Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 1 minor 74 references

Reconstructing Critical Current Density in Josephson Junctions with Phase Non-linearity

T0 review · 3 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the standard Dynes-Fulton reconstruction of critical current density in Josephson junctions is invalid for nonlinear phase distributions, and that a simple iterative algorithm with prior knowledge fixes it.

desk verdict The submitted full text is an unrelated astrophysics paper, so the abstract's claims about Dynes-Fulton breakdown and iterative reconstruction are completely unverifiable; send it back to the authors. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.06007 v1 pith:APPS6TDG submitted 2025-08-08 cond-mat.supr-con cond-mat.mes-hall

A. Kudriashov , R. A. Hovhannisyan , X. Zhou , L. Elesin , L. V. Yashina , K. S. Novoselov , D. A. Bandurin This is my paper
classification cond-mat.supr-concond-mat.mes-hall PACS 74.50.+r
keywords criticalcurrentdensityJosephsonjunctionsinterferencepatternsDynes-Fultonanalysisphasenon-linearityiterativereconstructioninverseproblemsuperconductingdevices
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 claims that the standard Dynes-Fulton analysis, commonly used to recover the critical current density from interference patterns, breaks down in Josephson junctions with nonlinear phase distributions, producing non-physical artifacts. It proposes a simple iterative reconstruction that incorporates prior knowledge about the system, and reports validation both numerically and experimentally using a planar Josephson junction model. If correct, many existing junction measurements may need re-analysis, and the inherent ambiguity of this inverse problem becomes controllable. This reading is based on the abstract; the supplied body text belongs to an unrelated paper, so the algorithmic and experimental details could not be checked.

What carries the argument

The Dynes-Fulton analysis is the standard Fourier-type inversion that assumes a linear phase ramp, $\varphi(x,B) \propto xB$, so the interference pattern is the magnitude of a Fourier transform of $J_c(x)$. The paper's replacement is an iterative reconstruction that treats the phase as nonlinear and injects prior knowledge (such as smoothness, positivity, or known junction geometry) to select a unique profile among the many that fit the measured $I_c(B)$. The iterations update $J_c$ until the predicted interference pattern matches the measurement within error.

What would settle it

Take a junction with a known $J_c(x)$ and a deliberately nonlinear $\varphi(x,B)$, simulate $I_c(B)$, then run the iterative algorithm from different initial guesses and with different priors. If the recovered profiles differ substantially or miss the known $J_c(x)$ while still matching $I_c(B)$ to within noise, the ambiguity has not been resolved; alternatively, compare the algorithm's recovered profile to a direct local measurement of $J_c(x)$ in the same planar junction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In Josephson junctions, the spatial profile of the critical current is usually extracted from the magnetic-field dependence of the critical current, $I_c(B) = |\int J_c(x) e^{i\varphi(x,B)} dx|$, via the Dynes-Fulton inversion. The authors contend that when the phase $\varphi(x,B)$ is not linear in $x$—as in junctions with screening, nonuniform fields, or complex geometry—this standard analysis yields reconstructed profiles that are artifacts rather than the true $J_c(x)$. Their replacement is a simple iterative algorithm that alternates forward prediction of the interference pattern with updated estimates of $J_c(x)$, using prior knowledge to select among the many profiles consistent with t

