Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Search for dynamical black hole captures with Gaussian mixture modelling

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A GMM-enhanced search for dynamical black-hole captures finds no new events but reaches out to 1.9 Gpc for 200-solar-mass equal-mass binaries, and sets a 90% upper limit of 0.15 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$ on the capture rate.

desk verdict A plausible, well-scoped null search for dynamical captures; the headline sensitivity is model-dependent in a standard way, and the full text needs referee scrutiny. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00481 v1 pith:GOHTXC5H submitted 2025-08-01 gr-qc

Leigh Smith , Shubhanshu Tiwari , Michael Ebersold , Yeong-Bok Bae , Gungwon Kang , Ik Siong Heng This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitationalwavesdynamicalcaptureeccentricbinariesGaussianmixturemodellingcoherentWaveBurstLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAupperlimitsGW190521
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

This paper claims that adding Gaussian mixture modelling (GMM) to an existing burst search makes gravitational-wave detectors substantially more sensitive to dynamical black-hole captures: systems that form when two black holes meet in a dense environment and merge with high eccentricity. The search of the third LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run finds no new statistically significant events, but the authors argue the method itself is a step forward. A population-informed GMM search can detect a 200 solar-mass equal-mass capture out to 1.9 Gpc, and even a weakly-modeled all-sky short search can see such events out to 1 Gpc. The most stringent 90% rate upper limit is 0.15 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, a 34% improvement over previous observational estimates.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the coherent WaveBurst (cWB) algorithm, a burst search that identifies gravitational-wave transients without fixed waveform templates, enhanced by Gaussian mixture modelling (GMM) as a post-production step. The GMM learns the distribution of cWB trigger features in noise, and in the informed application it is additionally trained on simulated dynamical-capture signals so that the search scores candidates by how closely they resemble the expected capture population. This population-informed re-ranking is what delivers the gain in detection range and the tighter rate limit.

What would settle it

Inject a set of dynamical-capture waveforms drawn from a different population, for example unequal masses, higher spins, or lower eccentricity, into the same O3 data and measure the detection efficiency; if the 50% detection distance falls well below 1.9 Gpc, the reported range and rate limit are population-dependent rather than intrinsic to the search.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a coherent WaveBurst (cWB) search, when re-ranked with Gaussian mixture models trained on simulated dynamical-capture waveforms, can detect high-eccentricity black-hole captures at distances that make them observable in current detector data. No new capture candidates are found, but the detection efficiency, measured through injections, gives a 1.9 Gpc range for the fiducial 200 $M_\odot$ equal-mass system with the informed GMM, and 1 Gpc with the weakly-modeled all-sky short search. From the null result the paper derives an updated 90% confidence upper limit on the dynamical-capture merger rate, the most stringent being 0.15 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$, and, assuming GW190521 was a dynamical capture, estimates the rate of similar events as 0.94 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated dynamical-capture waveforms used to train the GMM and to measure detection efficiency faithfully represent the signals that nature actually sends.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future observing runs can deploy a dedicated informed-GMM search for dynamical captures, with a projected reach of 1.9 Gpc for heavy equal-mass systems.
  • The updated 90% upper limit of 0.15 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$ tightens the constraint on merger rates from dense stellar environments by one third.
  • A weakly-modeled all-sky short search, requiring no population assumptions, can still detect captures out to 1 Gpc, providing a model-agnostic check on dedicated searches.
  • If GW190521 was a dynamical capture, the implied rate of similar events is 0.94 Gpc$^{-3}$ yr$^{-1}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same informed-GMM strategy could be applied to other poorly modelled transient populations, such as hyperbolic black-hole encounters or highly eccentric mergers with spin precession, because it only needs simulated waveforms to define the signal region.
  • The 1.9 Gpc range is quoted for a 200 $M_\odot$ equal-mass binary; if the real capture population is dominated by lighter or unequal-mass binaries, the typical detection distance will be smaller, so the reported rate limit should not be read as a limit on all capture masses.
  • Since the search finds no significant events, stacking this pipeline over future observing runs should tighten the rate upper limit roughly in proportion to accumulated observation time, provided the background and detector sensitivity remain comparable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims to present the first dedicated search for dynamical black-hole capture events in the third LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, using the coherent WaveBurst pipeline augmented by Gaussian mixture model post-processing. Two GMM variants are considered: a weakly-modeled all-sky short search and a population-informed search. The search finds no new significant events, but the abstract reports that the informed GMM detects 200 solar-mass equal-mass capture binaries up to 1.9 Gpc, that the weakly-modeled search reaches 1 Gpc, and that the most stringent 90% upper limit is 0.15 Gpc^-3 yr^-1, a 34% improvement over previous estimates. The abstract also reports a rate estimate of 0.94 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for GW190521-like events under the assumption that GW190521 originated from a dynamical capture. The full text supplied for review is unreadable mojibake, so the injection campaign, GMM training procedure, false-alarm estimation, sensitivity calculations, and upper-limit derivation cannot be checked.

