Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 49 references

Exploring the anisotropic gravitational wave background from all-sky mock gravitational wave event catalogues

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the anisotropy of the gravitational-wave background from local compact-binary mergers is set almost entirely by the radial distribution of the nearest sources, and that after subtracting those sources the residual…

desk verdict Competent mock-catalog study whose headline slope and cross-type alignment are probably dominated by Poisson shot noise, so the LSS-tracing interpretation is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09956 v3 pith:CZ4C3RLY submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Zhencheng Li , Zhen Jiang , Yun Liu , Xi-Long Fan , Liang Gao , Yun Chen , Tengpeng Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords gravitationalwaveswavesourcescosmicanisotropyastronomystochasticbackgroundangularpowerspectrumcompactbinarymergerslarge-scalestructure
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

Using seven all-sky mock catalogues of local merging black-hole and neutron-star binaries, this paper asks where the stochastic gravitational-wave background (SGWB) is brightest and how that unevenness depends on the source population. It finds that the angular power spectra of the SGWB overdensity for binary black holes, neutron-star–black-hole binaries, and binary neutron stars all rise approximately linearly with $\log_{10}\ell$ at small scales, with a characteristic slope near 2. The large differences between the seven catalogues come almost entirely from the radial (distance) distribution of sources closer than about 50 Mpc/h, which dominate because the signal falls as inverse-square distance. Removing those nearby sources brings the spectra of all three source types into agreement within a factor of about 2 across $\ell = 1$–1000. If these mock skies represent the real Universe, the residual anisotropy is a map of the cosmic web, and the quoted spectra serve as a theoretical upper limit on the anisotropy from compact-binary coalescences.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the construction of the all-sky mock lightcone catalogues. An observer is placed at one of seven positions in an eightfold-replicated $(500\,\mathrm{Mpc}/h)^3$ N-body simulation box; a galaxy enters the catalogue when it crosses the observer's past lightcone between two stored snapshots. The crossing time is found by solving two linear-interpolation equations — galaxy position and comoving distance both grow linearly with cosmic time between snapshots — and the galaxy's sky position and merger rate are linearly interpolated. Each galaxy contributes to the SGWB with weight $R_k/[(1+z_k)d_{c,k}^2]$, so nearby galaxies dominate the skymap. The overdensity $\delta_{\mathrm{GW}} = (\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}} - \langle\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}\rangle)/\langle\Omega_{\mathrm{GW}}\rangle$ is pixelised on an equal-area sphere and expanded into spherical harmonics to give $C_\ell$.