Load-bearing premise

The result stands or falls on whether the prior information built into the iterative algorithm enriches rather than determines the recovered profile, and on whether the planar-junction test reproduces the nonlinear-phase conditions of real devices; the supplied text does not contain the derivation or the experimental comparison.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing junction measurements with nonlinear phases may contain spurious features; re-analysis with the iterative method could remove them.
  • The method extends to junctions where screening currents or nonuniform applied fields make the linear-phase assumption untenable.
  • Because prior knowledge is built into the reconstruction, the choice of prior becomes a stated, testable part of the result rather than an implicit assumption.
  • Planar junctions provide a practical benchmark: when the true profile is independently known, they can validate any reconstruction method.
  • Recovered critical current profiles can be used to locate weak or inhomogeneous spots in superconducting devices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the inverse problem is ambiguous, the output of the algorithm is selected by the prior; comparing reconstructions under different priors would quantify how much of the profile is measured versus assumed.
  • The same iterative, prior-informed strategy may transfer to other Fourier-magnitude reconstruction problems, such as phase retrieval in optics, where nonlinear phase terms create analogous artifacts.
  • For junctions with strong screening, the phase itself depends on $J_c(x)$, forming a self-consistency loop; an extension would iterate the phase and the profile together.
  • Applied to SQUID arrays or stacked junctions, the approach could map current inhomogeneities across multi-junction devices from a single field-sweep pattern.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper, as identified by its abstract (arXiv:2508.06007, cond-mat.supr-con), claims that the standard Dynes-Fulton analysis for reconstructing the critical current density J_c(x) from Josephson junction interference patterns breaks down when the phase distribution is nonlinear, producing non-physical artifacts. The abstract further claims that a 'simple iterative reconstruction algorithm' incorporating prior knowledge resolves the fundamental ambiguity of the inverse problem, and that this algorithm was validated numerically and experimentally on a planar Josephson junction model. However, the supplied full text is not the manuscript described in the abstract: it is the body of arXiv:2508.06020, an astrophysics paper on Galactic r-process enrichment. None of the superconductivity content—the Dynes-Fulton derivation, the iterative update rule, the numerical tests, or the experimental comparison—is present. The central claims of the abstract are therefore unverifiable from the submitted material.

Significance. If the abstract's claims were substantiated, the paper would address a real issue in scanning SQUID/SQUID microscopy reconstructions of J_c(x), where the standard Fourier/Hilbert-transform-based inversion assumes a linear phase profile; nonlinear phase distributions are known in certain junction geometries and could indeed induce artifacts. The proposed iterative algorithm with controllable priors would also be a useful contribution to an ill-posed inverse problem. These potential contributions, however, cannot be evaluated because the manuscript body does not contain the relevant derivation, algorithm specification, or validation. There is no reproducible code, no machine-checked proof, and no parameter-free derivation in the submitted text. As it stands, the submission provides only an unsubstantiated abstract appended to an unrelated paper, so no positive assessment of technical soundness, novelty, or physical correctness is possible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The entire body of the submitted manuscript is the text of arXiv:2508.06020, 'Mergers Fall Short: Non-merger Channels Required for Galactic Heavy Element Production', an astrophysics paper by a completely different set of authors. There is no derivation of the claimed Dynes-Fulton breakdown, no statement of the iterative reconstruction algorithm, no figures or error metrics for numerical tests, and no experimental methods or results. Every load-bearing element of the abstract—the breakdown claim, the algorithm, the validation—is absent. This is not a presentation issue but the absence of the paper itself; the central claim is unverifiable.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states that the inverse problem of reconstructing J_c(x) is 'fundamentally ambiguous' and that the proposed method allows 'incorporating prior knowledge about the system.' In an ill-posed inverse problem, the output is selected by the prior. The manuscript provides no argument that the injected prior enriches rather than fully determines the reconstruction, nor does it specify what prior is used, how its strength is set, or how the recovered profile depends on prior choices. Without this information, the claim that the algorithm 'reconstructs' rather than 'constructs' the physical J_c(x) is unsupported. This concern would remain even if the correct full text were supplied; it must be addressed in any revision.
  3. [Abstract] The abstract says the algorithm was 'validated both numerically and experimentally using a planar Josephson junction model,' but the submitted text contains no comparison of a recovered J_c(x) against a known ground truth, no description of the fabricated junction, no measurement details, and no residuals or uncertainty quantification. In an inverse problem that the abstract itself calls ambiguous, validation against independently known profiles is essential to distinguish reconstruction from construction. Its complete absence makes the validation claim uncheckable.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract's wording 'conventional approaches based on the logarithmic Hilbert transform' is vague; the standard Dynes-Fulton method is usually expressed as a Fourier inversion of the interference pattern. A precise mathematical statement of the standard method and its nonlinear-phase failure mode is needed in any future version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity can be established from the supplied material; the claimed superconductivity paper's full text is absent, so no derivation chain can be inspected and no reduction of a result to its inputs can be exhibited.

