Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

No evidence that the binary black hole mass distribution evolves with redshift

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that the binary black hole mass distribution shows no evidence of evolving with redshift in the GWTC-3 catalog, with the 35-solar-mass peak and power-law slope constrained to stay nearly constant below z≈1.

desk verdict A careful null result on BBH mass-redshift evolution whose headline claim slightly overstates what the sigmoid model can actually test. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.10295 v1 pith:5Z3KQNRL submitted 2025-01-17 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Max Lalleman , Kevin Turbang , Thomas Callister , Nick van Remortel This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholesmassdistributionredshiftevolutionGWTC-3populationinferencehierarchicalBayesian35solar-masspeak
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether the masses of merging black holes change as we look deeper into cosmic history, using the 90 binary black hole mergers in the GWTC-3 catalog. It focuses on two well-established features of the primary mass spectrum — a Gaussian excess of approximately 35 solar-mass black holes and a broad power-law continuum from about 10 to above 80 solar masses — and allows each feature's parameters to drift smoothly with redshift. The central finding is that neither feature shows statistically significant evolution: the mean location of the 35 solar-mass peak and the slope of the power-law continuum are constrained to stay approximately constant below redshift z≈1. The data remain consistent with a stationary mass spectrum, although they do not rule out evolution in the peak's height or in the minimum and maximum black hole masses. If correct, this result undercuts recent claims of strong mass-redshift evolution and sharpens the astrophysical question of why the mass spectrum looks so stable.

What carries the argument

The analysis is built on a hierarchical Bayesian population model in which the primary mass distribution is a sum of a power law and a Gaussian peak (Eq. 1), and every hyperparameter of interest is promoted to a smooth sigmoid function of redshift (Eq. 2), with low- and high-redshift asymptotes, a transition midpoint, and a transition width. Selection effects are handled through injection-recovery Monte Carlo averages in the detection expectation term. The load-bearing comparison is the 'conditional prior': for each redshift-varying parameter, the authors compare the full posterior to a prior distribution conditioned on the measured posterior at $z=0$, which shows how much high-redshift behavior is actually informed by high-redshift events rather than extrapolated from local measurements. It is this device that lets them claim the constancy of the peak location and power-law slope is a data-driven result, while the apparent freedom in peak height is a prior effect.

What would settle it

A reanalysis of the same GWTC-3 events with the sigmoid midpoint prior extended to $z \gtrsim 2$, or with a non-parametric binning of the mass spectrum in redshift, that recovers a $>3\sigma$ shift in the $35\,M_\odot$ peak location or in the power-law slope between $z=0$ and $z=1$ would falsify the claim that these features are constrained to be approximately constant.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes a null result with quantitative teeth: in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA GWTC-3 catalog, there is no evidence that the binary black hole primary mass distribution varies with redshift. The two most precisely measured features — the location of the $35\,M_\odot$ peak and the slope of the power-law continuum — are bounded to remain approximately constant below $z\approx 1$, and the authors show by comparing posteriors to priors conditioned on low-redshift measurements that this constraint is driven by the data rather than by the prior. At the same time, the analysis is careful not to overclaim: evolution in the height of the peak, the minimum mass, or the maximum mass remains possible, and a redshift-dependent mass spectrum is neither ruled out nor required. The paper further inverts the question and finds that the merger rate's redshift evolution shows no mass dependence, consistent with all mass ranges merging in lockstep.

