pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06636 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 🌌 astro-ph.IM · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

What You Don't Know Won't Hurt You: Self-Consistent Hierarchical Inference with Unknown Follow-up Selection Strategies

Reed Essick , Amanda M. Farah
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 04:55 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.IM gr-qc
keywords hierarchical Bayesian inferencepopulation inferenceselection effectsfollow-up observationsastronomical surveysgravitational wavestransient sources
0
0 comments X

The pith

Hierarchical Bayesian inference recovers intrinsic populations without modeling unknown follow-up selection.

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

Astronomical surveys often generate many candidate sources whose follow-up is decided by criteria that are hard to model or vary across observers. The paper shows that hierarchical Bayesian inference of the underlying population does not require explicit modeling of how follow-up candidates are chosen. Accurate recovery of the intrinsic population remains possible even when those choices correlate with the parameters being estimated. The hierarchical structure accounts for selection at the detection stage, bypassing the need to describe later decisions. This simplification applies as long as the initial detection process, including any contaminants, is properly modeled.

Core claim

We show that explicitly modeling the follow-up selection process is not required for self-consistent inference of the intrinsic population. Using the framework of hierarchical Bayesian inference, the intrinsic population can be accurately inferred even when the decision to follow up candidates strongly correlates with latent parameters of interest. We provide several worked examples, showing that the precision of posterior constraints can depend on the follow-up process and that one may have to model a population of contaminants if the initial selection is imperfect.

What carries the argument

Hierarchical Bayesian inference that integrates over individual source parameters while conditioning only on the modeled initial detection selection and marginalizing over unknown follow-up decisions.

If this is right

  • The precision of posterior constraints on the population depends on the details of the follow-up process.
  • Contaminants in the initial selection must be modeled explicitly to avoid bias in the inferred population.
  • Population inference can use follow-up data from multiple independent observers without knowledge of their selection strategies.
  • The approach applies directly to high-volume surveys such as LSST, Gaia, and next-generation gravitational-wave detectors.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same hierarchical structure may simplify inference in other fields that face layered and partially unknown selection effects.
  • Mock-data tests with deliberately correlated follow-up rules could be used to verify recovery of known populations.
  • Real-time population updates become more practical during ongoing surveys since not every follow-up decision needs to be tracked.

Load-bearing premise

The initial detection or candidate selection process must be either perfect or its imperfections such as contaminants must be explicitly modeled.

