Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 74 references

Two asymmetric, high-spin black-hole mergers favor hierarchical (2G+1G) origins over first-generation binaries.

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

2026-07-11 15:34 UTC pith:LUEW5UUE

load-bearing objection Solid event-level Bayes factors for two new high-spin asymmetric BBHs; the 2G+1G preference is real as a consistency score, but rates are omitted and the 1G prior is mildly contaminated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04663 v1 pith:LUEW5UUE submitted 2026-07-06 astro-ph.HE

Exploring Hierarchical Merger Scenarios for GW241011 and GW241110

Lei He , Liang-Gui Zhu , Zheng-Yan Liu , Rui Niu , Chao Wei , Ken Chen , Wen Zhao This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords hierarchical mergersbinary black holesGW241011GW241110AGN disksstar clustersBayes factorselectromagnetic counterparts
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.

GW241011 and GW241110 show large primary spins, unequal masses, and nonzero spin-orbit tilts that standard first-generation binary evolution struggles to produce. The authors compare a fiducial first-generation population prior against second-generation-plus-first-generation hierarchical models built for star clusters and AGN disks, using the events' posterior samples. Both events favor the hierarchical interpretation, with stronger numerical support for GW241011 than for GW241110; AGN-disk spin-tilt priors give a modest further boost but do not settle the host environment. A third-generation primary is not robustly preferred. A forced-photometry search of AGNs inside the three-dimensional localization volumes yields only one weak flare candidate near GW241110. The result matters because it supplies quantitative, event-level evidence that hierarchical assembly is operating in the observed black-hole population and that optical follow-up of AGN-localized mergers remains feasible even when signals are faint.

Core claim

Both GW241011 and GW241110 are more consistent with a second-generation primary paired with a first-generation companion than with a pure first-generation binary, with ln Bayes factors of roughly 6.5-8.6 and 3.0-4.5 respectively; AGN-disk models are slightly preferred over cluster models mainly through spin-tilt geometry, while a third-generation primary is not decisively favored.

What carries the argument

Bayesian evidence comparison of event posteriors against recursively constructed hierarchical population priors: 1G remnants are retained (escape-velocity cut for clusters; full retention for AGN disks), then paired with 1G companions whose spin tilts are isotropic (clusters) or aligned/anti-aligned (AGN disks).

Load-bearing premise

The catalog-derived first-generation mass and spin distributions are treated as pure first-generation populations even though the same catalog may already contain hierarchical mergers.

What would settle it

A population-level hierarchical analysis of the full GWTC-5 sample that includes relative rates and selection effects, or a confirmed recurrent optical flare spectroscopically linked to one of these localization volumes, would confirm or refute the 2G+1G preference.

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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies a Bayesian evidence comparison to GW241011 and GW241110, two asymmetric, high-spin BBH events from GWTC-5.0. Using LVK posterior samples reconstructed with FIGARO and population priors for 1G+1G (LVK GWTC-4.0 BROKENPOWERLAW+2PEAKS / GAUSSIANCOMPONENTSPINS, truncated at m1=65 M☉) versus recursively built 2G+1G (and 3G+1G) models in star clusters and AGN disks, the authors report ln B^{2G+1G}_{1G+1G} ≃ 6.5–8.6 for GW241011 and ≃ 3.0–4.5 for GW241110 across three waveform models (Tables 1–2). AGN-disk priors are mildly preferred over cluster priors via spin-tilt geometry; a 3G+1G AGN hypothesis is not robustly preferred over 2G+1G (Table 3). An optical search of AGNs in the 3D localization volumes with ZTF/ATLAS forced photometry yields one weak, non-compelling flare candidate near GW241110.

Significance. If the hierarchical preference holds under cleaner priors and rate-aware odds, the paper would strengthen the case that GW241011 (and more moderately GW241110) are second-generation systems, and would provide a concrete, multi-waveform template for event-level hierarchical tests that other groups can reuse. Strengths include: (i) consistent results across three independent waveform models; (ii) explicit Monte-Carlo construction of hierarchical priors with NRSur7dq4Remnant; (iii) a transparent Bayes-factor pipeline (Eqs. 1–4) with publicly released LVK samples; and (iv) a careful, negative-leaning EM search that does not overclaim the single weak candidate. The work is timely given the dedicated LVK study of these events and recent population claims of a low-mass, high-spin subpopulation.