Load-bearing premise

The null result rests on the assumption that any redshift evolution in a mass-spectrum hyperparameter takes the form of a single sigmoid step whose midpoint is forced to lie at $z \leq 0.8$, a restriction imposed because wider ranges caused extreme sampling difficulties; if the true evolution is not smooth-sigmoid or starts beyond $z \approx 0.8$, the analysis could miss it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the null result holds, theoretical models predicting large shifts in black hole masses between $z=0$ and $z=1$ (e.g., from metallicity evolution or hierarchical mergers) must be reconciled with the data.
  • A stationary mass spectrum out to $z\approx 1$ suggests either long delay times between formation and merger that wash out progenitor metallicity trends, or that metal-poor star formation remains significant at late cosmic times.
  • The constraints on the peak location and power-law slope can inform dark-siren measurements of the Hubble constant, where the mass-redshift relation is a key degeneracy.
  • Future catalogs from the O4 observing run and beyond, which push the detection horizon deeper, will determine whether the mass spectrum truly remains constant or evolves at $z>1$.
  • The mass-independent merger-rate evolution found in Section 4 indicates that if multiple formation channels exist, their combined redshift histories synchronize across mass scales.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The sigmoid prior restricting transition midpoints to $z\leq 0.8$ means the null conclusion is conditional on evolution being a single smooth step at low redshift; a more flexible non-parametric redshift model could still find structure that this parameterization smooths over.
  • If the mass spectrum is truly stationary, the astrophysical implication extends beyond metallicity: it would constrain the delay-time distribution of binary black hole mergers to be long enough to homogenize formation epochs across a Hubble time.
  • A testable extension is to apply the same conditional-prior diagnostic to the next catalog and check whether the allowed drift in peak height narrows, since the current upper bound on peak growth is set by the prior, not the data.
  • The authors' trick of conditioning priors on the best-measured redshift (or mass) could be applied to other population questions, such as spin evolution with redshift, to distinguish true measurements from prior extrapolations.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: On its own terms, the paper establishes a null result with quantitative teeth: in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA GWTC-3 catalog, there is no evidence that the binary black hole primary mass distribution varies with redshift. The two most precisely measured features — the location of the $35\,M_\odot$ peak and the slope of the power-law continuum — are bounded to remain approximately constant below $z\approx

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes the binary black hole (BBH) population in GWTC-3 to test whether the primary mass distribution evolves with redshift. The authors model the primary mass distribution as a power-law continuum plus a Gaussian peak near 35 Msun, promote selected hyperparameters to sigmoid functions of redshift (Eq. 2), and perform hierarchical population inference with selection effects. They report no evidence that the Gaussian peak or the power-law continuum evolves, with the strongest constraints being that the peak location and power-law slope are approximately constant below z ~ 1. A companion analysis inverts the question and finds no mass dependence in the redshift evolution of the merger rate. The central conclusion is that current data do not require a redshift-dependent mass spectrum, although a redshift dependence remains possible.

Significance. If the no-evolution result holds, it is an important constraint on formation scenarios that predict strong metallicity-driven mass evolution or hierarchical-merger growth with redshift, and it directly contradicts the recent claims of Karathanasis et al. and Rinaldi et al. The analysis is generally careful: the hierarchical likelihood and Monte Carlo selection-function treatment are standard and well executed, and the public code and data are a strength. The conditional-prior diagnostic is a thoughtful way to separate low-redshift measurements from prior extrapolation. The main weakness is that the headline claim of constancy below z ~ 1 is partly inherited from the restricted sigmoid family and the prior zbar <= 0.8, so the paper overstates the coverage of its strongest constraint.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2.1, Table A1, Appendix A] The model family cannot represent the late-onset or sharp evolution that the abstract's strongest claim is supposed to exclude. Equation (2) restricts every evolving hyperparameter to a single sigmoid, and Table A1 imposes zbar_Lambda ~ U(0, 0.8); Appendix A states that larger transition midpoints were excluded due to 'extreme sampling difficulties.' Consequently, the prior has zero support for a transition centered above z = 0.8, and a sharp change between z = 0.8 and z = 1 cannot be expressed at all, even approximately. The conditional-prior comparisons in Figs. 3 and 5 do not resolve this, because both the posterior and the conditional prior live in the same restricted sigmoid family; they can only show that the data constrain parameters within that family, not that the family is rich enough to test constancy at z ~ 1. I recommend either reframing the claim as 'no evidence within the sigmoid family with zbar <= 0.8' or adding a robustness test with a more flexible redshift dependence, such as binned or Gaussian-process models, that can represent late-onset evolution.
  2. [Sec. 3.1, Abstract, Sec. 5] The claim that the 35 Msun peak location and power-law slope are 'constrained to remain approximately constant below z ~ 1' is broader than the analysis supports. The paper itself notes in Sec. 3.1 that 'the results at z ~ 1 are probably extrapolations from intermediate redshift.' Because the prior restricts transition midpoints to z <= 0.8 and the data at z > 0.8 are sparse, the credible intervals near z = 1 are not a direct measurement of constancy; they are an extrapolation within a family that cannot represent a transition beginning above 0.8. The conditional-prior comparison is not a substitute for a model check with an alternative family. The conclusion should be stated as 'current data show no evidence for evolution and exclude large smooth evolution with early onset,' with the z ~ 1 wording softened or explicitly qualified.
  3. [Sec. 4, Fig. A4] The posterior for the mass-dependent merger-rate slope alpha_z(m1) shows a marked transition feature near m1 ~ 33 Msun in Fig. A4, which the paper interprets as a selection effect tied to the large number of events near 35 Msun. This interpretation is plausible, but it is not demonstrated. A simple injection-recovery check, or a comparison of the alpha_z(m1) posterior with the posterior obtained from a redshift-independent mass model, would strengthen the claim that the feature is not evidence for mass-dependent rate evolution. As written, the statement in Sec. 4 that data are consistent with universal alpha_z and zp is supported, but the paper should be more explicit that the 33 Msun feature is not yet interpretable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3 heading] The heading 'DOES THE BLACK HOLE MASS SPECTRUM EVOL VE WITH REDSHIFT?' contains a typo: 'EVOL VE' should be 'EVOLVE'.
  2. [Introduction, paragraph 2] The sentence ending 'avoided by subsequent generations of exhibited (Liu & Bromm 2020)' appears garbled; 'exhibited' should likely be 'stars' or similar, and the sentence should be rewritten for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption contains the typo 'dotted magneta curves'; this should be 'dotted magenta curves'.
  4. [Appendix B] The exclusion of GW190814 and GW190917 as 'known population outliers' would be more persuasive with a brief sensitivity check showing that including them does not change the main conclusions, especially for the low-mass truncation Mmin.
  5. [Eq. (9) and surrounding text] The notation dN/dlambda(lambda_i) is slightly confusing because lambda is used for individual-event parameters while Lambda denotes hyperparameters; a distinct symbol for the per-event parameters in Eq. (9) would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the null result is a fitted outcome, and the sigmoid/prior restrictions are model-coverage caveats, not reductions of the claim to its inputs.

