Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 15 cited by

A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The mass cutoff for low-spin black holes in the latest gravitational-wave catalog is 68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5} solar masses, not the ~45 solar masses previously inferred, signaling a higher lower edge of the pair-instability mass gap.

desk verdict Plausible empirical shift in GWTC-4.0's low-spin mass cutoff, but the PISN interpretation rests on an untestable population assignment. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.22698 v3 pith:HEUEXKP2 submitted 2025-10-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRgr-qc

Yuan-Zhu Wang , Yin-Jie Li , Shi-Jie Gao , Shao-Peng Tang , Yi-Zhong Fan This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRgr-qc
keywords blackholemassgappair-instabilitysupernovagravitationalwavepopulationlow-spinholeshierarchicalmergers12C(alphagamma)16Oreactionstellarcollapse
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 the newest gravitational-wave catalog, the paper finds a population of low-spin black holes with masses between about 50 and 70 solar masses that was largely absent in earlier data. Because such heavy, slowly spinning objects are difficult to explain through hierarchical mergers, the authors argue they are likely first-generation remnants of massive single stars. If so, the upper edge of the low-spin black-hole mass distribution is the lower boundary of the pair-instability mass gap, and it sits near 68.5 solar masses rather than the ~45 solar masses inferred previously. The authors translate this cutoff into a constraint on the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O nuclear reaction rate (about 109 keV barn), and they note that a higher pair-instability cutoff would naturally explain the low observed rate of hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae.

What carries the argument

The analysis uses a two-component population model that separates black holes into low-spin and high-spin subpopulations. Each subpopulation's mass, spin-magnitude, and tilt distributions are represented with flexible cubic-spline interpolations, and the full model is fit to 153 binary black hole mergers using hierarchical Bayesian inference. The load-bearing step is the identification of the inferred upper mass edge of the low-spin subpopulation (mmax,1) with the lower edge of the pair-instability mass gap (M_low), which then maps to the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction rate through a published relationship between black-hole mass and nuclear reaction uncertainty. The authors also use the obser

What would settle it

A decisive test would be to measure the spin orientations of the low-spin, >50 solar mass black holes: randomly oriented spins would indicate dynamical capture, while a preferred alignment would support stellar collapse. Alternatively, a precise nuclear measurement of the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O S-factor that returns about 170 keV barn would contradict the inferred ~109 keV barn and rule out the pair-instability interpretation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the mass cutoff for low-spin black holes in the latest gravitational-wave data is 68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5} solar masses (90% credibility), not the ~45 solar masses reported in earlier analyses. A distinct group of low-spin, ~50-70 solar mass black holes has emerged, and these cannot be explained by hierarchical mergers, which would boost their spins. Interpreting the cutoff as the lower edge of the pair-instability mass gap, the authors infer an S-factor S300 = 108.6^{+54.9}_{-26.5} keV barn for the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O reaction, somewhat lower than the commonly adopted value. They further suggest that a high pair-instability mass cutoff of roughly 70 solar masses would

