Short GRB and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy

Bhuvnesh Jain (U. Penn.); Daniel E. Holz (LANL; Neal Dalal (CITA); Scott A. Hughes (MIT); U. Chicago)

REVIEW

Short GRB and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy

Neal Dalal (CITA), Daniel E. Holz (LANL, U. Chicago), Scott A. Hughes (MIT), Bhuvnesh Jain (U. Penn.)

Astrophysics · Submitted 13 Jan 2006 · 39 references

Pith's verdict: A clean, checkable standard-siren forecast whose headline numbers are honestly tied to a hand-set beaming prior — worth refereeing and worth citing.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (selfhosted/deepseek-v4.1-flash) read the paper on October 29, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 8 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDastro-ph/0601275 (version 1)

Pith IDYFHBT2TX, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationBhuvnesh Jain (U. Penn.), Daniel E. Holz (LANL, Neal Dalal (CITA), Scott A. Hughes (MIT), U. Chicago). "Short GRB and binary black hole standard sirens as a probe of dark energy." arXiv:astro-ph/0601275 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/YFHBT2TX

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Bottom line: this is a clean, checkable forecast, and the abstract's numbers are honest about what they depend on. The Fisher setup is Cutler–Flanagan done right — the reparametrization to {(1+v)^2/D, (1-v)^2/D} and the SVD cutoff at 1e-10 are exactly the fixes you need in the face-on limit — and the cosmology step uses external WMAP priors on l_A and Omega_m h^2, so nothing is circular. What is new is the application: per-source distance errors for short-GRB progenitors seen by a specific four-site network, with the beaming prior doing real work on the distance–inclination degeneracy. The SMBBH/LISA branch is an extension of Holz and Hughes (2005) and is presented as such, not oversold; the 4% on w for 100 sources is a reasonable read of Fig. 5 given the lensing noise they include. The stress-test flags the hand-set sigma_v = 0.05 as the load-bearing soft spot. Half right. It is the biggest single lever — bigger than the SNR threshold of 7 or the linear sigma_D/D fit — and it rests on 'indications of beaming' in one burst [18]. But the paper does not hide it: Fig. 4 plots sigma_h and sigma_w for both the beamed and isotropic cases, so the reader sees the range, and since sigma_h scales roughly linearly in sigma_D, interpolating to sigma_v = 0.15 is arithmetic, not research. The abstract's 'depending upon the collimation' is terse but not misleading. I would call the missing intermediate scan a minor gap, not a flaw in the central claim. Two things I would actually press on. First, the SNR > 7 threshold, justified by a template-count argument that cuts 10^5 templates; that fixes D_max = 600 Mpc and hence the event count, and it is the softest number in the chain after sigma_v. Second, reusing the fitted sigma_D/D = D/4.4 Gpc as an analytic input to Eq. (21) rather than the full per-source Fisher distribution — fine at this precision, but a shortcut worth stating. One correction to the record: it lists no stated limitations. That is wrong. Section I flags the flat-universe assumption, Section IV says the CMB error floors sigma_w near 10%, Section V flags the SMBBH rate spread, and Section III says outright that without a beaming prior, dropping network sites badly degrades distance. The authors are more forthcoming than the classifier gives them credit for. Who should read it: anyone working on standard sirens, GW cosmology forecasts, or GRB jet geometry. It is the reference for the short-GRB channel and it holds up. Send it out.

Referee report

Significance

The paper makes a clear, falsifiable forecast for a measurement that is genuinely ladder-free: gravitational-wave inspiral waveforms calibrate absolute distance from the post-Newtonian phase evolution, so the systematic uncertainties that plague standard candles are absent by construction. The Fisher machinery is standard and correctly assembled, the face-on singularity is handled explicitly rather than papered over, and the analysis includes the two noise sources (lensing and peculiar velocities) that actually limit the high- and low-redshift ends respectively. The manuscript is also candid about its assumptions: it states that fixing curvature to zero is required for the three-parameter fit, that the w constraint saturates at the CMB prior, that the LISA result depends on an unknown merger rate and redshift distribution, and that the distance-inclination degeneracy is broken only if a beaming prior can be set. The two-endpoint bracketing of the beaming case (isotropic versus σ_v = 0.05) is the right instinct even if it is not carried through to intermediate values. The result is a useful, quantitative target for the joint GW/GRB observational program, and the recommendation to延长—

Major objections (3)