What would settle it

Recompute the residual spectra using a larger simulation box (roughly twice the current $500\,\mathrm{Mpc}/h$ side length) with a proper lightcone output: if the seven-catalogue scatter or the offset between source types after subtracting sub-50-Mpc sources grows beyond a factor of about 2 at any multipole up to 1000, the universality claim is falsified. Observationally, if a future ground-based detector network measures the SGWB angular power spectrum in the 20–100 Hz band and the residual anisotropy after subtracting resolved nearby mergers disagrees with these mock spectra by more than a factor of a few over $\ell = 1$–1000, the prediction is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central finding is a quantitative statement about the angular power spectrum $C_\ell$ of the SGWB overdensity. Expressed as $\log_{10}[\ell(\ell+1)C_\ell/(2\pi)]$, the spectra for BBHs, NSBHs and BNSs all show an approximately linear increase with $\log_{10}\ell$ at high multipoles ($\ell \gtrsim 30$–300), with slope $\beta \approx 2$. Across the seven mock catalogues the spectra vary by up to one to two orders of magnitude at $\ell \gtrsim 80$, and the paper attributes this scatter to fluctuations in the radial distribution of the nearest sources (within 50 Mpc/h), which are weighted by $d_c^{-2}$. After subtracting those nearby sources, the spectra of the seven catalogues shrink to within a factor of about 4 at low $\ell$ and about 2 at $\ell = 20$–1000, and the three source types become aligned within a factor of about 2 across $\ell = 1$–1000. The paper concludes that the SGWB anisotropy is primarily influenced by the distribution of GW-source host galaxies and can probe large-scale structure, and that including more distant sources would only dilute the anisotropy, making these spectra an upper limit.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumption that the mock catalogues reproduce the real three-dimensional distribution of merging compact binaries in the local universe: galaxy positions and merger rates are linearly interpolated between simulation snapshots, and the adopted binary population synthesis rates stand in for the true local population — if nearby galaxies are misplaced or those rates are wrong, the claimed dominance of the sub-50-Mpc radial distribution and the factor-of-2 agreement after subtraction would not transfer to the real sky.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the residual anisotropy after subtracting sources within 50 Mpc/h traces the host-galaxy distribution, then future GW detectors that resolve and subtract nearby CBCs can use the leftover SGWB as a complementary tracer of large-scale structure, alongside galaxy surveys.
  • The spectra presented in the paper set a theoretical upper limit on the anisotropic SGWB from stellar-mass compact-binary mergers, so any cosmological SGWB component (for example from cosmic strings) that predicts larger anisotropy at these multipoles could in principle be distinguished.
  • The agreement of the three source types after subtraction implies that population-synthesis uncertainties in the relative merger rates matter less for the residual anisotropy than the spatial distribution of the host galaxies does.
  • The characteristic slope $\beta \approx 2$ at high $\ell$ is the signature expected from Poisson shot noise, so the small-scale part of the spectrum should be interpreted as a noise floor rather than as a clustered signal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension, not explored in the paper, would be to apply the same lightcone construction to a larger simulation box; if the factor-of-2 agreement persists with a box larger than (500 Mpc/h)^3, the residual spectrum could be treated as a converged cosmic-web prediction rather than a catalogue-dependent estimate.
  • Because the radial distribution of the nearest sources is the dominant source of variance, real-world subtraction of individually detected nearby mergers from LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA data may shrink the theoretical uncertainty in the SGWB more than improving binary population synthesis models would.
  • The factor-of-2 alignment across source types suggests the residual SGWB is essentially a biased tracer of the galaxy density field; cross-correlating the mock residual map with a galaxy catalogue would be a direct test of this interpretation.
  • The $\beta \approx 2$ slope is degenerate with shot noise, so the claim that the residual spectrum probes large-scale structure could be sharpened by measuring a higher-order statistic (e.g., the bispectrum) of the same skymaps to separate Poisson clustering from genuine large-scale clustering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs seven all-sky mock lightcone gravitational-wave event catalogues from the Millennium simulation combined with the GABE semi-analytic galaxy formation model and the COSMIC binary population synthesis code, restricted to comoving distances below 250 Mpc/h (z <~ 0.085). For each catalogue, the authors compute HEALPix maps of the SGWB overdensity delta_GW from merging BBHs, NSBHs, and BNSs, and then evaluate angular power spectra C_l expressed as log10[ell(ell+1)C_l/(2pi)]. The central claims are that (i) at high ell (approximately ell > 30-300) all spectra rise with a characteristic slope beta ~ 2 in log10 ell; (ii) the large scatter among the seven catalogues is mainly caused by the radial distribution of nearby sources within ~50 Mpc/h; (iii) after subtracting those nearby sources, the spectra for the three source types become aligned to within a factor of about 2 over ell = 1-1000; and (iv) the residual anisotropy can therefore serve as a probe of large-scale structure, while the local-universe catalogues set a theoretical upper limit on the SGWB anisotropy from compact binary mergers.