Load-bearing premise

The interpretation that the 68.5 solar mass cutoff marks the pair-instability gap assumes these black holes are first-generation remnants of massive stars, not products of direct collapse or dynamical capture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the cutoff is real, the lower edge of the pair-instability mass gap is near 70 solar masses, meaning the black-hole mass gap is narrower than many stellar-evolution models predict.
  • The inferred low 12C(alpha,gamma)16O rate would reduce the expected number of hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae, bringing predictions closer to the observed low rate.
  • The presence of a low-spin, high-mass population would require a formation channel beyond hierarchical mergers, such as direct collapse of massive stars or dynamical capture in dense clusters.
  • The 90% confidence interval for the cutoff (roughly 50-88 solar masses) means the precise location of the gap edge is still uncertain; the next data release should sharply tighten it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the direct-collapse alternative is correct, the inferred reaction rate would be spurious; a clean test would be to measure the spin orientations of the ~50-70 solar mass black holes — isotropic orientations would favor dynamical capture, while aligned spins would favor stellar collapse.
  • A higher lower edge of the pair-instability gap also shifts expectations for the maximum mass of first-generation black holes and could affect the rate of very massive merger events at the edge of the gap.
  • The previously reported transition near 45 solar masses may be merely the crossing point where the declining low-spin and rising high-spin mass functions intersect, not the physical gap edge; this reinterpretation reconciles the new cutoff with older findings.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper performs a hierarchical Bayesian population analysis of the component masses, spin magnitudes, and tilt angles of the 153 BBH events in GWTC-4.0 (FAR<1/yr, GW190814 excluded), using the authors' two-subpopulation mixture model with flexible cubic-spline distributions. Its main findings are: (i) a group of low-spin (χ≤0.4), massive (50–70 Msun) black holes emerges in the O4a data; (ii) the upper mass cutoff of the low-spin population is mmax,1 = 68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5} Msun (90%), considerably higher than the ~45–47 Msun cutoffs reported for GWTC-3 and by other GWTC-4 analyses; and (iii) interpreting mmax,1 as the lower edge of the pair-instability mass gap yields S300 = 108.6^{+54.9}_{-26.5} keV b for the 12C(α,γ)16O reaction via the Mehta et al. mapping, favoring a high M_low ~ 70 Msun. The authors note this high cutoff may explain the low rate of hydrogen-poor superluminous supernovae, while conceding that the massive single-star collapse/dynamical-capture origin of the new group cannot currently be tested.

Significance. If the central identification (mmax,1 = M_low) is correct, the result is significant: it shifts the observationally inferred pair-instability mass-gap boundary upward by ~20 Msun relative to the GWTC-3-era consensus and provides a constraint on the astrophysical S-factor of the 12C(α,γ)16O reaction that is independent of nuclear experiments. The paper also offers a coherent explanation for the discrepancy with other recent GWTC-4 analyses (Tong et al.; Antonini et al.), attributing the ~45 Msun feature to the crossing of the two subpopulations' mass functions rather than to the PISN edge. Strengths of the analysis are its use of standard, reproducible inputs — public event posteriors, the official injection campaign for selection effects, and an inhomogeneous Poisson likelihood — and the flexibility of the spline-based mass/spin model. The principal weakness is that the headline claims are conditional on an untested population assignment, and the statistical significance of the 'new group' and of the mmax,1 shift is not established by any model comparison.