full rationale

This is an observational population inference, not a derivation of a prediction from first principles. The hyperparameters in Eq. (1) are promoted to sigmoid functions in Eq. (2) with independent priors on the asymptotic low- and high-redshift values (Table A1); nothing in the model fixes Lambda_low = Lambda_high, so the posterior compatibility with no evolution is a data-driven outcome. The stated restriction zbar_Lambda ~ U(0, 0.8) in Table A1 and Appendix A is a genuine coverage limitation: transitions centered above z = 0.8, or sharp late onsets, have no prior support, so the phrase "approximately constant below z ~ 1" should be read as constancy within that sigmoid family. This is a model-family caveat, not circularity, because the prior still permits large high-low differences and short transition widths, and the paper compares its posterior against conditional priors rather than assuming the null. The conditional-prior diagnostic is not a fully independent low-redshift-only control, since the z = 0 posterior is a marginal of the same global fit, but this weakens a supporting argument rather than making the central null result equivalent to the model input. Citations to coauthor work (e.g., Callister & Farr 2023) are ancillary and are not used to force the conclusion; no uniqueness theorem or externally imported ansatz is load-bearing. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is an observational fitting exercise, not a first-principles derivation. The null result is supported by many fitted hyperparameters and by model-form assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced; the closest thing to an input from the authors is the sigmoid evolution prior with an explicit z <= 0.8 cutoff, which should be scrutinized.

