REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 131 references
Constraints on ultralight bosons from merging binary and remnant black holes observed during the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run
T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper reports that searches for long-transient gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around the remnant black holes of GW250114 and GW250207 found no signal, disfavoring vector boson masses in [2.80, 3.95] × 10^-13…
desk verdict A solid, honest constraints paper: new >90% remnant-based exclusion, but the quoted confidence is SuperRad-conditional and should be peer-reviewed with that caveat front and center. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The driving mechanism is the superradiant instability: a rotating black hole spinning fast enough to satisfy $\omega_b < m\Omega_H$ amplifies an ultralight bosonic bound state, extracting rotational energy until the cloud saturates and then radiates nearly monochromatic gravitational waves with a small positive frequency drift. The search side is carried by the named waveform model SuperRad, which predicts the strain amplitude, growth time, depletion time, and frequency evolution that set the search configurations and the injected-signal sensitivity; the hidden-Markov-model tracker then follows the drifting signal across short Fourier-transform segments. The spin side is carried by the computed maximum spin $\chi_{\max}(M, m_b, T_{\rm age})$ after superradiant spin-down, which turns a single high-spin measurement into an exclusion region in the boson-mass–black-hole-mass plane.
What would settle it
A detected long-transient signal from either remnant at the frequency and drift predicted by SuperRad for a vector mass in the disfavored range would refute the no-signal claim, as would an independent analysis that recovers such a signal in the same data. Conversely, recomputing the sensitivity with an alternative waveform model that drops the detection probability below 90% would show that the quoted range is a modeling artifact rather than an established absence.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central claim is that no vector-boson cloud emission above the estimated sensitivity exists around the two merger remnants, so vector bosons with masses $[2.80, 3.95]\times10^{-13}$ eV are disfavored with greater than 90% confidence at a 1% false-alarm probability. The companion claim is that the high measured spins of the primary black holes in GW240515, GW241113, and GW241225_08 are inconsistent with efficient superradiant spin-down by scalar bosons in $[1.39, 6.94]\times10^{-13}$ eV and by vector bosons in $[0.32, 14.4]\times10^{-13}$ eV, assuming black-hole ages of $10^5$ years. The two approaches are complementary: the remnant search makes minimal assumptions about binary evolution and targets freshly formed clouds, while the spin analysis probes long-term spin-down and covers a wider mass range.
Load-bearing premise
The load-bearing premise is that the SuperRad waveform model correctly predicts how a vector boson cloud radiates, including its strain amplitude, growth and depletion times, and frequency drift, so that the quoted detection probability really measures sensitivity; the spin-based constraints additionally rest on the assumption that the binaries' black holes are at least $10^5$ years old.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- The three high-spin events push the excluded scalar and vector mass ranges across roughly an order of magnitude centered near $10^{-13}$ eV, so any boson dark-matter model in that window must avoid efficient spin-down of stellar-mass black holes.
- The remnant search independently disfavors vector bosons near $3\times10^{-13}$ eV with no reliance on black-hole population or age assumptions.
- Because the two methods cover overlapping yet distinct mass regions, their combination narrows the allowed parameter space more than either alone.
- Each additional nearby merger remnant or well-spin-constrained binary will enlarge the union of excluded intervals.
Reading between the lines
- Applying the same directed-search pipeline to older remnant candidates should extend the disfavored range to lower masses, since longer-lived clouds allow longer coherent integrations.
- The quoted remnant constraints are tied to SuperRad's predicted strain-versus-mass relation; recomputing the sensitivity with a different nonlinear cloud-evolution model would shift the disfavored interval and reveal how much of the result is model-driven.
- Combining the spin-based exclusions with independent age estimates for dynamically formed binaries could turn the assumed $10^5$-year age into a measured prior and sharpen the mass ranges.