major comments (3)
  1. [§Results, Fig. 3; Eq. (1)] The claim that the low-spin cutoff 'shifts' to 68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5} Msun is not established by a model comparison. The Li et al. (2024) posterior shown in the same figure has a 90% range of roughly 38–93 Msun, which overlaps the new 90% range (~50–88 Msun); what has moved is the posterior peak, not the constraint. No Bayes factor is reported against (a) a model with mmax,1 fixed near 47 Msun, (b) a single-component mass model, or (c) a three-component model with a direct-collapse channel. The 'new group' claim in the Introduction and Fig. 1 should be supported by a formal statistic, e.g., Δln Z between models with and without the high-mass tail of the low-spin component, or a joint two-epoch fit giving the posterior of mmax,1(GWTC-4) − mmax,1(GWTC-3).
  2. [§Discussion; Fig. 3 (right panel)] The headline constraint S300 = 108.6^{+54.9}_{-26.5} keV b rests on the untested identification mmax,1 = M_low. As the authors concede, the massive single-star collapse/dynamical-capture origin 'cannot be reliably tested at this moment,' and Winch et al. (2024) predict low-spin BHs up to ~93 Msun from blue-supergiant direct collapse; in Eq. (1) such objects are necessarily absorbed into the low-spin component, biasing mmax,1 as an estimate of the PISN edge. The spin argument in §Results (mass growth <20% since χ≤0.4) does not resolve this, because direct-collapse remnants are also expected to be low-spin. Please (i) state S300 explicitly as conditional on the first-generation stripped-star channel, and (ii) quantify the bias, e.g., by fitting a third component or by a sensitivity study with a fraction of the high-mass low-spin events removed. Note also that the 90% interval (82–163 keV b
  3. [§Results, Fig. 4; Eq. (2)] The mmax,1 posterior peak is likely controlled by a small number of O4a events. The paper does not state how many low-spin, >50 Msun objects form the new group, nor whether the peak at 68.5 Msun survives removing the most influential one or two events (jackknife). Given the width of the posterior, this robustness check is essential. Relatedly, the argument that the absence of low-spin secondaries above ~50 Msun is 'just a coincidence' (suppression at q·mmax,1 ~ 45 Msun) couples mmax,1 to the pairing-function slope β; the joint posterior of β and mmax,1 (or a fit with β fixed to the fiducial value) should be reported to show that the secondary-mass suppression is not an artifact of the pairing-function prior.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract; §Results; Fig. 5] The quoted 90% uncertainties on mmax,1 differ across the paper (68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5} in the abstract, 68.5^{+19.9}_{-18.3} in the text, 68.46^{+19.86}_{-18.32} in Fig. 5). Please harmonize, and likewise for S300 (109^{+55}_{-27} vs 108.6^{+54.9}_{-26.5}).
  2. [Eq. (3)] 'N Nobs exp(−Nη(Λ))' appears to be a typesetting error; presumably N^{Nobs} exp(−Nη(Λ)).
  3. [Fig. 1 caption] The top-panel legend reads 'Initial samples' but the caption says the points are per-event median values (m̄, χ̄); clarify exactly what is plotted.
  4. [Reproducibility] Consider releasing the inference code and a table identifying the O4a events classified as low-spin with m̄>50 Msun; the 'new group' is the paper's central empirical claim and should be checkable event by event.
  5. [§Discussion, ref. [51]] The statement that 'a recent Bayesian analysis favors S300 ≈ 130 keV b' (Mukhamedzhanov 2025) is quoted without uncertainty; please give the quoted range.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mass cutoff is fit to GWTC-4.0 data and compared to external PISN models under an explicitly labeled assumption.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: (i) fit a two-subpopulation mixture model (Eq. 1) to GWTC-4.0 data using a hierarchical Bayesian likelihood (Eq. 3); (ii) obtain a posterior for the low-spin population's maximum mass, mmax,1 = 68.5^{+19.9}_{-18.3} Msun; (iii) map mmax,1 to the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O S-factor using external stellar-model relations [12,45], explicitly 'assuming that mmax,1 represents M_low' (Figure 3 caption). None of these steps defines a prediction in terms of its own inputs. The S300 inference is a conditional translation of a fitted parameter through an external relation, and the paper is transparent about the assumption. Although the two-component mixture form is taken from the authors' prior work [19], the fit is re-performed on new data with a more flexible spline model, and the recovered mmax,1 differs from the earlier value (47.3^{+45.9}_{-9.8} Msun, Figure 3), so the result is not inherited from the self-citation. No equation reduces to another by construction, no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported, and no load-bearing claim rests solely on a self-citation. The main vulnerability is the astrophysical population assignment (first-generation stellar remnants vs. direct collapse or dynamical capture), which the authors explicitly concede 'cannot be reliably tested at this moment.' That is a model/interpretation uncertainty, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis fits a large set of population hyperparameters; the load-bearing free parameter is m_max,1. The interpretation of m_max,1 as M_low and the derived S300 value rest on external stellar models and on the two-population ansatz. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • m_max,1 (low-spin component upper mass cutoff) = 68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5} Msun
    The central fitted quantity; interpreted as the PISN lower edge M_low.
  • r2 (mixture fraction of high-spin component) = not reported
    Determines the relative weight of the two subpopulations in Eq. (1).
  • alpha1, alpha2 (mass-function power-law slopes) = not reported
    Control the shape of each component's mass distribution around the edge.
  • spin-distribution edges (chi_min,1, chi_max,1, chi_max,2) = not reported
    Define where the low-spin and high-spin components live; central to the 'low-spin' classification.
  • m_max,2 (high-spin component upper mass cutoff) = 151.7^{+40.8}_{-29.2} Msun
    Upper edge of the high-spin population; included in the two-population separation.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption There are exactly two BH subpopulations with independent mass, spin-magnitude, and cosine-tilt distributions (Eq. 1).
    Core modeling assumption. If the massive low-spin events form a third channel, the fitted mmax,1 is a mixture boundary rather than a physical mass-gap edge.
  • domain assumption GWTC-4.0 selection is accurately described by the official injection campaign used for efficiency eta(Lambda) in Eq. (3).
    Detection efficiency enters the hierarchical likelihood; an incorrect injection model would bias the inferred mass cutoff.
  • domain assumption External stellar-evolution/nuclear models map M_low to S300 (Woosley & Heger 2021; Mehta et al. 2022; deBoer et al. 2017).
    The S300 = 109 keV b value is not derived from GW data alone; it inherits systematics from stellar models and reaction-rate compilation.
  • domain assumption Event-level spin posteriors are informative enough to separate low-spin from high-spin BHs and to argue that fallback accretion added <20% mass.
    If massive-BH spins are biased or very uncertain, the low-spin classification and the exclusion of hierarchical-growth formation weaken.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HEUEXKP2

