pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.06090 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Posterior Predictive Checks for Gravitational-wave Populations: Limitations and Improvements

Simona J. Miller , Sophia Winney , Katerina Chatziioannou , Patrick M. Meyers
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:05 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords posterior predictive checksgravitational wave populationsbinary black holesspin distributionsmodel misspecificationLVK catalogsGaussian component spins
0
0 comments X

The pith

Posterior predictive checks on maximum likelihood parameters detect model misspecification in gravitational-wave populations more effectively than traditional event-level checks.

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

The paper tests how well different versions of posterior predictive checks can identify when a model of binary black hole populations fails to match LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observations, especially for parameters like spin tilts that carry large measurement uncertainty. Traditional checks on full posterior samples often fail to flag poor fits when data are prior-dominated. The authors demonstrate that performing the checks instead on maximum likelihood estimates consistently improves detection of misspecification, independent of uncertainty level. Applied to the latest catalog, the checks show that the Gaussian component spins model under-predicts binaries with large spin magnitudes while over-predicting perfectly anti-aligned tilts. This matters because reliable population models are required to trace black hole formation channels and forecast signals for next-generation detectors.

Core claim

Posterior predictive checks conducted on maximum likelihood parameters are always more discerning of model misspecification than any event-level PPC, independent of measurement uncertainty. In simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs, neither partial nor split predictive checks nor other event-level variants yield significant improvement over traditional approaches because the data contain too little information about spin tilts. When the same suite is applied to the GWTC-4.0 catalog, the Gaussian Component Spins model is found to under-predict binary black holes with large spin magnitudes and over-predict those with perfectly anti-aligned tilts.

What carries the argument

Comparison of posterior predictive checks performed on maximum likelihood parameter points versus full posterior samples, together with partial and split predictive check variants, for single-event parameters such as spin magnitude and tilt.

If this is right

  • Population models for future LVK catalogs can be validated more reliably by switching to maximum-likelihood PPCs when event parameters remain uncertain.
  • The Gaussian Component Spins model must be revised to increase the predicted fraction of high-magnitude spins and reduce the fraction of perfectly anti-aligned tilts.
  • Model selection for binary black hole formation channels will improve once PPC diagnostics are less blinded by measurement uncertainty.
  • The same maximum-likelihood approach can be applied immediately to other poorly constrained parameters such as mass ratios or eccentricity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Higher-sensitivity detectors will likely make event-level PPCs viable once spin-tilt constraints tighten, reducing reliance on maximum-likelihood approximations.
  • These diagnostics could be adapted to test population models against electromagnetic or neutrino counterparts in multi-messenger settings.
  • Routine use of maximum-likelihood PPCs might alter how catalog papers report model adequacy and could standardize validation across different population inference codes.

Load-bearing premise

That simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs accurately capture the limited information content about spin tilts present in real LVK data.

What would settle it

A catalog with higher signal-to-noise spin measurements in which event-level PPCs produce p-values that systematically agree with or exceed those from maximum-likelihood PPCs on the same misspecified models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.06090 by Katerina Chatziioannou, Patrick M. Meyers, Simona J. Miller, Sophia Winney.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Summary of the posterior predictive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic showing the steps for conducting a PPC on an arbitrary parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic demonstrating how to calculate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Results of population inference and event-level versus data-level PPCs for cos [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Distributions and associated posterior predictive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Single-event measurement uncertainty [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. PPC traces (top row), fraction under-predicted (middle row), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Results of standard event-level (left within each color) and data-level (right within each color) PPCs for GWTC-4.0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Underlying (blue) and detected (red-orange) distributions of all 15 BBH parameters for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Predicted (filled) vs. observed (open) max [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Observed (empty) versus predicted (filled) parameter distributions for max [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Results from hierarchical inference performed analytically with a Gaussian population model and Gaussian individual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Distributions and associated posterior predictive [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Similar to Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

