Interpretation of the binary black hole mass spectrum

Ilya Mandel

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 36 references

Interpretation of the binary black hole mass spectrum

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that the observed mass spectrum of merging binary black holes cannot be interpreted from gravitational-wave data alone; meaningful progress requires combining those data with electromagnetic observations of massive…

desk verdict A clear, well-cited perspective on why gravitational-wave data alone won't uniquely interpret the black-hole mass spectrum; the central recommendation is sensible but asserted, not demonstrated. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01507 v1 pith:D4IB5MP6 submitted 2025-06-02 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qc

Ilya Mandel This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qc

keywords binaryblackholemassspectrumgravitational-wavepopulationinferenceformationchannelsevolutionelectromagneticcounterpartsX-raybinariesmicrolensingholescommon-envelope

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 argues that the mass spectrum of merging binary black holes, as measured by gravitational-wave detectors, cannot by itself be turned into a reliable account of how these systems formed. The measurement side still has open problems—search pipelines disagree on marginal candidates, waveform and noise models carry systematic biases, and turning uncertain single-event posteriors into a population requires model assumptions that do not fade with more data. Every physically motivated formation model is also incomplete, so fitting such models directly to gravitational-wave data risks meaningless inference. The positive claim is that meaningful progress requires combining gravitational-wave observations with electromagnetic observations of black holes and massive binaries at earlier stages—microlensing, X-ray binaries, detached binaries, red novae, winds, and supernovae—so that a concordance model of binary evolution can finally make the merger mass spectrum interpretable.

What carries the argument

The central object is the binary black hole mass spectrum, and the load-bearing mechanism is the comparison of evolutionary snapshots rather than reliance on the final merger alone. The paper contrasts the merger as a 'death mask' with earlier-stage electromagnetic observations—microlensing by isolated black holes, X-ray binaries, and detached black-hole binaries—that can measure masses, velocities, mass-transfer behavior, and natal kicks. These snapshots, interpreted together with modeling tools, are meant to break degeneracies that gravitational-wave data alone cannot resolve, such as the pairing function that decides whether a chirp-mass gap is an individual-mass gap.

What would settle it

If, as the gravitational-wave catalog grows into hundreds of events, the inferred individual black-hole mass distribution becomes independent of the assumed pairing function and population model—for example, the same gap just above 10 solar masses appears in individual masses under every reasonable pairing assumption—then the paper's claim that gravitational-wave data alone cannot be interpreted would be falsified for that feature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The observed mass spectrum of merging binary black holes is real but not self-interpreting. Features such as a peak in chirp mass—the combination of the two component masses that gravitational waves measure most precisely during inspiral—just below 10 solar masses, a relative drop before a second peak near 30 solar masses, and a tail of more massive systems do not map directly onto features in individual black hole masses: whether a chirp-mass dip becomes a gap in individual masses depends on the assumed pairing function between the two components. Formation models are similarly degenerate, since different choices for winds, mass transfer, common-envelope evolution, collapse physics, metallicity history, and dynamical channels shift the predicted mass distribution substantially. The paper's central claim is that the only way forward is to observe black holes and massive binaries at many evolutionary stages and environments—astrometric microlensing, X-ray binaries, detached black-hole binaries, and transient surveys—and to interpret these snapshots jointly with models, building a concordance model of binary evolution that can then be applied to the gravitational-wave mass spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on electromagnetic observations of earlier-stage massive binaries, interpreted with current modeling tools, being able to reduce formation-channel degeneracies enough to build a concordance model of binary evolution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Gravitational-wave-only population fits will keep producing ambiguous interpretations: a feature in chirp mass cannot be read as a feature in individual masses without committing to a pairing function.
The observed excess of mergers with chirp mass just below 10 solar masses and the decline before a second peak near 30 solar masses should be treated as population-level observations for a broader evolutionary model, not as direct measurements of single black hole masses.
Electromagnetic observing programs—astrometric microlensing, X-ray binary monitoring, detached black-hole binaries, and wide-field transient surveys—become essential companions to gravitational-wave detectors rather than optional extras.
Directly inferring binary population-synthesis parameters from gravitational-wave data alone is likely to be misleading unless the same model is checked against these independent evolutionary snapshots.
The field's goal should shift toward a concordance model of binary evolution consistent with all observables, after which the gravitational-wave mass spectrum becomes interpretable.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper's logic implies that discrepancies between the gravitational-wave mass distribution and electromagnetic mass distributions are not just selection effects to correct away, but potentially informative signals of evolutionary selection; modeling that mismatch could directly constrain which binaries become mergers.
A concrete way to test the program is a joint hierarchical model that simultaneously fits gravitational-wave events, microlensing masses, X-ray binary masses, and detached binary masses, with shared parameters for wind mass loss and common-envelope efficiency; the paper motivates this but does not propose it.
If the same concordance model must explain luminous red novae and post-mass-transfer binaries, then the coming flood of transient survey data will turn common-envelope physics from a nuisance parameter into a directly observable constraint, a quantitative implication the paper leaves implicit.
The paper's skepticism about purely data-driven population inference suggests a broader methodological stance: for problems with strong selection effects and many correlated parameters, interpretable phenomenological models may remain more useful than maximally flexible machine-learning reconstructions even as the catalog grows.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a talk summary, not a research paper: no new data, no derivations, no code. That's fine, because the genre is a personal perspective, and the paper is upfront about it. What it does well is crystallize the current state of the field in a few pages. The walk through measurement challenges — search-pipeline disagreement, parameter-estimation systematics, the difficulty of population inference — is accurate and appropriately hedged. The theoretical section gives a fair, compact account of why formation-channel predictions are so uncertain, and the rate estimate in Section 2 is a useful sanity check even though it's a standard back-of-the-envelope calculation. The prose is clear and the citation pattern is appropriate; the heavy self-citation is justified because Mandel has written the relevant reviews, and the cited work backs the statements made.