@misc{pith2026251022698,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HEUEXKP2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.22698}
}
abstract

Pair-instability supernovae (PISN) will not leave compact remnants and hence yield a mass gap of the black holes. Though a transition point at $\approx 46M_\odot$, separating low- and high-spin black hole populations and interpreted as evidence for the PISN mass gap, was first identified in gravitational wave data by Wang et al. (2022, ApJL 941, L39) and later confirmed in follow-up studies, here we report the emergence of a new group of low-spin but massive ($\sim 50-70M_\odot$) black holes, which are hard to produce via hierarchical mergers, in the latest GWTC-4.0 data. Correspondingly, the mass cutoff of the low-spin black holes shifts to $68.5^{+19.8}_{-18.5}M_\odot$ (90\% credibility), which is consistent with the PISN model for a $^{12}{\rm C}(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}{\rm O}$ reaction rate of $S_{300} = 109^{+55}_{-27}~{\rm keV~b}$. Despite that the massive single-star collapse/dynamical capture origin can not be reliably tested at this moment, a high pair-instability mass cutoff $M_{\rm low}\sim 70M_\odot$ may be favored for its capability of accounting for the rather low observation rate of hydrogen-less super-luminous supernovae.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.22698 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Top panel: The mass-spin distribution of the black holes, the points (black for GWTC-3, while purple for O4a) are for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The reconstructed component-mass and spin-magnitude distributions. The solid lines (dashed lines / shaded regions) indicate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The left panel is the probability distribution of the maximum mass ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Primary-mass versus secondary-mass distributions of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Parameters of mass functions for the two subpopulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 15 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Four-dimensional Model-agnostic Probe into the Astrophysical Origins of Binary Black Hole Subpopulations

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A GPU-accelerated binned Gaussian process yields the first model-agnostic 4D BBH population in (m1, q, χeff, χp), revealing four mass-based subpopulations and new spin-mass-ratio correlations.

  2. Secondary-Mass Features improve Spectral-Siren $H_0$ Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new model emphasizing secondary mass features and pairing transitions improves spectral siren H0 constraints by ~30% using 142 GW events from GWTC-4.0.

  3. The Black Hole Mass Gap as a New Probe of Millicharged Particles

    hep-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Millicharged particles weaken pulsational pair-instability in massive stars, shifting the lower edge of the black hole mass gap upward and turning gravitational wave observations into a probe for particles with masses...

  4. High-mass binary black hole mergers from detailed binary evolution models

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fully-conservative BH accretion is disfavored for high-mass BBH mergers; Eddington/GRRMHD accretion with kicks can match part of the LVK high-mass population but still needs another channel.

  5. Joint population and strong-lensing inference for resolved gravitational-wave events probes the black-hole merger rate beyond the peak of star formation

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Joint strong-lensing and population inference on resolved gravitational-wave events finds no lensed events and tightens constraints on the black-hole merger rate peak redshift and high-redshift tail.

