arxiv: 2605.09351 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-10 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: 2 theorem links

· Lean Theorem

High-Spin BBH Subpopulation from AGN Accretion

I. Bartos, Z. Haiman

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 02:32 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE

keywords binary black hole mergersblack hole spinsAGN accretiongravitational wave populationhierarchical mergersLIGO-Virgo-KAGRAspin magnitude distributionformation channels

0 comments

The pith

Data from 166 black hole mergers show roughly 10 percent belong to an accretion subpopulation with primary spins near 0.9.

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

The paper establishes that a detectable fraction of binary black hole mergers form through gas accretion in active galactic nucleus disks, identified by their high primary spins. It fits a three-component mixture model to spin magnitudes from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA events, holding the shape of each channel fixed to theoretical predictions and inferring only the mixing fractions. A sympathetic reader would care because this supplies the first population-level evidence that accretion can produce merging black holes across a range of masses, offering a way to separate formation channels without needing direct environmental tracers.

Core claim

When a three-component mixture model is applied to the primary spin magnitudes of 166 detected binary black hole mergers, with component shapes fixed from theory, the data yield strong evidence (ln B = 5.7) that approximately 10 percent (90 percent credible interval [1 percent, 14 percent]) belong to an accretion subpopulation whose primary spins cluster near 0.9. The same analysis decisively disfavors locating the high-spin subpopulation at 0.7 as predicted for hierarchical mergers. The accretion-favored events also display higher primary masses and more aligned effective spins on average, and include systems both above and below the pair-instability mass gap.

What carries the argument

A Bayesian three-component mixture model for primary spin magnitudes whose shapes are fixed to theoretical predictions for the standard, hierarchical-merger, and accretion channels, with only the mixing fractions allowed to vary.

If this is right

Accretion spin-up produces mergers both inside and outside the pair-instability mass gap.
Accretion candidates exhibit systematically higher primary masses (median 58 solar masses) and effective spins (median 0.33).
Some events previously attributed to hierarchical mergers, such as GW190521, receive comparable support under the accretion model.
The high-spin subpopulation is not confined to the most massive systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

Future catalogs could test whether the accretion fraction changes with redshift or host-galaxy properties.
Joint modeling of spins together with mass ratios or misalignment angles might sharpen separation among channels.
If the accretion fraction holds, it would raise the expected contribution of dense gas environments to the overall black-hole merger rate.

Load-bearing premise

The spin-magnitude distributions predicted by theory for the three channels are treated as fixed and accurate, without significant unmodeled selection effects or measurement biases that would change the inferred mixing fractions.

What would settle it

Detection of many additional mergers whose primary-spin posteriors show no excess near 0.9, or a drop of the Bayes factor for the accretion component below 1 when the same fixed-shape model is refit, would falsify the claimed subpopulation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.09351 by I. Bartos, Z. Haiman.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Posterior predictive spin magnitude distributions, marginalized over parameter uncertainty. The standard component (blue, ∼90%) peaks at zero and decays monotonically. The accretion a1 distribution (orange, ∼10%) peaks near a1 = 0.9, well separated from the bulk population. The accretion a2 distribution (green band) is weakly constrained by current data. The black line shows the total a1 mixture. All cu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Median posterior primary mass versus median posterior primary spin magnitude for all 166 events, colored by accretion membership probability pacc. Accretion candidates cluster at high spin, with several above the pairinstability stellar limit (∼50 M⊙, dashed). Horizontal lines indicate the accretion (0.9) and hierarchical (0.7) spin predictions. Key accretion candidates are labeled. GW190521 appears nea… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Spin magnitude and tilt posterior distributions for the top five accretion candidates, displayed in the standard LVK polar representation. Radial distance indicates spin magnitude (a = 0 at center, a = 1 at rim); polar angle indicates tilt relative to the orbital angular momentum Lˆ (0◦ = aligned at top, 180◦ = anti-aligned at bottom). Left half-disk: primary spin a1 (blue); right half-disk: secondary spin… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

