Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Binary White Dwarfs as Gravitational Wave Sources for LISA

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The unresolved millihertz gravitational-wave hum from binary white dwarfs carries measurable imprints of common-envelope and mass-transfer physics, so LISA can use the background to constrain binary evolution models.

desk verdict Competent COMPAS-based BWD background sensitivity study, but the 'measurable by LISA' claim is not actually supported by the paper's own χ² statistic, which uses matched seeds and omits instrumental noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.17787 v1 pith:JR4IN6GT submitted 2026-07-20 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Sreeta Roy , Surajit Kalita , Tomasz Bulik , Dorota Gondek-Rosińska This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE
keywords gravitationalwavesbinarywhitedwarfswavebackgroundLISAcommonenvelopeevolutionmasstransferefficiencypopulationsynthesisGalacticstellarcontent
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 tries to establish that the steady, unresolved gravitational-wave hum from binary white dwarfs in the Milky Way is sensitive enough to binary evolution physics that LISA can use it to tell competing models apart. The authors build synthetic white-dwarf-binary populations under different common-envelope, mass-transfer, metallicity, and angular-momentum-loss assumptions, then compute the background spectrum from sources too weak to resolve individually. They find that the predicted spectrum's amplitude and shape shift by measurable amounts when common-envelope binding energy or mass-transfer efficiency is changed, while metallicity has a moderate effect and angular-momentum-loss assumptions have the weakest effect. If the claim is right, the mHz background becomes a population diagnostic rather than just confusion noise, complementing the individually resolved binaries that LISA will also detect.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the confusion-background spectrum $h_{\rm eff}(f) = \sqrt{f \sum_i h_i^2(f_i)/\Delta f}$ built from unresolved circular binaries, each assumed to emit at twice its orbital frequency and to decay under the standard quadrupole orbital-decay equation of general relativity. The physical chain runs from binary evolution physics (common-envelope binding and ejection efficiency, mass-transfer efficiency, metallicity, angular-momentum loss) to post-interaction orbital separations, then to the present-day frequency distribution of surviving binaries, and finally to the amplitude, slope, and knee of the background. Model comparison is done with a log-space reduced $\chi^2$ statistic, $\chi^2_{\rm red} = \sum_k w_k \bar{D}^2(f_k)/N_{\rm bin}$, where $\bar{D}$ is the mean log-PSD difference and $w_k$ is the inverse realization-to-realization variance; this weighting makes the statistic a measure of distinguishability against stochastic Galactic variance.