  6. A Strongly Parametrized Mass Ratio Model for the Stable Mass Transfer Channel: a Case Study of the $10 \, \rm{M}_{\odot}$ Peak

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A parametrized analytical model for BBH mass ratios from the stable mass transfer channel is derived and applied to the 10 solar-mass peak in GWTC-4, favoring little mass-ratio reversal.

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

    astro-ph.HE 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Simulations show a 40-50 solar-mass black-hole cutoff is not guaranteed to be confidently recovered from GWTC-4-like catalogs, spurious detections are unlikely, and O4 data would reduce cutoff-mass uncertainty by at l...

  8. Characterizing Binary Black Hole Subpopulations in GWTC-4 with Binned Gaussian Processes: On the Origins of the $35M_{\odot}$ Peak

    astro-ph.HE 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In GWTC-4, only the subpopulation near 35 M_sun is equal-mass, low-spin, and randomly oriented, matching globular-cluster dynamical formation with BH birth spins 0.1-0.2.

  9. When the black holes align: a subpopulation of aligned massive binary black holes observed via gravitational waves

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A non-parametric reconstruction of the GWTC-5 black-hole population finds a separate high-mass subpopulation (M1 ≳ 50 M☉) with positively aligned spins (χ_eff ≈ 0.4).

  10. Nuclear Constraints on $^{12}$C$(\alpha,\gamma)^{16}$O and Their Impact on Black-Hole Mass Predictions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Updated ANC constraints on the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O S-factor favor lower values than prior evaluations and imply a black-hole mass-gap lower edge of 61-75 solar masses.

  11. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    No evidence for core-collapse formed low-spin IMBHs in GWTC-4, with 90% upper limit on merger rate of 0.077 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, low-spin BH mass truncation at 65 solar masses consistent with pair-instability gap lower e...

  12. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    No evidence for core-collapse IMBHs in GWTC-4; heavy BHs from hierarchical mergers, with low-spin mass distribution truncating at ~65 solar masses and PIMG upper edge estimated at 150 solar masses.

  13. Constraints on the $^{12}$C$(\alpha, \gamma)^{16}$O and $^{16}$O+$^{16}$O Reaction Rates from Binary Black Holes Detected via Gravitational Wave Signals

    astro-ph.SR 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Stellar models show that the 12C(alpha,gamma)16O rate uncertainty moves the black hole mass gap, constraining its S300 to 137.6-263.4 keV barn when matched to the observed gap from gravitational waves.

  14. When the black holes align: a subpopulation of aligned massive binary black holes observed via gravitational waves

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    Non-parametric analysis of GWTC-5.0 data supports multiple subpopulations of binary black holes distinguished by effective spin, with one aligned subpopulation suggesting dynamical formation.

  15. Evidence for additional structure in the effective spin distribution hints at multiple formation pathways in GWTC-5.0

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

    GWTC-5.0 analysis finds evidence for structure beyond a non-skewed Gaussian bulk in χ_eff, with suggestive mass-dependent excess of positive over negative spins outside the bulk at 13:1 odds in one mass bin.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 47 linked inside Pith · cited by 13 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys Rev Lett116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaborationet al., Tests of General Relativity with GWTC-3, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2112.06861 (2021), arXiv:2112.06861

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    A. G. Abacet al., GW250114: Testing Hawking’s Area Law and the Kerr Nature of Black Holes, Phys Rev Lett135, 111403 (2025), arXiv:2509.08054

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Tang, H.-T

    S.-P. Tang, H.-T. Wang, Y .-J. Li, and Y .-Z. Fan, Verification of the Black Hole Area Law with GW230814, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.03480 (2025), arXiv:2509.03480

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Gerosa and M

    D. Gerosa and M. Fishbach, Hierarchical mergers of stellar- mass black holes and their gravitational-wave signatures, Nature Astronomy5, 749 (2021), arXiv:2105.03439

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Mandel and A

    I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Merging stellar-mass binary black holes, Phys Rep955, 1 (2022), arXiv:1806.05820