major comments (3)
  1. §2.3.1 and Abstract/Tables 1–2: The headline ln B values rest on treating the LVK GWTC-4.0 median predictive distributions as a pure 1G+1G prior. The text itself notes that the observed catalog may already contain hierarchical systems, yet asserts the contamination is “small” without a quantitative bound. Because the same high-χ, low-q systems that drive the large Bayes factors are precisely those that would pollute the 1G prior, even a few-percent hierarchical fraction softens the contrast and can shrink ln B. A sensitivity test that injects a controlled hierarchical fraction into the 1G prior (or that uses a hierarchical-cleaned population model) is needed before the reported preference can be read as robust.
  2. §5 (and Eq. 2): The evidence integrals are pure likelihood–prior overlaps; relative merger rates and selection effects are omitted. The Abstract and Tables therefore present ln B as if it were a channel preference, while the Discussion correctly notes that the numbers are consistency scores rather than astrophysical odds. The Abstract and conclusion language should be tightened to match this limitation, or a simple rate-ratio / selection-weighted odds estimate should be added so that the central claim is not overstated.
  3. §2.3.2: The hierarchical construction assumes the primary is always the higher-generation BH and discards the reverse (2G secondary) configuration solely because the observed mass ratios are low. For GW241110, whose q posterior extends to ~0.7, this is not obviously safe. A short calculation of the relative prior weight of the reverse configuration (or an explicit statement that it is negligible under the adopted mass models) is required for completeness.
minor comments (5)
  1. Figure 1 / Figure 2 axis labels: “1” and “cos 1” appear without the χ/θ symbols in the rendered text; restore χ₁ and cos θ₁ for readability.
  2. §4: “corssmatching” → “crossmatching”; “AGN disk models yields” (Abstract) → “yield”.
  3. Table 3: the waveform-dependent sign flip of ln B^{3G+1G}_{2G+1G} (-1.9 to +1.1) is important; a one-sentence discussion of which waveform features drive the flip would help the reader.
  4. §2.3.1: the choice v_esc = 100 km s^{-1} is stated as fiducial; a brief note on how ln B changes for 50 vs 200 km s^{-1} (or a reference to prior work) would strengthen the cluster results.
  5. References: several 2025–2026 arXiv entries are cited as published; ensure journal status is current at acceptance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Bayes factors are ordinary prior-predictive overlaps of external LVK posteriors against independently generated hierarchical population models; the mild 1G-contamination caveat is an approximation, not a definitional reduction.

full rationale

The central results (Tables 1–3, ln B values) are standard Bayesian evidences (Eqs. 1–2) obtained by integrating the event likelihood (reconstructed from public LVK posterior samples via FIGARO) against population priors that are constructed once, upstream of the two events. The 1G+1G prior is the median LVK GWTC-4.0 BROKENPOWERLAW+2PEAKS / GAUSSIANCOMPONENTSPINS predictive distribution (truncated only at the pair-instability gap); the 2G+1G and 3G+1G priors are generated by sampling that same 1G distribution, applying the external NRSur7dq4Remnant map, applying a fixed escape-velocity cut (or full retention for AGN), and assigning spin tilts either isotropically or according to the external Yang et al. (2019) aligned/anti-aligned rule. None of these steps fits free parameters to GW241011 or GW241110, nor does any equation redefine the target Bayes factor in terms of itself. The paper’s own caveat that the LVK population “may include contributions from mergers involving higher-generation BHs” is an acknowledged approximation about prior purity, not a circular construction that forces the reported ln B. Relative rates and selection effects are omitted (explicitly noted in §5), so the numbers are consistency scores rather than odds, but that is a scope limitation, not circularity. Self-citations appear only for secondary EM-search methodology and do not underwrite the hierarchical-merger claim. Consequently the derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks and scores at most 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central Bayes-factor ranking rests on a small set of modeling choices taken as given: the LVK population as a pure 1G prior, a fixed cluster escape speed, perfect remnant retention in AGN disks, and a strict aligned/anti-aligned spin rule for AGN 2G remnants. No new free parameters are fitted to the two events themselves; the free choices are hand-set astrophysical knobs that control the hierarchical priors.

