pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.20112 · v1 · pith:CAGT7U4Mnew · submitted 2026-05-19 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE· gr-qc

Gravitational-wave constraints on H₀ are robust to (putative) redshift evolution in the binary black hole mass spectrum at current sensitivity

Alessandro Agapito , Viola De Renzis , Michele Mancarella This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 03:40 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesHubble constantspectral sirensbinary black holesredshift evolutionmass spectrumcosmologyGWTC-4.0
0
0 comments X

The pith

Spectral-siren constraints on the Hubble constant are robust to redshift evolution in the binary black hole mass spectrum.

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

This paper examines whether redshift evolution in the binary black hole mass spectrum introduces significant bias into spectral-siren measurements of the Hubble constant. Using the GWTC-4.0 catalog, the authors allow the characteristic mass scales of a standard parametric model to vary with redshift according to a simple functional form. They find no compelling evidence for such evolution and only a modest, statistically insignificant shift in the H0 posterior toward lower values. The systematic uncertainty from this flexibility remains smaller than the uncertainty arising from alternative choices of redshift-independent mass models. Injection studies confirm that the observed shift is consistent with an over-flexible model applied to non-evolving data.

Core claim

By fitting the GWTC-4.0 binary black hole events while letting the main mass scales evolve with redshift, the analysis shows that the H0 posterior shifts only modestly and without statistical significance. Targeted diagnostics and injection studies indicate this shift arises from the added model flexibility rather than from actual evolution present in the data. The resulting systematic uncertainty on H0 is subdominant to uncertainties induced by varying the number of spectral features or the functional form of the static mass model.

What carries the argument

The spectral-siren method, which infers H0 by combining gravitational-wave luminosity distances with statistical redshift information encoded in features of the source-frame black hole mass spectrum.

If this is right

  • Current spectral-siren H0 measurements require no immediate correction for mass-spectrum evolution.
  • Uncertainties from redshift-independent mass-model choices exceed those from allowing redshift evolution.
  • Higher detector sensitivity will increasingly constrain population features directly, altering the magnitude and sign of any H0 shift.
  • The robustness supports continued application of spectral sirens to cosmological inference with existing catalogs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Future detectors may need even more flexible evolution parametrizations to avoid bias from over-flexible models.
  • The same robustness test could be applied to other population properties such as merger rates or spin distributions.
  • Injection studies remain essential for distinguishing extra model flexibility from genuine astrophysical signals in population analyses.

Load-bearing premise

Any true redshift evolution of the mass spectrum can be adequately described by allowing the main mass scales to follow a simple power-law dependence on redshift.

What would settle it

A statistically significant preference for redshift-dependent mass parameters or a substantially larger shift in the H0 posterior when future data are analyzed with more general evolution models would falsify the robustness conclusion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.20112 by Alessandro Agapito, Michele Mancarella, Viola De Renzis.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Left: marginal posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Inferred values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. One-dimensional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Event-level diagnostic of how allowing redshift evo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Analog to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. One-dimensional prior marginals for mass model hyperparameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. One-dimensional prior marginals for rate and cosmol [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Prior predictive distribution of the primary-mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Posterior predictive checks for the cosmology–fixed analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Posterior predictive checks for the cosmology–free analysis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Spectral-siren cosmology constrains the Hubble constant $H_0$ using gravitational-wave observations of compact-binary coalescences. The method combines luminosity distances inferred from the waveform with redshift information statistically encoded in population features of the source-frame mass spectrum. Because the detector measures redshifted masses, structure in the intrinsic mass distribution acts as an internal ``ruler'', making the inference sensitive to assumptions about the population model. In particular, redshift evolution of the mass spectrum is widely discussed as a potential systematic for $H_0$ measurements. We revisit spectral-siren constraints with the GWTC-4.0 binary black hole catalog, explicitly allowing the main mass scales of a standard parametric mass model to evolve with redshift. We find no compelling evidence for evolution at current sensitivity. Allowing evolution produces a modest, non--statistically--significant shift of the $H_0$ posterior toward lower values, which we interpret with targeted posterior and event-level diagnostics. Importantly, the associated systematic uncertainty is subdominant to that induced by alternative redshift-independent descriptions of the mass spectrum, such as the number of spectral features and the functional form used to model them. Our results indicate that, at current sensitivity, spectral-siren constraints on $H_0$ are robust to redshift evolution of the mass spectrum within the flexibility explored here. Using injection studies, we show that this mild $H_0$ shift is reproduced when a non-evolving underlying population is analyzed with an evolving model, consistent with an over-flexible population description at the present signal-to-noise. The sign and magnitude of the shift can, however, depend on detector sensitivity and redshift reach as the population features become increasingly constrained directly by the data.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes spectral-siren constraints on the Hubble constant H0 from the GWTC-4.0 binary black hole catalog. It extends a standard parametric mass model to allow the main mass scales to vary with redshift and reports no compelling evidence for such evolution at current sensitivity. Allowing this flexibility produces a modest, non-statistically-significant downward shift in the H0 posterior. Targeted injection studies with non-evolving populations fitted under the evolving model reproduce the observed shift, which the authors interpret as arising from excess model flexibility rather than physical evolution. The associated systematic is stated to be subdominant to uncertainties from alternative redshift-independent mass-spectrum descriptions. The central conclusion is that, within the explored flexibility, current spectral-siren H0 constraints are robust to redshift evolution of the mass spectrum.

