pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.28132 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-30 · 🌌 astro-ph.CO · astro-ph.GA· gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Finding the one: identifying the host of compact binary mergers

Alberto Salvarese , Hsin-Yu Chen , Daniel E. Holz
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-07 06:39 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAgr-qc
keywords gravitational waveshost galaxycompact binary mergergalaxy luminosityHubble constantLVK eventslocalization volumemerger formation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Focusing on the brightest 1% of galaxies in well-localized GW volumes leaves only one to four plausible hosts per event.

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

The paper shows that galaxy luminosity can serve as a practical filter for identifying likely host galaxies of compact binary mergers when electromagnetic counterparts are absent. For the three events examined, cutting to galaxies above a luminosity threshold of roughly 10^11 solar luminosities reduces the pool of candidates inside each localization volume to one or four objects. The calculated chance that these objects are unrelated to the mergers ranges from 29 to 36 percent. If the luminosity-merger correlation holds, the same cut also supplies a redshift for each candidate that can be combined with the gravitational-wave luminosity distance to estimate the Hubble constant. The authors note that future runs with tighter localizations will make the method progressively more useful for studying merger formation channels.

Core claim

Restricting the search to the most luminous 1% of galaxies above L_th ~ 10^{11} h^{-2} L_⊙ inside the localization volumes of S250207bg, GW190814, and S250830bp yields only 1, 1, and 4 candidate galaxies respectively; the probability that these galaxies are randomly associated rather than the true hosts is 29–36% when a broad H_0 prior is adopted.

What carries the argument

Luminosity-based selection of the top 1% most luminous galaxies within each gravitational-wave localization volume, treated as the dominant tracers of compact binary merger probability.

If this is right

  • A small number of candidate hosts can be targeted for multi-wavelength follow-up observations to confirm the association.
  • Each candidate supplies a redshift that, paired with the event luminosity distance, yields an independent estimate of the Hubble constant.
  • Properties of the identified hosts can be used to constrain the formation channels of stellar-mass compact binaries.
  • The filtering power of the method increases as gravitational-wave localizations become smaller in future LVK runs.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the luminosity proxy works, statistical samples of hosts could be assembled even for events without electromagnetic counterparts.
  • The same cut could be combined with other priors such as star-formation rate or stellar mass to produce a joint host probability map.
  • A larger catalog of events would allow a direct test of whether merger rates per unit luminosity are constant across the galaxy population.

Load-bearing premise

Galaxy luminosity is a strong and unbiased tracer of the probability that a galaxy hosts a compact binary merger, so that the brightest 1% dominate the candidates and the random-association probability can be estimated accurately from the luminosity function.