What would settle it

A decisive test would be a 4-year LISA measurement of the unresolved background PSD in the $10^{-4}$--$10^{-1}$ Hz band: if the measured spectrum is incompatible with every tested population model, for instance if it is consistent with the fully conservative mass-transfer case that the paper predicts to be undetectable or falls outside the family of predicted amplitudes by more than the realization scatter, then the claim that the background can discriminate binary evolution models is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the unresolved Galactic binary-white-dwarf background is a population diagnostic, not merely confusion noise. Using a rapid population-synthesis code, the authors evolve $10^7$ initial binaries to the present day, keep the roughly $10^6$ systems that become white-dwarf binaries, assign them positions in a thin-disc Milky Way, rescale the sample to an effective Galactic population of $3\times10^8$ systems, and split resolved from unresolved sources with a monochromatic signal-to-noise threshold of 7 against the analytic LISA sensitivity curve. The resulting effective strain $h_{\rm eff}(f)$ and power spectral density differ systematically across models: varying the common-envelope binding parameter $\lambda_{\rm CE}$ or the mass-transfer efficiency $\beta$ produces reduced $\chi^2$ values of 2.6--7.8 and 5.3--7.6 against the fiducial model, while metallicity changes give 1.1--2.9 and angular-momentum-loss prescriptions give 0.1--3.1. Because these $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ values are computed against the realization-to-realization scatter of 100 Galactic realizations, the paper concludes that the differences are measurable by LISA and that the background can constrain binary evolution models.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the simulated binaries, scaled up to the assumed total number of white-dwarf binaries in the Milky Way and spread through a simplified disc with a simplified star-formation history, really stand in for the Galaxy's unresolved population.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The background is not just noise to be subtracted: its amplitude, knee location, and high-frequency cutoff encode the survival fraction and orbital-shrinkage history of white-dwarf-binary progenitors.
  • A 4-year LISA measurement of the unresolved background can reject or support broad classes of common-envelope and mass-transfer prescriptions before individual source catalogues are complete.
  • Because the angular-momentum-loss prescriptions tested here cluster near the fiducial model, the unresolved background alone will be a weak probe of that physics; resolved sources will likely need to carry that part of the measurement.
  • Metallicity enters mostly through normalization, so a LISA background amplitude measurement could become a constraint on the Galaxy's stellar population content, though degenerate with common-envelope and mass-transfer choices.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension of the paper's hierarchy is to add resolved white-dwarf detections and electromagnetic catalogues to a joint fit; that would likely break the remaining degeneracies between common-envelope and mass-transfer parameters that the unresolved background alone cannot fully separate.
  • The conservative realization-scatter weighting used for $\chi^2_{\rm red}$ could be translated into a full Bayesian parameter-inference forecast once a LISA noise realization and source-subtraction pipeline are specified, turning "measurable differences" into posterior odds.
  • If the true Milky Way has a substantial thick-disc or bulge population of white-dwarf binaries, the assumed thin-disc normalization would change the absolute background level but could leave the relative ordering of models intact; testing this would require redoing the rescaling with a multicomponent Galactic model.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper uses the COMPAS binary population synthesis code to generate synthetic populations of double white dwarfs, evolves them to the present epoch with Peters orbital decay, and computes the unresolved Galactic gravitational-wave background in the LISA band. The authors vary common-envelope binding (λ_CE), mass-transfer efficiency (β), metallicity (Z), and angular-momentum-loss prescription, and construct both an effective strain h_eff and a periodogram-based PSD for each model. They compare model spectra to a fiducial baseline using a matched-seed χ² statistic, report that CE and MT parameters produce the largest deviations, metallicity moderate deviations, and AM loss the weakest, and conclude that LISA observations of the unresolved BWD background have the potential to constrain binary evolution models.