[§IV, Eq. (16) and the derivation of D_max = 600 Mpc] The detection threshold is applied to the ensemble-averaged signal-to-noise ratio rather than to individual sources. Eq. (15) and Eq. (16) differ by a factor 5/2 in SNR, so at fixed distance individual events span a wide range of detectability depending on sky position and inclination; a sharp cut at the distance where SNR_ave = 3.5 and subsequent counting of all sources out to that distance therefore overcounts the effective number of detections. Since σ_h scales as N_eff^{-1/2}, this propagates directly into the headline 2% figure. Please compute a per-source detection probability (averaged over sky position and orientation, as is already done for the distance errors in Fig. 2) and fold it into the dN/dz integral of Eq. (21), then report the resulting σ_h and σ_w. If the correction is modest, a sentence quantifying it would suffice; if it is a factor of order unity in N_eff, the quoted numbers should be revised.
[§III–IV, beaming prior σ_v = 0.05 and the σ_D/D = D/(4.4 Gpc) scaling] The 2% Hubble-constant forecast rests entirely on the beamed case, and the beaming width is chosen by hand rather than measured; the observational basis cited is 'indications of beaming... in at least one short GRB' (ref. [18]). The paper computes only the two endpoints, isotropic and σ_v = 0.05, and the factor ~2.6 difference between them is the single largest lever in the forecast — larger than the SNR-threshold choice or the linear fit to σ_D/D. The manuscript acknowledges the dependence ('if we cannot set such a prior, then losing sites in this network badly degrades our ability to determine distance') but does not quantify the intermediate regime where the truth plausibly lies. Please add a scan over σ_v (for example 0.05, 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, and isotropic) showing σ_h and σ_w, and either qualify the abstract's 'about 2%' accordingly or state explicitly that it is the optimistic endpoint of a factor ~3 range.
[§II–III, Fisher parameter set and the role of the GRB localization] It is not stated whether the source direction n̂ is held fixed at the gamma-ray localization in the Fisher analysis or marginalized over. Section II lists n̂ among the eight parameters to be determined from the timestream, while Section III says the burst localization 'pinpoint[s] the source direction n̂ and lift[s] some of the degeneracies which limit distance determination.' The quoted σ_D/D scaling depends on this choice, since marginalizing over an unconstrained n̂ would substantially degrade the distance error. Please state the assumed angular uncertainty on n̂ (or that it is fixed), and show how σ_D/D changes if the localization is degraded to, say, the Swift error box rather than a point.

Minor objections (8)

[§IV, numerical value of A] The quoted A = 4.7 × 10^{-6} s^{5/6} is consistent with the prefactor sqrt(5/96) π^{-2/3} (GM/c^3)^{5/6} but not with the definition following Eq. (13), which carries an extra factor of c; the two agree only if D is expressed in light-travel time. Please state the units of D explicitly in Eq. (13) and in the D_max calculation so that the numbers can be reproduced.
[Eq. (21)] The CMB Fisher term uses the notation σ2A and σ2ωm without defining either symbol, and the subscript 'ωm' for Ω_m h^2 is easy to confuse with a physical density. Please define both, and note whether the l_A–Ω_m h^2 correlation is neglected.
[§IV, SNR threshold of 7] The reduction from SNR > 8.5 to SNR > 7 is justified by a heuristic 'factor ~10^5 fewer templates.' A short derivation, or a citation to a trials-factor calculation, would make this step reproducible.
[§III, beaming distribution] The distribution dP/dv ∝ exp[-(1-v)^2/2σ_v^2] is written without normalization or truncation over v ∈ [0,1]. Please state how it is normalized and whether the v < 0 tail is truncated.
[Fig. 1 and Table I] The caption of Fig. 1 should state that the advanced curve is applied to Virgo and AIGO as well as LIGO-II, as the text does. In Table I, θ is a colatitude; saying so would help readers check the AIGO entry.
[Fig. 3] The linear fits σ_D/D = D/(1.7 Gpc) and D/(4.4 Gpc) are used out to 600 Mpc, while the text notes possible departures from linear scaling at the highest distances. Quantifying the fit residual at 600 Mpc would clarify how much this affects the forecast.
[Fig. 5 and the LISA forecast] The σ_w = 0.04 result depends on the assumed constant-comoving-density distribution over 0 < z < 2. Since the abstract already flags the redshift-distribution dependence, a variant with a distribution extending to higher z, or peaking near z ~ 2, would test how robust the 4% is.
[Title and abstract] The title as typeset reads 'a probe of d ark energy'; please check the production file. In the abstract, 'measure the Hubble constant to about 2%' should specify that this is a constraint on h = H0/(100 km/s/Mpc), consistent with the body of the paper.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

Gravitational waves from merging neutron stars could pin down dark energy without a cosmic distance ladder.

The reading

The paper asks whether gravitational-wave observatories can do cosmology on their own. An inspiraling compact binary radiates a waveform whose amplitude fixes the source's absolute luminosity distance directly, with no calibration chain, but the wave carries no redshift. The authors argue that short gamma-ray bursts, if they come from merging neutron-star binaries, supply the missing piece: the burst localizes the source on the sky and identifies a host galaxy whose redshift can be measured. Running the numbers for a four-site ground network (LIGO-II, Virgo, AIGO), they find that about a year of bursts could measure the Hubble constant $h$ to roughly 2%, and that adding the cosmic microwave background's acoustic-scale distance turns that into a constraint on the dark energy equation of state $w$ at the 9% level. They extend the same logic to LISA observations of supermassive black hole inspirals, where roughly 100 sources could reach $w$ at 4%.