full rationale

The abstract for arXiv:2508.06007 claims that the standard Dynes-Fulton analysis breaks down for Josephson junctions with nonlinear phase distributions and that a simple iterative reconstruction algorithm, validated numerically and experimentally, resolves the fundamental ambiguity in reconstructing the critical current density from interference patterns. However, the supplied full text is arXiv:2508.06020, an unrelated astrophysics paper on Galactic r-process enrichment, so the methods, derivations, numerical tests, and experimental comparisons that would be needed to assess circularity are entirely absent. Without the actual equations or the description of how prior knowledge is injected and how the validation ground truth was obtained, no specific reduction can be quoted or exhibited. The abstract's statement that the algorithm 'allows for incorporating prior knowledge about the system and addresses the fundamental issue of ambiguity' raises a legitimate concern that, in an ill-posed inverse problem, the prior may select the answer; but this is a potential risk, not a demonstrated circularity, and the instructions require quoting the paper and exhibiting the specific reduction. Consequently, the honest finding is no significant circularity in the material available, with the caveat that the central claim is currently unverifiable due to the mismatch between the abstract and the supplied body text.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

With only the abstract available, this audit is skeletal. The central uncharged input is the prior knowledge the algorithm injects: the abstract itself states the inverse problem is fundamentally ambiguous, so the prior selects the reconstruction, and its justification cannot be assessed without the methods section. The forward model of the interference pattern and the representativeness of the planar junction validation are standard domain assumptions but unstated in detail. No new entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced. Notably, the full text supplied for review is an unrelated astrophysics paper, so no methods details are available to audit.

free parameters (1)
  • Prior knowledge / regularization in the iterative reconstruction = unspecified (not in abstract)
    The abstract says the algorithm 'allows for incorporating prior knowledge.' In an inverse problem the abstract itself calls fundamentally ambiguous, that prior selects the reconstruction. Its form, strength, and source are not stated in the abstract and determine the output.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The junction's interference pattern (critical current vs. magnetic field) is described by a Fourier-type relation between the spatial current density profile and the applied field, with a phase distribution that can be nonlinear.
    This model underlies both the Dynes-Fulton analysis being criticized and the proposed reconstruction; the abstract takes it as the framework but provides no derivation.
  • domain assumption A single measured interference pattern is insufficient to fix the current density profile, so prior knowledge must be injected to disambiguate the solution.
    The abstract asserts 'the fundamental issue of ambiguity in reconstructing the critical current density from interference patterns,' which is the mathematical premise motivating the iterative algorithm.
  • domain assumption The planar Josephson junction model used for validation is representative of junctions with nonlinear phase distributions.
    The abstract states validation on 'a planar Josephson junction model' without stating how general the nonlinear-phase regime is or how the experimental ground truth for the current density was obtained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reconstructing Critical Current Density in Josephson Junctions with Phase Non-linearity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/APPS6TDG

@misc{pith2026250806007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reconstructing Critical Current Density in Josephson Junctions with Phase Non-linearity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/APPS6TDG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.06007}
}
read the original abstract

In this Letter, we show that the standard Dynes-Fulton analysis, commonly used to reconstruct the critical current density from interference patterns, breaks down in Josephson junctions with nonlinear phase distributions, leading to non-physical artifacts. To address this, we developed a simple iterative reconstruction algorithm and validated it both numerically and experimentally using a planar Josephson junction model. Unlike conventional approaches based on the logarithmic Hilbert transform, the proposed method allows for incorporating prior knowledge about the system and addresses the fundamental issue of ambiguity in reconstructing the critical current density from interference patterns.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    What is the coherent theoretical framework that explains why fast-merging BNSs form significantly more efficiently than delayed systems across the Milky Way history?

    work page

  2. [2]

    Even if high-redshift hosts of sGRBs are missed, why do nearby sGRBs predominantly exhibit long delay times, in apparent contradiction with the presence of a large fast-merging population?

    work page

  3. [3]