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Barkat, G

    Z. Barkat, G. Rakavy, and N. Sack, Dynamics of Supernova Explosion Resulting from Pair Formation, Phys Rev Lett18, 379 (1967)

    1967

  8. [8]

    Belczynskiet al., The effect of pair-instability mass loss on black-hole mergers, A&A594, A97 (2016), arXiv:1607.03116

    K. Belczynskiet al., The effect of pair-instability mass loss on black-hole mergers, A&A594, A97 (2016), arXiv:1607.03116

    arXiv 2016

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Spera and M

    M. Spera and M. Mapelli, Very massive stars, pair- instability supernovae and intermediate-mass black holes with the sevn code, MNRAS470, 4739 (2017), arXiv:1706.06109

    2017 arXiv

  2. [10]

    S. E. Woosley, Pulsational Pair-instability Supernovae, ApJ836, 244 (2017), arXiv:1608.08939

    2017 arXiv

  3. [11]

    S. E. Woosley and A. Heger, The Pair-instability Mass Gap for Black Holes, ApJL912, L31 (2021), arXiv:2103.07933

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. K. Mehtaet al., Observing Intermediate-mass Black Holes and the Upper Stellar-mass gap with LIGO and Virgo, ApJ924, 39 (2022), arXiv:2105.06366

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbottet al., GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Ob- serving Runs, Physical Review X9, 031040 (2019), arXiv:1811.12907

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Abbottet al., GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 M ⊙, Phys Rev Lett125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075

    R. Abbottet al., GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150 M ⊙, Phys Rev Lett125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075

    2020

  7. [15]

    Kimballet al., Evidence for Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in the Second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational Wave Cat- alog, ApJL915, L35 (2021), arXiv:2011.05332

    C. Kimballet al., Evidence for Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in the Second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational Wave Cat- alog, ApJL915, L35 (2021), arXiv:2011.05332

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Wanget al., Black Hole Mass Function of Co- alescing Binary Black Hole Systems: Is there a Pulsa- tional Pair-instability Mass Cutoff?, ApJ913, 42 (2021), arXiv:2104.02566

    Y .-Z. Wanget al., Black Hole Mass Function of Co- alescing Binary Black Hole Systems: Is there a Pulsa- tional Pair-instability Mass Cutoff?, ApJ913, 42 (2021), arXiv:2104.02566

    2021

  9. [17]

    E. J. Baxter, D. Croon, S. D. McDermott, and J. Sakstein, Find the Gap: Black Hole Population Analysis with an Astrophysically Motivated Mass Function, ApJL916, L16 (2021), arXiv:2104.02685

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Wanget al., Potential Subpopulations and Assem- bling Tendency of the Merging Black Holes, ApJL941, L39 (2022), arXiv:2208.11871

    Y .-Z. Wanget al., Potential Subpopulations and Assem- bling Tendency of the Merging Black Holes, ApJL941, L39 (2022), arXiv:2208.11871. 7 TABLE I. Summary of model parameters. Parameter Description Prior mass function mmin,i[M⊙]The minimum massU(2,50) mmax,2[M⊙]/m max,1[M⊙]Th...

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Li, Y .-Z

    Y .-J. Li, Y .-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, and Y .-Z. Fan, Resolving the Stellar-Collapse and Hierarchical-Merger Origins of the Coalescing Black Holes, Phys Rev Lett133, 051401 (2024), arXiv:2303.02973

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Li, S.-P

    Y .-J. Li, S.-P. Tang, S.-J. Gao, D.-C. Wu, and Y .-Z. Wang, Exploring Field-evolution and Dynamical-capture Coalesc- ing Binary Black Holes in GWTC-3, ApJ977, 67 (2024), arXiv:2404.09668

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Pierra, S

    G. Pierra, S. Mastrogiovanni, and S. Perri `es, The spin mag- nitude of stellar-mass binary black holes evolves with the mass: evidence from gravitational wave data, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2406.01679 (2024), arXiv:2406.01679