The soft spot is the load-bearing claim, stated in the abstract and again in Section 3: that meaningful progress must rely on combining gravitational-wave data with electromagnetic observations of earlier-stage massive binaries. That's a plausible strategic recommendation, but the paper does not demonstrate that the EM probes — microlensing, X-ray binaries, detached binaries — can be corrected for selection effects and integrated with current modeling tools well enough to break the same degeneracies that plague the gravitational-wave-only inference. The paper itself notes that EM black-hole samples are selection-biased and that spin measurements suffer systematics, and microlensing has been demonstrated for one source only. So the conclusion is asserted, not derived. The final paragraph uses 'may finally allow us,' which is appropriately hedged, but the abstract states it as a categorical necessity. For a perspective, that's a minor overreach, not a fatal flaw, because the paper explicitly disclaims completeness and balance.

Who is this for? A graduate student or a researcher new to the area would get a solid, readable overview. A specialist will find little new, but the paper is a useful reminder of how much remains unknown. I'd send it to peer review if the venue publishes solicited perspectives; the referee should ask for a more explicit caveat about the strength of the EM-constraints premise, but this is a well-written, honest synthesis that deserves to be read. For my own work, I'd cite it as a compact statement of the 'more EM observations needed' argument, but I wouldn't treat it as a technical reference.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This invited talk summary argues that the observed binary black hole mass spectrum from gravitational-wave detections cannot be uniquely interpreted from the gravitational-wave data alone, because of measurement uncertainties, population-inference model mis-specification, and degeneracies among formation channels. The paper reviews practical challenges in gravitational-wave detection, parameter estimation, and population inference; summarizes theoretical uncertainties in black hole formation via isolated binaries and other channels; and concludes that meaningful progress requires combining gravitational-wave observations with a broad range of electromagnetic observations of massive stellar binaries at earlier evolutionary stages, such as microlensing, X-ray binaries, and detached black-hole binaries. The manuscript is explicitly labeled a personal, necessarily brief perspective rather than a comprehensive review.

Significance. If the central claim is accepted, it frames the near-term observational strategy for understanding black hole formation and the interpretation of the gravitational-wave mass spectrum. The paper's value lies in its accurate synthesis of well-known challenges and its explicitly self-aware framing. Strengths include a candid enumeration of limitations (e.g., references 21–22, 34), a hedged final paragraph, and the absence of any overclaiming of new quantitative results. The main weakness is that the categorical necessity stated in the abstract is not demonstrated in the body; the argument is plausible but rests on an assertion that electromagnetic observations can be integrated into population inference without introducing degeneracies at least as severe as those in gravitational-wave-only analyses. For a perspective piece this may be acceptable if the claim is tempered; as written, the abstract overstates the strength of the case.

major comments (2)