When selecting a model to characterize an astrophysical population, it is crucial to assess whether that model fits the data and, if not, how it can be improved. To this end, posterior predictive checks (PPCs) are a widely-used statistical test of model fit when inferring gravitational-wave source populations. However, PPCs exhibit limitations when assessing single-event parameters with large measurement uncertainty, like the spin tilt angles of the binary black holes (BBHs) observable with the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) detectors. When single-event inference is prior-dominated, traditional PPCs fail to flag even very poor model fits. In this work, we assess the efficacy of various alternative PPCs on poorly-constrained parameters. We compare PPCs conducted on event- vs. data-level parameters (e.g. posterior samples vs. maximum likelihood points), and explore two additional event-level PPCs: partial predictive checks and split predictive checks. Independent of measurement uncertainty, we find that PPCs on maximum likelihood parameters are always more discerning of model misspecification than any event-level PPC. However, when investigating simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs, none of the alternative PPCs show significant improvement over those traditionally used, indicating that at that sensitivity, any limited information in the data about spin tilts is insufficient to diagnose model misspecification. Finally, we apply our suite of PPCs to the spin magnitude and tilt distributions inferred in the most recent LVK catalog, GWTC-4.0. We conclude that the Gaussian Component Spins model used therein under-predicts BBHs with large spin magnitudes and over-predicts those with perfectly anti-aligned tilts.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper examines limitations of posterior predictive checks (PPCs) when assessing gravitational-wave population models for parameters with large measurement uncertainties, such as binary black hole spin tilt angles. It compares traditional event-level PPCs against alternatives including data-level PPCs on maximum-likelihood parameters, partial predictive checks, and split predictive checks. Simulation studies on GWTC-3.0-like catalogs show that maximum-likelihood PPCs are more discerning of misspecification independent of uncertainty, but none of the variants significantly improve diagnosis, indicating insufficient information content at current sensitivities. Application to GWTC-4.0 data concludes that the Gaussian Component Spins model under-predicts BBHs with large spin magnitudes and over-predicts those with perfectly anti-aligned tilts.

Significance. If the results hold, this provides useful methodological guidance for model assessment in GW population studies by identifying when and why standard PPCs fail for prior-dominated parameters and recommending maximum-likelihood based checks as more effective. The simulation-based testing of PPC variants offers a controlled evaluation framework, and the application to real GWTC-4.0 data highlights concrete deficiencies in the spin model that can inform future population modeling efforts.

major comments (1)
  1. The interpretation that limited information about spin tilts in the data is insufficient to diagnose misspecification (and thus that alternative PPCs show no improvement) rests on the fidelity of the simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs. It is unclear whether these simulations accurately reproduce the SNR distribution, selection effects, and prior-dominated regime for tilt angles in real LVK data; if they do not, the lack of improvement in partial, split, or data-level PPCs could be an artifact of the simulation setup rather than evidence of fundamental data limitations. This affects the load-bearing claim in the simulation results and the subsequent conclusions drawn for GWTC-4.0.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed review and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address the major comment below and will revise the text to strengthen the presentation of our simulation methodology.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The interpretation that limited information about spin tilts in the data is insufficient to diagnose misspecification (and thus that alternative PPCs show no improvement) rests on the fidelity of the simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs. It is unclear whether these simulations accurately reproduce the SNR distribution, selection effects, and prior-dominated regime for tilt angles in real LVK data; if they do not, the lack of improvement in partial, split, or data-level PPCs could be an artifact of the simulation setup rather than evidence of fundamental data limitations. This affects the load-bearing claim in the simulation results and the subsequent conclusions drawn for GWTC-4.0.

    Authors: We agree that the fidelity of the simulated catalogs is central to interpreting the simulation results. The GWTC-3.0-like catalogs were generated by drawing source parameters from the population models under study, injecting them into Gaussian noise realizations matching the O3 detector sensitivities and duty cycles, applying the same SNR-based selection thresholds used in the real LVK analyses, and recovering parameters with the identical Bayesian pipelines and priors employed for GWTC-3.0. The prior-dominated character of the tilt-angle posteriors emerges directly from the low-SNR regime that dominates the catalog, a feature that is independently verified by comparing the distribution of posterior widths in the simulations to those reported for real events. Nevertheless, to remove any ambiguity, we will add a dedicated subsection (and associated figure) in the Methods that explicitly compares the SNR distribution, selection efficiency, and tilt posterior-width histograms between the simulated and real GWTC-3.0 catalogs. These additions will demonstrate that the simulations faithfully reproduce the relevant data limitations. With this clarification, the conclusion that current detector sensitivity provides insufficient information to diagnose spin-tilt misspecification remains supported, while the separate application of the PPC suite to the GWTC-4.0 data stands on its own empirical results. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in the derivation chain.