Significance. If the conclusions are correct, the paper would strengthen the case that the anisotropic SGWB from compact binary coalescences can be used as an astrophysical probe of the cosmic web, and it would provide a concrete theoretical target for future searches. The construction of lightcone mock catalogues from a state-of-the-art galaxy formation plus binary population synthesis pipeline is a useful contribution, and the paper is honest about several limitations, such as the restricted redshift range and the reliance on interpolation between snapshots. The numerical pipeline (HEALPix sky maps, anafast angular power spectra, seven observer positions) is standard and appears internally consistent. However, the main interpretation hinges on separating the clustered, large-scale-structure-induced anisotropy from the Poisson shot-noise contribution. The paper does not compute or subtract the shot-noise floor, and the qualitative slope claim is not accompanied by any fit with uncertainties, which limits the strength of the headline conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 4.2, Fig. 3] The shot-noise floor is never computed or subtracted. For the weighted discrete-source overdensity field implicit in Eq. (6) and Eq. (8), shot noise contributes an approximately ell-independent term to C_l, so the plotted quantity log10[ell(ell+1)C_l/(2pi)] rises with slope beta ~ 2 in log10 ell. This is exactly the 'characteristic slope' quoted in the abstract and Section 5. The text already notes in Section 4.2 that even the 1-bin approximation retains the typical shape and that this shape matches the Poisson-noise predictions of Cusin et al. (2019), but it never evaluates the shot-noise term or subtracts it. Because BNS, NSBH, and BBH events share the same host galaxies, their weights are strongly correlated; therefore the factor-of-2 alignment after removing sources below 50 Mpc/h, and the reduced scatter across the r1-r7 catalogues, could be a common shot-noise floor rather than evidence that the residual anisotropy traces large-scale structure. This gap directly affects the LSS-probe and upper-limit claims and should be addressed by adding an explicit shot-noise calculation and, ideally, a decomposition of C_l into clustered and shot-noise components.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The claimed characteristic slope beta ~ 2 is not supported by a quantitative fit. The paper states that the spectra increase approximately linearly with log10 ell at higher ell, but no slope, intercept, uncertainty, or goodness-of-fit is reported for any catalogue or source type. The gray dashed reference lines in Figs. 3 and 4 have an arbitrary intercept ('different alpha'), so the agreement is purely visual. A fit of the slope over a specified ell range (for instance ell = 30-1000) with uncertainties is needed to support the central claim and to distinguish beta ~ 2 from other power-law behavior.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Fig. 5] The 'theoretical upper limit' claim is not quantified. Fig. 5 presents ratios C_ell / C_ell,50Mpc/h for BBHs in the r2 catalogue only, with no error bars or variance across the seven observer positions, and the text summarizes reductions with broad ranges (e.g., 'approximately 1.7-2.5 times', 'roughly 1.3-1.6 times') without specifying how these ranges were derived. Since the paper states in Section 4.3 that the findings establish an upper limit on the anisotropy from compact binaries, the analysis should either quantify the limit with uncertainties and catalogue-to-catalogue scatter, or the claim should be softened to a statement about the trend in these particular mocks.
  4. [Sec. 3.2/4.1, Fig. 3] The decomposition into 'nearby' (<50 Mpc/h) and 'farther' sources uses a single distance cutoff, and the central subtraction result in the lower panel of Fig. 3 depends on this choice. No sensitivity test with other cutoffs (e.g., 30 or 100 Mpc/h) is presented. Since the paper's interpretation attributes the r1-r7 scatter primarily to the radial distribution of nearby sources, the robustness of this attribution to the chosen cutoff should be demonstrated; otherwise the 50 Mpc/h boundary appears ad hoc.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 captions] The gray dashed 'Typical shape (beta = 2)' lines have arbitrary intercepts; the figure captions or legends should state explicitly that these are not fits to the data and that alpha is a free offset.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The notation uses R_k both for the merger rate and for its mean value; please introduce a distinct symbol, such as an overbar, to avoid confusing the rate with its binned average.
  3. [Sec. 4.2] The sentence 'Consequently, other factors might contribute to the Poisson noise' does not logically follow from the preceding remark that the 1-bin approximation retains the typical shape; please rephrase to explain the intended chain of reasoning.
  4. [Sec. 5] The statement that the spectra 'exhibit negligible variation' over the LIGO frequency range 20-100 Hz is not shown in any figure; since this is a robustness claim, a figure or a quantitative bound would be helpful.
  5. [Fig. 2] The color-bar label '-1 21164.7' is unclear; the units of delta_GW and the meaning of the color scale should be specified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Derivation is self-contained: the C_l spectra are computed directly from mock catalogs, with no fitted parameters renamed as predictions and no load-bearing self-citation; the slope-2 shape is explicitly connected to Poisson noise rather than being imported as an assumed result.