What would settle it

A simulation with a known true population and a follow-up rule that depends on the latent parameters of interest; the method should recover the true population parameters within posterior uncertainties when the follow-up rule is left unmodeled.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06636 by Amanda M. Farah, Reed Essick.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (left) Distributions of true event parameters and data for an example mock catalog with 500 detected events of which 56 received follow-up: (blue) distributions of detected sources and (orange) distributions of sources that received follow-up. We show distributions over the true event parameters (θ), original catalog data (x), and follow-up data (f). See Sec. 3.1 and Appendix B for more details. This catal… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Directed acyclic graph (DAG) representing the type of observations we consider. There are ND detected events in total, but only NF ≤ ND receive follow-up. Importantly, both detection (D) and the decision to follow-up (F) or not (F✁) for each event depend only on the initial catalog data (x). Filled nodes correspond to observed variables and unfilled nodes denote latent variables. Plates (rectangular boxes)… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (left) Estimated detector-frame masses (Mˆ det) and distances (Dˆ) for individual events within a mock catalog of 50 detected events. Events that are followed-up by different schemes are circled in the corresponding color. The grey shaded region denotes non-detections (ˆρ ≤ ρˆthr). (right) Posteriors for the Hubble parameter (H0, scaled by the injected value Hinj) using the same catalog but assuming differ… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (bottom left) Distributions of population parameters (see Appendix G) for an example catalog with 1396 candidates of which only the 100 with the largest ˆα 2+βˆ2 were followed-up. Like view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (left, colored lines) Differences between Bayesian and frequentist quantiles (∆ quantile) vs. Bayesian quantile (corresponding to the highest-probability-density region that marginally contains the true parameters) for posteriors inferred using different follow-up strategies and (grey shading) expected uncertainty from the finite number of trials used. (right) Cumulative fractions of trials as a function o… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A simple model of active learning in which future follow-up decisions are based on all previous data through, presumably, an inference of the population constructed with all previously recorded data. Nodes are colored according to which events they are associated with (events 1, 2, and 3 are colored blue, red, and grey, respectively) view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: DAG representing a related observational scheme in which events are observed in two instruments with data x and f, respectively. We select events based on x (D) but do not condition on x itself. Eq. E24 assumes that we do not select based on f (F) whereas Eq. E26 does. D. DISCARDING FOLLOW-UP DATA For the sake of completeness, we now show that one cannot discard follow-up data (f) based on the same follow-… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Coverage tests for the Gaia mixture model (Sec. 3.3 and Appendix G), analogous to view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Many astronomical surveys prompt follow-up observations, but the decision process through which candidates are selected for follow-up can be difficult to model. This poses a challenge when inferring properties of the intrinsic population of astrophysical sources, rather than those of the set of objects detected by the survey and often-incomplete follow-up observations. We alleviate this problem by demonstrating that explicitly modeling of the follow-up selection process is not required for self-consistent inference of the intrinsic population. Using the framework of hierarchical Bayesian inference, we show that the intrinsic population can be accurately inferred even when the decision to follow up candidates strongly correlates with latent parameters of interest. We provide several worked examples, showing that the precision of posterior constraints can depend on the follow-up process and that one may have to model a population of contaminants if the initial selection is imperfect. Our result could dramatically simplify population inference that incorporates uncoordinated follow-up from multiple observers triggered by the deluge of candidates from surveys like LSST, Gaia, and next-generation gravitational-wave interferometers.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that hierarchical Bayesian inference allows accurate recovery of the intrinsic astrophysical population parameters even when the follow-up selection strategy is unknown and may correlate arbitrarily with latent parameters of interest. This is supported by several worked examples; the text notes that a population of contaminants must be modeled if the initial detection/selection step is imperfect, but argues that the follow-up step itself need not be modeled explicitly.

Significance. If the central result holds under the stated conditions, the work would substantially simplify population inference for surveys that generate large numbers of candidates with uncoordinated or poorly documented follow-up (LSST, Gaia, next-generation GW detectors). The provision of concrete worked examples is a strength that aids reproducibility and practical adoption.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and the discussion of the initial selection process: the central claim that follow-up selection need not be modeled is presented as general, yet the text explicitly states that contaminants must be modeled when initial selection is imperfect. No derivation or worked example is referenced that demonstrates unbiased recovery when both the initial filter and the follow-up strategy are unmodeled and their product becomes the effective selection function. This assumption is load-bearing for the generality of the result.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Methods] The notation distinguishing the initial detection probability, the follow-up probability, and the effective selection function should be introduced once and used consistently in the methods and examples sections to avoid reader confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. The major comment raises a valid point about the scope and presentation of our central claim, and we have revised the manuscript to clarify the assumptions regarding initial selection and to better distinguish the follow-up component from the effective selection function.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and the discussion of the initial selection process: the central claim that follow-up selection need not be modeled is presented as general, yet the text explicitly states that contaminants must be modeled when initial selection is imperfect. No derivation or worked example is referenced that demonstrates unbiased recovery when both the initial filter and the follow-up strategy are unmodeled and their product becomes the effective selection function. This assumption is load-bearing for the generality of the result.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract and introductory discussion would benefit from greater precision on this point. Our result is specifically that the follow-up selection strategy need not be modeled explicitly, because the hierarchical Bayesian framework allows marginalization over unknown follow-up decisions (even when they correlate arbitrarily with latent parameters) without biasing the inferred population parameters. This holds provided the initial detection/selection step is either perfect or that any resulting contaminants are modeled as an additional population component, as already stated in the manuscript. We do not claim that the product of two unknown selection functions can be ignored; on the contrary, the text explicitly requires contaminant modeling precisely when the initial step is imperfect. The worked examples demonstrate recovery under unknown follow-up while properly accounting for the initial selection. We have revised the abstract to reference the relevant sections on initial selection and contaminants, and added a clarifying sentence in the discussion to emphasize that the effective selection function must still be handled via the initial-step modeling. No new derivation is required, as the marginalization over follow-up is a direct consequence of the hierarchical model structure. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; result is a general property of hierarchical Bayesian marginalization