Significance. If the reported numbers are correct, the paper would provide a useful observational constraint on dynamical capture rates and demonstrate a novel application of GMM-based post-processing to a weakly modeled burst search. The 34% improvement over previous upper limits is potentially interesting for the dense-environment population. However, the significance is conditional on verifying that the sensitivity gain reflects astrophysical robustness rather than tuning to a specific simulated population. The paper ships no code or machine-checked derivation in the provided version, and the unreadable full text prevents validation of the central performance claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Full text] The body of the manuscript, including all sections after the abstract, is rendered as unreadable mojibake in the provided copy. Equations, tables, figures, injection definitions, false-alarm procedures, and upper-limit calculations are inaccessible. No technical verification is possible. A complete, legible manuscript must be provided before a substantive review can proceed.
  2. [Abstract] The headline 1.9 Gpc sensitivity for the informed GMM is potentially circular: the GMM is explicitly given information about the parameter space of the capture population, and the abstract suggests that the same simulated population is used to calibrate detection efficiency. If the injected waveforms used for efficiency estimation are drawn from the same distribution used to train the GMM, the quoted range may quantify sensitivity to the simulation prior rather than to generic dynamical capture signals. The manuscript must state whether training and efficiency injections are disjoint, and should include a validation using an independent population choice or a second waveform family. Because the full text is unreadable, I cannot determine whether such a validation already exists.
  3. [Abstract] The rate estimate of 0.94 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for GW190521 relies on the assumption that the event originated from dynamical capture. To make this number meaningful, the paper needs to specify the eccentric waveform model, the constraints used to support the capture origin, the selection effects entering the rate calculation, and the statistical uncertainty on the rate. Without these details the estimate cannot be compared with the reported 90% upper limits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase "200 M_sun equal mass binary" is ambiguous; the authors should specify whether 200 M_sun is the total mass or the individual component mass, since the reported sensitive distance depends on this convention.
  2. [Abstract] The claimed "34% improvement" should identify the previous rate estimate used for comparison and state whether the comparison uses the same population model, detection volume, and confidence level.
  3. [Abstract] The weakly-modeled all-sky short search is described as operating under "minimal assumptions"; the abstract should quantify these assumptions, including the event duration range, the false-alarm threshold, and the number of analyzed triggers.
  4. [Full text] If the manuscript includes code or data-release information, the unreadable rendering obscures it; the final version should include a clear data-availability statement for the injection sets and GMM training configuration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: sensitivity claims are conditional on a modeled capture population and are cross-checked by a weakly-modeled search.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are sensitivity estimates and upper limits obtained by injecting simulated dynamical-capture signals into a search pipeline. The abstract explicitly distinguishes a weakly-modeled GMM branch (minimal assumptions, 1 Gpc) from a population-informed branch (provided the capture population's parameter space, 1.9 Gpc). This is a conditional statement about detectability of the modeled population, not a derivation that assumes its own conclusion. Using the same simulated population to train a signal classifier and to measure its detection efficiency is standard sensitivity calibration; it does not make the reported range equivalent to the training input by construction, because the search still must find the injections in noise and the weakly-modeled branch provides an independent baseline. The 90% upper limit is computed from the absence of significant events and compared with previous observational estimates, so it is not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. No load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems are visible in the readable abstract. The supplied full text is unreadable mojibake, so deeper circularity cannot be inspected, but the absence of an identifiable reduction of a prediction to its own input means the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

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

The abstract introduces no new physical entities and no explicit fitted constants. The central numerical claims rest on the simulated capture population model and on GMM training choices, which are not fully specified in the abstract. The only implicit free parameter is the population model that seeds both the informed GMM and the injections.