free parameters (2)
  • cluster escape velocity v_esc = 100 km s^{-1}
    Fixed at 100 km s^{-1} to decide which 2G remnants are retained (§2.3.2); intermediate between globular- and nuclear-cluster scales and not varied.
  • primary-mass truncation for 1G prior = 65 M⊙
    Hard cut at m1 = 65 M⊙ motivated by pair-instability gap (§2.3.1); choice affects the high-mass tail of the 1G comparison model.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption LVK GWTC-4.0 BROKENPOWERLAW+2PEAKS / GAUSSIANCOMPONENTSPINS median predictive distributions (truncated) adequately represent a pure first-generation BBH population.
    Stated in §2.3.1; used as the H_1G+1G prior even though hierarchical systems may already be present in the catalog.
  • domain assumption All merger remnants are retained in AGN disks and can participate in subsequent mergers.
    Explicit modeling choice in §2.3.2 that maximizes hierarchical contribution in the AGN channel.
  • domain assumption 2G remnant spins in AGN disks are either aligned or anti-aligned with the subsequent binary orbital angular momentum (following Yang et al. 2019).
    Drives the mild AGN preference via the cos θ1 distribution (§2.3.2, Fig. 1).
  • domain assumption NRSur7dq4Remnant correctly maps progenitor masses and spins to remnant mass, spin, and recoil for quasi-circular BBHs.
    Used to generate all higher-generation candidates (§2.3.2).
  • ad hoc to paper Primary is the higher-generation BH; the reverse (2G secondary) configuration is neglected because of the low observed mass ratios.
    Stated in §2.3.2; simplifies the hierarchical hypotheses.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20662 in / 3047 out tokens · 20597 ms · 2026-07-11T15:34:54.036238+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

GW241011 and GW241110 are asymmetric binary black hole mergers with rapidly spinning primaries, unequal component masses, and nonzero spin--orbit tilts, making them natural candidates for hierarchical mergers. We use a Bayesian framework to compare a fiducial first-generation (1G+1G) binary black hole population with second-generation plus first-generation (2G+1G) hierarchical merger models in star clusters and active galactic nucleus (AGN) disks. Both events favor the 2G+1G interpretation over the 1G+1G hypothesis, with $\ln\mathcal{B}^{\rm 2G+1G}_{\rm 1G+1G}\simeq6.5$--$8.6$ for GW241011 and $\ln\mathcal{B}^{\rm 2G+1G}_{\rm 1G+1G}\simeq3.0$--$4.5$ for GW241110, depending on the waveform model and assumed environment. The AGN disk models yields slightly larger evidence than the star cluster models, mainly due to their spin tilt distribution, but the data do not provide a decisive environmental classification. We further consider a third-generation plus first-generation (3G+1G) interpretation, but it is not robustly preferred over 2G+1G scenarios. Finally, we also search for optical counterparts by examining AGNs within the three-dimensional localization volumes using ZTF and ATLAS forced photometry, and find one candidate source with weak flare, which might be associated with GW241110 event.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04663 by Chao Wei, Ken Chen, Lei He, Liang-Gui Zhu, Rui Niu, Wen Zhao, Zheng-Yan Liu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Population prior distributions used in this work. The four panels show the distributions of the primary mass m1, mass ratio q, primary spin magnitude χ1, and primary spin tilt cos θ1, respectively. The population priors include the fiducial 1G+1G prior and the 2G+1G priors for the cluster and AGN disk. The posterior distributions of GW241011 and GW241110 are overlaid in each panel. generation remnants are … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Skymaps for GW241011 and GW241110 constructed from the Mixed posterior samples. Contours indicate the 50% and 90% credible localization regions. Gray points denote AGNs located within the 95% three-dimensional credible localization volume of each event. The red star marks the AGN with a candidate flare found in our search. source. The data are reduced following the recommended procedures 5 . To find the fl… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Forced-photometry light curves of J131846.20-264352.0 from ZTF and ATLAS. The vertical dashed line marks the trigger time of GW241110. The shaded region indicates the time interval of the possible flare identified by the Bayesian Blocks analysis. The right panel shows a zoom-in view of the flare interval. ferred kick velocities are relatively large. The kick veloc￾ity is estimated to be 974+555 −466 km s−1… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

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

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 993, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d54

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0d54 2041

  2. [2]

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

    Abac, A. G., Abouelfettouh, I., Acernese, F., et al. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 993, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2041

  3. [3]

    Ade, P. a. R., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  4. [4]

    L., Wu, X.-B., Yang, J., et al

    Ai, Y . L., Wu, X.-B., Yang, J., et al. 2016, The Astronomical Journal, 151, 24, doi: 10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/24

    doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/2/24 2016

  5. [5]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 187, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/831/2/187

    doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187 2016

  6. [6]

    M., & Piotrzkowski, B

    Ashton, G., Ackley, K., Hernandez, I. M., & Piotrzkowski, B. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 235004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac33bb

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ac33bb 2021

  7. [7]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, The A...