full rationale

The paper tests alternative posterior predictive check (PPC) variants on simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs that serve as an independent benchmark for method performance, then applies the suite to real GWTC-4.0 data using standard Bayesian posterior predictive procedures. No load-bearing step reduces by construction to a fitted input renamed as a prediction, a self-definitional relation, or an unverified self-citation chain; the simulations provide external validation of PPC behavior under controlled conditions, and the real-data conclusions follow directly from comparing observed and replicated distributions without circular re-use of the same fitted quantities as both input and output.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard Bayesian statistical assumptions and the representativeness of simulated catalogs rather than new physical postulates.

free parameters (1)
  • Gaussian Component Spins model parameters
    These parameters are inferred from the GWTC-4.0 data and then used to generate the predictive distributions being checked.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Bayesian posterior predictive checks are a valid procedure for assessing model fit to data
    Invoked throughout the comparison of traditional and alternative PPCs.
  • domain assumption Simulated GWTC-3.0-like catalogs faithfully reproduce the measurement uncertainties and information content of real LVK observations
    Central to the efficacy tests of the PPC variants.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5621 in / 1580 out tokens · 81817 ms · 2026-05-10T19:05:57.203867+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Gravitational-wave astronomy requires population-informed parameter estimation

    gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Population-informed hierarchical parameter estimation is required for unbiased astrophysical interpretation of gravitational-wave events rather than using standard individual posteriors with reference priors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

160 extracted references · 122 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 9 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Choose a test statisticT 0 to keep constant between the predicted and observed catalogs

  2. [2]

    3.Observed values( ⃗λobs true): Draw one sample from each individual-event posterior in the observed catalog,reweightedfrom its parameter-estimation prior toπ pop(λtrue|Λ)

    Draw one sample of Λ from the hyperposterior p(Λ| ⃗d obs). 3.Observed values( ⃗λobs true): Draw one sample from each individual-event posterior in the observed catalog,reweightedfrom its parameter-estimation prior toπ pop(λtrue|Λ). CalculateT 0( ⃗d obs). 4.Predicted values( ⃗λpred true ): DrawN obs detectableval- ues ofλ true from the distributionπ pop(λt...

  3. [3]

    Ideally, using the pPPC to fix one statistic between the observed and predicted catalogs would lead to a more discerningp-value for other test statistics

    Repeat steps 2-4 for each Λ. Ideally, using the pPPC to fix one statistic between the observed and predicted catalogs would lead to a more discerningp-value for other test statistics. We focus on two cases ofT 0. First, we choose aT 0 which is highly mismatched between the inferred vs. true underlying population distributions: the ratio of tilts with cosθ...

  4. [4]

    Randomly partition the full observed catalog into disjoint subsets ⃗d obs 1 and ⃗d obs 2 , each containing half of the events, such thatn 1 =n 2 =N obs/2

  5. [5]

    In practice, to do this we perform a weighteddraw from the already availablep(Λ| ⃗d obs) with the weights given in Eq

    Draw one sample of Λ from the hyperposterior p(Λ| ⃗d obs 2 ). In practice, to do this we perform a weighteddraw from the already availablep(Λ| ⃗d obs) with the weights given in Eq. (20). 3.Observed values( ⃗λobs true): Draw one sample from each of theN/2 individual-event posteriors in ⃗d obs 1 , reweighted from its parameter-estimation prior to πpop(λtrue...

  6. [6]

    blurring out

    Repeat steps 1-4 many times. The results of the SPC are shown in Fig. 9. We find that the SPC shows no advantage over the traditional event-level PPC, and in fact is the least discerning of all the PPCs we test; see Fig. 1 for a comparison. Because we test SPCs on event-level parameters, they still involve the reweighting of individual events to the popul...