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Guoet al., The Heavier the Faster: A Subpopulation of Heavy, Rapidly Spinning and Quickly Evolving Binary Black Holes, ApJ975, 54 (2024), arXiv:2406.03257

    W.-H. Guoet al., The Heavier the Faster: A Subpopulation of Heavy, Rapidly Spinning and Quickly Evolving Binary Black Holes, ApJ975, 54 (2024), arXiv:2406.03257

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Antonini, I

    F. Antonini, I. M. Romero-Shaw, and T. Callister, Star Clus- ter Population of High Mass Black Hole Mergers in Grav- itational Wave Data, Phys Rev Lett134, 011401 (2025), arXiv:2406.19044

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Li, Y .-Z

    Y .-J. Li, Y .-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, T. Chen, and Y .-Z. Fan, Re- vealing theχ ef f–q Correlation among Coalescing Binary Black Holes and Tentative Evidence for AGN-driven Hier- archical Mergers, ApJ987, 65 (2025), arXiv:2501.09495

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaborationet al., GWTC-4.0: Up- dating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Ob- servations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo- KAGRA Observing Run, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18082 (2025), arXiv:2508.18082

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Tonget al., Evidence of the pair instability gap in the distribution of black hole masses, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.04151 (2025), arXiv:2509.04151

    H. Tonget al., Evidence of the pair instability gap in the distribution of black hole masses, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.04151 (2025), arXiv:2509.04151

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Ray and V

    A. Ray and V . Kalogera, Reexamining Evidence of a Pair-Instability Mass Gap in the Binary Black Hole Population, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2510.18867 (2025), arXiv:2510.18867

    2025

  20. [28]

    F. Antoniniet al., Gravitational waves reveal the pair- instability mass gap and constrain nuclear burning in mas- sive stars, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.04637 (2025), arXiv:2509.04637

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Banagiri, E

    S. Banagiri, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Evidence for Three Subpopulations of Merging Binary Black Holes at Different Primary Masses, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.15646 (2025), arXiv:2509.15646

    2025 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Guttman, E

    N. Guttman, E. Payne, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Trends in the Population of Binary Black Holes Following the Fourth Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog: a Data- Driven Analysis, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.09876 (2025), arXiv:2509.09876

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Afroz and S

    S. Afroz and S. Mukherjee, Binary Black Hole Phase Space Discovers the Signature of Pair Instability Super- novae Mass Gap, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.09123 (2025), arXiv:2509.09123

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    E. R. J. Winch, J. S. Vink, E. R. Higgins, and G. N. Sabhahitf, Predicting the heaviest black holes below the pair instability gap, MNRAS529, 2980 (2024), arXiv:2401.17327

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Edelman, B

    B. Edelman, B. Farr, and Z. Doctor, Cover Your Ba- sis: Comprehensive Data-driven Characterization of the Binary Black Hole Population, ApJ946, 16 (2023), arXiv:2210.12834

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Li, Y .-Z

    Y .-J. Li, Y .-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, and Y .-Z. Fan, Aligned Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in AGN disks revealed by GWTC-4, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.23897 (2025), arXiv:2509.23897

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Mandel, W

    I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selec- 8 tion biases, MNRAS486, 1086 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063

    2019 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Abbottet al., Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, ApJL913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533

    R. Abbottet al., Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO-Virgo Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog, ApJL913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Abbottet al., Population of Merging Compact Bina- ries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Physical Review X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634

    R. Abbottet al., Population of Merging Compact Bina- ries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3, Physical Review X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration, the Virgo Collabora- tion, and the KAGRA Collaboration, GWTC-4.0: Popula- tion Properties of Merging Compact Binaries, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.18083 (2025), arXiv:2508.18083

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    R. Essicket al., Compact Binary Coalescence Sen- sitivity Estimates with Injection Campaigns during the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaborations’ Fourth Observing Run, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2508.10638 (2025), arXiv:2508.10638

    2025

  32. [40]

    R. Abbottet al., GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, Phys Rev D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Abbottet al., GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606