full rationale

The paper demonstrates via hierarchical Bayesian inference that population parameters remain recoverable without explicit follow-up selection modeling, provided the initial detection is either perfect or contaminants are included in the model. This is shown through worked examples rather than a closed derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The abstract states the caveat directly, and no self-citations, fitted predictions renamed as results, or self-definitional steps are present in the provided text. The central claim is a robustness property of the inference framework itself and does not loop back to assumptions that presuppose the conclusion.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the standard hierarchical Bayesian inference framework for population studies; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Hierarchical Bayesian inference framework applies to inferring intrinsic populations from selected observations.
    This is the standard setup invoked in the abstract for population inference.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5478 in / 1124 out tokens · 71148 ms · 2026-05-08T04:55:53.512357+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 · 54 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., et al

    Aasi, J., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 074001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001

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

  2. [2]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.18083

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

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

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  4. [4]

    , keywords =

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017b, Astrophys. J. Lett., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 2041

  5. [5]

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

    Acernese, F., et al. 2015, Class. Quant. Grav., 32, 024001, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

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

  6. [6]

    Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics , keywords =

    Akutsu, T., et al. 2021, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2021, 05A101, doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 2021

  7. [7]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    Amiri, M., Bandura, K., Berger, P., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad188

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aad188 2018

  8. [8]

    J., et al

    Bianchi, D., Burden, A., Percival, W. J., et al. 2018, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 481, 2338, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2377

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2377 2018

  9. [9]

    , keywords =

    Bianco, F. B., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Jones, R. L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 258, 1, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4365/ac3e72 2022

  10. [10]

    2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae589c

    Boone, K., Ferguson, P., Tabbutt, M., et al. 2026, The Astrophysical Journal, 1001, 208, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae589c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae589c 2026

  11. [11]

    2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13 http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    Bradbury, J., Frostig, R., Hawkins, P., et al. 2018, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs, 0.3.13 http://github.com/jax-ml/jax

    2018

  12. [12]

    , keywords =

    Burke, C. J., Christiansen, J. L., Mullally, F., et al. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 809, 8, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/809/1/8

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/809/1/8 2015

  13. [13]

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

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

  14. [14]

    Chen, H.-Y., Talbot, C., & Chase, E. A. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 132, 191003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.191003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.191003 2024

  15. [15]

    D., Kochanek, C

    Desai, D. D., Kochanek, C. S., Shappee, B. J., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 530, 5016, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae606

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae606 2024

  16. [16]

    D., Shappee, B

    Desai, D. D., Shappee, B. J., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2602.00223, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2602.00223

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.00223 2026

  17. [17]

    2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    El-Badry, K., Lam, C., Holl, B., et al. 2024, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, doi: 10.33232/001c.125461

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.125461 2024

  18. [18]

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3140 , arxivId =

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Quataert, E., et al. 2023a, MNRAS, 518, 1057, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac3140

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3140

  19. [19]

    2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    El-Badry, K., Rix, H.-W., Cendes, Y., et al. 2023b, MNRAS, 521, 4323, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad799

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad799

  20. [20]

    2023, Phys

    Essick, R. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 043011, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043011

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043011 2023

  21. [21]

    2026, Astrophys

    Essick, R. 2026, Astrophys. J., 997, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2255

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2255 2026

  22. [22]

    2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3978

    Essick, R., Farah, A., Galaudage, S., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 926, 34, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3978

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac3978 2022

  23. [23]

    Ensuring Consistency between Noise and Detection in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

    Essick, R., & Fishbach, M. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 962, 169, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604 2024

  24. [24]

    Essick, R., & Holz, D. E. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 103018, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.103018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.103018 2024

  25. [25]

    W., Zevin, M., et al

    Essick, R., et al. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 112, 102001, doi: 10.1103/44x3-hv3y

    work page doi:10.1103/44x3-hv3y 2025

  26. [26]

    and Callister, Thomas A

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

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

  27. [27]

    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

  28. [28]

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

    Godfrey, J., Edelman, B., & Farr, B. 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.01288 21

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [29]

    Joint cosmological and gravitational-wave population inference using dark sirens and galaxy catalogues