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  8. [8]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & M´arka, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 2017

  9. [9]

    S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Fragos, T., Zevin, M., et al. 2021, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 647, A153, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202039804

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202039804 2021

  10. [10]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 068003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a 2019

  11. [11]

    M., Low, M.-M

    Bellovary, J. M., Low, M.-M. M., McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 819, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/l17 2016

  12. [12]

    2024, Physical Review D, 110, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    Cabrera, T., Palmese, A., Hu, L., et al. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.123029 2024

  13. [13]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd 2024

  14. [14]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addb48

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 214, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addb48

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addb48 2025

  15. [15]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1004, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b83

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1004, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b83

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae6b83 2026

  16. [16]

    G., et al

    Collaboration, DESI., Abdul Karim, M., Adame, A. G., et al. 2026, The Astronomical Journal, 171, 285, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43 10 LEIHE ET AL

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ae4c43 2026

  17. [17]

    Collaboration, T. L. S., Collaboration, t. V ., & Collaboration, t. K. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18083 2025

  18. [18]

    Collaboration, T. L. S., Collaboration, t. V ., & Collaboration, t. K. 2026a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.27225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.27225

  19. [19]

    Collaboration, T. L. S., Collaboration, t. V ., Collaboration, t. K., et al. 2026b, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.27223

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.27223

  20. [20]

    Y ., Wu, X.-B., Ai, Y

    Dong, X. Y ., Wu, X.-B., Ai, Y . L., et al. 2018, The Astronomical Journal, 155, 189, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aab5ae

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aab5ae 2018

  21. [21]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2308.01505, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.21105/astro.2308.01505 2023

  22. [22]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b 2019

  23. [23]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc1

    Gayathri, V ., Yang, Y ., Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Bartos, I. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 920, L42, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc1

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc1 2021

  24. [24]

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

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

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

  25. [25]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.251102 2020

  26. [26]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca480 2023

  27. [27]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  28. [28]

    2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05144

    He, L., Zhu, L.-G., Liu, Z.-Y ., et al. 2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05144

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05144

  29. [29]

    2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf284

    He, L., Liu, Z., Niu, R., et al. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 990, 154, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adf284

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf284

  30. [30]

    2025c, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 282, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1d64

    He, L., Liu, Z.-Y ., Niu, R., et al. 2025c, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 282, 13, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae1d64

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae1d64

  31. [31]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 173, 729, doi: 10.1093/mnras/173.3.729

    doi:10.1093/mnras/173.3.729 1975

  32. [32]

    Mass-Ratio Reversal as an Alternative to Hierarchical Mergers for GW241011

    Hu, R.-C., Qin, Y ., & Zhang, B. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.27852

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.27852 2026

  33. [33]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  34. [34]

    2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04546

    Islam, T. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.04546

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.04546 2026

  35. [35]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaf89

    Jin, J.-J., Wu, X.-B., Fu, Y ., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 265, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/acaf89

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/acaf89 2023

  36. [36]

    S., Murase, K., & Bartos, I

    Kimura, S. S., Murase, K., & Bartos, I. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 916, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0535

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0535 2021

  37. [37]

    2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.20965

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025a, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2512.20965

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.20965

  38. [38]

    2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb578

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025b, The Astrophysical Journal, 981, 177, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adb578

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adb578

  39. [39]

    2025c, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08298

    Li, G.-P., & Fan, X.-L. 2025c, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.08298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.08298

  40. [40]

    2023, Physical Review D, 107, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063007

    Li, G.-P., Lin, D.-B., & Yuan, Y . 2023, Physical Review D, 107, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.063007

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.063007 2023

  41. [41]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 65, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/add535

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

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/add535 2025

  42. [42]

    2024, Physical Review Letters, 133, 051401, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051401

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.051401 2024

  43. [43]

    2026, Physical Review Letters, doi: 10.1103/qyfv-wkv1

    Li, Y .-J., Wang, Y .-Z., Tang, S.-P., & Fan, Y .-Z. 2026, Physical Review Letters, doi: 10.1103/qyfv-wkv1

    work page doi:10.1103/qyfv-wkv1 2026

  44. [44]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 282, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2b6e

    Lyu, B., Wu, X.-B., Jin, J.-J., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 282, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ae2b6e

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ae2b6e 2026

  45. [45]