[Abstract and Section 3] The abstract states that 'meaningful progress must rely on' the combination of gravitational-wave and electromagnetic observations, but Section 3's final sentence only says that such observations 'may finally allow us' to create a concordance model. The stronger categorical claim is not established by the argument presented. The paper's own references indicate substantial selection biases in electromagnetic black-hole samples (refs 21–22), systematic uncertainties in electromagnetic spin measurements (ref 34), and only a single demonstrated astrometric microlensing event (ref 31). As written, the necessity of the electromagnetic combination is an assertion rather than a demonstrated conclusion. Please either soften the abstract to match the hedged conclusion, or add a quantitative or at least a more explicit roadmap for how the proposed electromagnetic observations, after selection corrections, will break the formation-channel degeneracies that currently limit gravitational-wave-only inference.
[Section 3, electromagnetic probes] The listed probes (microlensing, X-ray binaries, detached black-hole binaries) are all limited to the Milky Way or very nearby galaxies and, as noted, have small and inhomogeneous samples. The paper does not address whether these samples, after accounting for detection biases, will provide enough constraining power to distinguish competing parameters such as common-envelope efficiency, natal kicks, and wind mass-loss rates. I request at least an order-of-magnitude estimate of the sample sizes required to discriminate between representative population-synthesis models, or a statement that such a calculation is the necessary next step. Without this, the claim that the proposed combination 'must' be the route to progress is not a falsifiable statement but a strategic opinion.

minor comments (4)

[Section 1, paragraph on GW150921] The event name 'GW150921' appears to be a typo; given the context of precession-versus-eccentricity analysis, this should likely be 'GW190521' (see refs 6–7).
[Section 2, paragraph on the 'simple estimate'] The phrase 'fitting a square peg into a round role' should read 'round hole'.
[Section 2, rate estimate] The rate estimate of one binary black hole per ~1200–1500 solar masses of star formation should explicitly state the assumed binary fraction and the treatment of initial separation distribution; the current text gives the Kroupa IMF and flat mass-ratio assumption but leaves the binary fraction implicit.
[Section 1, Ptolemy analogy] The analogy to Ptolemaic epicycles may be unnecessarily pejorative for what could be legitimate complexity in the mass distribution; consider softening the phrasing to maintain the neutral tone of the rest of the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: this invited-talk summary makes no fitted prediction and performs no derivation; self-citations are background review pointers, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper is a brief personal perspective on interpreting the binary black hole mass spectrum. It makes no model fit, derives no population result from scratch, and does not present any quantity as predicted when it was actually used as an input. The only quantitative estimate is a crude merger-rate calculation built from external literature inputs (Kroupa IMF, star-formation rate from Madau & Dickinson, simple separation assumptions); this is not a circular use of the gravitational-wave rate it compares against. The central claim that progress requires combining gravitational-wave data with electromagnetic observations of earlier-stage binaries is an argued recommendation, not a derivation from the cited self-reviews. Self-citations appear (e.g., refs. 16, 26, 28, 29, 32, 35), but they point to review articles and companion modeling papers for background on stellar evolution, common-envelope physics, and binary population synthesis; nothing in the logic imports a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz from those papers to force the conclusion. The paper also explicitly flags its limitations: the abstract says it 'does not aspire to the balance or completeness of a review'; Section 1 notes 'it is not clear that we can ever converge on a unique and well-justified solution' for population inference; Section 2 states 'our understanding of many of the key aspects of these formation channels... is still insufficient to make confident statements'; and Section 3 hedges that the EM snapshots 'may finally allow us to create a concordance model... but it is a massive undertaking indeed.' These are honest statements of uncertainty and do not conceal a circular step. The main weakness, that the utility of EM constraints is asserted rather than demonstrated, is a correctness/support concern, not a circularity concern under the rubric.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The only quantitative content is an illustrative rate estimate assembled from literature-sourced assumptions, including the IMF, mass-ratio distribution, separation range, and star-formation rate. The central recommendation additionally assumes that electromagnetic observations can be interpreted with current models to break formation-channel degeneracies. These are domain assumptions, not fitted parameters.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Massive stars predominantly form in binaries with a Kroupa initial mass function and a flat mass-ratio distribution.
Used in Section 2 to estimate one binary black hole per roughly 1200 to 1500 solar masses of star formation; this is a literature-sourced simplification, not derived in the paper.
domain assumption Stars with initial masses above about 20 solar masses form black holes.
Used in Section 2 for the formation-rate estimate; the text itself notes reality is more complicated, with alternating explodability and fallback.
domain assumption Initial binary separations are log-uniform between 20 solar radii and 1000 AU.
Used in Section 2 to conclude that roughly 10 percent of binaries are close enough to merge; the separation range is a stated simplifying assumption.
domain assumption The local star formation rate is about 1.5 times 10^7 solar masses per Gpc^3 per year.
Taken from Madau and Dickinson (2014), reference 25, and used to convert formation efficiency into a local merger rate.
domain assumption Electromagnetic observations of earlier-stage massive binaries, interpreted with current modeling tools, can constrain binary evolution enough to build a concordance model.
Underpins the central recommendation in Section 3; the paper argues for it with examples but does not demonstrate sufficiency.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interpretation of the binary black hole mass spectrum." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4IB5MP6

