pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.03163 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-03 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

Cosmological Constraints from GW-FRB Associations without Redshift Measurements for LIGO-Virgo and Cosmic Explorer

Jiaming Zhuge , Marios Kalomenopoulos , Carl-Johan Haster , Bing Zhang
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HE
keywords GW-FRB associationscosmological constraintsdispersion measureluminosity distanceCosmic Explorerredshift-independentmulti-messengerhost galaxy DM
0
0 comments X

The pith

Cosmic Explorer can constrain cosmological parameters from GW-FRB associations without any redshift measurements.

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

The paper develops a redshift-independent method that links the luminosity distance measured from gravitational waves to the dispersion measure observed in fast radio bursts. This relation is used to constrain cosmology while folding in realistic uncertainties from host galaxies and different dispersion measure distributions. Simulations show that the current LIGO-Virgo network at low redshifts cannot deliver useful constraints, but the more sensitive Cosmic Explorer breaks parameter degeneracies and yields tight bounds on both cosmological and host-galaxy quantities. The approach matters because it supplies an independent cosmological probe that does not require spectroscopic redshifts for every event.

Core claim

Using the luminosity distance-dispersion measure relation in a redshift-independent framework that accounts for astrophysical uncertainties, realistic simulations demonstrate that Cosmic Explorer observations will enable high-precision constraints on cosmological parameters and host galaxy dispersion measure contributions, whereas the LIGO-Virgo network lacks sufficient precision at redshifts below 0.2; the results hold across both the corrected Macquart PDF and log-normal dispersion measure distributions and whether or not host contributions are included.

What carries the argument

The luminosity distance-dispersion measure relation applied in a redshift-independent framework that incorporates host galaxy uncertainties and varying dispersion measure distributions.

If this is right

  • Cosmic Explorer simultaneously constrains cosmology and host galaxy parameters without redshift information.
  • Constraints remain robust whether the corrected Macquart PDF or a log-normal dispersion measure distribution is adopted.
  • Excluding host galaxy dispersion measure contributions changes precision but does not prevent Cosmic Explorer from breaking degeneracies.
  • Current LIGO-Virgo sensitivity at z less than 0.2 cannot produce meaningful cosmological constraints from this relation.
  • Next-generation detectors are required for the GW-FRB association method to become a practical cosmological tool.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The framework could extend to other multi-messenger distance indicators that combine propagation effects with luminosity distance to lessen dependence on electromagnetic redshifts.
  • Accumulating GW-FRB events with future detectors may provide an independent test of dark energy models at intermediate redshifts.
  • The method might help address current cosmological tensions by supplying an alternative distance ladder free of spectroscopic selection biases.

Load-bearing premise

The simulated observations accurately capture the true identification rates of genuine GW-FRB associations and the underlying dispersion measure distributions including host contributions.

