pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05151 · v1 · pith:CRWP6PNVnew · submitted 2026-06-03 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Mapping the star formation peak with LIGO A# and Next-Generation detectors

Divyajyoti , Stephen Fairhurst , Mark Hannam , Mukesh Kumar Singh This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 05:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords gravitational wavesbinary black holesstar formation rateredshift distributionLIGO A#merger rate peak
0
0 comments X

The pith

LIGO A# can constrain the binary black hole merger rate peak to within 0.1 in redshift after one year of data.

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

The paper shows that gravitational wave signals from binary black hole mergers offer an independent way to track the redshift evolution of star formation rate density. It combines three population models with an inverse time-delay prescription and simulates detections to test how well detector networks recover the peak location of the merger rate. With one year of simulated data peaking at redshift 1.5, an A# network achieves ±0.1 precision on the peak while a next-generation network reaches ±0.02 on the full distribution. This sidesteps conversion factors needed in electromagnetic surveys such as initial mass function and dust extinction.

Core claim

Using simulated binary black hole signals drawn from three star-formation population models plus an inverse time-delay model, a LIGO A# network constrains the merger-rate peak at z_peak=1.5 to a precision of ±0.1 after one year of observation; a Cosmic Explorer plus Einstein Telescope network measures the full redshift distribution to ±0.02.

What carries the argument

The inverse time-delay model that converts star-formation histories into observable merger-rate distributions, applied to the detected redshifts of binary black holes.

If this is right

  • Electromagnetic and gravitational-wave measurements of star formation history can be cross-checked without shared systematics.
  • The redshift distribution of mergers becomes a direct observable for testing galaxy evolution models at high redshift.
  • Next-generation detectors turn the merger-rate peak into a high-precision cosmological probe rather than a marginal constraint.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same analysis framework could be extended to other compact-object populations to test whether all channels share the same star-formation peak.
  • If the measured peak shifts with detector sensitivity, it would indicate selection effects that current simulations under-estimate.
  • Combining the gravitational-wave peak measurement with electromagnetic data at low redshift could tighten the overall normalization of the star-formation rate density.

Load-bearing premise

The three population models together with the inverse time-delay prescription accurately capture how star formation maps onto the observable merger rate.

What would settle it

Real LIGO A# data that recover a peak width larger than ±0.1 or a location inconsistent with the input z=1.5 population would show the claimed precision does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05151 by Divyajyoti, Mark Hannam, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Stephen Fairhurst.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Left: Input population for MD population model. The histogram in grey shows all the simulated BBH systems for 1 year of data up to redshift of 10. The detected events for XG and A# networks have been plotted in orange and green histograms, respectively. For reference, the events observable with A+ sensitivity are shown in pink. The numbers given in the parentheses are the total number of events for ‘All’ a… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Network optimal SNR (ρ opt) plotted as a function of redshift for MD population in A# (left) and XG (right) networks for 1 year of data. The events below the SNR of 12 have been greyed out, and the colour gradient for the detected events shows increasing point density from darker to lighter hues. masses, spins, luminosity distance, inclination angle, and the sky location as well as the sensitivity of the d… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: 90% uncertainty intervals for redshift posteriors rela￾tive to median values of the posteriors, plotted as a function of the median values, for A# and XG networks, for MD population. The shaded regions represent the minimum and maximum regions of the respective redshift error bin, and the solid lines denote the mean values for the errors in each bin. The time interval men￾tioned in the labels indicates the… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: Posteriors on zpeak for MDlow (top), MD (middle), and MDhigh (bottom) populations for the XG (green) and A# (orange) networks. The middle and right columns show the reconstructed redshift distribution p(z) [Eq. (9)] after population inference for A# and XG networks, respectively. Dark blue curves denote the reconstruction of p(z) when median values of samples (γ ′ , κ′ , z′ p ) are taken. The thin bl… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: 90% confidence intervals for zpeak posteriors for A# (shown in green) and XG (shown in brown and blue). The error interval plotted in brown corresponds to the 90% interval obtained when same number of events are analylsed in XG network as A# which corresponds to 9, 8, and 5 weeks of equivalent observation time in XG for MDlow, MD, and MDhigh models respectively. The error interval in blue, on the other han… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: 90% confidence intervals for zpeak posteriors for A# (shown in green) and XG (shown in brown and blue) for various mass bands in MD population. The error intervals plotted in brown corresponds to the 90% interval obtained when an equivalent of eight weeks of data is analysed for XG. The error interval in blue, on the other hand, is an indicative interval drawn by scaling the brown curve for one year of det… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Efficiency curve for A# network for various mass bands. 3.3 Specific mass ranges Next, we wish to explore the contribution of BBH mergers from different mass ranges in constraining the merger peak. While the low mass BBH mergers dominate the population in number, the high mass mergers are higher in SNR hence pro￾duce tighter posteriors on event redshifts. Moreover, due to a difference in metallicity, time-… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Measuring the redshift evolution of star formation rate density is crucial in understanding the origin and evolution of galaxies and large scale structure in the universe. It is currently measured with electromagnetic probes, however, these probes often track luminosity, which is then converted to star formation rate (SFR) depending on various factors such as initial mass function, dust extinction, etc. Gravitational waves provide an independent method to constrain SFR at high redshifts by tracking the redshift evolution obtained from analysis of binary black hole mergers. In this study we explore three population models for star-formation combined with an \textit{inverse} time-delay model and demonstrate that it is possible to obtain bounds on the peak of redshift distribution with a network of upgraded LIGO detectors (such as LIGO-A#). For a year of observation, using simulated signals with a merger rate peak at $z_\text{peak}=1.5$, a network of LIGO detectors at A# sensitivity is able to constrain the peak of merger rate with a precision of $\pm 0.1$. Further, we obtain the results with a next-generation network (of Cosmic Explorer and Einstein Telescope) and conclude that the redshift distribution will be extremely well measured, with a precision of $\pm 0.02$, with future 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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that simulated binary black hole merger signals drawn from three star-formation population models combined with an inverse time-delay prescription allow a LIGO A# network to recover the peak redshift z_peak of the merger-rate distribution to a precision of ±0.1 after one year of observation (injected at z_peak=1.5). It further claims that a next-generation network (Cosmic Explorer + Einstein Telescope) achieves a precision of ±0.02 on the redshift distribution.