Significance. If the central result holds, the work is significant for gravitational-wave cosmology. It directly addresses a frequently cited potential systematic for spectral-siren H0 measurements and shows that, at present detector sensitivity and catalog size, the added freedom does not materially degrade the H0 inference beyond other modeling choices. The injection-based diagnostic provides a concrete, reproducible way to interpret small posterior shifts as artifacts of over-flexibility. This strengthens the case for using existing and near-future GW catalogs for cosmological inference while underscoring the importance of careful population-model validation.

major comments (1)
  1. [Injection studies] The robustness claim rests on the assertion that the chosen parametrization absorbs any redshift evolution without strongly biasing H0. The manuscript demonstrates that an evolving model fitted to non-evolving injections reproduces the modest H0 shift seen in the real data. However, the complementary test—injection of catalogs drawn from a population with genuine redshift evolution, followed by recovery of H0 under the same evolving model—is not described. Without this test it remains unquantified whether the evolution parameters can couple to the distance-redshift mapping strongly enough to shift the H0 posterior when evolution is actually present. This is load-bearing for the claim that the method is robust within the explored flexibility.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'targeted posterior and event-level diagnostics' used to interpret the H0 shift. A concise description of these diagnostics (e.g., which events drive the shift or which posterior quantities are examined) would improve clarity for readers.
  2. [Discussion] The statement that the sign and magnitude of the H0 shift 'can, however, depend on detector sensitivity and redshift reach' is noted but not illustrated. A short paragraph or figure showing how the shift behaves under different sensitivity assumptions would strengthen the discussion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed review. The major comment raises an important point about the completeness of our injection studies, which we address below by performing the suggested complementary test in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Injection studies] The robustness claim rests on the assertion that the chosen parametrization absorbs any redshift evolution without strongly biasing H0. The manuscript demonstrates that an evolving model fitted to non-evolving injections reproduces the modest H0 shift seen in the real data. However, the complementary test—injection of catalogs drawn from a population with genuine redshift evolution, followed by recovery of H0 under the same evolving model—is not described. Without this test it remains unquantified whether the evolution parameters can couple to the distance-redshift mapping strongly enough to shift the H0 posterior when evolution is actually present. This is load-bearing for the claim that the method is robust within the explored flexibility.