- A single future observation of a black hole older than $10^5$ years with spin above the predicted $\chi_{\max}$ inside the excluded window would overturn the spin-based exclusion for that mass.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper presents constraints on ultralight bosons using data from the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run (O4b/O4c), with two complementary analyses. The first is a directed hidden-Markov-model search for long-transient gravitational waves from vector boson clouds around the merger remnants of GW250114 and GW250207; no candidate signals survive follow-up, and the authors quote a disfavored vector boson mass range of [2.80, 3.95] x 10^-13 eV at greater than 90% confidence for a 1% false-alarm threshold. The second analysis uses the high spins of the pre-merger black holes in GW240515, GW241113, and GW241225_08 to exclude, at 10^5 yr assumed black-hole age, scalar masses in [1.39, 6.94] x 10^-13 eV and vector masses in [0.32, 14.4] x 10^-13 eV at 90% confidence. The paper is explicit that the directed-search ranges are sensitivity estimates under a signal model and that the spin-based ranges depend on assumed black-hole age.
Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides the strongest directed-search constraints to date on vector boson clouds around recent merger remnants and extends spin-based superradiance constraints to new O4b events. The analysis is notably careful in several respects: it labels the remnant-search result as 'disfavored' rather than 'excluded' because sensitivity is estimated with matched Gaussian noise; it quotes the combined interval as a union rather than a joint combination; it uses a prior-driven non-exclusion criterion in Eq. (4) to ensure that spin-based exclusions are data-driven; and it documents the candidate veto chain and search configurations in detail. The injection-based detection probability, Eq. (2), and the explicit percentile-based search configurations provide a reproducible framework. The main risk, as the authors themselves acknowledge, is that both the directed-search sensitivity and the spin-based chi_max are computed with the SuperRad signal model without an independent validation or uncertainty quantification for the specific remnant and binary parameters considered.
major comments (2)
- [Sec. IIIE, Eq. (2)] Pdet(mV) is computed by injecting synthetic signals into matched Gaussian noise and applying only the threshold-based candidate selection; the follow-up veto chain is not applied to the injections. The search itself vetoed all surviving candidates for GW250114 and ten candidates for GW250207 as instrumental artifacts, so on real data the detection efficiency is potentially lower than the quoted Pdet. Because the abstract's central interval is defined by Pdet >= 0.9, the >90% confidence claim is not directly established on real-data terms; please either apply the full veto chain to injected signals, inject into representative off-source real noise, or provide a quantitative estimate of the resulting sensitivity loss and adjust the confidence statement accordingly.
- [Sec. IIIB, Table III and Appendix A] The signal parameters that set the search configuration and the injection-based sensitivity (tau_growth, tau_GW, h0, f0, fdot) are taken solely from the SuperRad waveform model, with no independent validation or uncertainty quantification for the specific remnant parameters (M ~ 62.7 M_sun, chi ~ 0.68) of GW250114 and GW250207. Since both the directed-search disfavored range and the spin-based chi_max in Sec. IVA inherit this model dependence, a factor-of-two change in the predicted strain amplitude or growth/depletion timescales could shift or shrink the quoted intervals. The use of the word 'disfavored' tempers the claim, but the manuscript should either cross-check SuperRad against an independent calculation or perform a parameter-uncertainty scan showing that the quoted mass ranges are robust to plausible model variations.
minor comments (3)
- [Abstract and Sec. IIIE] The distinction between 'disfavored' for the directed search and 'excluded' for the spin-based analysis, both quoted at 90% confidence, is easy to misread; please add one sentence stating explicitly that the former is a sensitivity-based statement under a signal model while the latter is a data-driven exclusion under an assumed black-hole age.
- [Table I] The reported uncertainty on cos(iota) for GW250114 extends below -1 as written (0.64+0.18-1.4); since cos(iota) is bounded, consider reporting the 90% credible interval instead of median with asymmetric errors to avoid an apparently unphysical bound.
- [Sec. IVA] The spin-based exclusions are quoted at Tage = 10^5 yr, but the dependence on Tage is only shown in Fig. 4; consider explicitly stating in the abstract or conclusions that the ranges broaden with increasing assumed black-hole age and are therefore not universal.