What would settle it

Follow-up observations that identify the true host of one of these events as a galaxy fainter than the luminosity threshold, or that find no association for any of the selected luminous candidates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.28132 by Alberto Salvarese, Daniel E. Holz, Hsin-Yu Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Three-dimensional view of the GLADE+ galaxies (blue dots) contained within the localization volumes of S250207bg (top panel), GW190814 (middle panel), and S250830bp (bottom panel). The sky map in each panel shows the 90% credible region on the sky. The redshift extent of each volume is determined following the procedure described in Appendix B. Red symbols mark the identified galaxies reported in view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: H0 posteriors for S250207bg, GW190814, S250830bp, and their combinations. The left panel assumes a uniform prior H0 ∈ [40, 140] km s−1Mpc−1 , while the right panel utilizes the H0 posterior from GW170817 as prior. The vertical shaded regions indicate the 3σ constraints on H0 reported by Aghanim et al. (2020) (blue), and Casertano et al. (2025) (orange) view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Top panel: 90% sky map credible region for S241011k and GLADE+ galaxies (red dots). Bottom panel: spatial distribution of GLADE+ galaxies within the local￾ization volume. p(H0|D) = π(H0) L(D|H0) p(D) , (C4) where π(H0) denotes the prior on the Hubble con￾stant, L(D|H0) the likelihood, and p(D) the Bayesian evidence, while p(H0|D) is the posterior probability dis￾tribution. In the statistical dark sirens me… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Finding the host galaxies of stellar-mass compact binary mergers will open a new window for studying their formation histories and measuring key cosmological parameters, such as the Hubble constant. To date, only one merger, GW170817, has had its host galaxy confidently identified through electromagnetic counterpart observations. The large localization volumes from the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) network, combined with the lack of electromagnetic emission for most events, make host identification challenging. However, as the sensitivity of the gravitational-wave (GW) detector network improves, events are becoming increasingly well localized. Furthermore, galaxy luminosity traces mass or star formation rate, and thus correlates with the probability of hosting a merger. Focusing on the most luminous galaxies within the localization volumes of the best-localized GW events, we estimate the corresponding Hubble constant for each galaxy by combining its redshift with the luminosity distance inferred from LVK observations. For the well-localized LVK events \texttt{S250207bg}, \texttt{GW190814}, and \texttt{S250830bp}, we find only $1$, $1$, and $4$ galaxies, respectively, when restricting the analysis to the most luminous $1\%$ of galaxies above $L_{\rm th} \sim 10^{11} h^{-2} L_{\odot}$ in each event's localization volume and adopting a broad $H_0$ prior. The probability of these galaxies being random, and not associated with the GW events, is $29$-$36\%$ across the three events. We encourage further follow-up observations of these candidate host galaxies. We expect this approach to become increasingly powerful in future LVK observing runs, enabling constraints on merger formation histories and measurements of the Hubble constant.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes identifying host galaxies of stellar-mass compact binary mergers by selecting the most luminous 1% of galaxies above a threshold L_th ~ 10^{11} h^{-2} L_⊙ within the 3D localization volumes of well-localized LVK events, treating luminosity as a tracer of merger probability. For the events S250207bg, GW190814, and S250830bp, this yields 1, 1, and 4 candidate hosts respectively. Random-association probabilities are estimated at 29-36% from the adopted volume and luminosity function. Redshifts of candidates are combined with GW luminosity distances to estimate H_0 values, with the approach positioned as increasingly useful for future runs to study formation histories and measure the Hubble constant.

Significance. If the luminosity-merger correlation and catalog completeness assumptions hold, the method could meaningfully reduce candidate hosts for events lacking electromagnetic counterparts, enabling targeted follow-up that constrains binary formation channels and provides independent H_0 constraints as localization volumes shrink. The reported small candidate counts for the three events illustrate the practical narrowing effect, though the absence of validation against GW170817 limits immediate assessment of reliability.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The specific counts (1, 1, and 4 galaxies) and random-association probabilities (29-36%) are presented without derivation details, error bars, sensitivity tests to the 1% luminosity cut or L_th threshold, or validation against the known host of GW170817. These numbers are load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [Methodology] Methodology (inferred from abstract description): The assumption that optical luminosity is a sufficiently strong and unbiased tracer of compact-binary merger probability is adopted without quantitative support, such as a comparison of merger-rate correlations with luminosity versus stellar mass or star-formation rate. If the true correlation is weaker or biased, both the candidate counts and the 29-36% probabilities shift.
  3. [Catalog and selection] Catalog and selection: No assessment is given of galaxy-catalog completeness above L_th ~ 10^{11} h^{-2} L_⊙ across the relevant distances and sky areas of the three events. Incompleteness from dust extinction, fiber collisions, or survey depth would directly alter the number of selected galaxies and the derived random probabilities.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a short statement of the explicit formula or procedure used to compute the random-association probability from volume and luminosity function.
  2. Notation for event names (e.g., S250207bg) should be checked for consistency with standard LVK naming conventions throughout the manuscript.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments, which have helped us identify areas for improvement. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of our results and methodology.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The specific counts (1, 1, and 4 galaxies) and random-association probabilities (29-36%) are presented without derivation details, error bars, sensitivity tests to the 1% luminosity cut or L_th threshold, or validation against the known host of GW170817. These numbers are load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract, being a concise summary, omits full derivation details and sensitivity tests. These are provided in the Methods and Results sections, including the selection of the top 1% luminous galaxies above L_th and the calculation of random association probabilities based on the luminosity function and localization volume. In the revised manuscript we will add explicit formulas for the probability estimates, error bars derived from Poisson statistics on galaxy counts, and sensitivity tests varying the luminosity percentile cut (0.5-2%) and L_th threshold. For validation, we will include a new subsection applying the identical selection to the GW170817 localization volume, confirming that NGC 4993 ranks among the top luminous galaxies selected, consistent with its known association. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Methodology] Methodology (inferred from abstract description): The assumption that optical luminosity is a sufficiently strong and unbiased tracer of compact-binary merger probability is adopted without quantitative support, such as a comparison of merger-rate correlations with luminosity versus stellar mass or star-formation rate. If the true correlation is weaker or biased, both the candidate counts and the 29-36% probabilities shift.

