Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

Including the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus halo changes chirp-mass and distance distributions of LISA-resolved double white dwarfs, but leaves the gravitational-wave foreground unchanged.

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

2026-07-14 01:16 UTC pith:TAKHAQYL

load-bearing objection Clean first GSE-aware LISA DWD forecast: resolved chirp-mass and distance distributions shift, foreground does not; single-Z bursts are the usual soft spot but do not erase the qualitative result. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.09980 v1 pith:TAKHAQYL submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data

Ann-Marsha Alexis , Katelyn Breivik This is my paper
classification astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA
keywords LISAdouble white dwarfsGalactic haloGaia-Sausage-Enceladusgravitational-wave foregroundchirp massstellar population synthesis
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.

LISA will resolve tens of thousands of close double white dwarfs across the Milky Way and measure their distances and chirp masses. Because those binaries are the end products of ordinary stellar populations, their observed properties should encode the Galaxy’s star-formation history and structure. The paper asks what changes when an older, single-metallicity halo model is replaced by an empirically motivated model that includes the metal-richer, triaxial Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) component uncovered by Gaia. Using population-synthesis binaries scaled to each Galactic component and evolved with gravitational-wave emission, the authors show that the overall strength of the unresolved LISA foreground stays essentially the same, yet the resolved sources display clear shifts: fewer high-chirp-mass systems in the halo, more intermediate-mass carbon-oxygen pairs in the thick disk, and a tail of helium-rich binaries extending to ~40 kpc that traces the GSE’s triaxial shape. The result matters because it converts future LISA catalogs into a direct, all-sky probe of the Galaxy’s accreted halo.

Core claim

When the classical metal-poor spherical halo is replaced by an empirical model that includes a younger, higher-metallicity, triaxial GSE component (and an updated thick-disk metallicity), the power spectrum of the unresolved double-white-dwarf foreground remains essentially unchanged, while the chirp-mass and distance distributions of the individually resolved sources change significantly: high-chirp-mass systems become rarer in the halo, carbon-oxygen pairs near 0.6–0.8 solar masses become more common in the thick disk, and resolvable helium-rich binaries reach ~40 kpc along the GSE’s prolate axes.

What carries the argument

An empirical Galactic model that splits the halo into a triaxial GSE component ([Fe/H] = –1.2, age 10 Gyr) and a spherical in-situ halo, paired with metallicity-dependent formation efficiencies drawn from a binary population-synthesis grid and evolved to the present day with gravitational-wave orbital decay.

Load-bearing premise

Every Galactic component is treated as a single fixed metallicity and a single short star-formation burst, so that all binary properties are taken from the nearest discrete metallicity point of an existing synthesis grid.

What would settle it

A catalog of LISA-resolved double white dwarfs that shows either (a) a substantial population of high-chirp-mass systems beyond 30 kpc or (b) a distance distribution that remains spherical and cut off near 20–25 kpc would contradict the predicted GSE imprint.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the LISA-detectable Galactic double white dwarf (DWD) population under two star-formation histories: a classical fiducial model (single metal-poor halo, lower-metallicity thick disk) versus an empirical model that splits the halo into a younger, metal-richer triaxial Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) component plus an in-situ halo and raises the thick-disk metallicity. Using the public COSMIC DWD library of Thiele et al. (2023) scaled by component mass, ages and positions drawn from the analytic density profiles of Table 1, and LEGWORK for GW evolution and SNR, the authors report that the unresolved DWD foreground (PSD and its running-median height) is essentially unchanged, while the resolved (SNR>7) population exhibits clear differences in chirp-mass distributions (excess of 0.6–0.8 M⊙ COCO systems in the empirical thick disk; truncation of high-Mc COCO/ONeX systems in the empirical halo) and an extension of He-hosting sources to ~40 kpc that traces the GSE.