  7. [7]

    While any model misspecifi- cation uncovered by event-level PPCs is robust, we caution against over-interpreting event-level PPC results that indicate agoodmodel fit

    For moderate- to poorly-constrained parameters, we recommend the use of data-level PPCs along- side event-level PPCs. While any model misspecifi- cation uncovered by event-level PPCs is robust, we caution against over-interpreting event-level PPC results that indicate agoodmodel fit

  8. [8]

    Small-number effects naturally cause fluctuations in fraction-underpredicted

    Additionally, we advise against assigning signifi- cance to every fluctuation in data-level PPC traces that might stem from Poisson noise rather than a feature in the underlying astrophysical population. Small-number effects naturally cause fluctuations in fraction-underpredicted. Assessing the consis- tency of cumulative density functions [33] or com- pa...

  9. [9]

    If negligible information exists about a parameter in the single-event likeli- hood, neither class of PPC will be informative

    For well-constrained parameters, we recommend the use of the traditional, event-level PPCs: these are more computationally efficient, and in the low measurement-uncertainty limit, perform equally as well as data-level PPCs. If negligible information exists about a parameter in the single-event likeli- hood, neither class of PPC will be informative

  10. [10]

    When calculating posterior predictivep-values, we recommend always using a variety of test statistics, rather than just one

  11. [11]

    If trying to probe a specific feature in the data, par- tial PPCs can be a useful tool, but we only recom- mend their use for moderately- to well-constrained parameters

  12. [12]

    hyper-posterior

    At current GW catalog size, we discourage the use of split-PPCs. Moving forwards, we wish to explore PPCs on alter- native data-level quantities beyond just the maximum likelihood parameters, such as search statistics. Likeli- hood optimization for poorly constrained parameters is difficult (Appendix C), warranting both turning to other data-level propert...

    2023

  13. [13]

    15 and 16

    In which the Gaussian population model is a good fit to the data We begin by examining hierarchical inference, PPCs, and posterior predictivep-values for a case where the Gaussian population model is a good fit to the observed data, with results shown in Figs. 15 and 16. For the true underlying population, we use a Gaussian distribution withµ true = 0.4 a...

  14. [14]

    17 and 18

    In which the Gaussian population model is a poor fit to the data We repeat the above exercise with a simulated population thatcannotbe accurately recovered by a Gaussian model, with results shown in Figs. 17 and 18. Here, the true underlying population is a bimodal distribution—the mixture of two Gaussian distributions, with the sub-dominant component hav...

  15. [15]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2021

  16. [16]

    GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run,

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO), Phys. Rev. D109, 022001 (2024), arXiv:2108.01045 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  17. [17]

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

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 041039 (2023), arXiv:2111.03606 [gr- qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2023

  18. [18]

    The LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collabora- tions, arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    J. Aasi, B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. R. Abernathy,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  20. [20]

    Advanced Virgo: a 2nd generation interferometric gravitational wave detector

    F. Acernese, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, D. Aisa, N. Allemandou,et al., Classical and Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2015

  21. [21]

    Akutsu et al

    T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA), PTEP2021, 05A101 (2021), arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astro- 29 phys. J. Lett.882, L24 (2019), arXiv:1811.12940 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  23. [23]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys

    R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. Lett.913, L7 (2021), arXiv:2010.14533 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Abbott, T

    R. Abbottet al.(KAGRA, VIRGO, LIGO Scientific), Phys. Rev. X13, 011048 (2023), arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  25. [25]

    arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    I. M. Romero-Shaw, E. Thrane, and P. D. Lasky, Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral.39, e025 (2022), arXiv:2202.05479 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Flex- ible and fast estimation of binary merger population distributions with an adaptive kernel density estimator,

    J. Sadiq, T. Dent, and D. Wysocki, Phys. Rev. D105, 123014 (2022), arXiv:2112.12659 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  28. [28]

    Golomb and C

    J. Golomb and C. Talbot, Phys. Rev. D108, 103009 (2023), arXiv:2210.12287 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Vitale, S

    S. Vitale, S. Biscoveanu, and C. Talbot, Astron. Astro- phys.668, L2 (2022), arXiv:2209.06978 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  30. [30]

    Cover Your Basis: Comprehensive Data-driven Characteriza- tion of the Binary Black Hole Population,

    B. Edelman, B. Farr, and Z. Doctor, Astrophys. J.946, 16 (2023), arXiv:2210.12834 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  31. [31]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2304.01288, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2304.01288