    If instead fast-merging BNSs do not produce ob- servable sGRBs, but do synthesize substantial quantities ofr-process elements (possibly accom- panied by significant amount of kilonovae), what distinguishes their counterpart production mecha- nisms from those of delayed BNS mergers?

    work page

  4. [4]

    This poses a substantial challenge to constructing a consistent theoretical framework

    If a large number of fast-merging BNSs exist that are not detectable in GWs, why have current GW search pipelines—both modeled and unmod- eled [68]—not identified nearby events with high signal-to-noise ratios, especially given that some of these should be detectable even if existing wave- form models are suboptimal? We emphasize that, although the fast-m...

    work page

  5. [5]

    E. M. Burbidge, G. R. Burbidge, W. A. Fowler, and F. Hoyle, Rev. Mod. Phys.29, 547 (1957)

    1957

  6. [6]

    A. G. W. Cameron, PASP69, 201 (1957)

    work page 1957

  7. [7]

    J. J. Cowan, C. Sneden, J. E. Lawler, A. Aprahamian, M. Wiescher, K. Langanke, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and F.-K. Thielemann, Rev. Mod. Phys.93, 15002 (2021), arXiv:1901.01410 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    D. M. Siegel, Nature Rev. Phys.4, 306 (2022)

    work page 2022

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    J. M. Lattimer and D. N. Schramm, ApJ192, L145 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    Eichler, M

    D. Eichler, M. Livio, T. Piran, and D. N. Schramm, Nature340, 126 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    Freiburghaus, S

    C. Freiburghaus, S. Rosswog, and F. K. Thielemann, ApJ525, L121 (1999)

    1999

  4. [12]

    B. P. e. a. L. S. C. Abbott and V. Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRA WITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group...

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kasen, B

    D. Kasen, B. D. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Nature551, 80 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Rosswog, ApJ634, 1202 (2005)

    S. Rosswog, ApJ634, 1202 (2005)

    2005

  8. [16]

    Kyutoku, K

    K. Kyutoku, K. Ioka, H. Okawa, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D92, 044028 (2015)

    2015

  9. [17]

    C. e. a. Winteler, ApJ750, L22 (2012)

    2012

  10. [18]

    Nishimura, T

    N. Nishimura, T. Takiwaki, and F.-K. Thielemann, ApJ 810, 109 (2015). 8 FIG. 4.Current GW searches can detect fast-merging BNSs.Diagonal panels show marginalized posteriors (medians and 68% credible intervals); off-diagonal panels show joint posteriors (filled credible regions...

    2015

  11. [19]

    D. M. Siegel, J. Barnes, and B. D. Metzger, Nature569, 241 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Cehula, T

    J. Cehula, T. A. Thompson, and B. D. Met- zger, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.528, 5323 (2024), arXiv:2311.05681 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Patel, B

    A. Patel, B. D. Metzger, J. Cehula, E. Burns, J. A. Gold- berg, and T. A. Thompson, Astrophys. J. Lett.984, L29 (2025), arXiv:2501.09181 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    B. e. a. Cˆ ot´ e, ApJ875, 106 (2019)

    2019

  15. [23]

    Hotokezaka, P

    K. Hotokezaka, P. Beniamini, and T. Piran, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D27, 1842005 (2018), arXiv:1801.01141 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  16. [24]

    van de Voort, E

    F. van de Voort, E. Quataert, P. F. Hopkins, D. Kereˇ s, and C.-A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society447, 140 (2015), arXiv:1407.7039 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cescutti, D

    G. Cescutti, D. Romano, F. Matteucci, C. Chiappini, and R. Hirschi, Astronomy & Astrophysics577, A139 (2015), arXiv:1503.02954 [astro-ph.GA]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Kobayashi, A

    C. Kobayashi, A. I. Karakas, and M. Lugaro, Astrophys- ical Journal900, 179 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    van de Voort, R

    F. van de Voort, R. Pakmor, R. Bieri, and R. J. J. Grand, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.512, 5258 (2022), arXiv:2110.11963 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Kobayashiet al., Astrophys