Significance. If the central claim were fully supported, this would be a valuable contribution: it would show that the unresolved mHz background is not merely confusion noise but a population diagnostic with a clear parameter hierarchy. The systematic exploration of parameter variations with a modern BPS code, the use of the Robson et al. (2019) sensitivity model, and the explicit caveats in §7.5 are strengths. The physical interpretations of the spectral changes, such as CE controlling survival and post-CE separation and MT efficiency balancing orbital contraction and expansion, are plausible and connect the results to known formation channels. However, the statistical evidence for 'measurable differences' is currently not valid, because the χ² statistic removes common-mode variance through matched seeds and omits detector noise, and the absolute amplitude normalization is inconsistent. These issues must be addressed before the paper can support its conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§5.4, Eqs. (24)–(28), Table 2] The χ² statistic is computed from paired log-PSD differences D_r between models that share random seeds, with weights w_k = 1/σ_D^2 where σ_D is the realization-to-realization scatter of those paired differences. Because the same seeds are reused for every model, common-mode Poisson and phase noise cancel in D_r, so σ_D does not represent the uncertainty relevant to a single LISA observation. For a real measurement, the relevant variance is the scatter of a single model realization plus the LISA instrumental noise, not the variance of a matched-pair difference. The LISA noise is used only to select bins via η=1 and is never added to σ_D. Consequently, the reported χ²_red values overstate the distinguishability of the models, and the abstract's claim that differences are 'measurable' and that LISA can 'constrain binary evolution models' is not supported by this test. The caveat in §7.5 that this is not a full end-to-end forecast does not remove the mismatch, because the statistical test itself is not a valid detection statistic for the stated conclusion.
  2. [§4 and §6.1] The normalization of the background is inconsistent and is imposed in a way that affects the amplitude claims. Section 4 states that the simulated sample is rescaled to an effective Galactic BWD population of 3×10^8, Section 5 repeats 3×10^8, but Section 6.1 says Model B is scaled to a present Galactic population of 10^8 BWDs. Moreover, rescaling every model to the same assumed total BWD population removes the model's predicted total number of BWDs; amplitude differences then reflect only the orbital-period and mass distribution, not formation efficiency. This is particularly problematic for the CE sequence, where Model A is described as leaving 'very few surviving BWDs' yet is rescaled to the same total, and for the metallicity models, where amplitude differences are interpreted as changes in the effective number of compact BWDs. The absolute amplitude, and hence the comparison to the LISA noise curve and the 'measurable differences' claim, depends on an externally imposed normalization that is not derived. Please clarify the scaling procedure and use a single consistent normalization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4 and §6.1] The star-formation history is described inconsistently: §4 says the Galactic age is 13.6 Gyr with star formation over the last 10 Gyr approximated by 10 discrete bursts, while §6.1 says a constant SFR over the age of the Galaxy. Please reconcile these statements.
  2. [§5.4] The number of degrees of freedom is set to N_bin, the number of rebinned frequency bins, but the PSD bins are correlated because of the Hann window and 50% segment overlap. Please justify the effective degrees of freedom or use a covariance-based estimate.
  3. [Figure 5] Figure 5 contains four panels for CE, MT, metallicity, and AM loss models, but the text refers to the figure only generically in §6.6. Please describe each panel and its content explicitly in the caption or text.
  4. [Data availability] The data availability statement says data will be shared on reasonable request; for reproducibility, consider releasing the custom PSD-construction pipeline and the matched-seed realization code in a public repository.
  5. [Throughout] There are minor typographical errors, such as 'comparitively' in §6.6 and a duplicated period in '10Gyr..' in §4; a careful proofreading pass is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the background predictions are produced by an external forward-model chain (COMPAS population synthesis plus standard GW formulas) and benchmarked against independent LISA sensitivity and prior population synthesis results, with no parameter fitted to the target unresolved background.

full rationale

The derivation chain is forward and self-contained. COMPAS generates BWD populations under varied CE, mass-transfer, metallicity, and AM-loss prescriptions; the unresolved background is then constructed using the Peters orbital-decay equation, the standard quadrupole strain formula, and the Robson et al. (2019) LISA sensitivity curve for the SNR-based resolved/unresolved cut. No parameter is fitted to the LISA unresolved background itself, and the effective Galactic population normalization is a stated input assumption rather than a derived output. The self-citations present in the paper are not load-bearing for the central claim: Cieślar et al. (2020) supplies a spatial-distribution input, and Roy & Kalita (2026) is cited as prior BWD population-synthesis context; neither is used to prove the sensitivity hierarchy or to forbid alternative models. The paper also anchors its fiducial model against external results (Nelemans et al. 2001b; Korol et al. 2022), which provides independent calibration of the predicted amplitude. The matched-seed χ² construction in Eqs. (24)-(28) and the omission of LISA instrumental noise from the variance are legitimate statistical-validity concerns about whether the reported model-model differences would be measurable in a real LISA measurement, but this is a correctness or calibration issue, not a circular reduction: the χ² values are computed from the simulated spectra and do not equal the input assumptions by construction. The paper's own Section 7.3 describes the χ² as a first diagnostic rather than a full parameter-inference forecast, and Section 7.5 explicitly states that the analysis is not a full end-to-end LISA data-analysis forecast; these caveats limit the strength of the 'potential to constrain' claim but do not make the derivation circular. The internal inconsistency between the 3×10^8 normalization in Sections 4-5 and the 10^8 value mentioned in Section 6.1 is a presentation or modeling-consistency issue, not evidence that an output was redefined as an input. Overall, the predictions are conditional on stated astrophysical assumptions and compared with external benchmarks, so no circularity is established.