What would settle it

Finding that real Cosmic Explorer data on GW-FRB events produce cosmological parameter values that disagree with independent probes such as Type Ia supernovae or baryon acoustic oscillations would falsify the framework.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.03163 by Bing Zhang, Carl-Johan Haster, Jiaming Zhuge, Marios Kalomenopoulos.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Luminosity distance likelihoods for simulated NSBH GWs events, for a LV network (left) and for a CE detector (right). All of the distributions were normalised so that they have the same maximum height. Their widths are used to estimate how the DL uncertainty scales with redshift. is equivalent to the inclination angle described in Section 2.1. We discuss the possible effects of the viewing angle choice to … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Simulated GWs and FRBs events as a function of redshift (z < 0.2). (Left) GWs luminosity distance, observed by LV or CE. (Center ) FRBs diffuse dispersion measure, DMdiff . In this case, we assume that one is able to remove any other contributions to the DM and keep only the cosmological ones. (Right) FRBs extra galactic dispersion measure, DMext. The latter involves cosmological and host galaxy contributi… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Simulated GWs and FRBs events as a function of redshift (0.2 < z < 2). (Left) GWs luminosity distance, observed by or CE. (Center) FRBs diffuse dispersion measure, DMdiff . In this case, we assume that one is able to remove any other contributions to the DM and keep only the cosmological ones. (Right) FRBs extra galactic dispersion measure, DMext. The latter involves cosmological and host galaxy contributi… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Joint constraints on cosmological and host galaxy parameters for low-redshifts (z < 0.2). The lower-left panels display the results obtained using the (DL, DMext) dataset, while the upper-right panels show the constraints from the (DL, DMdiff ) dataset. The blue contours represent the constraints from the CE network, while the orange contours correspond to the LV network. Solid black lines indicate the inp… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Joint constraints on cosmological and host galaxy parameters for high-redshift case (0.2 < z < 2.0). The lower-left panels display the results obtained using the (DL, DMext) dataset, while the upper-right panels show the constraints from the (DL, DMdiff ) dataset. The blue contours represent results obtained using Zhuge+2025 PDF (Macquart et al. 2020), as corrected by Zhuge et al. (2025), while the orange … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Top Left) Comparison of four different merger rate models: Gaussian, Log-Normal, Power-Law, and the BNS empirical formula, Eq. (B8). Apart from the Log-normal model which peaks at lower redshifts (z ∼ 0.5), the other models are very similar. (Contours) 3D Inference after fixing one of the three cosmological parameters. Similar with left column of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: 3D Inference for the fiducial data generation model, for Nevents = 50 events, based on ideal observations. Shades represent 68%, 95% and 99% probability contours. Left column shows results after fixing one of the three cosmological parame￾ters. Right column shows results after marginalising over the parameter not shown. 1. What is the impact of simulating NS-BH GWs events with a variety of input angles? 2.… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Investigating the impact of different input viewing angles. Recall that θ input JN = 0.4 is the fiducial choice used in the main text. (Left) Luminosity distance posterior histograms for each choice of input viewing angle, which correspond to the 1D marginalised distributions of the samples shown on the right figure. Larger θ input JN leads to a signal with smaller amplitude, which the parameter inference … view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Investigating the impact of viewing angles constraints on the luminosity distance estimates. (Left) Improvement on the fractional error ∆DL /DL for a range of redshifts and different detectors, when angle prior information is present Eθ vs when it is not Eall. (Middle & Right) 2D posterior samples in the luminosity distance - viewing angle parameter space for LV (middle) and CE (right), for the largest red… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The potential association between gravitational waves (GWs) and fast radio bursts (FRBs) offers a unique multi-messenger probe for cosmology. In this paper, we develop a redshift-independent framework to constrain cosmological parameters using the luminosity distance - dispersion measure relation, accounting for realistic astrophysical uncertainties. We perform a comprehensive comparative analysis across different GWs detector sensitivities and modeling assumptions. Specifically, we investigate the performance of the current LIGO-Virgo (LV) network (at $z < 0.2$) versus the future Cosmic Explorer (CE). Our study further evaluates the impact of different dispersion measure (DM) distributions -- specifically the corrected Macquart's PDF (Zhuge+2025) and the log-normal distribution -- and explores the influence of including or excluding host galaxy DM contributions. Using realistic simulated observations, we find that while the current LV network lacks the precision to provide meaningful constraints, CE will enable high-precision cosmology. Even without spectroscopic redshifts, CE observations can effectively break parameter degeneracies and robustly constrain both cosmology and host galaxy parameters. These results highlight the necessity of next-generation detectors.

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

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper develops a redshift-independent framework using the luminosity distance-dispersion measure (DL-DM) relation from GW-FRB associations to constrain cosmological parameters, incorporating astrophysical uncertainties. Through simulations, it compares the current LIGO-Virgo network (limited to z<0.2) with the future Cosmic Explorer (CE), evaluating impacts of DM distributions (corrected Macquart PDF vs. log-normal) and host-galaxy DM contributions. The central finding is that LV lacks precision for meaningful constraints, while CE breaks parameter degeneracies to jointly constrain cosmology and host-galaxy parameters without spectroscopic redshifts.

Significance. If the simulated catalogs prove representative, the work would establish a practical path for next-generation GW detectors to deliver multi-messenger cosmological constraints independent of redshift measurements, underscoring CE's role in degeneracy breaking and joint inference of host parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (Simulation Methodology): The quantitative constraints and degeneracy-breaking claims for CE rest entirely on forward-simulated catalogs that adopt the corrected Macquart PDF (Zhuge+2025) and a log-normal alternative together with specific host-DM inclusion choices; the manuscript does not demonstrate that these distributions are free of selection effects or match the true scatter and false-positive rate of identifiable GW-FRB associations, which directly undermines the reported precision gains.
  2. [§4] §4 (Results and Comparative Analysis): The headline statement that CE 'robustly constrain[s] both cosmology and host galaxy parameters' is generated solely from the mocks; no external validation against existing FRB or GW catalogs is presented, so the claimed robustness cannot be assessed independently of the simulation assumptions.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract, §2] The abstract and §2 should explicitly state the redshift range and number of simulated events used for each detector configuration to allow readers to gauge statistical power.
  2. [§2] Notation for the DL-DM relation and the precise definition of the 'corrected Macquart PDF' should be given in a single equation block rather than scattered across text.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review. We address each major comment below, clarifying the simulation-based scope of the work while incorporating revisions to better highlight assumptions and limitations.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (Simulation Methodology): The quantitative constraints and degeneracy-breaking claims for CE rest entirely on forward-simulated catalogs that adopt the corrected Macquart PDF (Zhuge+2025) and a log-normal alternative together with specific host-DM inclusion choices; the manuscript does not demonstrate that these distributions are free of selection effects or match the true scatter and false-positive rate of identifiable GW-FRB associations, which directly undermines the reported precision gains.