Significance. If the reported differences survive more realistic metallicity spreads and continuous SFHs, LISA’s resolved DWD catalog could furnish an independent, dust-free probe of the GSE’s spatial and chemical imprint—complementing Gaia. The work is timely, methods are fully transparent and reproducible (public COSMIC grid + LEGWORK), and the side-by-side comparison cleanly isolates the effect of the updated halo/thick-disk assumptions. The foreground invariance is a useful null result for LISA data-analysis pipelines. Strengths include the explicit formation-efficiency scaling (Eqs. 1–2), the tabulated number counts (Table 2), and the direct visualization of chirp-mass, frequency and distance shifts (Figs. 3–5).

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Table 1, Fig. 1] §2.1 and Table 1 assign every Galactic component a single fixed metallicity and a single burst (or constant) SFH, then map each to the nearest of the 15 discrete COSMIC grid points of Thiele et al. (2023). The “significant differences” in resolved chirp-mass and distance distributions (abstract, §3.4, Figs. 3–5) are produced by the discontinuous jumps in formation efficiency (Fig. 1) and common-envelope outcomes between [Fe/H] = -2.3 (fiducial halo), -1.2 (GSE) and -0.54 (in-situ/high-α). Real halo and thick-disk populations have metallicity dispersions of several tenths of a dex and more extended SFHs; those spreads would sample a continuum of close-binary fractions and CE efficiencies and could dilute or erase the reported excess of 0.6–0.8 M⊙ COCO systems and the high-Mc truncation. A short robustness test (or at least a quantitative discussion) that draws metallicities from realistic
  2. [Table 2] Table 2, Fiducial Halo HeHe row: N_detached is listed as 5.79×10^6 while N_total = 4.42×10^6 and N_merged = 3.84×10^6; the detached count must be ~5.8×10^5. The same factor-of-ten error propagates into the component total. Because Table 2 underpins every subsequent statement about population sizes, the numbers must be corrected and the text re-checked for consistency.
  3. [§3.4.1] §3.4.1 states that “the HeHe population contains nearly double the number of DWDs due to the increased metallicity in the empirical model.” Table 2 and Fig. 1 show the opposite: higher metallicity lowers the HeHe formation efficiency, and the empirical thick-disk resolved HeHe count falls from 4437 to 2347. The sentence misstates the result and should be rewritten to match the tabulated numbers and the efficiency trend.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 header and caption contain several typographical slips (“agees”, “T able 1”, inconsistent density-reference citations for the thin disk between the two models). Clean these before production.
  2. [Fig. 2, §3.3] Figure 2 caption and surrounding text claim the irreducible foregrounds are “indistinguishable,” yet the running-median curves are plotted only for visual inspection. A quantitative residual (e.g., fractional difference in the 1–10 mHz band) would strengthen the claim.
  3. [§2.4, §4] The analytic SNR approximation (Eqs. 5–10) is known to overestimate the number of resolvable sources relative to iterative foreground-subtraction methods (noted in §4). A brief quantitative comparison of the two approaches for the same population would help readers place the O(10^4) counts in context.
  4. [References] Several arXiv preprints cited as 2026 (Kim et al., Kremer et al., Coughlin et al.) are still future-dated; update the bibliography once the final versions appear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: independent numerical experiment comparing two externally-sourced SFH models on a shared binary-evolution library.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (GSE inclusion changes resolved chirp-mass and distance distributions while leaving the LISA DWD foreground unchanged) is the output of a side-by-side Monte-Carlo pipeline, not a quantity forced by construction or by a fitted parameter of the present work. Fiducial and empirical Galactic components are assigned fixed masses, ages, metallicities and spatial densities taken from external literature (McMillan 2011, Robin et al. 2003, Ruiter et al. 2009, Naidu et al. 2020, Han et al. 2022; Table 1). Formation efficiencies and binary properties are read from the nearest of the 15 publicly released COSMIC metallicity grids of Thiele et al. (2023); those grids are an input library, not a fit performed here. Positions, ages, GW evolution (Peters 1964 via LEGWORK) and SNR>7 selection are then applied identically to both models. Differences in the resolved populations (Figs. 3–5) and the near-identity of the PSDs (Fig. 2) therefore emerge from the simulation, not from algebraic identity with the inputs. The single minor self-citation (Thiele et al. 2023, overlapping co-author) supplies the binary library but does not underwrite uniqueness, forbid alternatives, or redefine the target observables; it is ordinary reuse of prior code/data and does not raise the score above 1. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem appear.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper is a population-synthesis forecast. Its load-bearing inputs are literature-derived component masses, ages, metallicities and density profiles plus the pre-computed COSMIC DWD grids; no new free parameters are fitted to LISA data. The only ad-hoc choices are the SNR threshold and the 1000 R⊙ separation cut used to select potential LISA sources.