What carries the argument

The engine is a Fisher-matrix forecast over the eight parameters of a Newtonian inspiral waveform (distance, chirp mass, coalescence time and phase, sky direction, and the two angles of the orbital axis), summed over four detectors with their tabulated latitudes, longitudes, and arm orientations. Two technical moves carry the result: the parameter pair $D$ and $v = {n}cdot{L}$ is replaced by $(1+v)^2/D$ and $(1-v)^2/D$ to remove the singularity as the binary becomes face-on, and the Fisher matrix is inverted by singular value decomposition with eigenvalues below $10^{-10}$ of the largest zeroed, so the undefined position angle of the orbital axis does not spoil the inversion. A detection threshold of total signal-to-noise 7 (3.5 per detector, lowered from the usual 8.5 because the burst already fixes sky position and time) sets the horizon at $D_{max}=600$ Mpc for a $1.2 M_odot$ chirp mass.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a forecast: a network of ground-based gravitational-wave detectors, triggered by short gamma-ray bursts, can measure the Hubble constant to about 2% in a single year of observation, and — combined with the acoustic angular scale and the physical matter density from the cosmic microwave background — determine the dark energy equation of state $w$ to about 9%. The chain has three links. First, matched filtering of the inspiral waveform measures the luminosity distance $D$ with fractional error that the authors fit as $D/(4.4~{Gpc})$ for beamed sources and $D/(1.7~{Gpc})$ for randomly oriented ones. Second, the burst's electromagnetic localization removes the sky-position degeneracies that normally limit distance extraction, and the burst's host galaxy supplies the redshift. Third, because the distance is absolutely calibrated, even sources at $z<0.2$ constrain dark energy once the CMB fixes the distance to last scattering. The authors also report that 100 LISA-detected supermassive binary black hole inspirals, distributed in constant comoving density out to $z=2$, would give $w$ to 4%, competitive with a large supernova survey.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes that short gamma-ray bursts are beamed along the binary's orbital angular momentum axis, so that seeing a burst means seeing the binary nearly face-on; that prior is what breaks the degeneracy between distance and inclination, and the authors state plainly that without it, losing detector sites badly degrades the distance determination.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A gravitational-wave network plus a gamma-ray satellite yields an absolute measurement of $H_0$ that does not pass through the supernova or Cepheid distance ladder, so it can cross-check local ladder determinations on completely different systematics.
Because absolute distances at low redshift constrain dark energy only in combination with the CMB acoustic distance, the achievable $w$ error is floored by CMB precision: with 1% on $\Omega_m h^2$ the floor sits near 10%, so improving the CMB prior is as valuable as adding gravitational-wave sources.
The forecast gives a concrete target for detector operations: keeping gamma-ray satellites such as Swift and HETE-2 alive into the era of advanced ground-based detectors is what makes the measurement possible at all.
If supermassive black hole merger rates are at the high end of published estimates and a substantial fraction lie at $z<2$, LISA reaches $w$ at the few-percent level despite gravitational lensing noise.
Gravitational-wave sirens are poor probes of clustering statistics compared with weak lensing or supernovae, but they can measure the one-point distribution of lensing magnification, which the authors suggest could discriminate among dark matter models.

Reading between the lines

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

The beaming prior that drives the headline number is itself measurable: jet-break observations in short-burst afterglows, or a comparison of the gravitational-wave trigger rate with the observed burst rate, would replace the hand-chosen $\sigma_v = 0.05$ with a data-driven value and settle whether the 2% or the wider-jet scaling applies.
Because the per-source distance error scales as $1/\mathrm{SNR}$ and the source count as volume, the $H_0$ error improves only as the square root of the maximum detectable distance; a third-generation detector with a few times the reach would cut the required observing time by an order of magnitude and loosen the dependence on the CMB prior.
The same forecast implies a clean consistency test of the merger origin of short bursts: if they are neutron-star mergers, every well-localized burst within 600 Mpc should produce a coincident chirp, and the fraction that do not is a direct upper bound on the non-merger contribution to the short-burst population.
Since the method returns an absolute distance and an independent redshift per event, the residual scatter about the Hubble law at low $z$ becomes a direct handle on peculiar velocities — the very noise term the authors fold in at 300 km/s — rather than merely a nuisance.