    C. Kobayashiet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.943, L12 (2023), arXiv:2211.04964 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. N. Kolborg, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, D. Martizzi, P. Macias, and M. Soares-Furtado, Astrophys. J.949, 100 (2023), arXiv:2304.01144 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Bonetti, A

    M. Bonetti, A. Perego, M. Dotti, and G. Cescutti, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.490, 296 (2019), arXiv:1905.12016 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Zevin, K

    M. Zevin, K. Kremer, D. M. Siegel, S. Coughlin, B. T. H. Tsang, C. P. L. Berry, and V. Kalogera, (2019), 10.3847/1538-4357/ab498b, arXiv:1906.11299 [astro-ph.HE]. 9 FIG. 5.Current GW searches miss fast-merging BNSs.Diagonal panels show marginalized posteriors (medians and 68% ...

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Sk´ ulad´ ottir, C

    ´A. Sk´ ulad´ ottir, C. J. Hansen, S. Salvadori, and A. Choplin, Astronomy & Astrophysics631, A171 (2019), arXiv:1908.10729 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    R. P. Naiduet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.926, L36 (2022), arXiv:2110.14652 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    J. D. Simon, T. M. Brown, B. Mutlu-Pakdil, A. P. Ji, A. Drlica-Wagner, R. J. Avila, C. E. Mart ´ ınez-V´ azquez, T. S. Li, E. Balbinot, K. Bechtol, A. Frebel, M. Geha, T. T. Hansen, D. J. James, A. B. Pace, M. Aguena, O. Alves, F. Andrade-Oliveira, J. Annis, D. Bacon, E. Berti...

    2023 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E. N. Kirby, A. P. Ji, and M. Kovalev, Astrophys. J. 958, 45 (2023), arXiv:2308.10980 [astro-ph.SR]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Sneden, J

    C. Sneden, J. J. Cowan, and R. Gallino, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics46, 241 (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    Frebel, Astronomische Nachrichten331, 474 (2010), arXiv:1006.2419 [astro-ph.GA]

    A. Frebel, Astronomische Nachrichten331, 474 (2010), arXiv:1006.2419 [astro-ph.GA]

    2010 arXiv

  30. [38]

    M. Cain, A. Frebel, A. P. Ji, V. M. Placco, R. Ezzeddine, I. U. Roederer, K. Hattori, T. C. Beers, J. Mel´ endez, T. T. Hansen, and C. M. Sakari, Astrophys. J.898, 40 (2020), arXiv:2006.08080 [astro-ph.SR]. 10 FIG. 6.NSBH Mergers as a Secondary Channel.Diagonal panels show mar...

    2020

  31. [39]

    H.-Y. Chen, P. Landry, J. S. Read, and D. M. Siegel, Astrophys. J.985, 154 (2025), arXiv:2402.03696 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    P. C. Peters, Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964)

    1964

  33. [41]

    Beniamini and T

    P. Beniamini and T. Piran, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 487, 4847 (2019), arXiv:1903.11614 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    D. M. Siegel, J. Barnes, and B. D. Metzger, Nature569, 241 (2019), arXiv:1810.00098 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Madau and T

    P. Madau and T. Fragos, Astrophys. J.840, 39 (2017), arXiv:1606.07887 [astro-ph.GA]

    2017 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Zevin, A

    M. Zevin, A. E. Nugent, S. Adhikari, W.-f. Fong, D. E. Holz, and L. Z. Kelley, Astrophys. J. Lett.940, L18 (2022), arXiv:2206.02814 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

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

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

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Legred, K

    I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, and P. Landry, Phys. Rev. D104, 063003 (2021), arXiv:2106.05313 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. J. Kr¨ uger and F. Foucart, Phys. Rev. D101, 103002 (2020), arXiv:2002.07728 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  41. [49]

    G. E. Duggan, E. N. Kirby, S. M. Andrievsky, and S. A. Korotin, The Astrophysical Journal869(2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    Tarumi, K