    Authors: We agree that the results depend on the adopted DM distributions and simulation assumptions. The corrected Macquart PDF follows Zhuge et al. (2025) to incorporate recent observational constraints on FRB DMs, while the log-normal serves as a standard alternative; host-DM choices are varied explicitly to test sensitivity. We have revised §3 to expand the discussion of potential selection effects, scatter mismatches, and false-positive rates, including a new paragraph on how these could affect precision. As a forward-looking study, we cannot empirically demonstrate absence of all selection effects without real GW-FRB events, but the multi-distribution approach shows that CE retains degeneracy-breaking power across the tested cases. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4] §4 (Results and Comparative Analysis): The headline statement that CE 'robustly constrain[s] both cosmology and host galaxy parameters' is generated solely from the mocks; no external validation against existing FRB or GW catalogs is presented, so the claimed robustness cannot be assessed independently of the simulation assumptions.

    Authors: The manuscript is a simulation forecast for future detectors, as confirmed GW-FRB associations with joint luminosity-distance and DM measurements do not yet exist in the literature. We have revised the abstract, §4, and conclusions to replace absolute claims of robustness with phrasing such as 'within the simulated framework' and 'under the adopted astrophysical models,' and added explicit caveats on the dependence on input distributions. This makes clear that the degeneracy-breaking results are conditional on the mocks rather than claiming external validation. revision: partial

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Minor self-citation to DM model choice; forecast derivation remains independent of fitted inputs

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Abstract and DM modeling section]
    "the corrected Macquart's PDF (Zhuge+2025) and the log-normal distribution"

    The paper adopts the corrected Macquart PDF via self-citation to prior work by the lead author. While this choice affects the simulated DM scatter and thus the recovered constraints, the citation is not used to justify a uniqueness theorem or to forbid alternatives; the paper still compares it against a log-normal alternative and reports results under both.

full rationale

The paper performs forward simulations of GW-FRB associations under chosen DM distributions (corrected Macquart PDF from Zhuge+2025 and log-normal) and recovers parameters from those mocks. No equation reduces a claimed prediction to a fitted input by construction, and the central claim is a comparative forecast between LV and CE sensitivities rather than a tautological recovery. The sole self-citation (Zhuge+2025) supplies one modeling choice but is not load-bearing for the degeneracy-breaking result itself, which follows from the simulation pipeline and detector assumptions. This matches the expected low-circularity outcome for simulation-based forecasts.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The framework assumes the existence of identifiable GW-FRB associations and adopts specific DM probability distributions (corrected Macquart PDF from Zhuge+2025 and log-normal) whose parameters are treated as known inputs. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (1)
  • DM distribution parameters
    Parameters of the corrected Macquart PDF and log-normal distribution are taken from prior work or assumed; their impact is tested but not derived from first principles within the paper.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption True GW-FRB associations can be identified with sufficient purity for cosmological use
    The entire analysis presupposes that associations exist and can be selected without catastrophic contamination.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5513 in / 1256 out tokens · 27179 ms · 2026-05-13T18:41:06.513414+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

129 extracted references · 129 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015

  2. [2]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016b, Physical Review X, 6, 041015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041015 —. 2016c, PhRvD, 93, 122008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.122008 —. 2017a, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471 —. 2017b, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017c, ApJL, 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 20...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.6.041015 2041

  3. [3]

    Abbottet al.[LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020a, PhRvL, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102 —. 2020b, ApJL, 900, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 —. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2041

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039 —. 2023b, ApJ, 955, 155, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acd770

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  5. [5]

    2024, Phys

    Abbott, R., et al. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024

  6. [6]

    2024, ApJ, 966, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d3

    Abbott, R., Abe, H., Acernese, F., et al. 2024, ApJ, 966, 137, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d3