Original abstract

Observations of the gravitational radiation from well-localized, inspiraling compact object binaries can measure absolute source distances with high accuracy. When coupled with an independent determination of redshift through an electromagnetic counterpart, these standard sirens can provide an excellent probe of the expansion history of the Universe and the dark energy. Short gamma-ray bursts, if produced by merging neutron star binaries, would be standard sirens with known redshifts detectable by ground-based GW networks such as LIGO-II, Virgo, and AIGO. Depending upon the collimation of these GRBs, a single year of observation of their gravitational waves can measure the Hubble constant to about 2%. When combined with measurement of the absolute distance to the last scattering surface of the cosmic microwave background, this determines the dark energy equation of state parameter w to 9%. Similarly, supermassive binary black hole inspirals will be standard sirens detectable by LISA. Depending upon the precise redshift distribution, 100 sources could measure w at the 4% level.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13.0 via TypeSafe API, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,611 input tokens.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.33 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.04 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.21 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

Observations of the gravitational radiation from well-localized, inspiraling compact object binaries can measure absolute source distances with high accuracy. When coupled with an independent determination of redshift through an electromagnetic counterpart, these standard sirens can provide an excellent probe of the expansion history of the Universe and the dark energy. Short gamma-ray bursts, if produced by merging neutron star binaries, would be standard sirens with known redshifts detectable by ground-based GW networks such as LIGO-II, Virgo, and AIGO. Depending upon the collimation of these GRBs, a single year of observation of their gravitational waves can measure the Hubble constant to about 2%. When combined with measurement of the absolute distance to the last scattering surface of the cosmic microwave background, this determines the dark energy equation of state parameter w to 9%. Similarly, supermassive binary black hole inspirals will be standard sirens detectable by LISA. Depending upon the precise redshift distribution, 100 sources could measure w at the 4% level.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	Observations of the gravitational radiation from well-localized, inspiraling compact object binaries can measure absolute source distances with high accuracy.	background 0.99	0.06	0.05	asserted 0.91
s1	When coupled with an independent determination of redshift through an electromagnetic counterpart, these standard sirens can provide an excellent probe of the expansion history of the Universe and the dark energy.	background 0.81	0.06	0.26	asserted 0.51
s2	Short gamma-ray bursts, if produced by merging neutron star binaries, would be standard sirens with known redshifts detectable by ground-based GW networks such as LIGO-II, Virgo, and AIGO.	method 0.47	0.08	0.08	hedged possibility 0.89
s3	Depending upon the collimation of these GRBs, a single year of observation of their gravitational waves can measure the Hubble constant to about 2%.	result 0.94	0.24	0.14	hedged possibility 0.61
s4	When combined with measurement of the absolute distance to the last scattering surface of the cosmic microwave background, this determines the dark energy equation of state parameter w to 9%.	result 0.89	0.20	0.27	asserted 0.98
s5	Similarly, supermassive binary black hole inspirals will be standard sirens detectable by LISA.	contribution 0.39	0.08	0.05	asserted 0.93
s6	Depending upon the precise redshift distribution, 100 sources could measure w at the 4% level.	result 0.94	0.24	0.21	hedged possibility 0.72

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.48 · evidence from argument 0.95.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** FIG. 1: Noise curve for the LIGO detectors, for initial (dot

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Distribution of measured distances for a source at

Showing 3 of the paper's 5 figures. See all figures in the PDF ↗ Figures reproduced from arXiv:astro-ph/0601275 by the authors.

References

Works cited (39)

[18]

D. B. Fox, D. A. Frail, P. A. Price, S. R. Kulkarni, E. Berger, T. Piran, A. M. Soderberg, S. B. Cenko, P. B. Cameron, A. Gal-Yam, et al., Nature (London) 437, 845 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[1]

B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 102004 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[2]

B. C. Barish and R. Weiss, Phys. Today 52N10, 44 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[3]

B. F. Schutz, Nature (London) 323, 310 (1986)

View on Pith 1986
[4]

D. F. Chernoﬀ and L. S. Finn, Astrophys. J. Letters 411, L5 (1993)

View on Pith 1993
[5]

L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 53, 2878 (1996)

View on Pith 1996
[6]

D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes, Astrophys. J. 629, 15 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[7]

L. Blanchet, Living Reviews in Relativity 5, 3 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[8]

B. Kocsis, Z. Frei, Z. Haiman, and K. Menou, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505394

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[9]

W. Hu and B. Jain, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043009 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[10]

W. Hu, astro-ph/0407158 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[11]

G. Bernstein, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503276

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[12]

L. Knox, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503405

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[13]

D. E. Holz and E. V. Linder, Astrophys. J. 631, 678 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[14]

C. Cutler and ´E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994)

View on Pith 1994
[15]

K. S. Thorne (1987), in *Hawking, S.W. (ed.), Israel, W. (ed.): Three hundred years of gravitation*, 330-458. (see Book Index)

View on Pith 1987
[16]

N. Gehrels, C. L. Sarazin, P. T. O’Brien, B. Zhang, L. Barbier, S. D. Barthelmy, A. Blustin, D. N. Burrows, J. Cannizzo, J. R. Cummings, et al., Nature (London) 437, 851 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[17]

E. Berger, P. A. Price, S. B. Cenko, A. Gal-Yam, A. M. Soderberg, M. Kasliwal, D. C. Leonard, P. B. Cameron, D. A. Frail, S. R. Kulkarni, et al., Nature (London) 438, 988 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[19]