    Y. Tarumi, K. Hotokezaka, and P. Beniamini, Astro- phys. J. Lett.913, L30 (2021), arXiv:2102.03368 [astro- ph.GA]

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Samsinget al., Phys

    J. Samsinget al., Phys. Rev. D97, 103014 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    C. L. Rodriguezet al., Phys. Rev. D98, 123005 (2018)

    2018

  45. [53]

    Vigna-G´ omezet al., Mon

    A. Vigna-G´ omezet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481, 4009 (2018), arXiv:1805.07974 [astro-ph.SR]

    2018 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Foucart, T

    F. Foucart, T. Hinderer, and S. Nissanke, Phys. Rev. D 98, 081501 (2018), arXiv:1807.00011 [astro-ph.HE]. 11 FIG. 7. Sensitivity to the star-formation history (SFR model). We compare the main analysis that adopts the cosmic SFR (solid curves) with a constant-SFR as an extreme ...

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Mapelli, N

    M. Mapelli, N. Giacobbo, M. Toffano, E. Ripamonti, A. Bressan, M. Spera, and M. Branchesi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.481, 5324 (2018), arXiv:1809.03521 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Battistini and T

    C. Battistini and T. Bensby, Astronomy & Astrophysics 586, A49 (2016), arXiv:1511.00966 [astro-ph.SR]

    2016 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A. J. Deason and V. Belokurov, New Astronomy Reviews 99, 101706 (2024)

    2024

  50. [58]

    J. T. Mackereth, R. P. Schiavon, J. Pfeffer, C. R. Hayes, J. Bovy, B. Anguiano, C. Allende Prieto, S. Has- selquist, J. Holtzman, J. A. Johnson, S. R. Majewski, R. O’Connell, M. Shetrone, P. B. Tissera, and J. G. Fern´ andez-Trincado, Monthly Notices of the Royal As- tronomica...

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Khoperskov, I

    S. Khoperskov, I. Minchev, N. Libeskind, M. Haywood, P. Di Matteo, V. Belokurov, M. Steinmetz, F. A. Gomez, R. J. J. Grand, Y. Hoffman, A. Knebe, J. G. Sorce, M. Spaare, E. Tempel, and M. Vogelsberger, Astron- omy & Astrophysics677, A89 (2023), arXiv:2206.04521 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  52. [60]

    de Brito Silva, P

    D. de Brito Silva, P. Jofr´ e, C. Worley, K. Hawkins, and P. Das, Astronomy & Astrophysics690, A120 (2024), arXiv:2407.18851 [astro-ph.GA]

    2024 arXiv

  53. [61]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collab- oration, the KAGRA Collaboration (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  54. [62]

    H.-Y. Chen, S. Vitale, and F. Foucart, Astrophys. J. Lett.920, L3 (2021), arXiv:2107.02714 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  55. [63]

    J. S. Speagle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society493, 3132 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Ashton, M

    G. Ashton, M. Huebner, P. D. Lasky,et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Samsing, M

    J. Samsing, M. MacLeod, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, Astro- phys. J.784, 71 (2014), arXiv:1308.2964 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  58. [66]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Fragione, E

    G. Fragione, E. Grishin, N. W. C. Leigh, H. B. Perets, and R. Perna, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.488, 47 (2019), arXiv:1811.10627 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  60. [68]

    S. V. Chaurasia, T. Dietrich, N. K. Johnson-McDaniel, M. Ujevic, W. Tichy, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104005 (2018), arXiv:1807.06857 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    G. Huez, S. Bernuzzi, M. Breschi, and R. Gamba, (2025), arXiv:2504.18622 [gr-qc]

    2025

  62. [70]

    Belczynskiet al., (2018), arXiv:1812.10065 [astro- ph.HE]

    K. Belczynskiet al., (2018), arXiv:1812.10065 [astro- ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Giacobbo and M

    N. Giacobbo and M. Mapelli, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.480, 2011 (2018), arXiv:1806.00001 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18081 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  65. [73]

    L. J. Papenfort, R. Gold, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 98, 104028 (2018)

    2018

  66. [74]

    Foucart, M

    F. Foucart, M. D. Duez, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D110, 024003 (2024), arXiv:2404.18674 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.