Circularity Check
No circular reduction: the null results are data-driven, and the quoted exclusions are conditional on prior published, parameter-free SuperRad/HMM models that are self-cited but not fitted to these data.
full rationale
I walked the derivation chain and found no step where an output equals an input by construction. The central empirical claims are data-driven: the HMM searches in Sec. III yield no surviving candidates (Table V), and the spin-based analysis in Sec. IV compares measured spin posteriors (Table II) against a model upper bound. The conversion from null data to the quoted mass exclusions has two inputs: the SuperRad waveform model (Refs. [50,106]) supplying h0, tau_growth, tau_GW, f_dot, and chi_max, and the HMM pipeline (Refs. [85,86]) supplying the detection statistic. Both are prior, peer-reviewed, public tools authored in part by members of this collaboration; this is self-citation but not circularity, because neither model is fitted to the present data and neither assumes the target conclusion (existence or non-existence of bosons). Pdet in Eq. (2) is a genuine injection-recovery power measurement; the 90% confidence is the standard test-power reading of a null result, and the paper explicitly softens it ('disfavored', not 'excluded') because injections use matched Gaussian noise rather than the exact measured detector noise. Eq. (4) is an explicit anti-circularity guard: a mass is excluded only if the posterior-based nonexclusion probability P is ten times smaller than the prior-only value P', ensuring the constraint is driven by measured spins rather than by the prior. The remaining vulnerabilities, SuperRad fidelity for remnants with M ~ 62.7 Msun and chi ~ 0.68, the assumed black-hole age in the spin channel, and the manual veto step, are model-dependence and correctness risks that the paper itself flags (Secs. IIIE and IVA); they are not reductions by construction. Under the hard rules, a cited result is independent support when it is parameter-free with stated assumptions that do not include the target result, which holds here, so the self-citations do not raise the circularity score above the minor range.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- Assumed black hole age Tage =
10^5 yr (10^6 and 10^7 yr shown in Fig. 4)
- Search mass range factor =
[0.6, 1.1] m_opt^V
- False alarm threshold Pfa =
1% per band and configuration
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption Superradiance drives exponential growth of bosonic bound states around rotating black holes when Eq. (1) holds, with the m=1 mode fastest for young remnants.
- domain assumption SuperRad accurately models the cloud growth, gravitational-wave emission, frequency drift, and spin-down of the boson cloud (strain amplitude, tau_growth, tau_GW, f_dot).
- domain assumption HMM plus F-statistic Viterbi tracking recovers drifting monochromatic signals at the claimed efficiency.
- domain assumption Black hole ages between 10^5 and 10^7 yr bound the time available for superradiant spin-down.
- domain assumption Matched Gaussian noise realizations with the same ASD and data gaps represent the detector background for sensitivity purposes.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on ultralight bosons from merging binary and remnant black holes observed during the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/222FYA6W
@misc{pith2026260811620,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Constraints on ultralight bosons from merging binary and remnant black holes observed during the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/222FYA6W}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11620}
}
abstract
We present constraints on ultralight bosons using binary black hole mergers observed in the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run. Directed searches are conducted for long-transient gravitational waves from ultralight vector boson clouds around merger remnants, using a hidden-Markov-model (HMM) tracking scheme. We target the remnant black holes formed in the binary coalescences that produced GW250114 and GW250207. We find no evidence for such signals from either target. Estimating our search sensitivity at a threshold corresponding to a 1% false alarm probability, we thus disfavor vector boson masses in the range of $[2.80, 3.95]\times 10^{-13}$ eV with greater than 90% confidence. In addition, we derive constraints on ultralight scalar and vector bosons from the inferred high spins of the constituent black holes in three binaries, using events GW240515, GW241113, and GW241225_08. The excluded mass ranges in this approach depend on the assumed black-hole ages. At $10^5$ years, corresponding to typical dynamically formed binaries, we exclude scalar and vector bosons in the ranges $[1.39, 6.94]\times 10^{-13}$ eV and $[0.32, 14.4]\times 10^{-13}$ eV at 90% confidence, respectively.