S. D. Barthelmy, G. Chincarini, D. N. Burrows, N. Gehrels, S. Covino, A. Moretti, P. Romano, P. T. O’Brien, C. L. Sarazin, C. Kouveliotou, et al., ArXiv As- trophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0511579

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[20]

R. Narayan, B. Paczynski, and T. Piran, Astrophys. J. Letters 395, L83 (1992)

View on Pith 1992
[21]

A. I. MacFadyen, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and W. Zhang, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0510192

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[22]

L. S. Finn, S. D. Mohanty, and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 60, 121101 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[23]

N. Seto, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:as tro- ph/0512212

View on Pith 2005
[24]

E. Gustafson, D. Shoemaker, K. Strain, and R. Weiss (1999), URL http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/ T990080-00.pdf

View on Pith 1999
[25]

F. Acernese, P. Amico, M. Al-Shourbagy, S. Aoudia, S. Avino, D. Babusci, G. Ballardin, R. Barill´ e, F. Barone, L. Barsotti, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 22, 869 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[26]

D. E. McClelland, D. G. Blair, and R. J. Sandeman, in Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossman Meeting on recent developments in theoretical and experimental gen- eral relativity, gravitation, and relativistic ﬁeld theor ies (1996), pp. 1415–+

View on Pith 1996
[27]

L. Page, M. R. Nolta, C. Barnes, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, et al., Astrophys. J. Supp. 148, 233 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[28]

N. Dalal, D. E. Holz, X. Chen, and J. A. Frieman, As- trophys. J. Letters 585, L11 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[29]

R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchman, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[30]

E. Nakar, A. Gal-Yam, and D. B. Fox, ArXiv Astro- physics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0511254

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005
[31]

´E. ´E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4535 (1998)

View on Pith 1998
[32]

M. Milosavljevi´ c and E. S. Phinney, Astrophys. J. Let- ters 622, L93 (2005)

View on Pith 2005
[33]

P. J. Armitage and P. Natarajan, Astrophys. J. Letters 567, L9 (2002)

View on Pith 2002
[34]

U.-L. Pen, New Astronomy 9, 417 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[35]

U. Seljak and D. E. Holz, Astron. & Astrophys. 351, L10 (1999)

View on Pith 1999
[36]

A. Sesana, F. Haardt, P. Madau, and M. Volonteri, As- trophys. J. 611, 623 (2004)

View on Pith 2004
[37]

K. Menou, Z. Haiman, and V. K. Narayanan, Astrophys. J. 558, 535 (2001)

View on Pith 2001
[38]

M. G. Haehnelt, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, 31 (2003)

View on Pith 2003
[39]

S. M. Koushiappas and A. R. Zentner, Astrophys. J. in press; ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), astro- ph/0503511

View on Pith 2005

Forward citations

Cited by 23 Pith papers

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

Modified gravitational-wave propagation and standard sirens
gr-qc 2018-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Modified gravity can change the gravitational-wave luminosity distance relative to the electromagnetic one, and this effect is a more sensitive dark-energy probe for standard sirens than the equation of state.
Radio sirens: inferring $H_0$ with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory
astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

Using simulated binary black hole mergers and neutral hydrogen maps, the radio sirens method constrains H0 to 8% precision with 3000 high-SNR events, offering a 90% improvement over standard dark siren analyses.
Cosmology with LIGO/Virgo dark sirens: Hubble parameter and modified gravitational wave propagation
astro-ph.CO 2021-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Dark sirens alone give H0 = 67.3 (+27.6/-17.9) km/s/Mpc, a 34% measurement, and a weak constraint Xi0 = 2.1 (+3.2/-1.2) on modified gravitational wave propagation.
Cosmological Inference using Gravitational Wave Standard Sirens: A Mock Data Challenge
gr-qc 2019-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A mock data challenge shows that gravitational wave standard sirens can recover an unbiased Hubble constant with galaxy catalogs as incomplete as 25%, using the gwcosmo Bayesian pipeline.
Measuring the distance-redshift relation with the cross-correlation of gravitational wave standard sirens and galaxies
astro-ph.CO 2016-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Cross-correlating the sky positions of gravitational wave sources, which carry distances but no redshifts, with a redshift survey of galaxies constrains the distance-redshift relation and the Hubble constant to about ...