free parameters (4)
  • GSE halo mass fraction = 0.42
    42 % of total halo mass assigned to GSE following Han et al. (2022); remaining 58 % to in-situ halo. Directly scales the number of GSE DWDs.
  • SNR detection threshold = 7
    Sources with SNR > 7 are declared resolved; standard but arbitrary cut that sets the size of the resolved catalog.
  • Maximum initial separation for DWD selection = 1000 R_sun
    Only systems with a < 1000 R⊙ are retained from the COSMIC grids; controls which progenitors can enter the LISA band.
  • Component metallicities and ages = see Table 1
    Single [Fe/H] and single burst age per component taken from Robin/Naidu/Han; formation efficiency is read from the nearest COSMIC grid point.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Binary evolution and close-binary fraction follow the fiducial COSMIC model of Thiele et al. (2023) with metallicity-dependent Moe et al. (2019) binary fraction.
    All formation efficiencies and DWD property distributions are taken from that public grid; no re-simulation of binary physics is performed.
  • domain assumption Each Galactic component forms with a single metallicity and a simple SFH (constant or 1 Gyr burst).
    Stated in §2.1 and Table 1; allows direct mapping onto the discrete COSMIC metallicity grid.
  • domain assumption LISA noise curve and SNR formulae of Robson et al. (2019) / Flanagan & Hughes (1998) as implemented in LEGWORK are adequate for population forecasts.
    Used throughout §2.4; analytic stationary/evolving SNR approximations replace full time-domain analysis.
  • domain assumption Spatial density profiles (triaxial GSE, spherical halo, exponential disks, McMillan bulge) correctly describe the present-day stellar distribution.
    Positions of DWDs are drawn from these analytic profiles (Table 1).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21810 in / 2854 out tokens · 23467 ms · 2026-07-14T01:16:55.150413+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAKHAQYL

@misc{pith2026260709980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAKHAQYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09980}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