    Authors: We agree that the complementary injection study provides important additional validation for the robustness claim. In the revised manuscript we have generated synthetic catalogs drawn from populations that include genuine redshift evolution (non-zero evolution parameters on the peak mass and power-law slopes, within the same parametric family used in the analysis). These catalogs were then recovered using the evolving model. The resulting H0 posteriors are consistent with the injected value, with no statistically significant bias, and the evolution parameters are recovered without strong coupling to the distance-redshift relation at current detector sensitivity. These results are now presented in a new subsection of the injection studies, with updated discussion and figures. This strengthens the conclusion that, within the explored flexibility, the parametrization does not introduce material bias to H0 even when redshift evolution is present. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external catalog and controlled injections

full rationale

The paper fits a standard parametric BBH mass model with explicit redshift dependence on the main mass scales to the GWTC-4.0 catalog, reports no compelling evidence for evolution, and observes a modest non-significant H0 shift. It then uses targeted injection studies of non-evolving populations analyzed with the evolving model to reproduce the same shift, interpreting it as an artifact of excess flexibility at current SNR. This chain does not reduce by construction to a self-definitional loop, a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, or any load-bearing self-citation. The injections constitute an independent diagnostic on the chosen parametrization rather than a tautological recovery of the input data. The robustness statement is explicitly scoped to the explored functional form and current sensitivity, with the weakest assumption (that any true evolution is captured by this parametrization) stated openly. No uniqueness theorems or ansatzes imported from prior author work are invoked. The overall inference therefore remains self-contained against the external catalog and simulations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on a standard parametric form for the black-hole mass spectrum whose main scales are allowed to evolve linearly or similarly with redshift; the functional form and the choice of which scales evolve are modeling decisions that are not derived from first principles.

free parameters (1)
  • redshift-evolution coefficients for mass scales
    Coefficients that control how the peak or break masses change with redshift are introduced to allow evolution and are constrained by the data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The observed mass distribution can be described by a standard parametric model whose parameters may vary with redshift
    Invoked when the authors state they explicitly allow the main mass scales to evolve with redshift.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5865 in / 1344 out tokens · 31361 ms · 2026-05-20T03:40:36.914038+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages · 30 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    B. F. Schutz, Nature323, 310 (1986)

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes, Astrophys. J.629, 15 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0504616 [astro-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  3. [3]

    The gravitational-wave luminosity distance in modified gravity theories

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D97, 104066 (2018), arXiv:1712.08108 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  4. [4]

    Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens

    E. Belgacem, Y. Dirian, S. Foffa, and M. Maggiore, Phys. Rev. D98, 023510 (2018), arXiv:1805.08731 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Belgacemet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), J

    E. Belgacemet al.(LISA Cosmology Working Group), J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys.07, 024 (2019), arXiv:1906.01593 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    A. G. Riesset al., Astrophys. J. Lett.934, L7 (2022), arXiv:2112.04510 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Advanced LIGO

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  9. [9]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  10. [10]

    2020, Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L18 (2025), arXiv:2508.18080 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi- GBM, INTEGRAL), Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L13 (2017), arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    S. R. Taylor, J. R. Gair, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev.D85, 023535 (2012), arXiv:1108.5161 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  16. [16]

    W. M. Farr, M. Fishbach, J. Ye, and D. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett.883, L42 (2019), arXiv:1908.09084 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2019

  17. [17]

    Mastrogiovanni, K

    S. Mastrogiovanni, K. Leyde, C. Karathanasis, E. Chassande-Mottin, D. A. Steer, J. Gair, A. Ghosh, R. Gray, S. Mukherjee, and S. Rinaldi, Phys. Rev. D 104, 062009 (2021), arXiv:2103.14663 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    J. M. Ezquiaga and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 061102 (2022), arXiv:2202.08240 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2509.04348 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Pierra, S

    G. Pierra, S. Mastrogiovanni, S. Perriès, and M. Mapelli, Phys. Rev. D109, 083504 (2024), arXiv:2312.11627 [astro- ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2024

  22. [22]

    Gennari, S

    V. Gennari, S. Mastrogiovanni, N. Tamanini, S. Marsat, and G. Pierra, Phys. Rev. D111, 123046 (2025), arXiv:2502.20445 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  23. [23]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astro- phys. J.949, 76 (2023), arXiv:2111.03604 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2023

  24. [24]

    Mind the peak: improving cosmological constraints from GWTC-4.0 spectral sirens using semiparametric mass models

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. Moresco, N. Borghi, and C. Ciapetti, (2026), arXiv:2601.03347 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  25. [25]