    J. Godfrey, B. Edelman, and B. Farr, arXiv:2304.01288 [astro-ph.HE] (2023)

    work page arXiv 2023

  32. [32]

    T. A. Callister and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. X14, 021005 (2024), arXiv:2302.07289 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  33. [33]

    A. Ray, I. Maga˜ na Hernandez, K. Breivik, and J. Creighton, Astrophys. J.991, 17 (2025), arXiv:2404.03166 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    PixelPop: High Resolution Nonparam- eteric Inference of Gravitational-Wave Populations in Multiple Dimensions,

    J. Heinzel, M. Mould, S. ´Alvarez-L´ opez, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D111, 063043 (2025), arXiv:2406.16813 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2506.20731, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2506.20731

    S. Alvarez-Lopez, J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, arXiv:2506.20731 [astro-ph.HE] (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Payne and E

    E. Payne and E. Thrane, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 023013 (2023), arXiv:2210.11641 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page arXiv 2023

  37. [37]

    Guttman, E

    N. Guttman, E. Payne, P. D. Lasky, and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J.996, 144 (2026), arXiv:2509.09876 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    M. Isi, W. M. Farr, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D106, 024048 (2022), arXiv:2204.10742 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    M. J. Bayarri and M. E. Castellanos, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:0802.0743 (2008), arXiv:0802.0743 [stat.ME]

    work page arXiv 2008

  40. [40]

    Gelman, X.-L

    A. Gelman, X.-L. Meng, and H. S. Stern, Statistica Sinica6, 733 (1996)

    1996

  41. [41]

    D. B. Rubin, The Annals of Statistics12, 1151 (1984)

    1984

  42. [42]

    Laplace Approximation of High Dimensional Integrals

    I. Guttman, Journal of the Royal Statistical So- ciety: Series B (Methodological)29, 83 (1967), https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2517- 6161.1967.tb00676.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.2517- 1967

  43. [43]

    The Most Massive Binary Black Hole Detections and the Identification of Population Outliers,

    M. Fishbach, W. M. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. Lett.891, L31 (2020), arXiv:1911.05882 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  44. [44]

    2019, PASA, 36, e010, doi: 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

    E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Publications of the Astronom- ical Society of Australia36, 10.1017/pasa.2019.2 (2019), arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019

  45. [45]

    A. Ray, S. Mukherjee, M. Zevin, and V. Kalogera, arXiv:2603.17987 [astro-ph.HE] (2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    A. M. Farah, B. Edelman, M. Zevin, M. Fishbach, J. M. Ezquiaga, B. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J.955, 107 (2023), arXiv:2301.00834 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  47. [47]

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

    M. Mould, J. Heinzel, S. Alvarez-Lopez, C. Plunkett, N. E. Wolfe, and S. Vitale, arXiv:2602.11282 [astro- ph.HE] (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [48]

    Vitale and M

    S. Vitale and M. Mould (Society of Physicists Interested in Non-aligned Spins, SPINS, (Society of Physicists In- terested in Non-aligned Spins, SPINS)†), Phys. Rev. D 112, 083015 (2025), arXiv:2505.14875 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett.922, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.00521 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  50. [50]

    S. J. Miller, Z. Ko, T. Callister, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D109, 104036 (2024), arXiv:2401.05613

    work page arXiv 2024

  51. [51]

    Mandel and A

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

    work page arXiv 2022

  52. [52]

    Mapelli, Proc

    M. Mapelli, Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi200, 87 (2020), arXiv:1809.09130 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2020

  53. [53]

    Fuller, A

    J. Fuller, A. L. Piro, and A. S. Jermyn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.485, 3661 (2019), arXiv:1902.08227

    work page arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    Fuller and L

    J. Fuller and L. Ma, Astrophys. J. Lett.881, L1 (2019), arXiv:1907.03714 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  55. [55]

    Kalogera, Astrophys

    V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J.541, 319 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9911417

    work page arXiv 2000

  56. [56]

    Spin orientations of merging black holes formed from the evolution of stellar binaries,

    D. Gerosa, E. Berti, R. O’Shaughnessy, K. Belczynski, M. Kesden, D. Wysocki, and W. Gladysz, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084036 (2018), arXiv:1808.02491 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Steinle and M