full rationale

All load-bearing quantities are computed directly rather than assumed. The angular power spectra are obtained by inserting the mock catalogs into Eqs. (6)-(11), and the overdensity and C_l are defined independently of the results being claimed. The local merger rates, the spectral shapes, the variations across the seven catalogs, and the effect of subtracting sources below 50 Mpc/h are outputs of the calculation, not inputs. The only self-references (GABE from Jiang et al. 2019 and the GABE-COSMIC catalog from Li et al. 2024) are used as the input galaxy and merger-rate model; the paper does not cite its own prior results as evidence for the new C_l predictions, and the input model is checked against the external GWTC-3 rate estimates and compared with Jenkins et al. and Cusin et al. The "characteristic slope ~2" is a computed property of the plotted quantity, and the paper explicitly attributes the high-l shape to Poisson noise following Cusin et al. (2019). Whether shot noise dominates the residual anisotropy after subtracting nearby sources is a physical and statistical interpretation issue, not a case of the conclusion being equivalent to the inputs by construction. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work to force the central claim. The upper-limit statement is an interpretation of the computed spectra rather than a result hardwired into the definitions. Hence no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities. Its burden rests on the fidelity of the GABE-COSMIC mock catalog and the lightcone interpolation assumptions. The listed free parameters are analysis choices (radial binning, distance cutoffs) rather than parameters fitted to the output spectra.

free parameters (3)
  • Radial bin count m in the m-bin approximation = m = 5
    Hand-chosen analysis parameter used to separate radial from azimuthal anisotropy in Fig. 4. The extreme m = 1 case is also shown, so the central claim does not hinge on the exact value, but m = 5 is not derived.
  • Nearby-source distance cutoff = 50 Mpc/h
    The subtraction of 'nearby' sources uses a 50 Mpc/h boundary. The factor-of-2 agreement after subtraction depends on this choice, which is motivated by detector resolvability but is a selection in the analysis.
  • Catalog volume limit = dc < 250 Mpc/h (z <~ 0.085)
    The catalogs are restricted to 250 Mpc/h for computational reasons (Sec. 3.2). The upper-limit interpretation relies on this truncation.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption All GW events occur inside galaxies, so the SGWB direction dependence is set by the galaxy distribution (Sec. 2.1).
    Justifies replacing the smooth Phinney rate integral with a sum over galaxy contributions in Eq. (6).
  • domain assumption The GABE-COSMIC mean merger rates Rk from Li et al. (2024) accurately represent the local compact binary population.
    The paper uses datasets identical to Li et al. 2024 (Sec. 3.1). Rate normalization affects absolute amplitudes but largely cancels in the overdensity used for C_l.
  • domain assumption Galaxies move on straight lines between snapshots and comoving distance increases linearly with cosmic time between snapshots (Eq. 12).
    These interpolation assumptions set each galaxy's lightcone crossing time, position, and merger rate via Eqs. (13)-(14).
  • standard math The Phinney (2001) formula and the Zhu et al. (2011)/Ajith et al. (2008) GW energy spectrum apply to BNS and NSBH mergers as well as BBHs.
    Stated in Sec. 2.1 as an adopted input; the same energy spectrum is assumed for all three source types.
  • domain assumption The angular power spectrum alone is an adequate statistic, assuming a stationary Gaussian random field for the SGWB.
    The paper itself notes in Sec. 2.2 that non-Gaussianity may require bispectrum and trispectrum analyses at a single frequency.
  • domain assumption The observer's coordinate system is aligned with the equatorial coordinate system.
    Used to assign R.A. and decl. from simulation coordinates in Sec. 3.2. Irrelevant for the rotationally invariant C_l, but needed for the skymaps.
  • domain assumption The Millennium WMAP1 cosmology (Omega_m = 0.25, Omega_Lambda = 0.75, H0 = 73 km/s/Mpc) is adopted.
    Distances and rates in the mock catalogs use this cosmology, which is older than current best-fit values but is fixed by the simulation input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the anisotropic gravitational wave background from all-sky mock gravitational wave event catalogues." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZ4C3RLY