    R. Abbottet al., GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the Second Part of the Third Observing Run, Physical Review X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606

    2023 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Abbottet al., GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object, ApJL896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611

    R. Abbottet al., GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object, ApJL896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Ashtonet al., BILBY: A User-friendly Bayesian Infer- ence Library for Gravitational-wave Astronomy, ApJS241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042

    G. Ashtonet al., BILBY: A User-friendly Bayesian Infer- ence Library for Gravitational-wave Astronomy, ApJS241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042

    2019 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Buchner, PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.005, 2016, ascl:1606.005

    J. Buchner, PyMultiNest: Python interface for MultiNest, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1606.005, 2016, ascl:1606.005

    2016

  37. [45]

    R. J. deBoeret al., The 12C(α,γ) 16O reaction and its im- plications for stellar helium burning, Reviews of Modern Physics89, 035007 (2017), arXiv:1709.03144

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    M. P. Vaccaroet al., Impact of gas hardening on the population properties of hierarchical black hole mergers in active galactic nucleus disks, A&A685, A51 (2024), arXiv:2311.18548

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Li, S.-P

    Y .-J. Li, S.-P. Tang, L.-Q. Xue, and Y .-Z. Fan, GW231123: a product of successive mergers from∼10stellar-mass black holes, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2507.17551 (2025), arXiv:2507.17551

    2025

  40. [48]

    Adamcewicz, N

    C. Adamcewicz, N. Guttman, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Do both black holes spin in merging binaries? Evidence from GWTC-4 and astrophysical implications, arXiv e- prints , arXiv:2509.04706 (2025), arXiv:2509.04706

    2025

  41. [49]

    Li and X.-L

    G.-P. Li and X.-L. Fan, The Hierarchical Merger Scenario for GW231123, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.08298 (2025), arXiv:2509.08298

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Shenet al., New Determination of the 12C(α,γ) 16O Reaction Rate and Its Impact on the Black-hole Mass Gap, ApJ945, 41 (2023)

    Y . Shenet al., New Determination of the 12C(α,γ) 16O Reaction Rate and Its Impact on the Black-hole Mass Gap, ApJ945, 41 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    A. M. Mukhamedzhanov, Bayesian Framework for the E1 and E2 Astrophysical Factors at 300 keV from Sub- threshold and Ground-State Asymptotic Normalization Co- efficients, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2509.17102 (2025), arXiv:2509.17102

    2025

  44. [52]

    D. D. Hendriks, L. A. C. van Son, M. Renzo, R. G. Iz- zard, and R. Farmer, Pulsational pair-instability supernovae in gravitational-wave and electromagnetic transients, MN- RAS526, 4130 (2023), arXiv:2309.09339

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Gerosa and E

    D. Gerosa and E. Berti, Are merging black holes born from stellar collapse or previous mergers?, Phys Rev D95, 124046 (2017), arXiv:1703.06223

    2017 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Fishbach, D

    M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and B. Farr, Are LIGO’s Black Holes Made from Smaller Black Holes?, ApJL840, L24 (2017), arXiv:1703.06869

    2017 arXiv

  47. [55]

    McKernan and K

    B. McKernan and K. E. S. Ford, Constraining the LVK AGN channel with black hole spins, MNRAS531, 3479 (2024), arXiv:2309.15213

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Vitale, M

    S. Vitale, M. Mould, and S. (Society Of Physicists In- terested in Non-Aligned Spins, Long road to align- ment: Measuring black hole spin orientation with expand- ing gravitational-wave datasets, Phys Rev D112, 083015 (2025), arXiv:2505.14875

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Edelman, Z

    B. Edelman, Z. Doctor, J. Godfrey, and B. Farr, Ain’t No Mountain High Enough: Semiparametric Modeling of LIGO-Virgo’s Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution, ApJ924, 101 (2022), arXiv:2109.06137

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Golomb and C

    J. Golomb and C. Talbot, Searching for structure in the bi- nary black hole spin distribution, Phys Rev D108, 103009 (2023), arXiv:2210.12287

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.