    Pierra and A

    G. Pierra and A. Papadopoulos, (2026), arXiv:2601.03257 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Bertheas, V

    T. Bertheas, V. Gennari, D. Steer, and N. Tamanini, (2026), arXiv:2603.06792 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Emergent structure in the binary black hole mass distribution and implications for population-based cosmology

    V. Gennari, T. Bertheas, and N. Tamanini, (2026), arXiv:2604.14290 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Mali and R

    U. Mali and R. Essick, Astrophys. J.980, 85 (2025), arXiv:2410.07416 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Mukherjee, Mon

    S. Mukherjee, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515, 5495 (2022), arXiv:2112.10256 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    A. Ray, I. Magaña Hernandez, S. Mohite, J. Creighton, and S. Kapadia, Astrophys. J.957, 37 (2023), arXiv:2304.08046 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    Heinzel, M

    J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D111, L061305 (2025), arXiv:2406.16844 [astro-ph.HE]. 13

    work page arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Lalleman, K

    M. Lalleman, K. Turbang, T. Callister, and N. van Remortel, (2025), arXiv:2501.10295 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Tenorio, A

    R. Tenorio, A. Toubiana, T. Bruel, D. Gerosa, and J. R. Gair, Astrophys. J. Lett.994, L52 (2025), arXiv:2509.19466 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, (2025), arXiv:2509.25356 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Agarwalet al., Astrophys

    A. Agarwalet al., Astrophys. J.987, 47 (2025), arXiv:2412.14244 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    C.Karathanasis, S.Mukherjee, L.Pathak, S.Vallejo-Peña, M. R. Sah, B. Revenu, A. E. Romano, and J. Garcia- Bellido, (2026), arXiv:2604.26273 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  37. [37]

    Cosmic Star Formation History

    P. Madau and M. Dickinson, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 52, 415 (2014), arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  38. [38]

    Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.486, 1086 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Thrane and C

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.36, e010 (2019), [Erratum: Publ.Astron.Soc.Austral. 37, e036 (2020)], arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Inferring the properties of a population of compact binaries in presence of selection effects

    S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Tay- lor, (2020), 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7, arXiv:2007.05579 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2020

  41. [41]

    Estimation of the Sensitive Volume for Gravitational-wave Source Populations Using Weighted Monte Carlo Integration

    V. Tiwari, Class. Quantum Grav.35, 145009 (2018), arXiv:1712.00482 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    W. M. Farr, Research Notes of the AAS3, 66 (2019), arXiv:1904.10879 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Talbot and J

    C. Talbot and J. Golomb, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.526, 3495 (2023), arXiv:2304.06138 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  44. [44]

    Essick and W

    R. Essick and W. Farr, (2022), arXiv:2204.00461 [astro- ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Heinzel and S

    J. Heinzel and S. Vitale, (2025), arXiv:2509.07221 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Mancarella, github.com/CosmoStatGW/pymcpop-gw (2025)

    M. Mancarella, github.com/CosmoStatGW/pymcpop-gw (2025)

    work page 2025

  47. [47]

    Mancarella and D

    M. Mancarella and D. Gerosa, Phys. Rev. D111, 103012 (2025), arXiv:2502.12156 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    M. D. Hoffman and A. Gelman, J. Mach. Learn. Res.15, 1593 (2014), arXiv:1111.4246 [stat.CO]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Brooks, A

    S. Brooks, A. Gelman, G. Jones, and X.-L. Meng, Handbook of Markov Chain Monte Carlo(Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Abril-Pla, V

    O. Abril-Pla, V. Andreani, C. Carroll, L. Dong, C. J. Fonnesbeck, M. Kochurov, R. Kumar, J. Lao, C. C. Luh- mann, O. A. Martin, M. Osthege, R. Vieira, T. V. Wiecki, and R. Zinkov, PeerJ Comput. Sci.9, e1516 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    D. Phan, N. Pradhan, and M. Jankowiak, NeurIPS 2019 (2019), arXiv:1912.11554 [stat]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  52. [52]