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

The central claim rests on COMPAS's parameterized binary evolution, a simplified Milky Way normalization and spatial model, and a simplified LISA detectability treatment. These are standard domain assumptions, not independently derived in the paper.

free parameters (7)
  • Galactic BWD population normalization = 3 times 10^8 BWDs in Sections 4 and 5; 10^8 in Section 6.1
    The simulation output is rescaled to an assumed present-day Milky Way BWD population. This directly sets the absolute background amplitude and therefore how confidently LISA could distinguish models. The text is inconsistent about the value.
  • Common envelope structure parameter lambda_CE = 0.1 fiducial; 0.01, 0.5, 1.0 variants
    Chosen by hand; controls envelope binding energy and post-CE orbital separations. The CE sensitivity result is defined by this parameter ladder.
  • Mass transfer efficiency beta = thermal-timescale fiducial; 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 variants
    Prescribes the fraction of transferred mass retained; alters orbital separation distribution and determines which binaries survive into the LISA band.
  • Metallicity Z = 0.014 solar fiducial; 0.0002, 0.002 variants
    Input model parameter regulating winds, radii, and interaction timing; affects background normalization.
  • Angular momentum loss prescription = isotropic re-emission fiducial; Jeans mode; arbitrary gamma=2
    Prescription for specific angular momentum carried away by ejected material; the weakest sensitivity axis in the results.
  • SNR threshold and observation time = SNR=7, T_obs=4 yr
    Separates resolved from unresolved sources using an analytic monochromatic LISA sensitivity model; changes the background amplitude and knee position but not the relative model ranking.
  • PSD comparison threshold eta = eta=1
    Bins enter the chi-squared statistic only where the baseline background exceeds LISA noise; affects the reported reduced chi-squared values.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math GW orbital decay follows Peters (1964) quadrupole formula for circular binaries.
    Invoked in Section 4 to evolve orbits from formation to present; standard for detached circular BWDs.
  • domain assumption COMPAS rapid BPS prescriptions adequately represent binary stellar evolution.
    Section 3 relies on COMPAS defaults for RLOF, CE, MT, and AM loss; the whole population depends on this parametrized physics.
  • domain assumption Constant star formation rate over the last 10 Gyr can be approximated by ten discrete random bursts.
    Section 4; the paper itself lists the simplified Galactic model as a limitation in Section 7.5.
  • domain assumption Galactic spatial distribution is fixed to a thin-disc model and the Sun sits at 8.5 kpc.
    Section 4, using Cieslar et al. (2020); affects heliocentric distances and thus amplitudes.
  • domain assumption All BWDs form and remain circular with e=0.
    Section 4 sets e=0 at BWD formation; standard for tidally circularized close binaries but residual eccentricity is not modeled.
  • domain assumption A monochromatic SNR=7 against the analytic Robson et al. (2019) sensitivity separates resolved from unresolved sources.
    Sections 4 and 5; caveated in Section 7.5 as not a full end-to-end LISA forecast.
  • domain assumption The simulated sample can be rescaled to an effective Galactic population of 3 times 10^8 BWDs.
    Sections 4 and 5; Section 6.1 states 10^8 instead, so the normalization is assumed and internally inconsistent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binary White Dwarfs as Gravitational Wave Sources for LISA." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JR4IN6GT

@misc{pith2026260717787,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binary White Dwarfs as Gravitational Wave Sources for LISA},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JR4IN6GT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.17787}
}
read the original abstract