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad27d3 2024

  7. [7]

    2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    Acernese, F., Agathos, M., Agatsuma, K., et al. 2015, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015

  8. [8]

    2020, A&A, 641, A6

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6

    work page 2020

  9. [9]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., H¨ ubner, M., Lasky, P. D., et al. 2019, ApJS, 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc 2019

  10. [10]

    2013, PhRvD, 88, 043007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Aso, Y., Michimura, Y., Somiya, K., et al. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 043007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.043007 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.043007 2013

  11. [11]

    E., Amiri, M., et al

    Bandura, K., Addison, G. E., Amiri, M., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9145, Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V, ed. L. M. Stepp, R. Gilmozzi, & H. J. Hall, 914522, doi: 10.1117/12.2054950

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2054950 2014

  12. [12]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    Bird, S., Ni, Y., Di Matteo, T., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 3703, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac648

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac648 2022

  13. [13]

    D., Ravi, V., Belov, K

    Bochenek, C. D., Ravi, V., Belov, K. V., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 59, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x 2020

  14. [14]

    2016, Physics of the Dark Universe, 12, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2016.02.001

    Bull, P., Akrami, Y., Adamek, J., et al. 2016, Physics of the Dark Universe, 12, 56, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2016.02.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2016.02.001 2016

  15. [15]

    2017, PhRvD, 95, 044024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044024 21 Calder´ on Bustillo, J., Leong, S

    Cai, R.-G., & Yang, T. 2017, PhRvD, 95, 044024, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044024 21 Calder´ on Bustillo, J., Leong, S. H. W., Chandra, K.,

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.044024 2017

  16. [16]

    McKernan, B., & Ford, K. E. S. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2112.12481, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2112.12481

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2112.12481 2021

  17. [17]

    Carroll, S. M. 2001, Living Reviews in Relativity, 4, 1, doi: 10.12942/lrr-2001-1

    work page doi:10.12942/lrr-2001-1 2001

  18. [18]

    Systematic Uncertainty of Standard Sirens from the Viewing Angle of Binary Neutron Star Inspirals

    Chen, H.-Y. 2020, PhRvL, 125, 201301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.201301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.201301 2020

  19. [19]

    Cosmography with next-generation gravitational wave detectors

    Chen, H.-Y., Ezquiaga, J. M., & Gupta, I. 2024a, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41, 125004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ad424f

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad424f

  20. [20]

    M., & Isi, M

    Chen, H.-Y., Haster, C.-J., Vitale, S., Farr, W. M., & Isi, M. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 513, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac989

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac989 2022

  21. [21]

    2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031028

    Chen, H.-Y., Vitale, S., & Narayan, R. 2019, Physical Review X, 9, 031028, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031028 2019

  22. [22]

    2024b, PhRvD, 109, 024041, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024041

    Chen, R., Wang, Y.-Y., Zu, L., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2024b, PhRvD, 109, 024041, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024041

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.024041

  23. [23]

    F., & Finn, L

    Chernoff, D. F., & Finn, L. S. 1993, ApJL, 411, L5, doi: 10.1086/186898 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Amiri, M., Bandura, K., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 CHIME/FRB Collaboration, Andersen, B. C., Bandura, K. M., et al. 2020, Nature, 587, 54, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2863-y

    work page doi:10.1086/186898 1993

  24. [24]

    S., Gabrielli, F., et al

    Colombo, A., Salafia, O. S., Gabrielli, F., et al. 2022, ApJ, 937, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d00

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8d00 2022

  25. [25]

    2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    Connor, L., Ravi, V., Sharma, K., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy, 9, 1226, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02566-y 2025

  26. [26]

    M., & Chatterjee, S

    Cordes, J. M., & Chatterjee, S. 2019, ARA&A, 57, 417, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-091918-104501 2019

  27. [27]

    NE2001.I. A New Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons and its Fluctuations

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2002a, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156 —. 2002b, arXiv e-prints, astro, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0207156

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0207156

  28. [28]

    NE2001. II. Using Radio Propagation Data to Construct a Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons

    Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, T. J. W. 2003, NE2001. II. Using Radio Propagation Data to Construct a Model for the Galactic Distribution of Free Electrons. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301598

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  29. [29]

    Cutler, C., & Holz, D. E. 2009, PhRvD, 80, 104009, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.104009

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.80.104009 2009

  30. [30]

    Dai, Z. G. 2019, ApJL, 873, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0b45 Del Pozzo, W. 2012, PhRvD, 86, 043011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043011

