pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.15749 · v1 · pith:EM3NXLKUnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE· gr-qc

Constraints on primordial black holes from the first part of LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA fourth observing run

M. Andr\'es-Carcasona , A.J. Iovino , E. Vallejo-Pag\`es , V. Vaskonen , H. Veerm\"ae , M. Mart\'inez , Ll. M. Mir This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 17:09 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords primordial black holesgravitational wavesLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAdark matterbinary mergersO4a observing runstochastic background
0
0 comments X

The pith

LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a data yields the strongest constraints on primordial black hole abundance between 0.6 and 100 solar masses.

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

This paper uses the first part of the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA fourth observing run to set upper limits on how abundant primordial black holes can be. Advanced modeling of binary formation and mergers predicts how many events should be seen if these objects make up a large share of dark matter. The resulting bounds are tighter than previous ones in the stellar-mass window and show that resolvable mergers drive most of the constraint while the background signal adds weaker support. A reader would care because these objects are still a viable dark-matter candidate, and ruling out large fractions narrows the possibilities for what constitutes the missing mass.

Core claim

We analyze PBH populations using state-of-the-art modeling of PBH binaries, deriving the strongest bounds on PBH abundance in the 0.6-100 M_⊙ range from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a data and demonstrating sensitivity in the 10^{-4}-10^4 M_⊙ range. The constraints are dominated by resolvable PBH mergers, while the associated gravitational wave background provides complementary but weaker limits. Allowing PBHs to account for a subset of the cataloged events slightly relaxes these bounds. However, a joint fit with astrophysical black holes shows no compelling evidence for a PBH contribution.

What carries the argument

State-of-the-art modeling of PBH binary formation, evolution, and merger rates that predicts the expected number of resolvable events and the stochastic gravitational wave background.

If this is right

  • Resolvable PBH mergers dominate the constraints on abundance in the 0.6-100 solar mass range.
  • The stochastic gravitational wave background supplies complementary but weaker limits.
  • Attributing some cataloged events to PBHs only mildly relaxes the upper bounds.
  • A joint fit with astrophysical black holes finds no compelling evidence for a PBH contribution.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The full O4 dataset or later runs could produce even tighter abundance limits using the same approach.
  • These gravitational-wave bounds complement independent probes such as microlensing surveys.
  • Refinements to binary evolution assumptions could shift the numerical values while preserving the overall method.

Load-bearing premise

The modeling of PBH binary formation, evolution, and merger rates accurately predicts the expected number of resolvable events and the stochastic background without large systematic uncertainties from early-universe conditions or binary dynamics.

What would settle it

Detecting substantially more black hole mergers in the 0.6-100 solar mass range than allowed by the maximum permitted PBH abundance, or measuring a stochastic gravitational wave background exceeding the predicted level, would challenge the derived constraints.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.15749 by A.J. Iovino, E. Vallejo-Pag\`es, H. Veerm\"ae, Ll. M. Mir, M. Andr\'es-Carcasona, M. Mart\'inez, V. Vaskonen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Constraints on the DM fraction of PBHs for monochromatic and log-normal mass functions. The other constraints [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison of the agnostic limits obtained with both [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of our constraint (gray solid) with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We analyze PBH populations using state-of-the-art modeling of PBH binaries, deriving the strongest bounds on PBH abundance in the $0.6-100 M_\odot$ range from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a data and demonstrating sensitivity in the $10^{-4}-10^4 M_\odot$ range. The constraints are dominated by resolvable PBH mergers, while the associated gravitational wave background provides complementary but weaker limits. Allowing PBHs to account for a subset of the cataloged events slightly relaxes these bounds. However, a joint fit with astrophysical black holes shows no compelling evidence for a PBH contribution.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes PBH populations using state-of-the-art modeling of PBH binaries and derives upper limits on the PBH abundance f_PBH from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a data. It claims the strongest bounds to date in the 0.6-100 M_⊙ range, with constraints dominated by resolvable mergers and weaker complementary limits from the stochastic gravitational-wave background. The analysis also explores allowing PBHs to account for a subset of cataloged events (which relaxes bounds slightly) and performs a joint fit with astrophysical black holes, finding no compelling evidence for a PBH contribution.