The formation environments of merging binary black holes remain uncertain. While hierarchical assembly in dense stellar clusters has been widely explored as an explanation for black holes exceeding the stellar-mass limit, growth through gas accretion in active galactic nucleus (AGN) disks is an alternative that has received less observational scrutiny. Here we search for an accretion-origin subpopulation using only spin magnitudes, fitting a three-component mixture model to 166 binary black hole mergers from LIGO--Virgo--KAGRA with component shapes fixed from theoretical predictions and only the mixing fractions inferred from the data. We find strong evidence ($ln B = 5.7$) that $\sim 10\%$ (90% credible interval $[1\%, 14\%]$) of detected mergers belong to a subpopulation with primary spins clustered near $a_1 \approx 0.9$, consistent with the theoretical prediction for accretion spin-up. The hierarchical-merger prediction of $a_1 \approx 0.7$ is decisively disfavored as the location of the high-spin subpopulation ($ln B = 5.7$). Post hoc validation reveals that the accretion candidates have systematically higher masses (median $m_1 = 58\,M_\odot$) and aligned spins (median $\chi_{\rm eff} = 0.33$, vs. $0.04$ for standard-dominated events). The accretion subpopulation is not limited to systems above the pair-instability mass gap: GW190517 ($m_1 \approx 39 M_\odot$) is among the top candidates, demonstrating that accretion spin-up operates across a range of masses. GW190521, previously interpreted as a hierarchical merger, shows comparable support for an accretion origin. These results provide the first population-level observational evidence for an accretion-origin subpopulation in black hole mergers.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

They find moderate evidence (ln B=5.7) for a ~10% high-spin subpopulation at a1~0.9 from LIGO spins, but the result fixes the component shapes from theory and fits only the mixing fractions.

read the letter

The paper's main new claim is a mixture-model analysis of 166 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA events that puts roughly 10% (90% CI 1-14%) of mergers into a narrow high-spin component peaked near 0.9, with ln B=5.7 over a model lacking that component. The hierarchical-merger peak at 0.7 is disfavored at the same level. They also report that the candidate events show higher primary masses and more positive effective spins on average, and that the signal appears in systems both above and below the pair-instability gap. That quantitative population fraction is new and gives theorists a concrete number to test against AGN-disk models. The post-hoc consistency checks on mass and chi_eff are a useful internal cross-check. The modeling is straightforward: three fixed shapes taken from prior theory, only the weights inferred from the data. The limitation is exactly what the stress-test note flags. By holding the spin distributions fixed and not marginalizing over their widths, locations, or possible overlap with the standard channel's tail, the Bayes factor and fraction become sensitive to any mismatch between the assumed peaks and reality. The abstract gives no details on how spin measurement uncertainties enter the likelihood or whether selection effects were jointly modeled. This is the sort of paper that belongs in the formation-channel conversation. People who run LIGO population analyses or simulate AGN disks will want to see the full likelihood construction and run their own robustness checks. I would send it to peer review. The data engagement is concrete and the claim is falsifiable enough that referees can usefully pressure-test the fixed-shape assumption and ask for the missing technical details.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 166 binary black hole mergers from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA, fitting a three-component mixture model to spin magnitudes alone. Component shapes are fixed from external theoretical predictions for the standard, hierarchical-merger, and AGN-accretion channels, with only mixing fractions inferred from the data. It reports ln B = 5.7 evidence for ~10% (90% credible interval [1%, 14%]) of events in a high-spin subpopulation with primary spin a1 ≈ 0.9, consistent with accretion spin-up, while decisively disfavoring the hierarchical prediction of a1 ≈ 0.7. Post-hoc checks indicate accretion candidates have higher primary masses (median m1 = 58 M⊙) and aligned spins (median χeff = 0.33).

Significance. If the central result holds, the work supplies the first population-level observational evidence for an AGN-accretion subpopulation among detected BBH mergers. The quantitative Bayes factor, credible interval on the mixing fraction, and explicit disfavoring of the hierarchical channel provide clear, falsifiable support. The post-hoc validation with mass and χeff distributions adds interpretive weight and demonstrates that the high-spin subpopulation is not confined to the pair-instability gap.

major comments (2)