free parameters (1)
  • Capture population model parameters
    The population-informed GMM is provided information on the parameter space occupied by the capture population, such as mass, eccentricity, and spin distributions. The abstract does not list these values, but they directly shape the simulation injections and the GMM prior, and therefore the reported detection distances and upper limits.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Dynamical capture events in dense astrophysical environments produce gravitational-wave signals well described by the simulation waveforms used in the injection campaign.
    The sensitivity estimate of 1.9 Gpc and the upper limit of 0.15 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 are based on simulated signals. If real waveforms differ (for example in eccentricity evolution or merger signature), the reported distances and rates would change.
  • domain assumption The cWB-GMM pipeline's background model and false-alarm estimation are correct for the O3 data.
    The search concludes that no new significant events exist, which depends on the reliability of the noise background model. The upper limit calculation also relies on correct false-alarm probabilities.
  • domain assumption GW190521 can be used to estimate the dynamical capture rate if it originated from such a capture.
    The estimate of 0.94 Gpc^-3 yr^-1 for similar events assumes that GW190521 is indeed a dynamical capture event and that the adopted population model applies. If GW190521 formed through another channel, the inferred rate would not be valid for dynamical captures.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Search for dynamical black hole captures with Gaussian mixture modelling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GOHTXC5H

@misc{pith2026250800481,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Search for dynamical black hole captures with Gaussian mixture modelling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GOHTXC5H}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00481}
}
abstract

Gravitational waves (GWs) are expected to originate from black holes interacting dynamically in dense astrophysical environments. In such environments, given that the velocity and cross section between the interacting black holes is low, dynamical capture may occur. Such events merge on very short timescales with high eccentricities and are expected to be detectable in the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) sensitivity band. In this work, we present a dedicated search for dynamical black hole capture events in the third LVK observing run with the coherent WaveBurst (cWB) algorithm enhanced with Gaussian mixture modeling (GMM) post-production. With this we consider two applications of GMM: a weakly-modeled approach searching for generic short transients under minimal assumptions, and a population informed approach, in which the GMM model is provided information on the parameter space occupied by the capture population. Although our search does not find any new significant GW events, we find that an informed GMM approach brings significant sensitivity improvements, enabling the detection of dynamical capture events up to a distance of 1.9 Gpc for a 200 $M_{\odot}$ equal mass binary. We present updated upper limit estimates of the rate at 90\% confidence, the most stringent of which is 0.15 Gpc$^{-3}$yr$^{-1}$, a 34\% improvement with respect to previous observational estimates. Furthermore, while the weakly-modeled GMM approach is less sensitive to dynamical capture systems, we find that it is possible for these events to be detected up to a distance of 1 Gpc in the cWB-GMM all-sky short search under minimal assumptions. Finally, with the confident detection of GW190521, we estimate the rate of similar events to be 0.94 Gpc$^{-3}$yr$^{-1}$, assuming the event originated from a dynamical capture.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 9 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mapelli ,\ 10.3389/fspas.2020.00038 journal journal Front

    author author M. Mapelli ,\ 10.3389/fspas.2020.00038 journal journal Front. Astron. Space Sci. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 38 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.12455 arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    work page arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    \ Bae , author H

    author author Y.-B. \ Bae , author H. M. \ Lee , author G. Kang , \ and\ author J. Hansen ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.084009 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 96 ,\ pages 084009 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1701.01548 arXiv:1701.01548 [gr-qc] NoStop

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Gamba , author M

    author author R. Gamba , author M. Breschi , author G. Carullo , author S. Albanesi , author P. Rettegno , author S. Bernuzzi , \ and\ author A. Nagar ,\ 10.1038/s41550-022-01813-w journal journal Nature Astron. \ volume 7 ,\ pages 11 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2106.05575 arXiv:2106.05575 [gr-qc] NoStop

    arXiv

  4. [4]

    author author B. P. \ Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.1088/1361-6382/ab685e journal journal Class. Quant. Grav. \ volume 37 ,\ pages 055002 ( year 2020 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1908.11170 arXiv:1908.11170 [gr-qc] NoStop

    arXiv 2020

  5. [5]

    author author M. J. \ Szczepa\'nczyk et al. ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.042007 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 110 ,\ pages 042007 ( year 2024 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.16146 arXiv:2305.16146 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Szczepanczyk et al

    author author M. Szczepanczyk et al. ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.102002 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 104 ,\ pages 102002 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2104.06462 arXiv:2104.06462 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Ebersold \ and\ author S

    author author M. Ebersold \ and\ author S. Tiwari ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.104041 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 101 ,\ pages 104041 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03306 arXiv:2005.03306 [gr-qc] NoStop

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.241102 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 126 ,\ pages 241102 ( year 2021 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2101.12248 arXiv:2101.12248 [gr-qc] NoStop

    arXiv 2021

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Lopez , author S

    author author D. Lopez , author S. Tiwari , author M. Drago , author D. Keitel , author C. Lazzaro , \ and\ author G. A. \ Prodi ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.103037 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 106 ,\ pages 103037 ( year 2022 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.14515 arXiv:22...