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0b45 2019

  31. [31]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints

    Deng, W., & Zhang, B. 2014, ApJL, 783, L35, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/L35 DESI Collaboration, Abdul-Karim, M., Aguilar, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2503.14738, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2503.14738 Di Valentino, E., Mena, O., Pan, S., et al. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 153001

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/2041-8205/783/2/l35 2014

  32. [32]

    2024, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press)

    Dodelson, S., & Schmidt, F. 2024, Modern Cosmology (Academic Press). https://books.google.com/books?id=TpUmEQAAQBAJ

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    M., Beck, A

    Dolag, K., Gaensler, B. M., Beck, A. M., & Beck, M. C. 2015, MNRAS, 451, 4277, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1190

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1190 2015

  34. [34]

    A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community

    Evans, M., Adhikari, R. X., Afle, C., et al. 2021, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2109.09882, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2109.09882

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2109.09882 2021

  35. [35]

    Spectral Sirens: Cosmology from the Full Mass Distribution of Compact Binaries

    Ezquiaga, J. M., & Holz, D. E. 2022, PhRvL, 129, 061102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.129.061102 2022

  36. [36]

    and Callister, Thomas A

    Farah, A. M., Callister, T. A., Ezquiaga, J. M., Zevin, M., & Holz, D. E. 2025, ApJ, 978, 153, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9253

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9253 2025

  37. [37]

    and Abramo, L

    Ferri, J., Tashiro, I. L., Abramo, L. R., et al. 2025, JCAP, 2025, 008, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/008

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/04/008 2025

  38. [38]

    Cosmology with LIGO/Virgo dark sirens: Hubble parameter and modified gravitational wave propagation

    Mancarella, M. 2021, JCAP, 2021, 026, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/026 2021

  39. [39]

    Fong, W., Berger, E., Margutti, R., & Zauderer, B. A. 2015, ApJ, 815, 102, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/815/2/102

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/815/2/102 2015

  40. [40]

    2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    Foreman-Mackey, D. 2016, The Journal of Open Source Software, 1, 24, doi: 10.21105/joss.00024

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.00024 2016

  41. [41]

    and Lang, Dustin and Goodman, Jonathan , title =

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306, doi: 10.1086/670067

    work page doi:10.1086/670067 2013

  42. [42]

    Fortunato, J. A. S., Hip´ olito-Ricaldi, W. S., & dos Santos, M. V. 2023, MNRAS, 526, 1773, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad2856

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2856 2023

  43. [43]

    A., Turner, M

    Frieman, J. A., Turner, M. S., & Huterer, D. 2008, ARA&A, 46, 385, doi: 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145243 2008

  44. [44]

    , eprint =

    Fukugita, M., Hogan, C. J., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1998, ApJ, 503, 518, doi: 10.1086/306025

    work page doi:10.1086/306025 1998

  45. [45]

    and others

    Gair, J. R., Ghosh, A., Gray, R., et al. 2023, AJ, 166, 22, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/acca78

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/acca78 2023

  46. [46]

    H., Wu, Q., Hu, J

    Gao, D. H., Wu, Q., Hu, J. P., et al. 2025, A&A, 698, A215, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202453006

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453006 2025

  47. [47]

    2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.14247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.14247

    Gayathri, V., Healy, J., Lange, J., et al. 2020, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2009.14247, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.14247

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2009.14247 2020

  48. [48]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24072, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.24072

    Glowacki, M., & Lee, K.-G. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.24072, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2410.24072

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.24072 2024

  49. [49]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, PhRvL, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.251102 2020

  50. [50]

    Cosmological inference using gravitational wave standard sirens: A mock data analysis

    Gray, R., Hernandez, I. M., Qi, H., et al. 2020, PhRvD, 101, 122001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.122001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.122001 2020

  51. [51]

    2022, MNRAS, 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077 22

    Hagstotz, S., Reischke, R., & Lilow, R. 2022, MNRAS, 511, 662, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac077 22

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac077 2022

  52. [52]

    The DSA-2000 -- A Radio Survey Camera

    Hallinan, G., Ravi, V., Weinreb, S., et al. 2019, in Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 51, 255, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1907.07648

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.07648 2019

  53. [53]

    Hansen, B. M. S., & Lyutikov, M. 2001, MNRAS, 322, 695, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04103.x 2001

  54. [54]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 2020

  55. [55]

    P., Efstathiou, G

    Hobson, M. P., Efstathiou, G. P., & Lasenby, A. N. 2006, General Relativity (Cambridge University Press), doi: 10.2277/0521829518

    work page doi:10.2277/0521829518 2006

  56. [56]