Show 18 more citing papers

Reducing the weak lensing noise for the gravitational wave Hubble diagram using the non-Gaussianity of the magnification distribution
astro-ph.CO 2010-04 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Exploiting the skewed, non-Gaussian shape of weak lensing magnification sharpens gravitational wave distance estimates by a factor of 2 to 3 over simple flux averaging.
Cosmography with the Einstein Telescope
astro-ph.CO 2009-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Simulated catalogues of 1,000 neutron-star mergers detected by the Einstein Telescope with optical counterparts give 1-sigma errors of about 4% on dark energy density, 18% on matter density, and 18% on the dark energy...
The gravitational-wave luminosity distance in modified gravity theories
astro-ph.CO 2017-12 accept novelty 5.5 of 10

Modified gravitational-wave propagation produces a luminosity-distance shift that survives cosmological parameter fitting, while the dark energy equation-of-state shift is largely absorbed, making standard sirens a sh...
Probing Dark Matter with Strongly Lensed Binary Black Hole Mergers: Prospects in the Near Future
gr-qc 2026-09 accept novelty 5.0 of 10

Strongly lensed gravitational-wave events detected by LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA in the late 2020s could yield bounds on warm dark matter particle mass rivaling the tightest astrophysical constraints.
Spectral sirens: cosmology from the full mass distribution of compact binaries
astro-ph.CO 2022-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simulated catalogs show that using all identifiable features in the compact-binary mass spectrum, while simultaneously fitting their cosmic evolution, can measure H(z) to better than 10% with current detectors and abo...
Accurate precision Cosmology with redshift unknown gravitational wave sources
astro-ph.CO 2020-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Cross-correlating redshift-unknown gravitational wave sources with galaxies of known redshift can recover the Hubble constant to about 2% with 200 sources, according to a mock-catalog forecast.
Cosmology and dark energy from joint gravitational wave-GRB observations
astro-ph.CO 2019-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Mock catalogs of binary neutron star mergers with gamma-ray burst counterparts indicate that a single Einstein Telescope could measure the modified-gravity parameter Xi0 to about 1% and the Hubble constant to 0.2-0.4%.
Testing modified gravity at cosmological distances with LISA standard sirens
astro-ph.CO 2019-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Mock LISA catalogs of supermassive black hole mergers, combined with CMB, BAO and supernova data, would constrain a modified-gravity parameter controlling the gravitational-wave distance to roughly 1 to 4 percent.
Multiband Gravitational-Wave Astronomy: Observing binary inspirals with a decihertz detector, B-DECIGO
gr-qc 2018-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

B-DECIGO alone could pin the mass ratio of a GW150914-like binary to better than 0.1 percent and its black-hole spins to better than 10 percent, with multiband follow-up sharpening neutron-star tidal measurements.
A 2 per cent Hubble constant measurement from standard sirens within 5 years
astro-ph.CO 2017-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simulating a decade of LIGO-Virgo compact-object mergers, the authors project that gravitational-wave standard sirens will constrain the Hubble constant to 2 percent by roughly 2023 and 1 percent by roughly 2026.
Determining the Hubble constant from gravitational wave observations of merging compact binaries
astro-ph.CO 2013-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Simulated joint gravitational-wave and electromagnetic observations of 15 to 30 neutron-star mergers could measure the Hubble constant to 5 percent, and to better than 1 percent if the mergers are beamed gamma-ray bursts.
Reconstructing the dark sector interaction with LISA
astro-ph.CO 2017-03 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Simulated LISA standard sirens, analysed with Gaussian processes, would constrain a dark energy-dark matter interaction out to redshift 3 to 5, beyond the reach of supernova surveys.
Estimating cosmological parameters by the simulated data of gravitational waves from the Einstein Telescope
astro-ph.CO 2016-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

Mock Einstein Telescope standard-siren data indicate that about 500 to 600 events with electromagnetic counterparts could match Planck precision on the Hubble constant, and about 700 could match Planck plus supernovae...
The Next Generation Global Gravitational Wave Observatory: The Science Book
gr-qc 2021-11 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A community roadmap arguing that a network of 3G gravitational-wave detectors would detect hundreds of thousands of compact-binary mergers per year and enable decisive measurements of dense matter, black-hole populati...
Dark Energy in light of Multi-Messenger Gravitational-Wave astronomy
astro-ph.CO 2018-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

Multi-messenger gravitational-wave observations, led by GW170817, already rule out broad classes of dark-energy theories and will sharpen those tests as detectors improve.
Cosmology Intertwined: A Review of the Particle Physics, Astrophysics, and Cosmology Associated with the Cosmological Tensions and Anomalies
astro-ph.CO 2022-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper reviews cosmological tensions including the H0 and S8 discrepancies and explores new physics models that could explain them.
Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology with Gravitational Waves
gr-qc 2009-03 accept novelty 2.0 of 10

The paper reviews the physics, sources, detectors, data analysis and scientific payoff of gravitational wave astronomy, forecasting that upgraded ground-based interferometers should reach regular detections around 2014.
The Gravitational-Wave Physics
gr-qc 2017-03 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

The review surveys three gravitational-wave source classes (inflation and preheating, first-order phase transitions, compact binaries) and the use of binary mergers as standard sirens for cosmology.

How later papers used it

123 later papers cite it

Evidence: substantial. 103 of the citing papers share no author with it, and 14 of those carry a confident label from Pith's citation classifier.