Figures
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett.38, 1440 (1977)
1977
-
[2]
R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D16, 1791 (1977)
1977
-
[3]
Weinberg, Phys
S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett.40, 223 (1978)
1978
-
[4]
Bertone and T
G. Bertone and T. M. P. Tait, Nature562, 51 (2018)
2018
-
[5]
Bertone and D
G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 045002 (2018)
2018
-
[6]
Oks, New Astronomy Reviews93, 101632 (2021)
E. Oks, New Astronomy Reviews93, 101632 (2021)
2021
-
[7]
Baryakhtar, L
M. Baryakhtar, L. Rosenberg, and G. Rybka, Reports on Progress in Physics88, 106901 (2025)
2025
-
[8]
Arvanitaki, S
A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010)
2010
Show all 131 references
-
[9]
F. F. Freitas, C. A. Herdeiro, A. P. Morais, A. Onofre, R. Pasechnik, E. Radu, N. Sanchis-Gual, and R. Santos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2021, 047 (2021)
2021
-
[10]
Holdom, Physics Letters B166, 196 (1986)
B. Holdom, Physics Letters B166, 196 (1986)
1986
-
[11]
Goodsell, J
M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, Journal of High Energy Physics2009, 027 (2009)
2009
-
[12]
Jaeckel and A
J. Jaeckel and A. Ringwald, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science60, 405 (2010)
2010
-
[13]
Essiget al., inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]
R. Essiget al., inSnowmass 2013: Snowmass on the Mississippi(2013) arXiv:1311.0029 [hep-ph]
2013 arXiv
-
[14]
L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D95, 043541 (2017)
2017
-
[15]
Agrawal, N
P. Agrawal, N. Kitajima, M. Reece, T. Sekiguchi, and F. Takahashi, Physics Letters B801, 135136 (2020)
2020
-
[16]
Fabbrichesi, E
M. Fabbrichesi, E. Gabrielli, and G. Lanfranchi,The Table VI. Start frequencies, search configurations, and de- tection statistics of the 10 candidates subjected to manual inspection for GW250207. f0 (Hz)t start (s)T coh (min)T obs (min) ¯L 176.81 1422985983 11.4 946.2 7.48 17...
2021
-
[17]
Clifton, P
T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept.513, 1 (2012)
2012
-
[18]
Babichev, L
E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veermäe, and M. v. Strauss, Journal of 25 0 5 10 15176.0 176.2 176.4 176.6 176.8 177.0 Hanford Combined 0 5 10 15 Livingston Combined 5 × 10□24 1 × 10□23 2 × 10□23 5 × 10□23 ASD [strain/ √ Hz] Time since 2025-02-...
2016
-
[19]
Babichev, L
E. Babichev, L. Marzola, M. Raidal, A. Schmidt-May, F. Urban, H. Veermäe, and M. von Strauss, Phys. Rev. D94, 084055 (2016)
2016
-
[20]
Aoki and S
K. Aoki and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D94, 024001 (2016)
2016
-
[21]
Aoki and K.-i
K. Aoki and K.-i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D97, 044002 (2018)
2018
-
[22]
Manita, K
Y. Manita, K. Aoki, T. Fujita, and S. Mukohyama, Phys. Rev. D107, 104007 (2023)
2023
-
[23]
Arvanitaki and S
A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 044026 (2011)
2011
-
[24]
Yoshino and H
H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, Progress of The- oretical and Experimental Physics2014(2014), 10.1093/ptep/ptu029, 043E02
2014 doi
-
[25]
Yoshino and H
H. Yoshino and H. Kodama, Progress of The- oretical and Experimental Physics2015(2015), 10.1093/ptep/ptv067, 061E01
2015 doi
-
[26]
Arvanitaki, M
A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D91, 084011 (2015)
2015
-
[27]
Arvanitaki, M
A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, and R. Lasenby, Phys. Rev. D95, 043001 (2017)
2017
-
[28]
Brito, S
R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 131101 (2017)
2017
-
[29]
Brito, S
R. Brito, S. Ghosh, E. Barausse, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, I. Dvorkin, A. Klein, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D96, 064050 (2017)
2017
-
[30]
Baryakhtar, R
M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby, and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, 035019 (2017)