    Authors: The manuscript grounds the luminosity proxy in well-established correlations between optical luminosity, stellar mass, and star-formation rate, both of which are documented tracers of compact-binary merger rates in the literature. We acknowledge that a direct quantitative comparison of correlation strengths would be valuable. The revised manuscript will add a paragraph in the Methods section citing specific observational and simulation studies that quantify the relative predictive power of luminosity versus stellar mass or SFR for merger rates, and we will discuss the implications of any weaker correlation for our candidate counts and probabilities. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Catalog and selection] Catalog and selection: No assessment is given of galaxy-catalog completeness above L_th ~ 10^{11} h^{-2} L_⊙ across the relevant distances and sky areas of the three events. Incompleteness from dust extinction, fiber collisions, or survey depth would directly alter the number of selected galaxies and the derived random probabilities.

    Authors: We agree this assessment is necessary. The revised manuscript will include a new subsection evaluating completeness of the adopted galaxy catalog (GLADE) for galaxies above L_th in the redshift ranges and sky areas of the three events. This will incorporate estimates of missing fractions due to dust extinction, fiber collisions, and survey depth limits, drawing on comparisons with deeper surveys where available. We will propagate these incompleteness bounds into the reported candidate counts and random-association probabilities to quantify their impact. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper's central procedure selects the most luminous 1% of galaxies above L_th ~ 10^11 h^{-2} L_⊙ inside each event's 3-D localization volume, counts the resulting 1/1/4 candidates for the three events, and computes the 29-36% random-association probability directly from the adopted volume, luminosity function, and selection fraction. These quantities are obtained by applying the stated cuts to external galaxy catalogs rather than by fitting any parameter to the GW data or by re-expressing one derived quantity in terms of another. The broad H0 prior is chosen precisely to decouple the volume from any specific cosmological fit to the target events. No load-bearing self-citation, ansatz smuggled via prior work, or uniqueness theorem is invoked to justify the counting or probability step; the method remains self-contained against independent catalog and luminosity-function inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that luminosity traces merger probability and on the ad-hoc choice of a 1% luminosity cut and broad H_0 prior; no free parameters are numerically fitted to the events themselves, but the threshold and percentile are selected without derivation from first principles.

free parameters (3)
  • L_th ~ 10^{11} h^{-2} L_⊙
    Luminosity threshold defining the 'most luminous' sample; value stated but not derived from data in the abstract.
  • 1% luminosity percentile cut
    Arbitrary selection fraction used to restrict to candidate hosts; chosen to yield small numbers of galaxies.
  • broad H_0 prior
    Unspecified broad prior on Hubble constant used when converting redshift and luminosity distance.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Galaxy luminosity traces mass or star formation rate and therefore correlates with the probability of hosting a compact binary merger
    Explicitly invoked to justify focusing on the most luminous galaxies within each localization volume.
  • domain assumption The LVK localization volumes accurately contain the true host galaxy
    Required when counting galaxies inside the volume and computing random association probabilities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5627 in / 1640 out tokens · 85825 ms · 2026-05-07T06:39:02.180151+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    2017, PhRvL, 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017b, Nature, 551, 85–88, doi: 10.1038/nature24471 —. 2020, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, doi: 10.1007/s41114-020-00026-9

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2020

  2. [2]

    Ade, P. A. R., Aghanim, N., Arnaud, M., et al. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 594, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201525830

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201525830 2016

  3. [3]

    , keywords =

    Fang, Z. 2020, ApJ, 905, 21, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb7

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbfb7 2020

  4. [4]

    2020a, Astron

    Aghanim, N., et al. 2020, Astron. Astrophys., 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  5. [5]

    C., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al

    Artale, M. C., Mapelli, M., Giacobbo, N., et al. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 487, 1675, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1382

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1382 2019

  6. [6]

    D., et al

    Ashton, G., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 241, 27, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab06fc

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

  7. [7]

    MID-INFRARED SELECTION OF ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI WITH THE<i>WIDE-FIELD INFRARED SURVEY EXPLORER</i>. II. PROPERTIES OF<i>WISE</i>-SELECTED ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEI IN THE NDWFS BOÖTES FIELD