Pith read 10 of the 155 citing sentences, choosing only those whose citation markers point at this paper alone, and wrote the paraphrases from them. The summary, the counts, the evidence level, the links and the quotes come from code; the summary counts the papers listed below. A later paper is listed under a label when Pith's citation classifier gives one of its sentences that label at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), Pith's reading finds that the citing paper itself did it, and a second check confirms the paraphrase against the sentence. This section lists uses only. It does not list criticism or disagreement, so their absence here says nothing about how the paper has been received. Papers that share an author with this one are listed apart, under "By the same authors". A quote is the citing authors' own sentence, shown when their paper's licence is CC BY, CC BY-SA or CC0. JSON

3 later papers by other authors are listed below: 2 used its method or tool and 1 used its data or values.

Uses its method or tool 2 of 12 papers with this label

Repeated its analysis assuming a gravitational-wave distance uncertainty of twice the distance over the signal-to-noise ratio, as done in this paper.

Lensing bias on cosmological parameters from bright standard sirens (2023) · 0.95 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting
Following Ref. [ref] , we estimate the SNR averaged over the extrinsic parameters (e.g., the source position in the sky) by the formula [equation] where $I_7$ and $A$ are given by [equation] The integration range $[, ]$ in Eq. [ref] is obtained below as a frequency evolution during the three-year observation of DECIGO.

Prospects of detection of subsolar mass primordial black hole and white dwarf binary mergers (2024) · Signal-to-noise ratio for the inspiraling WD-PBH binary · 0.96

Uses its data or values 1 of 2 papers with this label

Used the noise power spectrum of the detectors giving Figure 1 in this paper.

Effective Search Templates for a Primordial Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background (2007) · 0.99 · paraphrased: the licence does not allow quoting

How the literature uses it

74 arXiv papers cite this in 89 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 53 sentences without a confident label

Uses its method or tool 7 papers

However, following [ref] , we are assuming that the luminosity distance is measured with a statistical error that depends on the observational features of the Einstein Telescope.

Exploiting the Einstein Telescope to solve the Hubble tension · Mock Data · 0.83
Finally, the instrumental error due to the parameter estimation from the matched filtering waveform is estimated as $Δd_L/d_L∼$ 1/SNR [ref] .

Space-borne atom interferometric gravitational wave detections. Part I. The forecast of bright sirens on cosmology · Construction of BNS bright sirens · 0.94
Finally the instrumental error due to the parameter estimation from the matched filtering waveform, is estimated as 1/SNR [ref] .

Gravitational-Wave Detector Networks: Standard Sirens on Cosmology and Modified Gravity Theory · BNS standard sirens based on ground-based 2G HLVKI and 3G ET+2CE · 0.91

Uses its data or values 1 paper

Then, we use the noise power spectrum of the detectors giving the Figure 1 in [ref] .

Effective Search Templates for a Primordial Stochastic Gravitational Wave Background · Sensitivity of LIGO II to stochastic background of GWs · 0.99

Cites it as background 26 papers

The most straightforward way is represented by the so-called bright sirens [ref] , where the host galaxy is uniquely identified, and its redshift is measured electromagnetically.

Radio sirens: inferring $H_0$ with binary black holes and neutral hydrogen in the era of the Einstein Telescope and the SKA Observatory · Introduction · 0.89
In the last decades, several papers have studied the possibility of using GW as standard sirens [ref] , especially in connection with future GW detectors such as the Einstein Telescope (ET) [ref] , a third-generation ground-based interferometers, and the Laser Interferometric Space Antenna (LISA) [ref] , a space mission designed to probe the GW landscape around the mHz region where the signal produced by massive black hole binaries (MBHBs) is expected to be the loudest [ref] .

Reconstructing the dark sector interaction with LISA · Introduction · 0.89
If the redshift information could also be obtained by identifying electromagnetic (EM) counterparts (this type of standard sirens are typically referred to as “bright sirens”) or statistically from cross-matching of GW and galaxy catalogs (this type of standard sirens are typically referred to as “dark sirens”), the distance-redshift relation could be used to explore the expansion history of the universe, which is widely discussed in the literature [ref] .

Standard siren cosmology in the era of the 2.5-generation ground-based gravitational wave detectors: bright and dark sirens of LIGO Voyager and NEMO · Introduction · 0.88

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [18]

D. B. Fox, D. A. Frail, P. A. Price, S. R. Kulkarni, E. Berger, T. Piran, A. M. Soderberg, S. B. Cenko, P. B. Cameron, A. Gal-Yam, et al., Nature (London) 437, 845 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[2] [1]

B. Abbott et al., Phys. Rev. D 72, 102004 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[3] [2]

B. C. Barish and R. Weiss, Phys. Today 52N10, 44 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[4] [3]

B. F. Schutz, Nature (London) 323, 310 (1986)

View on Pith 1986

[5] [4]

D. F. Chernoﬀ and L. S. Finn, Astrophys. J. Letters 411, L5 (1993)

View on Pith 1993

[6] [5]