    Gray, R., et al. 2023, JCAP, 12, 023, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/023

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/12/023 2023

  30. [30]

    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

  31. [31]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kahn, S. M., Tyson, J. A., et al. 2019, ApJ, 873, 111, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab042c

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  32. [32]

    G., Borucki, W

    Koch, D. G., Borucki, W. J., Basri, G., et al. 2010, ApJL, 713, L79, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/L79

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/713/2/l79 2010

  33. [33]

    Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J

    Lam, C. Y., El-Badry, K., & Simon, J. D. 2025, The Astrophysical Journal, 987, 215, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/addac2

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/addac2 2025

  34. [34]

    E., et al

    Levi, M. E., et al. 2019, https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.10688

    work page arXiv 2019

  35. [35]

    S., Koposov, S

    Li, T. S., Koposov, S. E., Zucker, D. B., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 490, 3508, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2731

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2731 2019

  36. [36]

    2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727

    Lindegren, L., Hern´ andez, J., Bombrun, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A2, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 LVK. 2021a, GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the Second Part of the Third Observing Run — O3 search sensitivity estimates, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.5546676 LVK. 2021b, GWTC-3: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201832727 2018

  37. [37]

    Estimates, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.16740128

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16740128

  38. [38]

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

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

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

  39. [39]

    M., & Gair, J

    Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 486, 1086, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz896

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz896 2019

  40. [40]

    2012, PhRvL, 108, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.091101

    Messenger, C., & Read, J. 2012, Phys. Rev. Lett., 108, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.091101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.108.091101 2012

  41. [41]

    Dormant black hole candidates from Gaia DR3 summary diagnostics

    Mould, M., Moore, C. J., & Gerosa, D. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 063013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063013 M¨ uller-Horn, J., Rix, H.-W., El-Badry, K., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.05982, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.05982

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.063013 2024

  42. [42]

    and Desai, D

    Pessi, T., Desai, D. D., Prieto, J. L., et al. 2025, A&A, 703, A34, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202556799

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556799 2025

  43. [43]

    Composable effects for flexible and acceler- ated probabilistic programming in numpyro.arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554, 2019

    Phan, D., Pradhan, N., & Jankowiak, M. 2019, arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.11554

    work page arXiv 2019

  44. [44]

    Prusti, T., de Bruijne, J. H. J., Brown, A. G. A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201629272

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629272 2016

  45. [45]

    R., Winn, J

    Ricker, G. R., Winn, J. N., Vanderspek, R., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9143, Space Telescopes and Instrumentation 2014: Optical, Infrared, and Millimeter Wave, ed. J. M. Oschmann, Jr., M. Clampin, G. G. Fazio, & H. A. MacEwen, 914320, doi: 10.1117/12.2063489 Rosado-Mar´ ın, A. J., et a...

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2063489 2014

  46. [46]

    J., et al

    Ross, A. J., et al. 2025, JCAP, 01, 125, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/125

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/125 2025

  47. [47]

    Mitigating the Binary Viewing Angle Bias for Standard Sirens

    Salvarese, A., & Chen, H.-Y. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 974, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad7bbc

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad7bbc 2024

  48. [48]

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

    work page doi:10.1038/323310a0 1986

  49. [49]

    I., Batalha, N., Thompson, S

    Shabram, M. I., Batalha, N., Thompson, S. E., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 16, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ab90fe

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab90fe 2020

  50. [50]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1636

    Shahaf, S., Mazeh, T., Faigler, S., & Holl, B. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 487, 5610, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz1636

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz1636 2019

  51. [51]

    R., Gair, J

    Taylor, S. R., Gair, J. R., & Mandel, I. 2012, Phys. Rev. D, 85, 023535, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.023535

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.023535 2012

  52. [52]

    2025b, ApJ, 985, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcec5

    Tong, H., Fishbach, M., & Thrane, E. 2025, Astrophys. J., 985, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/adcec5

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adcec5 2025

  53. [53]

    Comparing astrophysical models to gravitational-wave data in the observable space

    Toubiana, A., et al. 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13249

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Vallenari, A., Brown, A. G. A., Prusti, T., et al. 2023, A&A, 674, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243940

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940 2023

  55. [55]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 2020