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Yim \ and\ author D

    author author G. Yim \ and\ author D. I. \ Jones ,\ 10.1093/mnras/staa2534 journal journal Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. \ volume 498 ,\ pages 3138 ( year 2020 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.05893 arXiv:2007.05893 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2020 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA ),\ 10.1051/0004-6361/202141452 journal journal Astron. Astrophys. \ volume 659 ,\ pages A84 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.15120 arXiv:2105.15120 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    author author A. G. \ Abac et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO ),\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ad65ce journal journal Astrophys. J. \ volume 973 ,\ pages 132 ( year 2024 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03822 arXiv:2308.03822 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    author author B. P. \ Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.042003 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 95 ,\ pages 042003 ( year 2017 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.02972 arXiv:1611.02972 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    author author B. P. \ Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024017 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 100 ,\ pages 024017 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03457 arXiv:1905.03457 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.122004 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 104 ,\ pages 122004 ( year 2021 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03701 arXiv:2107.03701 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Ebersold , author S

    author author M. Ebersold , author S. Tiwari , author L. Smith , author Y.-B. \ Bae , author G. Kang , author D. Williams , author A. Gopakumar , author I. S. \ Heng , \ and\ author M. Haney ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104014 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 106 ,\ pages 1040...

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    Klimenko , author I

    author author S. Klimenko , author I. Yakushin , author A. Mercer , \ and\ author G. Mitselmakher ,\ 10.1088/0264-9381/25/11/114029 journal journal Classical and Quantum Gravity \ volume 25 ,\ pages 114029 ( year 2008 ) NoStop

    2008 doi

  10. [18]

    Klimenko et al

    author author S. Klimenko et al. ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.042004 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 93 ,\ pages 042004 ( year 2016 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.05999 arXiv:1511.05999 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Drago et al

    author author M. Drago et al. ,\ 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100678 journal journal SoftwareX \ volume 14 ,\ pages 2352 ( year 2021 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12604 arXiv:2006.12604 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2021

  12. [20]

    Cabero et al

    author author M. Cabero et al. ,\ 10.1088/1361-6382/ab2e14 journal journal Class. Quant. Grav. \ volume 36 ,\ pages 15 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05093 arXiv:1901.05093 [physics.ins-det] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Smith , author S

    author author L. Smith , author S. Ghosh , author J. Sun , author V. Gayathri , author I. S. \ Heng , \ and\ author A. Pai ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.083032 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 110 ,\ pages 083032 ( year 2024 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16414 arXiv:2407.16414...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    author author M. J. \ Szczepa \' n czyk , author F. Salemi , author S. Bini , author T. Mishra , author G. Vedovato , author V. Gayathri , author I. Bartos , author S. Bhaumik , author M. Drago , author O. Halim , author C. Lazzaro , author A. Miani , author E. Milotti , autho...

    doi

  15. [23]

    Ghosh , author L

    author author S. Ghosh , author L. Smith , author J. Sun , author A. Pai , author I. S. \ Heng , \ and\ author V. Gayathri ,\ @noop \ ( year 2025 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.00465 arXiv:2504.00465 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2025

  16. [24]

    Gayathri , author D

    author author V. Gayathri , author D. Lopez , author P. R. 0.167em S. , author I. S. \ Heng , author A. Pai , \ and\ author C. Messenger ,\ 10.1103/physrevd.102.104023 journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 102 ( year 2020 ),\ 10.1103/physrevd.102.104023 NoStop

    doi

  17. [25]

    Lopez , author V

    author author D. Lopez , author V. Gayathri , author A. Pai , author I. S. \ Heng , author C. Messenger , \ and\ author S. K. \ Gupta ,\ 10.1103/physrevd.105.063024 journal journal Physical Review D \ volume 105 ( year 2022 b ),\ 10.1103/physrevd.105.063024 NoStop