    Mandel, I., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2022, Living Reviews in Relativity, 25, 1, doi: 10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3

    doi:10.1007/s41114-021-00034-3 2022

  46. [46]

    2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore), 1–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    Mapelli, M. 2021, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore), 1–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2021

  47. [47]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2023, arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16279

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  48. [48]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., O’Shaugnessy, R., & Wysocki, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa740

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa740 2020

  49. [49]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886 2019

  50. [50]

    2010, in Scipy (Scipy), 56, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    McKinney, W. 2010, in Scipy (Scipy), 56, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    doi:10.25080/majora-92bf1922-00a 2010

  51. [51]

    L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al

    Morton, S. L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 123039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123039 2023

  52. [52]

    T., Nguyen, H

    Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, H. D., Chamroukhi, F., & McLachlan, G. J. 2020, Cogent Mathematics & Statistics, 7, 1750861, doi: 10.1080/25742558.2020.1750861

    work page doi:10.1080/25742558.2020.1750861 2020

  53. [53]

    J., Annis, J., & Liu, X

    Palmese, A., Fishbach, M., Burke, C. J., Annis, J., & Liu, X. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 914, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0883

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0883 2021

  54. [54]

    2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 121101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101

    Pretorius, F. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 95, 121101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.121101 2005

  55. [55]

    2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839

    Qin, Y ., Fragos, T., Meynet, G., et al. 2018, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 616, A28, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832839

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832839 2018

  56. [56]

    Rinaldi, S., & Pozzo, W. D. 2024, Journal of Open Source Software, 9, 6589, doi: 10.21105/joss.06589 Rodr´ıguez-Ram´ırez, J. C., Bom, C. R., Fraga, B., & Nemmen, R. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 527, 6076, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3575 Rodr´ıguez-Ram´ırez, J. C., Nemmen, R., & Bom, C. R. 2025, Physical Review D, 111, 083020, doi: ...

    doi:10.21105/joss.06589 2024

  57. [57]

    D., Norris, J

    Scargle, J. D., Norris, J. P., Jackson, B., & Chiang, J. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 764, 167, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/167

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/167 2013

  58. [58]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 024013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013 GW241011ANDGW241110 11

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.024013 2016

  59. [59]

    W., Smartt, S

    Smith, K. W., Smartt, S. J., Young, D. R., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 132, 085002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e

    doi:10.1088/1538-3873/ab936e 2020

  60. [60]

    Speagle, J. S. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 493, 3132, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa278

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa278 2020

  61. [61]

    2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    Tagawa, H., Haiman, Z., & Kocsis, B. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 898, 25, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b8c 2020

  62. [62]

    S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I

    Tagawa, H., Kimura, S. S., Haiman, Z., Perna, R., & Bartos, I. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 966, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad2e0b 2024

  63. [63]

    A., Fishbach, M., et al

    Tong, H., Callister, T. A., Fishbach, M., et al. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2511.05316

    doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.05316 2025

  64. [64]

    2026, Nature, 1, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10359-0

    Tong, H., Fishbach, M., Thrane, E., et al. 2026, Nature, 1, doi: 10.1038/s41586-026-10359-0

    doi:10.1038/s41586-026-10359-0 2026

  65. [65]

    P., Mapelli, M., P´erigois, C., et al

    Vaccaro, M. P., Mapelli, M., P´erigois, C., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348509

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202348509 2024

  66. [66]

    P., Mapelli, M., Trani, A

    Vaccaro, M. P., Mapelli, M., Trani, A. A., & Liu, B. 2026, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2606.10823

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2606.10823 2026

  67. [67]

    E., Scheel, M

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

    doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033015 2019

  68. [68]

    C., Li, Y .-R., & Du, P

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., Li, Y .-R., & Du, P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 916, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46 2021

  69. [69]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244 2017

  70. [70]

    2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang, Y ., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V ., et al. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.181101 2019

  71. [71]

    L., et al

    Yao, S., Wu, X.-B., Ai, Y . L., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 240, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/aaef88

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/aaef88 2019

  72. [72]

    Zaldarriaga, M., Kushnir, D., & Kollmeier, J. A. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 473, 4174, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx2577

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2577 2018

  73. [73]

    2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 989, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf31f

    Zhu, L.-G., & Chen, X. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 989, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/adf31f

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/adf31f 2025

  74. [74]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47ea

    Zhu, L.-G., He, L., Chen, X., & Zhao, W. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1000, 115, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae47ea

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae47ea 2026