arXiv:2508.00291 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Vieiraet al., Search for a counterpart to the subso- lar mass gravitational wave candidate s251112cm (2026), arXiv:2603.17009 [astro-ph.HE]

    N. Vieiraet al., Search for a counterpart to the subso- lar mass gravitational wave candidate s251112cm (2026), arXiv:2603.17009 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  34. [34]

    P. C. Gregoryet al., The Astrophysical Journal398, 146 (1992)

    1992

  35. [35]

    M. J. Williamset al., Physical Review D103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.103006 (2021)

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.103006 2021

  36. [37]

    S. Roy, M. Haney, G. Pratten, P. T. H. Pang, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D113, 024016 (2026), arXiv:2504.21147 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  37. [39]

    A. G. Abacet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters993, L25 (2025)

    2025

  38. [40]

    Fabjet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society499, 2608–2616 (2020)

    G. Fabjet al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomi- cal Society499, 2608–2616 (2020)

    2020

  39. [41]

    Liuet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters883, L7 (2019)

    B. Liuet al., The Astrophysical Journal Letters883, L7 (2019)

    2019

  40. [44]

    A. R. Kinget al., Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society385, 1621–1627 (2008)

    2008

  41. [47]

    Torres-Orjuelaet al., Physical Review D104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.123025 (2021)

    A. Torres-Orjuelaet al., Physical Review D104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.123025 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.123025 2021

  42. [49]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Australia36, 10.1017/pasa.2019.2 (2019)

    doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

  43. [50]

    Secundaet al., The Astrophysical Journal903, 133 (2020)

    A. Secundaet al., The Astrophysical Journal903, 133 (2020)

    2020

  44. [51]

    Aghanimet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    N. Aghanimet al., Astronomy & Astrophysics641, A6 (2020)

    2020

  45. [52]

    R. E. Kass and A. E. Raftery, J. Am. Statist. Assoc.90, 773 (1995)

    1995

  46. [53]

    Zhuet al., The Astrophysical Journal1000, 115 (2026)

    L.-G. Zhuet al., The Astrophysical Journal1000, 115 (2026)

    2026

  47. [54]

    Darcet al., Long-term optical follow up of s231206cc: Multi-model constraints on bbh merger emission in agn disks (2025), arXiv:2506.02224 [astro-ph.HE]

    P. Darcet al., Long-term optical follow up of s231206cc: Multi-model constraints on bbh merger emission in agn disks (2025), arXiv:2506.02224 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  48. [55]

    Inayoshi, N

    K. Inayoshi, N. Tamanini, C. Caprini, and Z. Haiman, Phys. Rev. D96, 063014 (2017), arXiv:1702.06529 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  49. [56]

    Tamanini, A

    N. Tamanini, A. Klein, C. Bonvin, E. Barausse, and C. Caprini, Phys. Rev. D101, 063002 (2020), arXiv:1907.02018 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [57]

    Vijaykumar, A

    A. Vijaykumar, A. Tiwari, S. J. Kapadia, K. G. Arun, and P. Ajith, ApJ954, 105 (2023), arXiv:2302.09651 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  51. [58]

    Lazarow, N

    M. Lazarow, N. Leslie, and L. Dai, Phys. Rev. D110, 083008 (2024), arXiv:2401.04175 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [59]

    Yang, W.-B

    S.-C. Yang, W.-B. Han, H. Tagawa, S. Li, and C. Zhang, ApJ988, L41 (2025), arXiv:2401.01743 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [60]

    X. Zhao, H. Yan, and X. Chen, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2604.00253 (2026), arXiv:2604.00253 [astro- ph.HE]. 8

    arXiv 2026

  54. [61]

    Haiman, Physical Review D96, 10.1103/phys- revd.96.023004 (2017)

    Z. Haiman, Physical Review D96, 10.1103/phys- revd.96.023004 (2017)

    doi:10.1103/phys- 2017