free parameters (14)
  • log Rref
    Normalization of the merger rate, fitted to the catalog; prior U(-2,1) in Table A1.
  • alpha
    Power-law slope of the primary mass distribution; fitted; posterior shown in Fig. 5.
  • log fp
    Log mixing fraction of the Gaussian peak; fitted; posteriors in Figs. 3 and 5.
  • beta_q
    Secondary mass ratio index in Eq. (6); fitted.
  • alpha_z
    Low-redshift growth index of the merger rate in Eq. (5); fitted.
  • beta
    High-redshift decay index of the merger rate in Eq. (5); fitted with prior U(0,10).
  • z_p
    Peak redshift of the merger rate in Eq. (5); fitted with prior U(0.2,4).
  • Mmin
    Minimum primary mass cutoff; fitted; posterior weakly constrained in Fig. 5.
  • Mmax
    Maximum primary mass cutoff; fitted; largely unconstrained.
  • mu_m
    Mean of the 35 Msun Gaussian peak; fitted; posterior in Fig. 3 and Appendix C.
  • sigma_m
    Width of the Gaussian peak; fitted; posterior nearly unconstrained.
  • delta_mmin and delta_mmax
    Smoothing scales for mass cutoffs in Eq. (4); fitted and largely unconstrained.
  • spin hyperparameters (mu_chi, sigma_chi, sigma_u)
    Truncated Gaussian spin model in Eqs. (A1) and (A2); fitted.
  • sigmoid evolution parameters for each varied mass hyperparameter
    Lambda_low, Lambda_high, zbar_Lambda, and log Delta_z_Lambda introduced by Eq. (2); fitted; priors in Table A1.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The primary mass distribution at each redshift is a power law plus a Gaussian peak with smooth cutoffs (Eqs. 1 and 4).
    Phenomenological model adopted from Talbot and Thrane 2018 and LVK analyses; if the shape is wrong, redshift evolution could be masked.
  • ad hoc to paper Each redshift-varying hyperparameter follows a single sigmoid in redshift (Eq. 2).
    Chosen as a flexible but restrictive family; no physical derivation is given for this functional form.
  • ad hoc to paper Sigmoid transition midpoints are restricted to z <= 0.8.
    Imposed because wider ranges caused extreme sampling difficulties (Appendix A); this limits the search to low and intermediate redshift transitions.
  • domain assumption The catalog likelihood including selection effects is correctly evaluated with posterior samples and injections (Eqs. 7 to 11).
    Standard hierarchical Bayesian formalism; accuracy depends on injection recovery sets and on detection criteria matching event selection.
  • domain assumption The merger rate evolves with the Madau-Dickinson-like function of Eq. (5).
    Adopted as a flexible empirical model of star-formation-tracing redshift evolution; alternative rate shapes are not tested.
  • domain assumption Component spins follow truncated Gaussians (Appendix A).
    Spin modeling is not the target of this paper, but spin misspecification could bias mass and redshift inferences.
  • ad hoc to paper GW190814 and GW190917 are genuine population outliers and can be excluded.
    The two events are excluded in Appendix B based on prior LVK population analyses; this selection is standard but is a post hoc data choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of No evidence that the binary black hole mass distribution evolves with redshift." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5Z3KQNRL

@misc{pith2026250110295,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: No evidence that the binary black hole mass distribution evolves with redshift},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5Z3KQNRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.10295}
}
abstract

The mass distribution of merging binary black holes is generically predicted to evolve with redshift, reflecting systematic changes in their astrophysical environment, stellar progenitors, and/or dominant formation channels over cosmic time. Whether or not such an effect is observed in gravitational-wave data, however, remains an open question, with some contradictory results present in the literature. In this paper, we study the ensemble of binary black holes within the latest GWTC-3 catalog released by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration, systematically surveying for possible evolution of their mass distribution with redshift. We specifically focus on two key features present in the binary black hole primary mass distribution -- (1) an excess of $35\,M_\odot$ black holes and (2) a broad power-law continuum ranging from 10 to $\gtrsim 80 M_\odot$ -- and ask if one or both of these features are observed to vary with redshift. We find no evidence that either the Gaussian peak or power-law continuum components of the mass distribution change with redshift. In some cases, we place somewhat stringent bounds on the degree of allowed redshift evolution. Most notably, we find that the mean location of the $35\,M_\odot$ peak and the slope of the power-law continuum are constrained to remain approximately constant below redshift $z\approx 1$. The data remain more agnostic about other forms of redshift dependence, such as evolution in the height of the $35\,M_\odot$ excess or the minimum and maximum black hole masses. In all cases, we conclude that a redshift-dependent mass spectrum remains possible, but that it is not required by current data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.10295 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cartoon illustrating the possible manners, as considered in this work, in which the binary black hole primary mass distribution might evolve with redshift. As illustrated in the left-hand panel, we consider the possibilities that the location, width, and/or height of the 35 M⊙ excess evolve with redshift (see Sec. 3.1. And as illustrated on the right, we allow for evolution of the height, slope, and endpoints of the… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The inferred binary black hole primary mass distribution, when allowing the Gaussian excess at ∼ 35 M⊙ to evolve with redshift. Upper panel: The inferred primary mass distribution at z = 0.2. Green traces illustrate indi￾vidual draws from our hyperposterior, while solid black lines mark 95% credible bounds. Lower panel: The primary mass distribution inferred at z = 0.75. For comparison, the dashed black lines illust… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Inferred values of the hyperparameters char￾acterizing the mean (top), standard deviation (middle), and height (bottom) of the Gaussian peak in the black hole mass spectrum, as a function of redshift. Within each subplot, green traces mark individual hyperposterior samples, while solid and dot-dashed black curves indicate 95% credible pos￾terior bounds and medians, respectively. Cyan dashed lines analogously illustr… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the resulting constraints on the black hole primary mass distribution, at both z = 0.2 (upper subplot) and z = 0.75 (lower subplot). Solid black lines trace 95% credible posterior bounds at each redshift, while the dashed lines in the lower subplot give the 95% c…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: As in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Constraints on the power-law slope αz govern￾ing evolution of the volumetric binary black hole merger rate with redshift (top) and the peak redshift zp beyond which the merger rate turns over (bottom), each as as function of pri￾mary mass. As in Figs. 3 and 5, black li…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. The fault in our sirens: Hierarchical diagnosis of waveform systematics in Hubble-Lema\^itre constant measurements