@misc{pith2026250601507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interpretation of the binary black hole mass spectrum},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4IB5MP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01507}
}

read the original abstract

This is a summary of an invited talk given at the Moriond Gravitation meeting on March 31, 2025. I touch on some of the practical challenges of measuring the mass spectrum of merging binary black holes through their gravitational-wave signatures. I then describe my take on the current state of interpreting the observed binary black hole mass spectrum from the perspective of models for the formation of these sources. I conclude that meaningful progress must rely on the combination of gravitational-wave observations and a broad range of electromagnetic observations of massive stellar binaries at earlier stages of their evolution. This is my very personal and necessarily brief take on the current state of the field and does not aspire to the balance or completeness of a review.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run.Physical Review X, 13(4):041039, October 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Nitz, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Shichao Wu, Marlin Sch¨ afer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Collin D

Alexander H. Nitz, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Shichao Wu, Marlin Sch¨ afer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Collin D. Capano. 4-OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Mergers.Astrophysical Journal, 946(2):59, April 2023

work page 2023
[3]

New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics

Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Ajit Kumar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, Seth Olsen, and Matias Zaldarriaga. New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2312.06631, December 2023

arXiv 2023
[4]

Thompson, Stephen Fairhurst, Vivien Raymond, et al

Mark Hannam, Charlie Hoy, Jonathan E. Thompson, Stephen Fairhurst, Vivien Raymond, et al. General-relativistic precession in a black-hole binary.Nature, 610(7933):652–655, October 2022

work page 2022
[5]

Curious case of GW200129: Interplay between spin-precession inference and data-quality issues.Phys

Ethan Payne, Sophie Hourihane, Jacob Golomb, Rhiannon Udall, Derek Davis, and Ka- terina Chatziioannou. Curious case of GW200129: Interplay between spin-precession inference and data-quality issues.Phys. Rev. D, 106(10):104017, November 2022

work page 2022
[6]

Miller, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, Vijay Varma, and Ilya Mandel

Simona J. Miller, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, Vijay Varma, and Ilya Mandel. GW190521: Tracing imprints of spin-precession on the most massive black hole binary. Phys. Rev. D, 109(2):024024, January 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Juan Calder´ on Bustillo

Isobel Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Juan Calder´ on Bustillo. GW190521: Orbital Eccentricity and Signatures of Dynamical Formation in a Binary Black Hole Merger Signal.Astrophysical Journal, 903(1):L5, November 2020

work page 2020
[8]

Chruslinska, G

M. Chruslinska, G. Nelemans, and K. Belczynski. The influence of the distribution of cosmic star formation at different metallicities on the properties of merging double compact objects.MNRAS, 482:5012–5017, February 2019

work page 2019

Show all 36 references

[9]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, et al. Popula- tion of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3. Physical Review X, 13(1):011048, January 2023

2023
[10]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, et al. GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object.Astrophysical Journal, 896(2):L44, June 2020

2020
[11]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, et al. GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 Msun.Phys. Rev. Lett, 125(10):101102, September 2020

2020
[12]

A. G. Abac, R. Abbott, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Compact Object and a Neutron Star.Astrophysical Journal, 970(2):L34, August 2024

2024
[13]

Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Ilya Mandel

Christian Adamcewicz, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Ilya Mandel. No Evidence for a Dip in the Binary Black Hole Mass Spectrum.Astrophysical Journal, 975(2):253, November 2024

2024
[14]

Compactness peaks: An astrophysical interpre- tation of the mass distribution of merging binary black holes.A&A, 694:A186, February 2025

Shanika Galaudage and Astrid Lamberts. Compactness peaks: An astrophysical interpre- tation of the mass distribution of merging binary black holes.A&A, 694:A186, February 2025

2025
[15]