[mixture-model setup (prior to results)] The three-component mixture model fixes the spin-magnitude distributions for each channel from external theory and infers only mixing fractions. This assumption is load-bearing for the reported ln B = 5.7 and the 10% fraction, because any mismatch between the assumed narrow peak at a1 ≈ 0.9 (accretion) or 0.7 (hierarchical) and the true distributions—including possible high-spin tails in the standard channel—directly affects the evidence. No marginalization over shape uncertainties or sensitivity tests to shape variations are described.
[hierarchical inference and likelihood construction] The hierarchical inference does not appear to jointly model selection effects on spin measurement or to propagate individual-event spin uncertainties into the population-level likelihood. Because the central claim rests on the separation of the high-spin component from the data, the lack of these steps limits quantitative assessment of robustness.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract uses “ln B” without specifying that it denotes the natural logarithm of the Bayes factor; a brief clarification would aid readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each of the major comments in detail below, providing clarifications on our methodology and indicating where revisions will be incorporated to address the concerns raised.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The three-component mixture model fixes the spin-magnitude distributions for each channel from external theory and infers only mixing fractions. This assumption is load-bearing for the reported ln B = 5.7 and the 10% fraction, because any mismatch between the assumed narrow peak at a1 ≈ 0.9 (accretion) or 0.7 (hierarchical) and the true distributions—including possible high-spin tails in the standard channel—directly affects the evidence. No marginalization over shape uncertainties or sensitivity tests to shape variations are described.

Authors: We agree that the fixed component shapes are central to our analysis, as the goal is to test whether the data support subpopulations with spin distributions matching specific theoretical predictions for the AGN accretion and hierarchical merger channels. By fixing the shapes, we directly infer the mixing fractions and compute the Bayes factor for the presence of such components. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include explicit sensitivity tests to variations in these shapes or marginalization over shape uncertainties. To address this, we will add a new section or appendix in the revised manuscript performing sensitivity tests by perturbing the peak spin values and widths within theoretically motivated ranges (e.g., varying the accretion peak between 0.8-0.95 and hierarchical between 0.6-0.8) and report the resulting range of Bayes factors and mixing fractions. This will quantify the robustness of our conclusions to the assumed shapes. revision: yes
Referee: The hierarchical inference does not appear to jointly model selection effects on spin measurement or to propagate individual-event spin uncertainties into the population-level likelihood. Because the central claim rests on the separation of the high-spin component from the data, the lack of these steps limits quantitative assessment of robustness.

Authors: We appreciate this point regarding the construction of the likelihood. Our analysis employs a mixture model where the population-level likelihood is constructed by marginalizing over the individual event spin posterior samples from the GWTC catalog, which does propagate the measurement uncertainties to some extent. However, we did not jointly model selection effects specific to spin measurements in the hierarchical framework, nor did we perform a full reweighting for selection biases. This is a valid concern for the robustness of the subpopulation separation. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the methods section to explicitly describe the likelihood construction and include a discussion of potential selection effects on spin. Additionally, we will perform a post-hoc check by comparing the inferred subpopulation properties with and without approximate selection corrections based on available sensitivity estimates, if such data permit. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; external theory shapes fixed, data-driven fractions only

full rationale

The derivation fixes spin-magnitude component shapes from external theoretical predictions and infers only the mixing fractions (and Bayes factor) from the 166-event catalog. The ln B = 5.7 comparison between the a1 ≈ 0.9 and a1 ≈ 0.7 models is a direct likelihood ratio on the observed spins under those fixed shapes; no equation or step reduces the output fraction or evidence value to a re-expression of the input shapes. No self-citation load-bearing step, ansatz smuggling, or renaming of a known result is exhibited in the provided text. The result remains falsifiable by any mismatch between the assumed theoretical shapes and the true distributions.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the accuracy of external theoretical spin distributions for each channel and on the assumption that the observed population is a simple mixture of those three components.

free parameters (1)

mixing fractions
The proportions of the three subpopulations are the only parameters inferred from the data; the accretion-component fraction is reported as ~10% with 90% credible interval [1%, 14%].

axioms (1)

domain assumption Theoretical predictions accurately give the spin-magnitude distributions for accretion, hierarchical-merger, and standard channels, allowing them to be fixed as component shapes.
The model fixes component shapes from theory and only varies mixing fractions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5628 in / 1494 out tokens · 57119 ms · 2026-05-12T02:32:22.947380+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

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

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear
three-component mixture model … component shapes fixed from theoretical predictions and only the mixing fractions inferred
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean alpha_pin_under_high_calibration unclear
a1 ∼ TN(0.7,0.1) … a1,a2 ∼ TN(0.9,0.1)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

[1]

P., Abbott, R., et al

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

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/7/074001 2015
[2]

Abbott , B. P. e. 2020, Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett., 125, 101102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020
[3]

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, 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001

work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 2015
[4]

D., & Thrane , E

Adamcewicz , C., Guttman , N., Lasky , P. D., & Thrane , E. 2025, , 994, 261, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1370

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1370 2025
[5]