    2010 , pages =

    Hogg, D. W., Myers, A. D., & Bovy, J. 2010, ApJ, 725, 2166, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/725/2/2166

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/2/2166 2010

  57. [57]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Holz, D. E., & Hughes, S. A. 2005, ApJ, 629, 15

    work page 2005

  58. [58]

    1929, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15, 168

    Hubble, E. 1929, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 15, 168

    work page 1929

  59. [59]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  60. [60]

    2004, MNRAS, 351, 1379, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07876.x

    Inoue, S. 2004, MNRAS, 348, 999, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07359.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07359.x 2004

  61. [61]

    2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    Ioka, K. 2003, ApJL, 598, L79, doi: 10.1086/380598

    work page doi:10.1086/380598 2003

  62. [62]

    N., & Spitler, L

    Jahns-Schindler, J. N., & Spitler, L. G. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.14434, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2508.14434

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.14434 2025

  63. [63]

    W., Ghosh, E

    James, C. W., Ghosh, E. M., Prochaska, J. X., et al. 2022, MNRAS, 516, 4862, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2524

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2524 2022

  64. [64]

    2020, JCAP, 2020, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/051

    Jin, S.-J., He, D.-Z., Xu, Y., Zhang, J.-F., & Zhang, X. 2020, JCAP, 2020, 051, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/051

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/03/051 2020

  65. [65]

    2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 220401, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2829-9

    Jin, S.-J., Song, J.-Y., Sun, T.-Y., et al. 2026, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy, 69, 220401, doi: 10.1007/s11433-025-2829-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11433-025-2829-9 2026

  66. [66]

    2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 48, 101926, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101926

    Kalita, S., Bhatporia, S., & Weltman, A. 2025, Physics of the Dark Universe, 48, 101926, doi: 10.1016/j.dark.2025.101926

    work page doi:10.1016/j.dark.2025.101926 2025

  67. [67]

    M., Connor, L., Semenov, V

    Konietzka, R. M., Connor, L., Semenov, V. A., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.07090, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2507.07090

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2507.07090 2025

  68. [68]

    2012, ApJL, 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3 Lemaˆ ıtre, G

    Lai, D. 2012, ApJL, 757, L3, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/L3 Lemaˆ ıtre, G. 1931, MNRAS, 91, 483

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/757/1/l3 2012

  69. [69]

    J., & Garcia-Saenz, S

    Levin, J., D’Orazio, D. J., & Garcia-Saenz, S. 2018, PhRvD, 98, 123002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.123002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.123002 2018

  70. [70]

    J., et al

    Li, Z., Gao, H., Wei, J. J., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 496, L28, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070

    work page doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slaa070 2020

  71. [71]

    Linder, E. V. 2003, PhRvL, 90, 091301, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.091301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.90.091301 2003

  72. [72]

    J., & Hendry, M

    Loredo, T. J., & Hendry, M. A. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1911.12337, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1911.12337

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.1911.12337 2019

  73. [73]

    R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M

    Lorimer, D. R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M. A., Narkevic, D. J., & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318, 777, doi: 10.1126/science.1147532

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1147532 2007

  74. [74]

    F., & Mooley, K

    Lu, W., McKee, C. F., & Mooley, K. P. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 3672, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2388

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2388 2021

  75. [75]

    P., Prochaska, J

    Macquart, J. P., Prochaska, J. X., McQuinn, M., et al. 2020, Nature, 581, 391, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 Maga˜ na Hernandez, I., & Ray, A. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2404.02522, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2404.02522

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2300-2 2020

  76. [76]

    Functions of Bounded Variation and Free Discontinuity Problems

    Maggiore, M. 2007, Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments (Oxford University Press), doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001

    work page doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001 2007

  77. [77]

    Striking a Chord with Spectral Sirens: Multiple Features in the Compact Binary Population Correlate with H _ 0

    Mali, U., & Essick, R. 2025, ApJ, 980, 85, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9de7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9de7 2025

  78. [78]

    Margalit, B., Berger, E., & Metzger, B. D. 2019, ApJ, 886, 110, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4c31 2019

  79. [79]

    Mastrogiovanni, S., & Steer, D. A. 2020, Measuring Cosmological Parameters with Gravitational Waves (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 1–51, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 48-1

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2020

  80. [80]

    2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    McQuinn, M. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 780, L33, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/L33

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/780/2/l33 2013

Showing first 80 references.