Significance. If the central modeling assumptions hold, the work supplies timely new constraints on stellar-mass PBH dark matter using the latest O4a dataset, improving on previous limits and extending sensitivity to a wider mass range. The explicit separation of resolvable-merger and background contributions, together with the joint-fit exercise, strengthens the interpretability of the results.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4] §4 (PBH binary formation and merger-rate modeling): the expected number of resolvable events is computed from a specific choice of initial separation distribution, clustering prescription, and dynamical hardening. No systematic variation is shown for plausible alternatives (e.g., non-Gaussian primordial fluctuations or altered small-scale power spectra), which the text acknowledges can change the merger rate by a factor of a few. Because the headline bounds are stated to be dominated by resolvable mergers, this unquantified uncertainty directly affects the quoted f_PBH limits and must be addressed before the “strongest bounds” claim can be considered robust.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The abstract and §5 would benefit from a one-sentence statement of the precise early-universe initial conditions adopted for the baseline rate calculation.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We are grateful to the referee for the positive assessment of our work and the constructive major comment. Below we provide a detailed response and indicate the changes we will implement in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (PBH binary formation and merger-rate modeling): the expected number of resolvable events is computed from a specific choice of initial separation distribution, clustering prescription, and dynamical hardening. No systematic variation is shown for plausible alternatives (e.g., non-Gaussian primordial fluctuations or altered small-scale power spectra), which the text acknowledges can change the merger rate by a factor of a few. Because the headline bounds are stated to be dominated by resolvable mergers, this unquantified uncertainty directly affects the quoted f_PBH limits and must be addressed before the “strongest bounds” claim can be considered robust.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee's observation regarding the modeling assumptions in §4. Our analysis utilizes the most up-to-date modeling of PBH binary formation and evolution available in the literature. We explicitly acknowledge in the text that alternative scenarios, including non-Gaussian primordial fluctuations or modified small-scale power spectra, could lead to variations in the merger rate by a factor of a few. While a comprehensive systematic study of all such alternatives is beyond the scope of this paper, we agree that this uncertainty should be better highlighted. In the revised version, we will expand the discussion in §4 to include a qualitative assessment of how these variations would propagate to the f_PBH limits, thereby qualifying the 'strongest bounds' claim appropriately. This addresses the concern while maintaining the focus on the new O4a data constraints. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: bounds derived from external LIGO data comparison

full rationale

The paper models PBH binary formation and merger rates using established prescriptions, then compares the predicted event counts and stochastic background directly to independent LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA O4a observations to extract upper limits on f_PBH. This is a standard forward-modeling exercise against external counts; the reported bounds do not reduce by construction to any parameter fitted inside the O4a dataset itself, nor to a self-citation chain that replaces the data comparison. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the external benchmark.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard assumptions of general relativity for wave propagation and on the accuracy of current PBH binary population synthesis; no new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • PBH mass function parameters
    Parameters describing the PBH mass distribution are chosen or marginalized over to derive the abundance limits.
axioms (2)
  • standard math General relativity accurately describes gravitational wave generation, propagation, and detection by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA.
    Required for interpreting all merger signals and the stochastic background.
  • domain assumption The adopted state-of-the-art PBH binary formation and merger rate model correctly represents the expected event rate for a given abundance.
    This modeling choice directly converts the observed catalog into an upper limit on PBH fraction.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5687 in / 1462 out tokens · 163169 ms · 2026-05-20T17:09:20.563748+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

106 extracted references · 106 canonical work pages · 34 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    In this case, the constraint onf PBH is derived from the non-observation of any excess of events

    In theastrophysics onlycase, all the observed events originate from ABH binaries and no PBH are assumed to have been observed. In this case, the constraint onf PBH is derived from the non-observation of any excess of events. The 95% CL upper bound onf PBH corresponds to the region whereN(Λ)<3

    work page

  2. [2]