@misc{pith2026241209956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the anisotropic gravitational wave background from all-sky mock gravitational wave event catalogues},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZ4C3RLY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09956}
}
abstract

Anisotropic stochastic gravitational wave background (SGWB) serves as a potential probe of the large-scale structure (LSS) of the universe. In this work, we explore the anisotropic SGWB from local ($z < \sim 0.085$) merging stellar mass compact binaries, specifically focusing on merging stellar binary black holes, merging neutron-star-black-hole binaries, and merging binary neutron stars. The analysis employs seven all-sky mock lightcone gravitational wave event catalogues, which are derived from the Millennium simulation combined with a semi-analytic model of galaxy formation and a binary population synthesis model. We calculate the angular power spectra $\mathrm{C}_\ell$ at multipole moments $\ell$, expressed as $\text{log}_{10} [\ell(\ell+1)\mathrm{C}_\ell/(2\pi)]$, based on the skymaps of the overdensity $\delta_\mathrm{GW}$ in the anisotropic SGWB. The spectra for all three source types exhibit an approximately linear increase with $\text{log}_{10} \ell$ at higher $\ell$ (e.g., $\ell > \sim 30 - 300$) in seven catalogues, with a characteristic slope of $\sim 2$. The spectra of seven catalogues exhibit considerable variations, arising from fluctuations in spatial distribution, primarily in the radial distribution, of nearby sources (e.g., $< 50$ Mpc/h). After subtracting these nearby sources, the variations become much smaller and the spectra for the three source types become closely aligned (within discrepancies of a factor of $\sim 2$ across $\ell = 1 - 1000$ for all catalogues). We also find that including further sources results in a rapid decrease in the anisotropy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The new box, generated by replicating the initial simulation box eight times. The observer is positioned at the center, specifically at coordinates (0, 0, 0) Mpc/h, with the surface of the past-lightcone at redshift z = zi presented for reference. snapshots3 , and (2) the comoving distance could be ap￾proximated to increase linearly with cosmic time t(z) during the interval. These assumptions yield the follow￾ing tw… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The HEALPix skymap of the overdensity δGW in the anisotropic SGWB from the merging BBHs up to dc = 250Mpc/h at 60 Hz with Nside = 512 for the r2 model. ble the results reported by Cusin et al. (2018) within the range ∼ 10 < ℓ <∼ 100. Note that to enable a more reasonable comparison with the existing literature in the future work, in addition to using a larger simulation box, several other factors should be addressed… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Upper panel: The angular power spectra of the overdensity δGW in the SGWB from merging BNSs, NSBHs and BBHs up to dc = 250Mpc/h at 60 Hz respectively, with Nside = 512, for the seven models, ranging from r1 to r7. All the spectra are contained within the colored regions, with the spectra for models r2 and r4 distinctly highlighted. Lower panel: Similar to the upper panel, but with nearby (< 50 Mpc/h) sources subtrac… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Upper panel: The angular power spectra of the overdensity δGW in the SGWB from merging BBHs within dc = 50Mpc/h and between dc = 50 − 250Mpc/h, derived from direct calculation, the 5-bin approximation model, and the 1-bin approximation model, respectively, with Nside =…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents the ratio of the angular power spec￾tra of the overdensity δGW in the SGWB from merg￾ing BBHs up to various comoving distances, relative to the angular power spectrum of the overdensity δGW in the SGWB from merging BBHs up to 50 Mpc/h, at 60 Hz with Nside = 51…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, PhRvD, 104, 022004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.022004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.022004 2021

  2. [2]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2023b, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  3. [3]