Gravitational waves (GWs) have proven to be a powerful probe of compact binary populations. In the millihertz frequency range accessible to Laser Interferometer Space Antenna LISA, binary white dwarfs (BWDs) are expected to constitute a dominant source, forming both individually resolvable signals and an unresolved Galactic background. In this work, we construct a Milky Way like population model and calculate the GW background from unresolved Galactic BWD in the LISA sensitivity range, with particular emphasis on exploring and constraining uncertainties in binary stellar evolution. We employ COMPAS binary population synthesis framework to generate synthetic populations of BWD in the Milky Way. Various physically motivated evolution prescriptions and initial model parameters are used to study diverse population of BWDs. From these populations, we construct the GW background and investigate the dependence of the background spectrum on the assumptions on binary analysis. We discuss the possibility of constraints on binary evolution that LISA GW observations may yield. We find that the shape and amplitude of the background are sensitive to key binary evolution parameters like common envelope evolution and mass-transfer efficiencies. Variations in these assumptions lead to measurable differences in the predicted background spectrum. Our results demonstrate that LISA observations of the unresolved BWD background have the potential to constrain binary evolution models. This highlights the importance of GW background modelling as a complementary tool for studying the formation and evolution of compact binaries in the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.17787 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. GW strain vs. frequency for models with varied CE prescriptions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. GW strain vs. frequency for models with varied MT prescriptions. determines whether the binary orbit contracts, expands, becomes unstable, or survives as a detached BWD. This orbital response directly imprints on the frequency distri￾bution of BWDs observable in the LISA band. We explore three prescriptions: thermal-timescale MT (fiducial, Model B), a highly non-conservative case with β = 0.1 (Model E), and an inter… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. GW strain vs. frequency for models with varied metallicity prescriptions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GW strain vs. frequency for models with varied AM loss prescriptions. 6.5. Models with varied Angular Momentum loss prescriptions To investigate how different assumptions about AM loss during non-conservative MT influence the GW background, we fix the CE parameters at …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Figure (i), (ii), (iii), and (iv) show the PSDs for CE, MT, Metallicity, and AM loss models, respectively. because they balance these competing effects and generate a wide range of BWD separations. Metallicity regulates the efficiency with which progeni￾tor binaries pr…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R.,Abbott, T.D., et al.2016, Phys.Rev

    Abbott,B. P., Abbott, R.,Abbott, T.D., et al.2016, Phys.Rev. Lett., 116, 061102

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031040 Abbott,B. P., Abbott, R.,Abbott, T.D., et al.2017, Phys.Rev. Lett., 119, 161101

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023, Physical Review X, 13, 041039

    2023

  4. [4]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2

    2023

  5. [5]

    2019, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity, 36, 143001

    Barack, L., Cardoso, V., Nissanke, S., et al. 2019, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity, 36, 143001

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    A., et al

    Belczynski, K., Kalogera, V., Rasio, F. A., et al. 2008, ApJS, 174, 223

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Bender, P. L. & Hils, D. 1997, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 14, 1439

    work page 1997

  8. [8]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71

    2020

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al

    Broekgaarden, F. S., Berger, E., Stevenson, S., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 5737

    2022

  2. [10]

    2004, A&A, 415, 407 Cieślar, M., Bulik, T., & Osłowski, S

    Bulik, T., Belczyński, K., & Rudak, B. 2004, A&A, 415, 407 Cieślar, M., Bulik, T., & Osłowski, S. 2020, MNRAS, 492, 4043

    2004

  3. [11]

    & Robson, T

    Cornish, N. & Robson, T. 2017, in Journal of Physics Conference

    2017

  4. [12]

    Eggleton, P. P. 1983, ApJ, 268, 368

    1983

  5. [13]

    R., Iben, Jr., I., & Smarr, L

    Evans, C. R., Iben, Jr., I., & Smarr, L. 1987, ApJ, 323, 129 Gondek-Rosińska, D., Bulik, T., & Belczyński, K. 2007, Advances in Space Research, 39, 285 Article number, page 12 of 13 Sreeta Roy et al.: Binary White Dwarfs as Gravitational Wave Sources forLISA