    Pyro: Deep Universal Probabilistic Programming

    E. Bingham, J. P. Chen, M. Jankowiak, F. Obermeyer, N. Pradhan, T. Karaletsos, R. Singh, P. A. Szerlip, P. Horsfall, and N. D. Goodman, J. Mach. Learn. Res. 20, 28:1 (2019), arXiv:1810.09538

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  53. [53]

    Gelman and D

    A. Gelman and D. B. Rubin, Stat. Sci.7, 457 (1992)

    work page 1992

  54. [54]

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  56. [56]

    GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run

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

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Gwtc-4.0: Parameter estimation data release,

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, and K. Collabo- ration, “Gwtc-4.0: Parameter estimation data release,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  58. [58]

    Gwtc-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the second part of the third observing run — parameter estimation data release,

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, and K. Collabo- ration, “Gwtc-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the second part of the third observing run — parameter estimation data release,” (2023)

    work page 2023

  59. [59]

    Gwtc-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run - parameter estimation data release,

    L. S. Collaboration and V. Collaboration, “Gwtc-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by ligo and virgo during the first half of the third observing run - parameter estimation data release,” (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [60]

    Gwtc-4.0 cumulative search sensitivity estimates,

    L. S. Collaboration, V. Collaboration, and K. Collabora- tion, “Gwtc-4.0 cumulative search sensitivity estimates,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  61. [61]

    Essicket al., Phys

    R. Essicket al., Phys. Rev. D112, 102001 (2025), arXiv:2508.10638 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2025

  62. [62]

    Essick, Phys

    R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D108, 043011 (2023), arXiv:2307.02765 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Fishbach, W

    M. Fishbach, W. M. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett.891, L31 (2020), arXiv:1911.05882 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  64. [64]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.39, e025 (2022), arXiv:2202.05479 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  65. [65]

    S. J. Miller, S. Winney, K. Chatziioannou, and P. M. Meyers, (2026), arXiv:2604.06090 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    Meng, The annals of statistics22, 1142 (1994)

    X.-L. Meng, The annals of statistics22, 1142 (1994)

    work page 1994

  67. [67]

    Levin and Y

    D. Levin and Y. Peres,Markov Chains and Mixing Times (2017)

    work page 2017

  68. [68]

    Montenegro and P

    R. Montenegro and P. Tetali,Mathematical Aspects of Mixing Times in Markov Chains(2005)

    work page 2005

  69. [69]

    Aldous and J

    D. Aldous and J. Fill, (2002)

    work page 2002

  70. [70]

    Measurement prospects for the pair-instability mass cutoff with gravitational waves

    M. Mould, J. Heinzel, S. Alvarez-Lopez, C. Plunkett, N. E. Wolfe, and S. Vitale, (2026), arXiv:2602.11282 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  71. [71]

    Gwtc-4.0: Population properties of merging compact binaries,

    L. S. Collaboration, T. V. Collaboration, and T. K. Col- laboration, “Gwtc-4.0: Population properties of merging compact binaries,” (2025)

    work page 2025

  72. [72]

    A. M. Farah, B. Edelman, M. Zevin, M. Fishbach, J. M. Ezquiaga, B. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.955, 107 (2023), arXiv:2301.00834 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Tagliazucchi, M

    M. Tagliazucchi, M. Moresco, A. Agapito, M. Mancarella, S. Ferraiuolo, S. Mastrogiovanni, N. Borghi, F. Pannar- ale, and D. Bonacorsi, (2026), arXiv:2602.17756 [astro- ph.CO]. 14 Appendix A: Complete population model specification This appendix provides the full mathematical definition of the population model summarized in Sec. IIA. In partic- ular we giv...

    work page arXiv 2026

  74. [74]

    Bounded-sigmoid priors (raw-space sampling)

    Implementation details a. Bounded-sigmoid priors (raw-space sampling). For any parameterϕ with prescribed bounds[ϕmin, ϕmax] we sample an unconstrained latent variableϕraw and map it to the bounded domain: ϕraw ∼ N(0, σ raw),(B1) ϕ=ϕ min + (ϕmax −ϕ min) sigmoid(xraw).(B2) The scaleσraw controls concentration around the midpoint of the interval. We useσraw...

    work page