A., et al

Adamcewicz, C., Thrane, E., Smith, R., Callister, T. A., et al. 2022, Mon.\ Not.\ R.\ Astron.\ Soc., 517, 3928–3937, 10.1093/mnras/stac2961

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2961 2022
[6]

2025, , 112, 023531, 10.1103/7zc2-g9vq

Afroz , S., & Mukherjee , S. 2025, , 112, 023531, 10.1103/7zc2-g9vq

work page doi:10.1103/7zc2-g9vq 2025
[7]

and others

Akutsu, T., et al. 2019, Nature Astron., 3, 35, 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y 2019
[8]

2026, ApJL, 996, L44, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2bff

Bartos , I., & Haiman , Z. 2026, , 996, L44, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2bff

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2bff 2026
[9]

Rapid and Bright Stellar-mass Binary Black Hole Mergers in Active Galactic Nuclei

Bartos , I., Kocsis , B., Haiman , Z., & M \'a rka , S. 2017, , 835, 165, 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165 2017
[10]

E., et al

Belczynski, K., et al. 2020, , 636, A104, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936528

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201936528 2020
[11]

S., & Miller , M

Bogdanovi \'c , T., Reynolds , C. S., & Miller , M. C. 2007, , 661, L147, 10.1086/518769

work page doi:10.1086/518769 2007
[12]

A., Haster, C.-J., Ng, K

Callister, T. A., Haster, C.-J., Ng, K. K. Y., Vitale, S., & Farr, W. M. 2021, Astrophys.\ J.\ Lett., 922, L5, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ccc

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ccc 2021
[13]

The Astrophysical Journal , author =

Duffell , P. C., D'Orazio , D., Derdzinski , A., et al. 2020, , 901, 25, 10.3847/1538-4357/abab95

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abab95 2020
[14]

Farmer, R. e. 2019, Astrophys.\ J., 887, 53

work page 2019
[15]

and Farr, Ben

Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Farr, B. 2017, , 840, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa7045 2017
[16]

Ford, K. E. S., & McKernan, B. 2022, , 517, 5827, 10.1093/mnras/stac2861

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac2861 2022
[17]

2019, ApJL, 881, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

Fuller, J., & Ma, L. 2019, , 881, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab339b 2019
[18]

F., Shapiro, S

Gammie, C. F., Shapiro, S. L., & McKinney, J. C. 2004, , 602, 312, 10.1086/380996

work page doi:10.1086/380996 2004
[19]

2021, , 920, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc1

Gayathri , V., Yang , Y., Tagawa , H., Haiman , Z., & Bartos , I. 2021, , 920, L42, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc1

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc1 2021
[20]

2017, Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 95, 124046

Gerosa, D., & Berti, E. 2017, Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 95, 124046

work page 2017
[21]

Heger, A., & Woosley, S. E. 2002, Astrophys.\ J., 567, 532

work page 2002
[22]

2024, arXiv

Heinzel, J., et al. 2024, arXiv

work page 2024
[23]

2026, ApJ, 996, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1574 Kishore Roy, S., van Son, L

Hussain , A., Isi , M., & Zimmerman , A. 2026, , 996, 71, 10.3847/1538-4357/ae1574

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae1574 2026
[24]

2025, arXiv

Islam, T., et al. 2025, arXiv

work page 2025
[25]

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09360.x , eprint =

King , A. R., Lubow , S. H., Ogilvie , G. I., & Pringle , J. E. 2005, , 363, 49, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09378.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09378.x 2005
[26]

, keywords =

Levin , Y. 2007, , 374, 515, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x

work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11155.x 2007
[27]

GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

LIGO , The Virgo Collaboration , & The KAGRA Collaboration . 2025 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2508.18083, 10.48550/arXiv.2508.18083

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2508.18083 2025
[28]

D., Acernese, F., et al

LIGO , Virgo Collaboration , & KAGRA Collaboration . 2023, , 13, 041039, 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023
[29]

2024, Phys

---. 2024, , 109, 022001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024
[30]

GW231123: A Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190–265M ⊙,

---. 2025 b , Astrophys.\ J.\ Lett., 923, L15. 2507.08219

work page arXiv 2025
[31]

2020b, ApJL, 900, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

LIGO Scientific Collaboration , & Virgo Collaboration . 2020, , 900, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/aba493

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 2020
[32]

O., Nakano, H., Zlochower, Y., & Campanelli, M

Lousto, C. O., Nakano, H., Zlochower, Y., & Campanelli, M. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 81, 084023, 10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084023