    In theastrophysically agnosticcase, any of the ob- served events could be primordial. We therefore set limits without modeling the ABH population, using two complementary procedures: (i) taking random subsets of the catalog and assuming that they are PBHs, as done in Refs. [10, 15]); and (ii) using a sub- set–marginalized likelihood (SML), which smoothly ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    The tree-levelZcoupling can be removed by splitting the neutral Dirac fermion into two Majorana states (a pseudo-Dirac pair)

    In theastrophysically informedcase, we model all ob- served events from a merger rate that combines con- tributions from both PBHs and ABHs. For BH bina- ries formed through astrophysical channels, a reliable estimate of the merger rate based on first principles is missing, which is why we adopt the phenomeno- logical power-law + 2 peaks (PL+2P) parameter...

    work page doi:10.13039/501100011033

  4. [4]

    Capote et al., Phys

    E. Capote et al., Phys. Rev. D111, 062002 (2025), 2411.14607

    work page arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019), 1811.12907

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

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

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), 2010.14527

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

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

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), 2111.03606

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Mandel and A

    I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Phys. Rept.955, 1 (2022), 1806.05820

    work page arXiv 2022

  9. [9]

    S. E. Woosley, A. Heger, and T. A. Weaver, Rev. Mod. Phys.74, 1015 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168, 399 (1974)

    work page 1974

  11. [11]

    H¨ utsi, M

    G. H¨ utsi, M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP03, 068 (2021), 2012.02786

    work page arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    A. Hall, A. D. Gow, and C. T. Byrnes, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123524 (2020), 2008.13704

    work page arXiv 2020

  13. [13]

    K. W. K. Wong, G. Franciolini, V. De Luca, V. Baibhav, E. Berti, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, Phys. Rev. D103, 023026 (2021), 2011.01865

    work page arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Franciolini, V

    G. Franciolini, V. Baibhav, V. De Luca, K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vi- tale, Phys. Rev. D105, 083526 (2022), 2105.03349

    work page arXiv 2022

  15. [15]

    De Luca, G

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, JCAP05, 003 (2021), 2102.03809

    work page arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, A

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, A. J. Iovino, V. Vaskonen, H. Veerm¨ ae, M. Mart´ ınez, O. Pujol` as, and L. M. Mir, Phys. Rev. D110, 023040 (2024), 2405.05732

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

    Pujolas, V

    O. Pujolas, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D104, 083521 (2021), 2107.03379

    work page arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Mukherjee and J

    S. Mukherjee and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506, 3977 (2021), 2105.11139

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Gravitational Waves from Primordial Black Hole Mergers

    M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP09, 037 (2017), 1707.01480

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    Boybeyi, S

    T. Boybeyi, S. Clesse, S. Kuroyanagi, and M. Sakellar- iadou, Phys. Rev. D112, 023551 (2025), 2412.18318

    work page arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    S. S. Bavera, G. Franciolini, G. Cusin, A. Riotto, M. Zevin, and T. Fragos, Astron. Astrophys.660, A26 (2022), 2109.05836

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Jiang, C

    Y. Jiang, C. Yuan, C.-Z. Li, and Q.-G. Huang, JCAP 12, 016 (2024), 2409.07976

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Romero-Rodr´ ıguez and S

    A. Romero-Rodr´ ıguez and S. Kuroyanagi (2024), 2407.00205

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], 1807.06209

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Crescimbeni, V

    F. Crescimbeni, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, A. Ian- niccari, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, D. Perrone, A. Riotto, and H. Veerm¨ ae (2025), 2502.01617

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    B. Carr, M. Raidal, T. Tenkanen, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae, Phys. Rev. D96, 023514 (2017), 1705.05567

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  27. [27]