    N. Steinle and M. Kesden, Phys. Rev. D103, 063032 (2021), arXiv:2010.00078 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Wysocki, D

    D. Wysocki, D. Gerosa, R. O’Shaughnessy, K. Bel- czynski, W. Gladysz, E. Berti, M. Kesden, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D97, 043014 (2018), arXiv:1709.01943 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2018

  59. [59]

    Stevenson, Astrophys

    S. Stevenson, Astrophys. J. Lett.926, L32 (2022), arXiv:2202.03584 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  60. [60]

    T. A. Callister, W. M. Farr, and M. Renzo, Astrophys. J.920, 157 (2021), arXiv:2011.09570 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  61. [61]

    2024, https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03461

    V. Baibhav and V. Kalogera, arXiv:2412.03461 [astro- ph.HE] (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  62. [62]

    T. M. Tauris, Astrophys. J.938, 66 (2022), arXiv:2205.02541 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  63. [63]

    Hut, Astronomy and Astrophysics99, 126 (1981)

    P. Hut, Astronomy and Astrophysics99, 126 (1981)

    1981

  64. [64]

    Packet, Astronomy and Astrophysics102, 17 (1981)

    W. Packet, Astronomy and Astrophysics102, 17 (1981)

    1981

  65. [65]

    C. A. Tout and J. E. Pringle, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society256, 269 (1992)

    1992

  66. [66]

    Mandel and S

    I. Mandel and S. E. de Mink, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.458, 2634 (2016), arXiv:1601.00007 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  67. [67]

    Y. Qin, P. Marchant, T. Fragos, G. Meynet, and V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. Lett.870, L18 (2019), arXiv:1810.13016 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Y. Qin, T. Fragos, G. Meynet, J. Andrews, M. Sørensen, and H. F. Song, Astron. Astrophys.616, A28 (2018), arXiv:1802.05738 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2018

  69. [69]

    S. S. Baveraet al., Astron. Astrophys.647, A153 (2021), arXiv:2010.16333 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  70. [70]

    Ma and J

    L. Ma and J. Fuller, Astrophys. J.952, 53 (2023), [Erratum: Astrophys.J. 965, (2024)], arXiv:2305.08356 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2023

  71. [71]

    C. L. Rodriguez, M. Morscher, B. Pattabiraman, S. Chatterjee, C.-J. Haster, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 051101 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 029901 (2016)], arXiv:1505.00792 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2015

  72. [72]

    C. L. Rodriguez, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. D93, 084029 (2016), arXiv:1602.02444 [astro- ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2016

  73. [73]

    C. L. Rodriguez, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chatterjee, and F. A. Rasio, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 151101 (2018), arXiv:1712.04937 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2018

  74. [74]

    W. M. Farr, S. Stevenson, M. Coleman Miller, I. Man- del, B. Farr, and A. Vecchio, Nature548, 426 (2017), arXiv:1706.01385 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2017

  75. [75]

    Y.-H. Wang, B. McKernan, S. Ford, R. Perna, N. W. C. 30 Leigh, and M.-M. Mac Low, Astrophys. J. Lett.923, L23 (2021), arXiv:2110.03698 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2021

  76. [76]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, T. Callister, W. M. Farr, R. O’Shaughnessy, R. Smith, E. Thrane, and A. Va- jpeyi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.514, 3886 (2022), arXiv:2107.07551 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2022

  77. [77]

    McKernan and K

    B. McKernan and K. E. S. Ford, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.531, 3479 (2024), arXiv:2309.15213 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2024

  78. [78]

    McKernan, K

    B. McKernan, K. E. S. Ford, R. O’Shaughnessy, and D. Wysocki, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.494, 1203 (2020), arXiv:1907.04356

    work page arXiv 2020

  79. [79]

    Y. Yang, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, B. Kocsis, Z. Marka, N. C. Stone, and S. Marka, Astrophys. J.876, 122 (2019), arXiv:1903.01405 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

  80. [80]

    C. L. Rodriguez, M. Zevin, P. Amaro-Seoane, S. Chat- terjee, K. Kremer, F. A. Rasio, and C. S. Ye, Phys. Rev. D100, 043027 (2019), arXiv:1906.10260 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page arXiv 2019

Showing first 80 references.