    gr-qc 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A 5% subpopulation of high-mass, spin-precessing black hole binaries, poorly modeled by current waveforms, makes future dark-siren Hubble constant measurements unreliable, and a hierarchical variance diagnostic can de...

  2. Upper Limits on the Isotropic Gravitational-Wave Background from the first part of LIGO, Virgo, and KAGRA's fourth Observing Run

    gr-qc 2025-08 accept novelty 4.0 of 10

    No gravitational-wave background is detected in O1-O4a data; the new CBC-spectrum limit Ω_GW(25 Hz) = 2.0×10^-9 (95%) is 1.7x tighter and remains roughly 2-3x above the GWTC-4-predicted astrophysical background of 0.9×10^-9.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    cIn3 WxK0;lI-ޚra #L !Y `j՟І= n yԩq qj]3 &d4!4c0 c,ͬUӵN mm2 y[ & ˭lqC S g^UZ J pˡ5\ 2 6 x MQ' sM=9ìT:^kX ݗ&k8 6 ] iXm閧 յ^K dIz

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  5. [5]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  6. [6]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 896, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2020

  7. [7]

    2021 a , SoftwareX , 13, 100658, 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100658

    ---. 2021 a , SoftwareX , 13, 100658, 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100658

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    2021 b , Phys

    ---. 2021 b , Phys. Rev. X, 11, 021053, 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    2021 c , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 913, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe949

    ---. 2021 c , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 913, L7, 10.3847/2041-8213/abe949

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023 a , Phys. Rev. X, 13, 041039, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    2023 b , Phys

    ---. 2023 b , Phys. Rev. X, 13, 011048, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    2023 c , Astrophys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2023 c , Astrophys. J. Suppl., 267, 29, 10.3847/1538-4365/acdc9f

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    2015 doi

  6. [14]

    2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    Akutsu, T., Ando, M., Arai, K., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 5008–5021, 10.1093/mnras/stz1149

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M., & Gualandris, A. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 5008–5021, 10.1093/mnras/stz1149

    2019 doi

  8. [16]

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

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    P., Tollerud , E

    Astropy Collaboration , Robitaille , T. P., Tollerud , E. J., et al. 2013, , 558, A33, 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    M., Sip o cz , B

    Astropy Collaboration , Price-Whelan , A. M., Sip o cz , B. M., et al. 2018, , 156, 123, 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, L138–L141, 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/l138

    Belczynski, K., Dominik, M., Bulik, T., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 715, L138–L141, 10.1088/2041-8205/715/2/l138

    2010 doi

  12. [20]

    E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R

    Belczynski, K., Holz, D. E., Bulik, T., & O’Shaughnessy, R. 2016, Nature, 534, 512–515, 10.1038/nature18322

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    M., Mac Low , M.-M., McKernan , B., & Ford , K

    Bellovary , J. M., Mac Low , M.-M., McKernan , B., & Ford , K. E. S. 2016, , 819, L17, 10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L17

    2016 doi

  14. [22]

    P., Jankowiak, M., et al

    Bingham, E., Chen, J. P., Jankowiak, M., et al. 2019, J. Mach. Learn. Res., 20, 28:1. http://jmlr.org/papers/v20/18-403.html

    2019

  15. [23]

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

    Biscoveanu, S., Callister, T. A., Haster, C.-J., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 932, L19, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac71a8

    2022 doi

  16. [24]

    2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs, 0.3.13

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX : composable transformations of P ython+ N um P y programs, 0.3.13. http://github.com/google/jax

    2018

  17. [25]