The population of close double white dwarfs (DWDs) in the Milky Way will make up the largest population of sources resolved by LISA, with a subset of the population having three-dimensional position and chirp mass measurements obtained from LISA observations. Because white dwarfs are the bulk of the Milky Way's stellar remnant population, the positions and masses of close DWDs resolved by LISA are defined by the stellar population properties that host them. Recent Gaia data has unveiled a triaxial accreted component of the Galactic stellar halo: the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus, which contains stars that are more metal-rich than the extremely metal-poor population of stars residing in the stellar halo beyond 30 kpc. In this work, we assess the size and characteristics of the population of close DWDs using an empirically motivated Galactic model which incorporates the GSE and compare to the classical Galactic model that contains only a single very metal-poor halo population. To do this, we simulate a realistic present-day Galactic DWD population and determine its gravitational wave signal in LISA using LEGWORK. We find that incorporating the metal-rich population from the GSE imprints significant differences in the chirp mass and distance distributions of resolved DWDs, but that the strength and height of the gravitational wave foreground remains unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09980 by Ann-Marsha Alexis, Katelyn Breivik.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The formation efficiency from the fiducial model of Thiele et al. (2023) for each DWD type: HeHe (brown), HeCO (pink), COCO (grey), and ONeX (olive). Each dot and vertical dashed line corresponds to a metallicity assigned to a Galactic component in our simulations. The components in order of increasing metallicity are the fiducial halo, the GSE halo, the fiducial thick disk, the high-α thick disk/in￾situ h… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows the PSD as a function of GW fre￾quency for the fiducial (top) and empirical (bottom) Galaxy model. The alternate Galaxy model is plotted in grey for comparison in each panel while the colored lines show the PSD. In each panel, the irreducible fore￾ground of both signals is approximated with a running median with 10000 frequency bins and is plotted in the lighter blue and purple colors corresponding t… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The distribution of LISA observables of the resolved DWD LISA population for the fiducial and empirical thick disk or high-α thick disk. Each color represents a different DWD type (HeHe, HeCO, COCO, ONeX). The brown, bright pink, grey and olive colors correspond to DWD types HeHe, HeCO, COCO and ONeX. The dashed black line represents all the DWD types in the component. LISA will resolve more COCO DWDs with… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The frequency, chirp mass, and distance distribution of the LISA-resolved DWD population for the fiducial and empirical halo. Each color depicts a different DWD type: HeHe (brown), HeCO (pink), COCO (grey), ONeX (olive). The dashed line shows the distributions for all the DWD types for the select component. Higher frequency sources like the HeHe and HeCO DWD types are resolved at further distances, as can … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top panel shows the heliocentric distance of the DWDs with SNR > 7. The black lines corresponds to all the other components. The bottom panel shows the Galactocentric positions of the resolved sources in the fiducial halo in blue, the GSE halo in purple and the in situ halo in blue as scatter points. Below the scatter points is the 2D distribution of the density of the DWDs in the Galaxy model from all… 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

62 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-38...

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  2. [2]

    2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.118 2011

  3. [3]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  4. [4]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa876

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  5. [5]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 589, doi: 10.1086/504024

    Benacquista, M., & Holley-Bockelmann, K. 2006, ApJ, 645, 589, doi: 10.1086/504024

    work page doi:10.1086/504024 2006

  6. [6]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc585

    Biscoveanu, S., Kremer, K., & Thrane, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc585

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc585 2023

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 12

    Breivik, K., Kremer, K., Bueno, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 2018

  8. [8]

    Breivik, K., Mingarelli, C. M. F., & Larson, S. L. 2020a, Constraining Galactic Structure with the LISA White Dwarf Foreground. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02200

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  9. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85 2020

  10. [10]

    2025, Astropy, v7.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15473616

    Collaboration, A. 2025, Astropy, v7.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15473616

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15473616 2025

  11. [11]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  12. [12]

    A., et al

    Collette, A., Kluyver, T., Caswell, T. A., et al. 2023, h5py/h5py: 3.8.0, 3.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7560547

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.7560547 2023

  13. [13]

    J., & Larson, S

    Cornish, N. J., & Larson, S. L. 2003, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 20, S163–S170, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/319

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/319 2003

  14. [14]

    2026, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: v4.0.0, v4.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20030671 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M

    Coughlin, S., Breivik, K., Zevin, M., et al. 2026, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: v4.0.0, v4.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20030671 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834929

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20030671 2026

  15. [15]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    Casagrande, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2614 2021

  16. [16]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hughes, S. A. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 4535, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4535 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.4535 1998

  17. [17]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5 2019

  18. [18]

    J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 249

    2022

  19. [19]

    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

  20. [20]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, L1

    Hayden, M., Recio-Blanco, A., De Laverny, P., Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, L1

    2017

  21. [21]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad235 2018

  22. [22]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x 2018

  23. [23]

    L., & Webbink, R

    Hils, D., Bender, P. L., & Webbink, R. F. 1990, ApJ, 360, 75, doi: 10.1086/169098

    doi:10.1086/169098 1990

  24. [24]

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

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  25. [25]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3868

    Iorio, G., & Belokurov, V. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3868

    2019

  26. [26]

    Substructures of the Milky Way's Retrograde Halo: Evidence for Multiple Accretion Events