Black Holes as the End State of Stellar Evolution: Theory and Simulations

Alexander Heger, Bernhard M¨ uller, and Ilya Mandel. Black Holes as the End State of Stellar Evolution: Theory and Simulations. In Zoltan Haiman, editor,The Encyclopedia of Cosmology. Set 2: Frontiers in Cosmology. Volume 3: Black Holes, pages 61–111. 2023

2023
[16]

I. Mandel. Theoretical expectations for high-mass X-ray binaries, supernova remnants, and their evolutionary paths: A review for LIAC41: the eventful life of stellar multiples. Bulletin de la Societe Royale des Sciences de Liege, 93(3):302–323, December 2024

2024
[17]

Constraining the masses of microlensing black holes and the mass gap with Gaia DR2.A&A, 636:A20, April 2020

Lukasz Wyrzykowski and Ilya Mandel. Constraining the masses of microlensing black holes and the mass gap with Gaia DR2.A&A, 636:A20, April 2020

2020
[18]

W. M. Farr, N. Sravan, A. Cantrell, L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, I. Mandel, and V. Kalogera. The Mass Distribution of Stellar-mass Black Holes.Astrophysical Jour- nal, 741:103, November 2011

2011
[19]

Howard, Howard Isaac- son, Jim Fuller, Keith Hawkins, Katelyn Breivik, Kaze W

Kareem El-Badry, Hans-Walter Rix, Eliot Quataert, Andrew W. Howard, Howard Isaac- son, Jim Fuller, Keith Hawkins, Katelyn Breivik, Kaze W. K. Wong, Antonio C. Ro- driguez, Charlie Conroy, Sahar Shahaf, Tsevi Mazeh, Fr´ ed´ eric Arenou, Kevin B. Burdge, Dolev Bashi, Simchon Fai...

2023
[20]

Panuzzo, T

P. Panuzzo, T. Mazeh, F. Arenou, B. Holl, E. Caffau, et al. Discovery of a dormant 33 solar-mass black hole in pre-release Gaia astrometry.A&A, 686:L2, June 2024

2024
[21]

Jonker, Karamveer Kaur, Nicholas Stone, and Manuel A

Peter G. Jonker, Karamveer Kaur, Nicholas Stone, and Manuel A. P. Torres. The Observed Mass Distribution of Galactic Black Hole LMXBs Is Biased against Massive Black Holes. Astrophysical Journal, 921(2):131, November 2021

2021
[22]

Apples and Oranges: Comparing Black Holes in X-Ray Binaries and Gravitational-wave Sources.Astrophysical Journal, 929(2):L26, April 2022

Maya Fishbach and Vicky Kalogera. Apples and Oranges: Comparing Black Holes in X-Ray Binaries and Gravitational-wave Sources.Astrophysical Journal, 929(2):L26, April 2022

2022
[23]

Moe and R

M. Moe and R. Di Stefano. Mind Your Ps and Qs: The Interrelation between Period (P) and Mass-ratio (Q) Distributions of Binary Stars.ApJS, 230:15, June 2017

2017
[24]

P. Kroupa. On the variation of the initial mass function.MNRAS, 322:231–246, April 2001

2001
[25]

Madau and M

P. Madau and M. Dickinson. Cosmic Star-Formation History.ARA&A, 52:415–486, August 2014

2014
[26]

Merging stellar-mass binary black holes.Physics Reports, 955:1–24, April 2022

Ilya Mandel and Alison Farmer. Merging stellar-mass binary black holes.Physics Reports, 955:1–24, April 2022

2022
[27]

Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes

Michela Mapelli. Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes. In Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy, page 4. 2021

2021
[28]

Broekgaarden

Ilya Mandel and Floor S. Broekgaarden. Rates of compact object coalescences.Living Reviews in Relativity, 25(1):1, December 2022

2022
[29]

Broekgaarden, Edo Berger, Simon Stevenson, Stephen Justham, Ilya Mandel, Martyna Chru´ sli´ nska, Lieke A

Floor S. Broekgaarden, Edo Berger, Simon Stevenson, Stephen Justham, Ilya Mandel, Martyna Chru´ sli´ nska, Lieke A. C. van Son, Tom Wagg, Alejandro Vigna-G´ omez, Selma E. de Mink, Debatri Chattopadhyay, and Coenraad J. Neijssel. Impact of massive binary star and cosmic evolut...