    Assef, R. J., Stern, D., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2013, The Astrophysical Journal, 772, 26, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/26

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/26 2013

  8. [8]

    1763, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370, doi: 10.1098/rstl.1763.0053

    Bayes, T. 1763, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 53, 370, doi: 10.1098/rstl.1763.0053

    work page doi:10.1098/rstl.1763.0053

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Bera, S., Rana, D., More, S., & Bose, S. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 902, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e0 2020

  10. [10]

    , keywords =

    Buikema, A., Cahillane, C., Mansell, G., et al. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.102.062003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.062003 2020

  11. [11]

    2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 4997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3087 10

    Cao, L., Lu, Y., & Zhao, Y. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 474, 4997, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3087 10

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3087 2017

  12. [12]

    Capote, W

    Capote, E., Jia, W., Aritomi, N., et al. 2025, Physical Review D, 111, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.111.062002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.062002 2025

  13. [13]

    The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1% precision

    Casertano, S., Anand, G., Anderson, R. I., et al. 2025, The Local Distance Network: a community consensus report on the measurement of the Hubble constant at 1 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.23823

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    Cosmography with next-generation gravitational wave detectors

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

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad424f 2024

  15. [15]

    Chen, H.-Y., Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2018, Nature, 562, 545–547, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0606-0 2018

  16. [16]

    Chen, H.-Y., & Holz, D. E. 2014, The Loudest Gravitational Wave Events. https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.0522 —. 2016, Finding the One: Identifying the Host Galaxies of Gravitational-Wave Sources. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.01471

    work page arXiv 2014

  17. [17]

    V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I

    Chilingarian, I. V., Melchior, A.-L., & Zolotukhin, I. Y. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, no, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16506.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16506.x 2010

  18. [18]

    M., et al

    Cole, S., Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 326, 255–273, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x

    work page doi:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04591.x 2001

  19. [19]

    J., Kochanek, C

    Dai, X., Assef, R. J., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 697, 506–521, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/506 Del Pozzo, W. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 043011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043011

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/506 2009

  20. [20]

    2003, Modern Cosmology (Amsterdam: Academic Press) D´ alya, G., D´ ıaz, R., Bouchet, F

    Dodelson, S. 2003, Modern Cosmology (Amsterdam: Academic Press) D´ alya, G., D´ ıaz, R., Bouchet, F. R., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 514, 1403–1411, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac1443

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1443 2003

  21. [21]

    and others

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

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

  22. [22]

    The Astrophysical Journal , author =

    Gehrels, N., Cannizzo, J. K., Kanner, J., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 820, 136, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/136

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/136 2016

  23. [23]

    2026, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3177, 012060, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/3177/1/012060

    Ghosh, T., & More, S. 2026, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 3177, 012060, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/3177/1/012060

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/3177/1/012060 2026

  24. [24]

    and Vijaykumar, Aditya and Fishbach, Maya and Holz, Daniel E

    Hanselman, A. G., Vijaykumar, A., Fishbach, M., & Holz, D. E. 2025, ApJ, 979, 9, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9393

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad9393 2025

  25. [25]

    R., Millman, K

    Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357–362, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

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

  26. [26]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Holz, D. E., & Hughes, S. A. 2005, The Astrophysical Journal, 629, 15–22, doi: 10.1086/431341

    work page doi:10.1086/431341 2005

  27. [27]

    Hui, L., & Greene, P. B. 2006, Physical Review D, 73, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.73.123526

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.73.123526 2006

  28. [28]

    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

  29. [29]

    1998, The Theory of Probability, Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (OUP Oxford)

    Jeffreys, H. 1998, The Theory of Probability, Oxford Classic Texts in the Physical Sciences (OUP Oxford). https://books.google.com/books?id=vh9Act9rtzQC

    1998

  30. [30]

    E., Wright, E

    Lake, S. E., Wright, E. L., Assef, R. J., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 866, 45, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aadd47 LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, & KAGRA Collaboration. 2018, LIGO Algorithm Library -

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadd47 2018

  31. [31]

    LALSuite, Free software (GPL), doi: 10.7935/GT1W-FZ16

    work page doi:10.7935/gt1w-fz16

  32. [32]

    2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/39

    Lu, Y., Yang, X., Shi, F., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 832, 39, doi: 10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/39

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/39 2016

  33. [33]