    M., et al

    Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., et al. 2023a, ApJL, 951, L8, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6 —. 2023b, ApJL, 952, L37, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ace18b —. 2023c, ApJL, 956, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acf4fd

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6

  4. [4]

    2008, PhRvD, 77, 104017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104017

    Ajith, P., Babak, S., Chen, Y., et al. 2008, PhRvD, 77, 104017, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.104017

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.104017 2008

  5. [5]

    Renzini, A. I. 2020a, PhRvD, 101, 124048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.124048

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.124048

  6. [6]

    G., & Pitrou, C

    Alonso, D., Cusin, G., Ferreira, P. G., & Pitrou, C. 2020b, PhRvD, 102, 023002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.023002

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.023002

  7. [7]

    2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786 12 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Audley, H., Babak, S., et al. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1702.00786, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1702.00786 12 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc...

    arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1702.00786 2017

  8. [8]

    S., Franciolini, G., Cusin, G., et al

    Bavera, S. S., Franciolini, G., Cusin, G., et al. 2022, A&A, 660, A26, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142208 B´ ecsy, B., Cornish, N. J., & Kelley, L. Z. 2022, ApJ, 941, 119, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca1b2

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142208 2022

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    2020, PhRvD, 101, 103513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103513

    Bertacca, D., Ricciardone, A., Bellomo, N., et al. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 103513, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.103513

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2005, MNRAS, 360, 159, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09019.x

    Blaizot, J., Wadadekar, Y., Guiderdoni, B., et al. 2005, MNRAS, 360, 159, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09019.x

    2005

  3. [11]

    2020a, Zenodo, COSMIC v3.3.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3905335

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020a, Zenodo, COSMIC v3.3.0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3905335

    doi

  4. [12]

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

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

    doi

  5. [13]

    2021, JCAP, 2021, 032, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/032

    Capurri, G., Lapi, A., Baccigalupi, C., et al. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 032, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/11/032

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    2019, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5

    Christensen, N. 2019, Reports on Progress in Physics, 82, 016903, doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aae6b5

    2019 doi

  7. [15]

    2018, PhRvL, 120, 231101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231101 —

    Cusin, G., Dvorkin, I., Pitrou, C., & Uzan, J.-P. 2018, PhRvL, 120, 231101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.231101 —. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 063004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063004

    2018 doi

  8. [16]

    2017, PhRvD, 96, 103019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103019 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J

    Cusin, G., Pitrou, C., & Uzan, J.-P. 2017, PhRvD, 96, 103019, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.103019 De Lucia, G., & Blaizot, J. 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11287.x EPTA Collaboration, InPTA Collaboration, Antoniadis, J., et al. 2023, A&A, 678, A50, doi: 10.105...

    2017

  9. [17]

    C., Kelley, L

    Gardiner, E. C., Kelley, L. Z., Lemke, A.-M., & Mitridate, A. 2024, ApJ, 965, 164, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad2be8 G´ orski, K. M., Hivon, E., Banday, A. J., et al. 2005, ApJ, 622, 759, doi: 10.1086/427976 G´ orski, K. M., Wandelt, B. D., Hivon, E., Hansen, F. K., &

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    Banday, A. J. 2024, The HEALPix Primer, v3.83. https://healpix.sourceforge.io/pdf/intro.pdf

    2024

  11. [19]

    2011, MNRAS, 413, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x

    Guo, Q., White, S., Boylan-Kolchin, M., et al. 2011, MNRAS, 413, 101, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.18114.x

    2011

  12. [20]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    2020 doi

  13. [21]

    M., & LIGO Scientific Collaboration

    Harry, G. M., & LIGO Scientific Collaboration. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 084006, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/8/084006

    2010 doi

  14. [22]

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

    2007 doi

  15. [23]

    Jenkins, A. C. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2202.05105, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2202.05105

    2022 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2019a, PhRvL, 122, 111101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.111101

    Wysocki, D. 2019a, PhRvL, 122, 111101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.111101

    doi

  17. [25]