2017
-
[31]
K. H. M. Chan and O. A. Hannuksela, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023009 (2024)
2024
-
[32]
Cardoso, Óscar J.C
V. Cardoso, Óscar J.C. Dias, G. S. Hartnett, M. Middle- ton, P. Pani, and J. E. Santos, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2018, 043 (2018)
2018
-
[33]
Baumann, H
D. Baumann, H. S. Chia, and R. A. Porto, Phys. Rev. D99, 044001 (2019)
2019
-
[34]
O. A. Hannuksela, K. W. K. Wong, R. Brito, E. Berti, and T. G. F. Li, Nature Astronomy3, 447 (2019)
2019
-
[35]
Zhang and H
J. Zhang and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D99, 064018 (2019)
2019
-
[36]
W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D96, 024004 (2017)
2017
-
[37]
W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 041101 (2017)
2017
-
[38]
W. E. East, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 131104 (2018)
2018
-
[39]
Siemonsen and W
N. Siemonsen and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D101, 024019 (2020)
2020
-
[40]
Brito, V
R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. 906, pp.1 (2020), arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]
2020 arXiv
-
[41]
Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters14, 180 (1971)
1971
-
[42]
A. A. Starobinskii, Soviet Phys JETP37, 28 (1973)
1973
-
[43]
Detweiler, Phys
S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D22, 2323 (1980)
1980
-
[44]
J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D7, 949 (1973)
1973
-
[45]
S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D76, 084001 (2007)
2007
-
[46]
C. A. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and N. M. Santos, Physics Letters B824, 136835 (2022)
2022
-
[47]
M. Isi, L. Sun, R. Brito, and A. Melatos, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084042 (2019)
2019
-
[48]
Baryakhtar, M
M. Baryakhtar, M. Galanis, R. Lasenby, and O. Simon, Phys. Rev. D103, 095019 (2021)
2021
-
[49]
Siemonsen, C
N. Siemonsen, C. Mondino, D. Egaña Ugrinovic, J. Huang, M. Baryakhtar, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D107, 075025 (2023)
2023
-
[50]
T. May, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D 111, 044062 (2025)
2025
-
[51]
Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)
J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 074001 (2015)
2015
-
[52]
Acerneseet al.(Virgo Collaboration), Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)
F. Acerneseet al.(Virgo Collaboration), Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 024001 (2014)
2014
-
[53]
Akutsuet al.(KAGRA Collaboration), Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2020), arXiv:2005.05574
T. Akutsuet al.(KAGRA Collaboration), Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics2021, 05A101 (2020), arXiv:2005.05574
2020
-
[54]
B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Living Re- views in Relativity23, 3 (2020)
2020
-
[55]
Abacet al.(ET), JCAP03, 081 (2026), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]
A. Abacet al.(ET), JCAP03, 081 (2026), arXiv:2503.12263 [gr-qc]
2026 arXiv
-
[56]
Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]
M. Evanset al., (2021), arXiv:2109.09882 [astro-ph.IM]
2021 arXiv
-
[57]
K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, O. A. Hannuksela, and T. G. F. 26 Li, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 151102 (2021)
2021
-
[58]
P. S. Aswathi, W. E. East, N. Siemonsen, L. Sun, and D. Jones, Phys. Rev. D112, 123048 (2025)
2025
-
[59]
Su- perradiance Constraints from GW231123,
A. Caputo, G. Franciolini, and S. J. Witte, “Su- perradiance Constraints from GW231123,” (2025), arXiv:2507.21788 [hep-ph]
2025
-
[60]
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), The Astro- physical Journal Letters993, L21 (2025)
2025
-
[61]
O. Ning, B. R. Safdi, and C. Welch, (2026), arXiv:2607.01317 [hep-ph]
2026 arXiv
-
[62]
Mummery, J