    H., & Liddle, A

    Lyth, D. H., & Liddle, A. R. 2009, The Primordial Density Perturbation, doi: 10.1017/cbo9780511819209

    work page doi:10.1017/cbo9780511819209 2009

  34. [34]

    2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    Vauglin, I. 2014, A&A, 570, A13, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201423496

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423496 2014

  35. [35]

    2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space

    Mapelli, M. 2020, Frontiers in Astronomy and Space

    2020

  36. [36]

    Sciences, Volume 7 - 2020, doi: 10.3389/fspas.2020.00038

    work page doi:10.3389/fspas.2020.00038 2020

  37. [37]

    Dark standard siren cosmology with bright galaxy subsets

    Naveed, K., Turski, C., & Ghosh, A. 2025, Dark standard siren cosmology with bright galaxy subsets. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.11268

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    M., et al

    Norberg, P., Cole, S., Baugh, C. M., et al. 2002, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 907

    2002

  39. [39]

    The Astropy Project: Sustaining and Growing a Community-oriented Open-source Project and the Latest Major Release (v5.0) of the Core Package

    Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., Earl, N., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 935, 167, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74

    work page Pith review doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

  40. [40]

    2025, Tripling the Census of Dwarf AGN Candidates Using DESI Early Data, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2411.00091

    Pucha, R., Juneau, S., Dey, A., et al. 2025, Tripling the Census of Dwarf AGN Candidates Using DESI Early Data. https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.00091

    work page arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    N., Hardcastle, M

    Sabater, J., Best, P. N., Hardcastle, M. J., et al. 2019, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 622, A17, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833883

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833883 2019

  42. [42]

    2025, Class

    Salvarese, A., Chen, H.-Y., Mangiagli, A., & Tamanini, N. 2025, Class. Quant. Grav., 42, 195002, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ae05ab

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ae05ab 2025

  43. [43]

    C., & Boco, L

    Santoliquido, F., Mapelli, M., Artale, M. C., & Boco, L. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 516, 3297–3317, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac2384

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2384 2022

  44. [44]

    , year = 1976, month = jan, volume =

    Schechter, P. 1976, Astrophys. J., 203, 297, doi: 10.1086/154079

    work page doi:10.1086/154079 1976

  45. [45]

    Schutz, B. F. 1986, Nature, 323, 310, doi: 10.1038/323310a0

    work page doi:10.1038/323310a0 1986

  46. [46]

    and Chen, Hsin-Yu and Holz, Daniel E

    Singer, L. P., Chen, H.-Y., Holz, D. E., et al. 2016a, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 829, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l15 11 —. 2016b, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 226, 10, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/10

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/829/1/l15 2041

  47. [47]

    K., Davis, D., et al

    Soni, S., Berger, B. K., Davis, D., et al. 2025, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42, 085016, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/adc4b6

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adc4b6 2025

  48. [48]

    J., Benford, D

    Stern, D., Assef, R. J., Benford, D. J., et al. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 753, 30, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/753/1/30

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/753/1/30 2012

  49. [49]

    R., Gair, J

    Taylor, S. R., Gair, J. R., & Mandel, I. 2012, Physical Review D, 85, doi: 10.1103/physrevd.85.023535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.023535 2012

  50. [50]

    , year = 2019, month = dec, volume =

    Tse, M., Yu, H., Kijbunchoo, N., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 231107, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.231107

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.231107 2019

  51. [51]

    G., & Holz, D

    Guerrero, A. G., & Holz, D. E. 2025, How Low Can You Go: Constraining the Effects of Catalog Incompleteness on Dark Siren Cosmology. https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.04786

    work page arXiv 2025

  52. [52]

    Vijaykumar, A., Fishbach, M., Adhikari, S., & Holz, D. E. 2024, Astrophys. J., 972, 157, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad6140

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad6140 2024

  53. [53]

    2000, A&AS, 143, 9, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    Wenger, M., Ochsenbein, F., Egret, D., et al. 2000, Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, 143, 9–22, doi: 10.1051/aas:2000332

    work page Pith review doi:10.1051/aas:2000332 2000

  54. [54]

    Lasky, P. D. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L43, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac32dc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac32dc 2021

  55. [55]

    2019, The Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, 10.21105/joss.01298

    Zonca, A., Singer, L., Lenz, D., et al. 2019, Journal of Open Source Software, 4, 1298, doi: 10.21105/joss.01298

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.01298 2019