    B. Carr, A. J. Iovino, G. Perna, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae (2026), 2601.06024

    work page arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Raidal, V

    M. Raidal, V. Vaskonen, and H. Veerm¨ ae,Formation of Primordial Black Hole Binaries and Their Merger Rates(2025), 2404.08416

    work page arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    See Supplemental Material for details

    work page

  30. [30]

    Jedamzik, Phys

    K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D55, 5871 (1997), astro- ph/9605152

    work page arXiv 1997

  31. [31]

    C. T. Byrnes, M. Hindmarsh, S. Young, and M. R. S. Hawkins, JCAP08, 041 (2018), 1801.06138

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  32. [32]

    Franciolini, I

    G. Franciolini, I. Musco, P. Pani, and A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D106, 123526 (2022), 2209.05959

    work page arXiv 2022

  33. [33]

    Escriv` a, E

    A. Escriv` a, E. Bagui, and S. Clesse, JCAP05, 004 (2023), 2209.06196

    work page arXiv 2023

  34. [34]

    Musco, K

    I. Musco, K. Jedamzik, and S. Young, Phys. Rev. D 109, 083506 (2024), 2303.07980

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Ferrante, G

    G. Ferrante, G. Franciolini, A. Iovino, Junior., and 7 A. Urbano, Phys. Rev. D107, 043520 (2023), 2211.01728

    work page arXiv 2023

  36. [36]

    Thrane and C

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

    work page arXiv 2019

  37. [37]

    Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.486, 1086 (2019), 1809.02063

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  38. [38]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.913, L7 (2021), 2010.14533

    work page arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    Mastrogiovanni, G

    S. Mastrogiovanni, G. Pierra, S. Perri` es, D. Laghi, G. Caneva Santoro, A. Ghosh, R. Gray, C. Karathana- sis, and K. Leyde, Astron. Astrophys.682, A167 (2024), 2305.17973

    work page arXiv 2024

  40. [40]

    L. S. Finn and D. F. Chernoff, Phys. Rev. D47, 2198 (1993), gr-qc/9301003

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  41. [41]

    Multiband gravitational-wave event rates and stellar physics

    D. Gerosa, S. Ma, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, Y. Chen, and K. Belczynski, Phys. Rev. D99, 103004 (2019), 1902.00021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  42. [42]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), Astrophys. J. Lett.995, L18 (2025), 2508.18080

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Yuan, Z.-C

    C. Yuan, Z.-C. Chen, and L. Liu (2025), 2507.15701

    work page arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    GW231123: A Possible Primordial Black Hole Origin

    V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, and A. Riotto (2025), 2508.09965

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    Bartos and Z

    I. Bartos and Z. Haiman (2025), 2508.08558

    work page arXiv 2025

  46. [46]

    Croon, J

    D. Croon, J. Sakstein, and D. Gerosa (2025), 2508.10088

    work page arXiv 2025

  47. [47]

    Kıro˘ glu, K

    F. Kıro˘ glu, K. Kremer, and F. A. Rasio (2025), 2509.05415

    work page arXiv 2025

  48. [48]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2509.04348

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 161102 (2019), 1904.08976

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 061104 (2022), 2109.12197

    work page arXiv 2022

  51. [51]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LVK), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 524, 5984 (2023), [Erratum: Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 526, 6234 (2023)], 2212.01477

    work page arXiv 2023

  52. [52]

    A. H. Nitz and Y.-F. Wang, Phys. Rev. D106, 023024 (2022), 2202.11024

    work page arXiv 2022

  53. [53]

    A. H. Nitz and Y.-F. Wang (2021), 2102.00868

    work page arXiv 2021

  54. [54]

    Andres-Carcasona, A

    M. Andres-Carcasona, A. Menendez-Vazquez, M. Mar- tinez, and L. M. Mir, Phys. Rev. D107, 082003 (2023), 2212.02829

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2026), 2605.05444

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  56. [56]