A. Mummery, J. Jiang, A. Ingram, A. Fabian, and J. Rule, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.544, 2880 (2025), arXiv:2505.13119 [astro-ph.HE]
2025
-
[63]
C. S. Reynolds, Nature Astron.3, 41 (2019), arXiv:1903.11704 [astro-ph.HE]
2019 arXiv
-
[64]
J. E. McClintock, R. Narayan, and J. F. Steiner, Space Sci. Rev.183, 295 (2014), arXiv:1303.1583 [astro- ph.HE]
2014 arXiv
-
[65]
Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys
R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 102001 (2022)
2022
-
[66]
Palombaet al., Phys
C. Palombaet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 171101 (2019)
2019
-
[67]
Dergachev and M
V. Dergachev and M. A. Papa, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 101101 (2019)
2019
-
[68]
Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys
R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D106, 042003 (2022)
2022
-
[69]
S. J. Zhu, M. Baryakhtar, M. A. Papa, D. Tsuna, N. Kawanaka, and H.-B. Eggenstein, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063020 (2020)
2020
-
[70]
Tsukada, T
L. Tsukada, T. Callister, A. Matas, and P. Meyers, Phys. Rev. D99, 103015 (2019)
2019
-
[71]
C. Yuan, Y. Jiang, and Q.-G. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023020 (2022)
2022
-
[72]
Tsukada, R
L. Tsukada, R. Brito, W. E. East, and N. Siemonsen, Phys. Rev. D103, 083005 (2021)
2021
-
[73]
L. Sun, R. Brito, and M. Isi, Phys. Rev. D101, 063020 (2020)
2020
-
[74]
Collaviti, L
S. Collaviti, L. Sun, M. Galanis, and M. Baryakhtar, Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 025006 (2024)
2024
-
[75]
A.G.Abacet al.(TheLIGOScientificCollaboration, the Virgo Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D114, 022006 (2026)
2026
-
[76]
S. M. Vermeulenet al., Nature600, 424 (2021)
2021
-
[77]
A. S. Göttel, A. Ejlli, K. Karan, S. M. Vermeulen, L. Aiello, V. Raymond, and H. Grote, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 101001 (2024)
2024
-
[78]
Aiello, J
L. Aiello, J. W. Richardson, S. M. Vermeulen, H. Grote, C. Hogan, O. Kwon, and C. Stoughton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 121101 (2022)
2022
-
[79]
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), (2025), arXiv:2510.27022 [astro-ph.CO]
2025
-
[80]
Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys
R. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D105, 063030 (2022)
2022
-
[81]
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D110, 042001 (2024)
2024
-
[82]
Yang, L.-W
Q. Yang, L.-W. Ji, B. Hu, Z.-J. Cao, and R.-G. Cai, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics18, 065 (2018)
2018
-
[83]
Choudhary, N
S. Choudhary, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Gupta, J. C. Degol- lado, S. Bose, and J. A. Font, Phys. Rev. D103, 044032 (2021)
2021
-
[84]
S. Roy, R. Vicente, J. C. Aurrekoetxea, K. Clough, and P. G. Ferreira, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 191402 (2026), arXiv:2510.17967 [gr-qc]
2026 arXiv
-
[85]
Jones, L
D. Jones, L. Sun, N. Siemonsen, W. E. East, S. M. Scott, and K. Wette, Phys. Rev. D108, 064001 (2023)
2023
-
[86]
Jones, N
D. Jones, N. Siemonsen, L. Sun, W. E. East, A. L. Miller, K. Wette, and O. J. Piccinni, Phys. Rev. D111, 063028 (2025)
2025
-
[87]
GWTC-5.0: Observations from the second part of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observing run and updates to the gravitational-wave transient catalog,
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), “GWTC-5.0: Observations from the second part of the fourth ligo-virgo-kagra observing run and updates to the gravitational-wave transient catalog,” (2026), arXiv:2605.27225 [gr-qc]
2026 arXiv
-
[88]
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Physical Review Letters (2026), 10.1103/gzrj-mwv3
2026 doi
-
[89]
GWTC- 5.0: An introduction to version 5.0 of the gravitational- wave transient catalog,