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.084023 2010
[33]

M., & Gair, J

Mandel, I., Farr, W. M., & Gair, J. R. 2019, , 486, 1086, 10.1093/mnras/stz896

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stz896 2019
[34]

McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Callister, T., et al. 2022, Mon.\ Not.\ R.\ Astron.\ Soc., 514, 3886–3893, 10.1093/mnras/stac1570

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1570 2022
[35]

McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., & O'Shaughnessy, R. 2020, , 498, 4088, 10.1093/mnras/staa2681

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2681 2020
[36]

McKernan , B., Ford , K. E. S., Bellovary , J., et al. 2018, , 866, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aadae5 2018
[37]

The spin magnitude of stellar-mass black holes evolves with the mass

Pierra, G., et al. 2024, , 10.1051/0004-6361/202452545

work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452545 2024
[38]

Evolution of binary black-hole spacetimes

Pretorius , F. 2005, , 95, 121101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.95.121101 2005
[39]

Ray and V

Ray, A., & Kalogera, V. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2510.18867, 10.48550/arXiv.2510.18867

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.18867 2025
[40]

Reynolds, C. S. 2021, Ann.\ Rev.\ Astron.\ Astrophys., 59, 117. 2011.08948

work page arXiv 2021
[41]

Rodriguez, C. L. e. 2019, Phys.\ Rev.\ D, 100, 043027

work page 2019
[42]

2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12086, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12086

Rowan , C., Whitehead , H., & Kocsis , B. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2412.12086, 10.48550/arXiv.2412.12086

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2412.12086 2024
[43]

2020, , 903, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc253

Safarzadeh , M., & Haiman , Z. 2020, , 903, L21, 10.3847/2041-8213/abc253

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abc253 2020
[44]

J., & Hernquist , L

Siwek , M., Weinberger , R., Mu \ n oz , D. J., & Hernquist , L. 2023, , 518, 5059, 10.1093/mnras/stac3263

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac3263 2023
[45]

, keywords =

Stone , N. C., Metzger , B. D., & Haiman , Z. 2017, , 464, 946, 10.1093/mnras/stw2260

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2260 2017
[46]

2020, , 899, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba2cc

Tagawa , H., Haiman , Z., Bartos , I., & Kocsis , B. 2020, , 899, 26, 10.3847/1538-4357/aba2cc

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aba2cc 2020
[47]

2021, , 507, 3362, 10.1093/mnras/stab2315

Tagawa , H., Haiman , Z., Bartos , I., Kocsis , B., & Omukai , K. 2021, , 507, 3362, 10.1093/mnras/stab2315

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2315 2021
[48]

Thorne, K. S. 1974, Astrophys.\ J., 191, 507

work page 1974
[49]

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

Thrane, E., & Talbot, C. 2019, PASA, 36, e010, 10.1017/pasa.2019.2

work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2019.2 2019
[50]

Varma,et al., Surrogate models for precessing binary black hole simulations with unequal masses.Phys

Varma, V., Field, S. E., Scheel, M. A., et al. 2019, Physical Review Research, 1, 033015, 10.1103/PhysRevResearch.1.033015

work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.1.033015 2019
[51]

2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03457, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03457

Vijaykumar, A., & Fishbach, M. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2601.03457, 10.48550/arXiv.2601.03457

work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.03457 2026
[52]

Woosley, S. E. 2017, Astrophys.\ J., 836, 244

work page 2017
[53]

How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

Xia , F.-X.-Y., Wang , Y.-Z., & Qin , Y. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.05563, 10.48550/arXiv.2605.05563

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.05563 2026
[54]

2020 a , , 896, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b4

Yang , Y., Bartos , I., Haiman , Z., et al. 2020 a , , 896, 138, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b4

work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab91b4 2020
[55]

doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb940

Yang , Y., Gayathri , V., Bartos , I., et al. 2020 b , , 901, L34, 10.3847/2041-8213/abb940

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/abb940 2020
[56]

2019, , 123, 181101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

Yang , Y., Bartos , I., Gayathri , V., et al. 2019, , 123, 181101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.181101 2019
[57]

S., & Taam , R

Yi , S.-X., Cheng , K. S., & Taam , R. E. 2018, , 859, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/aac649

work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aac649 2018
[58]

D., & Clarke , C

Young , M. D., & Clarke , C. J. 2015, , 452, 3085, 10.1093/mnras/stv1512

work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1512 2015