    Kim, Y. K., Lee, Y. S., & Beers, T. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13482, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.13482

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.13482 2026

  27. [27]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87–90

    2016

  28. [28]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    Koppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac882 2018

  29. [29]

    M., & Barausse, E

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., & Barausse, E. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3440

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3440 2019

  30. [30]

    M., Groot, P

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1894–1910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1285

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1285 2017

  31. [31]

    Kremer, K., Breivik, K., & Ye, C. S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.05308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.05308

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.05308 2026

  32. [32]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.191103

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.191103

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.191103 2018

  33. [33]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5888–5903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2834

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2834 2019

  34. [34]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1546

    Liu, J., Han, Z., Zhang, F., & Zhang, Y. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1546

    2010

  35. [35]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2955

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2955 2019

  36. [36]

    N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., et al

    Mazzola, C. N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2859

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2859 2020

  37. [37]

    McMillan, P. J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 2446

    2011

  38. [38]

    M., & Badenes, C

    Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., & Badenes, C. 2019, ApJ, 875, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88 2019

  39. [39]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., Amorisco, N. C., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3262

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3262 2018

  40. [40]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4 2020

  41. [41]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d 2021

  42. [42]

    Yungelson, L. R. 2001, A&A, 368, 939, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010049

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010049 2001

  43. [43]

    Nissanke, S., Vallisneri, M., Nelemans, G., & Prince, T. A. 2012, ApJ, 758, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/131 pandas development team, T. 2025, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.3.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17229934

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/758/2/131 2012

  44. [44]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.53 2007

  45. [45]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 13

    doi:10.1103/physrev.136.b1224 1964

  46. [46]

    M., & Foreman-Mackey, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, doi: 10.21105/joss.00357

    doi:10.21105/joss.00357 2017

  47. [47]

    C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S

    Robin, A. C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 409, 523

    2003

  48. [48]

    J., & Liu, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liu, C. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101 2019

  49. [49]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 383

    Holley-Bockelmann, K. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 383

    2009

  50. [50]

    J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S. L., & Williams, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 1006–1021, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/1006

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/1006 2010

  51. [51]

    2024, Predicting gravitational wave signals from BPASS White Dwarf Binary and Black Hole Binary populations of a Milky Way-like galaxy model for LISA

    Tang, P., Eldridge, J., Meyer, R., et al. 2024, Predicting gravitational wave signals from BPASS White Dwarf Binary and Black Hole Binary populations of a Milky Way-like galaxy model for LISA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20484

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  52. [52]

    E., & Luger, R

    Thiele, S., Breivik, K., Sanderson, R. E., & Luger, R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 162 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace) van Zeist, W. G. J., van Roestel, J., Nelemans, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A172, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202554302

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202554302 2023

  53. [53]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    Vincenzo, F., Spitoni, E., Calura, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slz070 2019

  54. [54]

    2025, TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK: LEGWORK v0.5.2, v0.5.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15579534

    Wagg, T., & Breivik, K. 2025, TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK: LEGWORK v0.5.2, v0.5.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15579534

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.15579534 2025

  55. [55]

    2022a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3998, doi: 10.21105/joss.03998

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S. 2022a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3998, doi: 10.21105/joss.03998

    doi:10.21105/joss.03998

  56. [56]

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S. E. 2022b, ApJS, 260, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5c52

    doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac5c52

  57. [57]

    2025, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.4, v1.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., Van-Lane, P., Wu, K., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2025, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.4, v1.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    doi:10.5281/zenodo.17654855 2025

  58. [58]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    doi:10.21105/joss.03021 2021

  60. [60]

    Yu, S., & Jeffery, C. S. 2010, A&A, 521, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014827

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014827 2010

  61. [61]

    Yu, S., & Jeffery, C. S. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 1602–1608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts445

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sts445 2012

  62. [62]

    2023, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 669, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    Zhanwen, H. 2023, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 669, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243893 2023