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), “GWTC- 5.0: An introduction to version 5.0 of the gravitational- wave transient catalog,” (2026), arXiv:2605.27223 [gr- qc]
2026 arXiv
-
[90]
GWTC-5.0: Methods for identifying and characterizing gravitational-wave transients,
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), “GWTC-5.0: Methods for identifying and characterizing gravitational-wave transients,” (2026), arXiv:2605.27224 [gr-qc]
2026 arXiv
-
[91]
GraceDB: A Gravitational Wave Candidate Event Database,
B. Moe, P. Brady, B. Stephens, E. Katsavounidis, R. Williams, and F. Zhang, “GraceDB: A Gravitational Wave Candidate Event Database,” (2014)
2014
-
[92]
GWTC-5.0: Parameter estima- tion data release (Part 1 of 2),
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “GWTC-5.0: Parameter estima- tion data release (Part 1 of 2),”https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.20348005(2026)
2026
-
[93]
GWTC-5.0: Parameter estima- tion data release (Part 2 of 2),
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “GWTC-5.0: Parameter estima- tion data release (Part 2 of 2),”https://doi.org/10. 5281/zenodo.20348006(2026)
2026
-
[94]
A. G. Abac, I. Abouelfettouh, F. Acernese,et al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KA- GRA Collaboration), Physical Review Letters135, 111403 (2025)
2025
-
[95]
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 041403 (2026)
2026
-
[96]
Varma, S
V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Res.1, 033015 (2019)
2019
-
[97]
Ashtonet al., Astrophys
G. Ashtonet al., Astrophys. J. Suppl.241, 27 (2019), arXiv:1811.02042 [astro-ph.IM]
2019 arXiv
-
[98]
I. M. Romero-Shawet al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 499, 3295 (2020), arXiv:2006.00714 [astro-ph.IM]
2020 arXiv
-
[99]
J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.493, 3132 (2020), arXiv:1904.02180 [astro-ph.IM]
2020 arXiv
-
[100]
Colleoni, F
M. Colleoni, F. A. Ramis Vidal, C. García-Quirós, S. Akçay, and S. Bera, Phys. Rev. D111, 104019 (2025)
2025
-
[101]
Prattenet al., Phys
G. Prattenet al., Phys. Rev. D103, 104056 (2021), arXiv:2004.06503 [gr-qc]
2021 arXiv
-
[102]
Jaranowski, A
P. Jaranowski, A. Królak, and B. F. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D58, 063001 (1998)
1998
-
[103]
Cutler and B
C. Cutler and B. F. Schutz, Physical Review D72(2005), 10.1103/physrevd.72.063006
2005 doi
-
[104]
Prix,The F-statistic and its implementation in Com- 27 puteFStatistic v2, Tech
R. Prix,The F-statistic and its implementation in Com- 27 puteFStatistic v2, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T0900149-v3 (LIGO laboratory, 2010)
2010
-
[105]
Viterbi, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13, 260 (1967)
A. Viterbi, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13, 260 (1967)
1967
-
[106]
Siemonsen, T
N. Siemonsen, T. May, and W. E. East, Phys. Rev. D 107, 104003 (2023), arXiv:2211.03845 [gr-qc]
2023 arXiv
-
[107]
LVK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite,
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration, “LVK Algorithm Library - LAL- Suite,” Free software (GPL) (2018)
2018
-
[108]
Wette, SoftwareX12, 100634 (2020)
K. Wette, SoftwareX12, 100634 (2020)
2020
-
[109]
L. Sun, A. Melatos, S. Suvorova, W. Moran, and R. J. Evans, Phys. Rev. D97, 043013 (2018)
2018
-
[110]
Capoteet al., Phys
E. Capoteet al., Phys. Rev. D111, 062002 (2025)
2025
-
[111]
Soniet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 085016 (2025)
S. Soniet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 085016 (2025)
2025
-
[112]
Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Phys
D. Ganapathyet al.(LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X13, 041021 (2023)
2023
-
[113]
Jiaet al., Science385, 1318 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ado8069
W. Jiaet al., Science385, 1318 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.ado8069
2024 doi
-
[114]
Goetz and K