L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 53, 2878 (1996)

View on Pith 1996

[7] [6]

D. E. Holz and S. A. Hughes, Astrophys. J. 629, 15 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[8] [7]

L. Blanchet, Living Reviews in Relativity 5, 3 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[9] [8]

B. Kocsis, Z. Frei, Z. Haiman, and K. Menou, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505394

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[10] [9]

W. Hu and B. Jain, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043009 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[11] [10]

W. Hu, astro-ph/0407158 (2004)

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[12] [11]

G. Bernstein, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503276

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[13] [12]

L. Knox, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0503405

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[14] [13]

D. E. Holz and E. V. Linder, Astrophys. J. 631, 678 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[15] [14]

C. Cutler and ´E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994)

View on Pith 1994

[16] [15]

K. S. Thorne (1987), in *Hawking, S.W. (ed.), Israel, W. (ed.): Three hundred years of gravitation*, 330-458. (see Book Index)

View on Pith 1987

[17] [16]

N. Gehrels, C. L. Sarazin, P. T. O’Brien, B. Zhang, L. Barbier, S. D. Barthelmy, A. Blustin, D. N. Burrows, J. Cannizzo, J. R. Cummings, et al., Nature (London) 437, 851 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[18] [17]

E. Berger, P. A. Price, S. B. Cenko, A. Gal-Yam, A. M. Soderberg, M. Kasliwal, D. C. Leonard, P. B. Cameron, D. A. Frail, S. R. Kulkarni, et al., Nature (London) 438, 988 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[19] [19]

S. D. Barthelmy, G. Chincarini, D. N. Burrows, N. Gehrels, S. Covino, A. Moretti, P. Romano, P. T. O’Brien, C. L. Sarazin, C. Kouveliotou, et al., ArXiv As- trophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0511579

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[20] [20]

R. Narayan, B. Paczynski, and T. Piran, Astrophys. J. Letters 395, L83 (1992)

View on Pith 1992

[21] [21]

A. I. MacFadyen, E. Ramirez-Ruiz, and W. Zhang, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0510192

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[22] [22]

L. S. Finn, S. D. Mohanty, and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 60, 121101 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[23] [23]

N. Seto, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), arXiv:as tro- ph/0512212

View on Pith 2005

[24] [24]

E. Gustafson, D. Shoemaker, K. Strain, and R. Weiss (1999), URL http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/T/ T990080-00.pdf

View on Pith 1999

[25] [25]

F. Acernese, P. Amico, M. Al-Shourbagy, S. Aoudia, S. Avino, D. Babusci, G. Ballardin, R. Barill´ e, F. Barone, L. Barsotti, et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 22, 869 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[26] [26]

D. E. McClelland, D. G. Blair, and R. J. Sandeman, in Proceedings of the Seventh Marcel Grossman Meeting on recent developments in theoretical and experimental gen- eral relativity, gravitation, and relativistic ﬁeld theor ies (1996), pp. 1415–+

View on Pith 1996

[27] [27]

L. Page, M. R. Nolta, C. Barnes, C. L. Bennett, M. Halpern, G. Hinshaw, N. Jarosik, A. Kogut, M. Limon, S. S. Meyer, et al., Astrophys. J. Supp. 148, 233 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[28] [28]

N. Dalal, D. E. Holz, X. Chen, and J. A. Frieman, As- trophys. J. Letters 585, L11 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[29] [29]

R. E. Smith, J. A. Peacock, A. Jenkins, S. D. M. White, C. S. Frenk, F. R. Pearce, P. A. Thomas, G. Efstathiou, and H. M. P. Couchman, Mon. Not. Royal Astron. Soc. 341, 1311 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[30] [30]

E. Nakar, A. Gal-Yam, and D. B. Fox, ArXiv Astro- physics e-prints (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0511254

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2005

[31] [31]

´E. ´E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4535 (1998)

View on Pith 1998

[32] [32]

M. Milosavljevi´ c and E. S. Phinney, Astrophys. J. Let- ters 622, L93 (2005)

View on Pith 2005

[33] [33]

P. J. Armitage and P. Natarajan, Astrophys. J. Letters 567, L9 (2002)

View on Pith 2002

[34] [34]

U.-L. Pen, New Astronomy 9, 417 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[35] [35]

U. Seljak and D. E. Holz, Astron. & Astrophys. 351, L10 (1999)

View on Pith 1999

[36] [36]

A. Sesana, F. Haardt, P. Madau, and M. Volonteri, As- trophys. J. 611, 623 (2004)

View on Pith 2004

[37] [37]

K. Menou, Z. Haiman, and V. K. Narayanan, Astrophys. J. 558, 535 (2001)

View on Pith 2001

[38] [38]

M. G. Haehnelt, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20, 31 (2003)

View on Pith 2003

[39] [39]

S. M. Koushiappas and A. R. Zentner, Astrophys. J. in press; ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints (2005), astro- ph/0503511

View on Pith 2005