    E., & Farr, W

    Callister, T., Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, W. M. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 896, L32, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab9743

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    Callister, T. A. 2024. 2410.19145

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    A., & Farr, W

    Callister, T. A., & Farr, W. M. 2023, A Parameter-Free Tour of the Binary Black Hole Population. 2302.07289

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    2024, Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing run, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14607

    Capote, E., Jia, W., Aritomi, N., et al. 2024, Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing run, arXiv, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.14607

    2024 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 5012, 10.1093/mnras/sty3087

    Chruslinska, M., Nelemans, G., & Belczynski, K. 2018, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 5012, 10.1093/mnras/sty3087

    2018 doi

  22. [30]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2891–2906, 10.1093/mnras/stad2443

    Costa, G., Mapelli, M., Iorio, G., et al. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 525, 2891–2906, 10.1093/mnras/stad2443

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Delfavero , V., Ford , K. E. S., McKernan , B., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.18815, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.18815

    2024 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    Downing , J. M. B., Benacquista , M. J., Giersz , M., & Spurzem , R. 2010, , 407, 1946, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17040.x

    2010

  25. [33]

    2011, , 416, 133, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19023.x

    ---. 2011, , 416, 133, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19023.x

    2011

  26. [34]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    Edelman, B., Farr, B., & Doctor, Z. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 946, 16, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb5ed

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al

    Farah, A. M., Edelman, B., Zevin, M., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 955, 107, 10.3847/1538-4357/aced02

    2023 doi

  28. [36]

    E., Marchant, P., & Justham, S

    Farmer, R., Renzo, M., De Mink, S. E., Marchant, P., & Justham, S. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 53, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b

    2019 doi

  29. [37]

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

    Farr, W. M., Fishbach, M., Ye, J., & Holz, D. E. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 883, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4284

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08658, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08658

    Fishbach , M. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.08658, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.08658

    2024 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 891, L27, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab7247

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    E., & Farr, B

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, B. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 840, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    E., & Farr, W

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, W. M. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, L41, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad800

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abee11

    Fishbach, M., Doctor, Z., Callister, T., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 912, 98, 10.3847/1538-4357/abee11

    2021 doi

  35. [43]

    Ford, K. E. S., & McKernan, B. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 517, 5827, 10.1093/mnras/stac2861

    2022 doi

  36. [44]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749–760, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    Gerosa, D., & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749–760, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    2021 doi

  37. [45]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Heger , A., & Woosley , S. E. 2002, Astrophys. J., 567, 532, 10.1086/338487

    2002 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 103006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103006

    Heinzel, J., Biscoveanu, S., & Vitale, S. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 103006, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103006

    2024 doi

  40. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.16844, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.16844

    Heinzel , J., Mould , M., & Vitale , S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.16844, 10.48550/arXiv.2406.16844

    2024 doi arXiv

  41. [49]

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

    2007 doi

  42. [50]

    2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4539–4555, 10.1093/mnras/stad1373

    Karathanasis, C., Mukherjee, S., & Mastrogiovanni, S. 2023, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 523, 4539–4555, 10.1093/mnras/stad1373

    2023 doi

  43. [51]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, 10.21105/joss.01143

    Kumar, R., Carroll, C., Hartikainen, A., & Martin, O. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1143, 10.21105/joss.01143

    2019 doi

  44. [52]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 2475–2495, 10.1093/mnras/staa1362

    Liu, B., & Bromm, V. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 495, 2475–2495, 10.1093/mnras/staa1362

    2020 doi

  45. [53]

    Loredo, T. J. 2004, AIP Conference Proceedings, 735, 195, 10.1063/1.1835214

    2004 doi

  46. [54]

    2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, P., & Dickinson, M. 2014, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 52, 415, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    2014 doi

  47. [55]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    Madau, P., & Fragos, T. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 840, 39, 10.3847/1538-4357/aa6af9

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    2024, Predictions of a simple parametric model of hierarchical black hole mergers

    Mahapatra, P., Chattopadhyay, D., Gupta, A., et al. 2024, Predictions of a simple parametric model of hierarchical black hole mergers. 2209.05766

    2024 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 486, 1086, 10.1093/mnras/stz896

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    Mapelli, M., Bouffanais, Y., Santoliquido, F., Arca Sedda, M., & Artale, M. C. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 511, 5797, 10.1093/mnras/stac422

    2022 doi

  51. [59]

    Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., Santoliquido, F., & Artale, M. C. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 2, 10.1093/mnras/stz1150

    2019 doi

  52. [60]

    2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 339, 10.1093/mnras/stab1334

    Mapelli, M., Dall’Amico, M., Bouffanais, Y., et al. 2021, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 505, 339, 10.1093/mnras/stab1334

    2021 doi

  53. [61]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.062009

    Mastrogiovanni, S., Leyde, K., Karathanasis, C., et al. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.062009

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Lyra, W., & Perets, H. B. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 425, 460, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21486.x

    2012

  55. [63]

    2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    2019 arXiv

  56. [64]

    F., & McMillan, S

    Portegies Zwart, S. F., & McMillan, S. L. W. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 528, L17, 10.1086/312422

    2000 doi

  57. [65]

    M., Mohite , S., Creighton , J., & Kapadia , S

    Ray , A., Hernandez , I. M., Mohite , S., Creighton , J., & Kapadia , S. 2023, , 957, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/acf452

    2023 doi

  58. [66]

    2024, A&A, 684, A204, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348161

    Rinaldi, S., Del Pozzo, W., Mapelli, M., Lorenzo-Medina, A., & Dent, T. 2024, A&A, 684, A204, 10.1051/0004-6361/202348161

    2024 doi

  59. [67]

    L., Morscher , M., Pattabiraman , B., et al

    Rodriguez , C. L., Morscher , M., Pattabiraman , B., et al. 2015, , 115, 051101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.051101

    2015 doi

  60. [68]

    2024, Astrophys

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

    2024 doi

  61. [69]

    2025, In preparation

    Sadiq , J., Dent , T., & Lorenzo , A. 2025, In preparation

    2025

  62. [70]

    2020, , 898, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b78

    Santoliquido , F., Mapelli , M., Bouffanais , Y., et al. 2020, , 898, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b78

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    C., Metzger , B

    Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., & Haiman , Z. 2017, , 464, 946, 10.1093/mnras/stw2260

    2017 doi

  64. [72]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c

    Talbot, C., & Thrane, E. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 856, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c

    2018 doi

  65. [73]

    A., & Kinugawa, T

    Tanikawa, A., Susa, H., Yoshida, T., Trani, A. A., & Kinugawa, T. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 30, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40d

    2021 doi

  66. [74]

    R., & Gerosa, D

    Taylor, S. R., & Gerosa, D. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083017

    2018 doi

  67. [75]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a

    Tiwari, V. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 928, 155, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a

    2022 doi

  68. [76]

    2024, Hierarchical binary black hole mergers in globular clusters: mass function and evolution with redshift

    Torniamenti, S., Mapelli, M., Périgois, C., et al. 2024, Hierarchical binary black hole mergers in globular clusters: mass function and evolution with redshift. 2401.14837

    2024 arXiv

  69. [77]

    2015, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 610, 012021, 10.1088/1742-6596/610/1/012021

    Vallisneri, M., Kanner, J., Williams, R., Weinstein, A., & Stephens, B. 2015, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 610, 012021, 10.1088/1742-6596/610/1/012021

    2015 doi

  70. [78]

    van Son, L. A. C., de Mink, S. E., Callister, T., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 17, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac64a3

    2022 doi

  71. [79]

    van Son , L. A. C., Roy , S. K., Mandel , I., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2411.02484, 10.48550/arXiv.2411.02484

    2024 doi arXiv

  72. [80]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    2020 doi

  73. [81]

    M., & Taylor, S

    Vitale, S., Gerosa, D., Farr, W. M., & Taylor, S. R. 2020, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer Singapore). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_45-1

    2020 doi

  74. [82]

    Wong , K. W. K., Breivik , K., Kremer , K., & Callister , T. 2021, , 103, 083021, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.083021

    2021 doi

  75. [83]

    E., & Heger, A

    Woosley, S. E., & Heger, A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 912, L31, 10.3847/2041-8213/abf2c4

    2021 doi

  76. [84]

    S., & Fishbach, M

    Ye, C. S., & Fishbach, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 967, 62, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad3ba8

    2024 doi

  77. [85]

    Zevin, M., & Holz, D. E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 935, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac853d

    2022 doi

  78. [86]

    S., Berry, C

    Zevin, M., Bavera, S. S., Berry, C. P. L., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 910, 152, 10.3847/1538-4357/abe40e

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.