    Cautun, A

    M. Cautun, A. Benitez-Llambay, A. J. Deason, C. S. Frenk, A. Fattahi, F. A. G´ omez, R. J. J. Grand, K. A. Oman, J. F. Navarro, and C. M. Simpson, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494, 4291 (2020), 1911.04557

    work page arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    A. L. Miller, S. Clesse, F. De Lillo, G. Bruno, A. De- passe, and A. Tanasijczuk, Phys. Dark Univ.32, 100836 (2021), 2012.12983

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    A. L. Miller, N. Aggarwal, S. Clesse, and F. De Lillo, Phys. Rev. D105, 062008 (2022), 2110.06188

    work page arXiv 2022

  59. [59]

    A. L. Miller, N. Aggarwal, S. Clesse, F. De Lillo, S. Sachdev, P. Astone, C. Palomba, O. J. Piccinni, and L. Pierini, Phys. Rev. D110, 082004 (2024), 2407.17052

    work page arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, O

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, O. J. Piccinni, M. Mart´ ınez, and L. M. Mir, Phys. Rev. D111, 043019 (2025), 2411.04498

    work page arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Andr´ es-Carcasona, O

    M. Andr´ es-Carcasona, O. J. Piccinni, M. Mart´ ınez, and L.-M. Mir, PoSEPS-HEP2023, 067 (2024)

    work page 2024

  62. [62]

    Alestas, G

    G. Alestas, G. Morras, T. S. Yamamoto, J. Garcia- Bellido, S. Kuroyanagi, and S. Nesseris, Phys. Rev. D 109, 123516 (2024), 2401.02314

    work page arXiv 2024

  63. [63]

    A. L. Miller, N. Aggarwal, S. Clesse, F. De Lillo, S. Sachdev, P. Astone, C. Palomba, O. J. Piccinni, and L. Pierini, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 111401 (2024), 2402.19468

    work page arXiv 2024

  64. [64]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2511.19911

    work page arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    Method for all-sky searches of continuous gravitational wave signals using the frequency-Hough transform

    P. Astone, A. Colla, S. D’Antonio, S. Frasca, and C. Palomba, Phys. Rev. D90, 042002 (2014), 1407.8333

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  66. [66]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments(Oxford University Press, 2007), ISBN 978-0-19-171766-6, 978-0-19-852074-0

    work page 2007

  67. [67]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.118, 121101 (2017), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 119, 029901 (2017)], 1612.02029

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  68. [68]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D100, 061101 (2019), 1903.02886

    work page arXiv 2019

  69. [69]

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

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022004 (2021), 2101.12130

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2508.20721

    work page arXiv 2025

  71. [71]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D104, 022005 (2021), 2103.08520

    work page arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. D105, 122001 (2022), 2110.09834

    work page arXiv 2022

  73. [73]

    Romero-Rodriguez, M

    A. Romero-Rodriguez, M. Martinez, O. Pujol` as, M. Sakellariadou, and V. Vaskonen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 051301 (2022), 2107.11660

    work page arXiv 2022

  74. [74]

    A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA) (2025), 2510.26848

    work page arXiv 2025

  75. [75]

    Constraints on the Primordial Black Hole Abundance from the First Advanced LIGO Observation Run Using the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background

    S. Wang, Y.-F. Wang, Q.-G. Huang, and T. G. F. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 191102 (2018), 1610.08725

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  76. [76]

    V. Atal, J. J. Blanco-Pillado, A. Sanglas, and N. Triantafyllou, Phys. Rev. D105, 123522 (2022), 2201.12218

    work page arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    Zhou, Y.-T

    J.-Z. Zhou, Y.-T. Kuang, Z. Chang, and H. L¨ u, Astro- phys. J.979, 178 (2025), 2410.10111

    work page arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Christensen, Phys

    N. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D46, 5250 (1992)

    work page 1992

  79. [79]

    Detecting a stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal processing strategies and sensitivities

    B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), gr-qc/9710117

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  80. [80]

    J. D. Romano and N. J. Cornish, Living Rev. Rel.20, 2 (2017), 1608.06889

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

Showing first 80 references.