2022
[30]

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, and et al. Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger.Astrophysical Journal, 848:L12, October 2017

2017
[31]

Sahu, Jay Anderson, Stefano Casertano, Howard E

Kailash C. Sahu, Jay Anderson, Stefano Casertano, Howard E. Bond, Andrzej Udalski, et al. An Isolated Stellar-Mass Black Hole Detected Through Astrometric Microlensing. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2201.13296, January 2022

2022 arXiv
[32]

A Two-stage Formalism for Common-envelope Phases of Massive Stars.Astrophysical Journal, 937(2):L42, October 2022

Ryosuke Hirai and Ilya Mandel. A Two-stage Formalism for Common-envelope Phases of Massive Stars.Astrophysical Journal, 937(2):L42, October 2022

2022
[33]

Berdyugin, Svetlana V

Juri Poutanen, Alexandra Veledina, Andrei V. Berdyugin, Svetlana V. Berdyugina, Helen Jermak, Peter G. Jonker, Jari J. E. Kajava, Ilia A. Kosenkov, Vadim Kravtsov, Vilppu Piirola, Manisha Shrestha, Manuel A. Perez Torres, and Sergey S. Tsygankov. Black hole spin–orbit misalign...

2022
[34]

M. C. Miller and J. M. Miller. The masses and spins of neutron stars and stellar-mass black holes.Physics Reports, 548:1–34, January 2015

2015
[35]

Alejandro Vigna-G´ omez, Reinhold Willcox, Irene Tamborra, Ilya Mandel, Mathieu Renzo, Tom Wagg, Hans-Thomas Janka, Daniel Kresse, Julia Bodensteiner, Tomer Shenar, and Thomas M. Tauris. Constraints on neutrino natal kicks from black-hole binary VFTS 243. arXiv e-prints, page ...

arXiv
[36]

Woods, Coenraad J

George Howitt, Simon Stevenson, Alejand ro Vigna-G´ omez, Stephen Justham, Natasha Ivanova, Tyrone E. Woods, Coenraad J. Neijssel, and Ilya Mandel. Luminous Red Novae: population models and future prospects.MNRAS, 492(3):3229–3240, March 2020

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abbott, T

R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, N. Adhikari, et al. GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run.Physical Review X, 13(4):041039, October 2023

work page 2023

[2] [2]

Nitz, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Shichao Wu, Marlin Sch¨ afer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Collin D

Alexander H. Nitz, Sumit Kumar, Yi-Fan Wang, Shilpa Kastha, Shichao Wu, Marlin Sch¨ afer, Rahul Dhurkunde, and Collin D. Capano. 4-OGC: Catalog of Gravitational Waves from Compact Binary Mergers.Astrophysical Journal, 946(2):59, April 2023

work page 2023

[3] [3]

New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics

Digvijay Wadekar, Javier Roulet, Tejaswi Venumadhav, Ajit Kumar Mehta, Barak Zackay, Jonathan Mushkin, Seth Olsen, and Matias Zaldarriaga. New black hole mergers in the LIGO-Virgo O3 data from a gravitational wave search including higher-order harmonics. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2312.06631, December 2023

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Thompson, Stephen Fairhurst, Vivien Raymond, et al

Mark Hannam, Charlie Hoy, Jonathan E. Thompson, Stephen Fairhurst, Vivien Raymond, et al. General-relativistic precession in a black-hole binary.Nature, 610(7933):652–655, October 2022

work page 2022

[5] [5]

Curious case of GW200129: Interplay between spin-precession inference and data-quality issues.Phys

Ethan Payne, Sophie Hourihane, Jacob Golomb, Rhiannon Udall, Derek Davis, and Ka- terina Chatziioannou. Curious case of GW200129: Interplay between spin-precession inference and data-quality issues.Phys. Rev. D, 106(10):104017, November 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

Miller, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, Vijay Varma, and Ilya Mandel

Simona J. Miller, Maximiliano Isi, Katerina Chatziioannou, Vijay Varma, and Ilya Mandel. GW190521: Tracing imprints of spin-precession on the most massive black hole binary. Phys. Rev. D, 109(2):024024, January 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Juan Calder´ on Bustillo

Isobel Romero-Shaw, Paul D. Lasky, Eric Thrane, and Juan Calder´ on Bustillo. GW190521: Orbital Eccentricity and Signatures of Dynamical Formation in a Binary Black Hole Merger Signal.Astrophysical Journal, 903(1):L5, November 2020

work page 2020

[8] [8]

Chruslinska, G

M. Chruslinska, G. Nelemans, and K. Belczynski. The influence of the distribution of cosmic star formation at different metallicities on the properties of merging double compact objects.MNRAS, 482:5012–5017, February 2019

work page 2019