E. Goetz and K. Riles,Segments used for creating stan- dard SFTs in O4 data, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T2400058 (LIGO laboratory, 2024)
2024
-
[115]
Davis, A
D. Davis, A. Neunzert, E. Goetz, K. Riles, K. Wette, and M. Lalleman,Self-gating of O4a h(t) for use in continuous-wave searches, Tech. Rep. LIGO-T2400003 (LIGO Laboratory, 2025)
2025
-
[116]
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaborations,LIGO Virgo KAGRA Calibration Uncertainty (O4), Tech. Rep. LIGO- T2500288 (LIGO laboratory, 2025)https://dcc.ligo. org/LIGO-T2500288/public
2025
-
[117]
Wadeet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 215016 (2025)
M. Wadeet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 215016 (2025)
2025
-
[118]
Sunet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 225008 (2020)
L. Sunet al., Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 225008 (2020)
2020
-
[119]
Vietset al., Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 095015 (2018)
A. Vietset al., Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 095015 (2018)
2018
-
[120]
A. D. Viets,Optimizing Advanced LIGO’s scientific out- put with fast, accurate, clean calibration, Phd thesis, Uni- versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI (2019)
2019
-
[121]
Vajente, Y
G. Vajente, Y. Huang, M. Isi, J. C. Driggers, J. S. Kissel, M. J. Szczepańczyk, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D101, 042003 (2020)
2020
-
[122]
Open data from ligo, virgo, and kagra through the second part of the fourth observing run,
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration), “Open data from ligo, virgo, and kagra through the second part of the fourth observing run,” (2026), arXiv:2605.27090 [gr-qc]
2026 arXiv
-
[123]
Jones and L
D. Jones and L. Sun, Physical Review D103(2021)
2021
-
[124]
Goetzet al.,O4abc.1 lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data, Tech
E. Goetzet al.,O4abc.1 lines and combs in found in self-gated C00 cleaned data, Tech. Rep. LIGO- T2600045 (LIGO laboratory, 2026)https://dcc.ligo. org/LIGO-T2600045/public
2026
-
[125]
Narrow spectral artifact investigation and mitigation in LIGO data from the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run,
E. Goetzet al.(O4 LIGO Detector), “Narrow spectral artifact investigation and mitigation in LIGO data from the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run,” (2026), arXiv:2606.05959 [astro-ph.IM]
2026
-
[126]
Constraints on ultralight bosons from merging binary and remnant black holes observed during the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA observing run,
A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, KAGRA Collaboration), “Constraints on ultralight bosons from merging binary and remnant black holes observed during the second and third parts of the fourth LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA observing run,” (2026)
2026
-
[127]
GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,
LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, “GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run,” (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]
2025 arXiv
-
[128]
N. L. Johnson, A. W. Kemp, and S. Kotz,Univariate Discrete Distributions(John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2005)
2005
-
[129]
S. F. Portegies Zwart and S. McMillan, Astrophys. J. Lett.528, L17 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9910061
2000 arXiv
-
[130]
Dominik, K
M. Dominik, K. Belczynski, C. Fryer, D. E. Holz, E. Berti, T. Bulik, I. Mandel, and R. O’Shaughnessy, Astrophys. J.779, 72 (2013), arXiv:1308.1546 [astro- ph.HE]
2013 arXiv
-
[131]
S. S. Bavera, T. Fragos, Y. Qin, E. Zapartas, C. J. Neijssel, I. Mandel, A. Batta, S. M. Gaebel, C. Kimball, and S. Stevenson, Astron. Astrophys.635, A97 (2020), arXiv:1906.12257 [astro-ph.HE]
2020 arXiv
Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.