    C., Romano, J

    Jenkins, A. C., Romano, J. D., & Sakellariadou, M. 2019b, PhRvD, 100, 083501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.083501

    doi

  18. [26]

    C., & Sakellariadou, M

    Jenkins, A. C., & Sakellariadou, M. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 063509, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063509 —. 2019, PhRvD, 100, 063508, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.063508

    2018 doi

  19. [27]

    C., Sakellariadou, M., Regimbau, T., & Slezak, E

    Jenkins, A. C., Sakellariadou, M., Regimbau, T., & Slezak, E. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 063501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.063501

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 151, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/151

    Jiang, Z., Wang, J., Gao, L., et al. 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 151, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/19/10/151

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    G., & White, S

    Kitzbichler, M. G., & White, S. D. M. 2007, MNRAS, 376, 2, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11458.x

    2007

  22. [30]

    2016, in IOS Press, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in IOS Press, 87–90, doi: 10.3233/978-1-61499-649-1-87

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    2019, ApJS, 245, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab510c

    Korytov, D., Hearin, A., Kovacs, E., et al. 2019, ApJS, 245, 26, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab510c

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    C., Renzini, A

    Kouvatsos, N., Jenkins, A. C., Renzini, A. I., Romano, J. D., & Sakellariadou, M. 2024, PhRvD, 109, 103535, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.103535

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S

    Lam, S. K., Pitrou, A., & Seibert, S. 2015, in Proc. Second Workshop on the LL VM Compiler Infrastructure in HPC, 1–6, doi: 10.1145/2833157.2833162

    2015

  26. [34]

    2024, MNRAS, 527, 5616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3576

    Li, Z., Jiang, Z., Fan, X.-L., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 5616, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3576

    2024 doi

  27. [35]

    I., Baugh, C

    Merson, A. I., Baugh, C. M., Helly, J. C., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 556, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts355

    2013 doi

  28. [36]

    Mingarelli, C. M. F., Lazio, T. J. W., Sesana, A., et al. 2017, Nature Astronomy, 1, 886, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0299-6

    2017 doi

  29. [37]

    D., & Thrane, E

    Payne, E., Banagiri, S., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2020, PhRvD, 102, 102004, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.102004

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0108028

    2001 doi arXiv

  31. [39]

    2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    Punturo, M., Abernathy, M., Acernese, F., et al. 2010, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 27, 194002, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/27/19/194002

    2010 doi

  32. [40]

    J., Zic, A., Shannon, R

    Reardon, D. J., Zic, A., Shannon, R. M., et al. 2023, ApJL, 951, L6, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/acdd02

    2023 doi

  33. [41]

    I., Goncharov, B., Jenkins, A

    Renzini, A. I., Goncharov, B., Jenkins, A. C., & Meyers, P. M. 2022, Galaxies, 10, 34, doi: 10.3390/galaxies10010034 13

    2022 doi

  34. [42]

    2022, MNRAS, 516, 4529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2519

    Smith, A., Cole, S., Grove, C., Norberg, P., & Zarrouk, P. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4529, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2519

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    N., Verde, L., Peiris, H

    Spergel, D. N., Verde, L., Peiris, H. V., et al. 2003, ApJS, 148, 175, doi: 10.1086/377226

    2003 doi

  36. [44]

    Springel, V., White, S. D. M., Jenkins, A., et al. 2005, Nature, 435, 629, doi: 10.1038/nature03597

    2005 doi

  37. [45]

    E., et al

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

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    Xu, H., Chen, S., Guo, Y., et al. 2023, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 23, 075024, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/acdfa5

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05043

    Yang, Q., Guo, X., Cao, Z., Shao, X., & Yuan, X. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2408.05043, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2408.05043

    2024 doi arXiv

  40. [48]

    2011, ApJ, 739, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/86

    Zhu, X.-J., Howell, E., Regimbau, T., Blair, D., & Zhu, Z.-H. 2011, ApJ, 739, 86, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/739/2/86

    2011 doi

  41. [49]

    2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.