    1987

  6. [14]

    Heggie, D. C. 1975, MNRAS, 173, 729

    1975

  7. [15]

    L., & Webbink, R

    Hils, D., Bender, P. L., & Webbink, R. F. 1990, ApJ, 360, 75

    1990

  8. [16]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897 Izzard,R.G.,Tout,C.A.,Karakas,A.I.,&Pols,O.R.2004,MNRAS, 350, 407

    2002

  9. [17]

    2021, Phys

    Karnesis, N., Babak, S., Pieroni, M., Cornish, N., & Littenberg, T. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 043019

    2021

  10. [18]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936

    Korol, V., Hallakoun, N., Toonen, S., & Karnesis, N. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 5936

    2022

  11. [19]

    M., Groot, P

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 470, 1894

    2017

  12. [20]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 5888

    2019

  13. [21]

    M., Postnov, K

    Lipunov, V. M., Postnov, K. A., & Prokhorov, M. E. 1987, A&A, 176, L1

    1987

  14. [22]

    2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094030

    Nelemans, G. 2009, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 26, 094030

    2009

  15. [23]

    & Tout, C

    Nelemans, G. & Tout, C. A. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 753

    2005

  16. [24]

    R., & Portegies Zwart, S

    Nelemans, G., Verbunt, F., Yungelson, L. R., & Portegies Zwart, S. F. 2000, A&A, 360, 1011

    2000

  17. [25]

    1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol

    Paczynski, B. 1976, in IAU Symposium, Vol. 73, Structure and Evolu- tion of Close Binary Systems, ed. P. Eggleton, S. Mitton, & J. Whe- lan, 75

    1976

  18. [26]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, PhD thesis, California Institute of Technology

    1964

  19. [27]

    Phinney, E. S. 2001 [arXiv:astro-ph/0108028]

    2001 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T

    Price, D. J., Wurster, J., Tricco, T. S., et al. 2018, PASA, 35, e031

    2018

  21. [29]

    W., et al

    Riley, J., Agrawal, P., Barrett, J. W., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 34

    2022

  22. [30]

    J., & Liu, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liu, C. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011

    2019

  23. [31]

    & Kalita, S

    Roy, S. & Kalita, S. 2026, PASA, 43, e045

    2026

  24. [32]

    2010, ApJ, 717, 1006

    Williams, G. 2010, ApJ, 717, 1006

    2010

  25. [33]

    Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161

    1955

  26. [34]

    P., Walton, D

    Sathyaprakash, R., Roberts, T. P., Walton, D. J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, L35

    2019

  27. [35]

    2012, A&A, 544, A153

    Shah, S., van der Sluys, M., & Nelemans, G. 2012, A&A, 544, A153

    2012

  28. [36]

    2025, Phys

    Srinivasan, R., Barausse, E., Korsakova, N., & Trotta, R. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 103043

    2025

  29. [37]

    & Clarke, T

    Stevenson, S. & Clarke, T. A. 2022, MNRAS, 517, 4034

    2022

  30. [38]

    E., & Luger, R

    Thiele, S., Breivik, K., Sanderson, R. E., & Luger, R. 2023, ApJ, 945, 162

    2023

  31. [39]

    E., Rubbo, L

    Timpano, S. E., Rubbo, L. J., & Cornish, N. J. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 73, 122001

    2006

  32. [40]

    2012, A&A, 546, A70

    Toonen, S., Nelemans, G., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2012, A&A, 546, A70

    2012

  33. [41]

    S., de Mink, S

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F. S., de Mink, S. E., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 118

    2022

  34. [42]

    Webbink, R. F. 1984, ApJ, 277, 355

    1984

  35. [43]

    & Jeffery, C

    Yu, S. & Jeffery, C. S. 2010, A&A, 521, A85 Article number, page 13 of 13

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.