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    author author W. E. \ East \ and\ author F. Pretorius ,\ 10.1088/2041-8205/760/1/L4 journal journal Astrophys. J. Lett. \ volume 760 ,\ pages L4 ( year 2012 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.5279 arXiv:1208.5279 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2012 arXiv

  19. [27]

    author author G. D. \ Quinlan \ and\ author S. L. \ Shapiro ,\ 10.1086/167745 journal journal \ volume 343 ,\ pages 725 ( year 1989 ) NoStop

    1989 doi

  20. [28]

    Klimenko ,\ @noop \ ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01096 arXiv:2201.01096 [physics.data-an] NoStop

    author author S. Klimenko ,\ @noop \ ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.01096 arXiv:2201.01096 [physics.data-an] NoStop

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.102001 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 104 ,\ pages 102001 ( year 2021 c ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2107.13796 arXiv:2107.13796 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Mishra , author S

    author author T. Mishra , author S. Bhaumik , author V. Gayathri , author M. J. \ Szczepa \'n czyk , author I. Bartos , \ and\ author S. Klimenko ,\ 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.023054 journal journal Phys. Rev. D \ volume 111 ,\ pages 023054 ( year 2025 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2410...

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Necula , author S

    author author V. Necula , author S. Klimenko , \ and\ author G. Mitselmakher ,\ 10.1088/1742-6596/363/1/012032 journal journal J. Phys. Conf. Ser. \ volume 363 ,\ pages 012032 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    2012 doi

  24. [32]

    author author A. P. \ Dempster , author N. M. \ Laird , \ and\ author D. B. \ Rubin ,\ @noop journal journal Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B \ ( year 1977 ) NoStop

    1977

  25. [33]

    Aghanim et al

    author author N. Aghanim et al. ( collaboration Planck ),\ 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 journal journal Astron. Astrophys. \ volume 641 ,\ pages A6 ( year 2020 ) ,\ note [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)] ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1807.06209 arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Tiwari ,\ 10.1088/1361-6382/aac89d journal journal Class

    author author V. Tiwari ,\ 10.1088/1361-6382/aac89d journal journal Class. Quant. Grav. \ volume 35 ,\ pages 145009 ( year 2018 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1712.00482 arXiv:1712.00482 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2018 arXiv

  27. [35]

    author author B. P. \ Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.3847/2041-8205/833/1/L1 journal journal Astrophys. J. Lett. \ volume 833 ,\ pages L1 ( year 2016 a ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.03842 arXiv:1602.03842 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  28. [36]

    author author B. P. \ Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.3847/0067-0049/227/2/14 journal journal Astrophys. J. Suppl. \ volume 227 ,\ pages 14 ( year 2016 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03939 arXiv:1606.03939 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2016 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 11 ,\ pages 021053 ( year 2021 d ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.14527 arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2021 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 journal journal Phys. Rev. X \ volume 13 ,\ pages 041039 ( year 2023 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2111.03606 arXiv:2111.03606 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Guo , author D

    author author W. Guo , author D. Williams , author I. S. \ Heng , author H. Gabbard , author Y.-B. \ Bae , author G. Kang , \ and\ author Z.-H. \ Zhu ,\ 10.1093/mnras/stac2385 journal journal Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. \ volume 516 ,\ pages 3847 ( year 2022 ) ,\ http://arxiv....

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102 journal journal Phys. Rev. Lett. \ volume 125 ,\ pages 101102 ( year 2020 b ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01075 arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc] NoStop

    2020

  33. [41]

    Abbott et al

    author author R. Abbott et al. ( collaboration LIGO Scientific, Virgo ),\ 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 journal journal Astrophys. J. Lett. \ volume 900 ,\ pages L13 ( year 2020 c ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2009.01190 arXiv:2009.01190 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2020

  34. [42]

    author author P. R. \ Brady , author J. D. E. \ Creighton , \ and\ author A. G. \ Wiseman ,\ 10.1088/0264-9381/21/20/020 journal journal Class. Quant. Grav. \ volume 21 ,\ pages S1775 ( year 2004 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0405044 arXiv:gr-qc/0405044 NoStop

    2004 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Rasskazov \ and\ author B

    author author A. Rasskazov \ and\ author B. Kocsis ,\ 10.3847/1538-4357/ab2c74 journal journal Astrophys. J. \ volume 881 ,\ pages 20 ( year 2019 ) ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.03242 arXiv:1902.03242 [astro-ph.HE] NoStop

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.