Significance. If the quoted precisions prove robust, the work would demonstrate that gravitational-wave observations can serve as an independent probe of the star-formation-rate peak at high redshift, complementing electromagnetic methods. The forward-simulation-and-recovery approach supplies a concrete, falsifiable estimate of achievable precision and is a methodological strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [population models and simulation setup] Population models and simulation setup (as referenced in the abstract): the quoted precisions (±0.1 for A# and ±0.02 for CE+ET) are obtained exclusively by injecting and recovering signals from the three chosen population models plus the inverse time-delay prescription. The manuscript does not marginalize over alternative delay-time distributions, metallicity evolutions, or redshift-dependent selection functions; if the true mapping from SFR to observable merger rate differs in functional form, the recovered posterior on z_peak will be biased or its width mis-estimated. This modeling assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.
  2. [abstract and methods] Abstract and methods description: the simulation setup provides no indication that the inference includes a complete end-to-end treatment of detector selection effects, noise realizations, or a full error budget beyond the stated models. Without these details it is not possible to verify whether the reported precisions remain valid under realistic systematics.
minor comments (1)
  1. The phrase 'inverse time-delay model' is introduced without a clear definition or comparison to the standard forward time-delay distribution used in the literature; a brief explanatory paragraph would improve accessibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading, positive assessment of the work's significance, and constructive comments. We respond point-by-point to the major comments below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [population models and simulation setup] Population models and simulation setup (as referenced in the abstract): the quoted precisions (±0.1 for A# and ±0.02 for CE+ET) are obtained exclusively by injecting and recovering signals from the three chosen population models plus the inverse time-delay prescription. The manuscript does not marginalize over alternative delay-time distributions, metallicity evolutions, or redshift-dependent selection functions; if the true mapping from SFR to observable merger rate differs in functional form, the recovered posterior on z_peak will be biased or its width mis-estimated. This modeling assumption is load-bearing for the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that the reported precisions are obtained under the specific assumptions of the three population models combined with the inverse time-delay prescription, without marginalization over alternative delay-time distributions, metallicity evolutions, or other functional forms. The three models were chosen to span a representative range of star-formation scenarios, but this does not constitute a full exploration of modeling uncertainties. We will revise the manuscript to state this limitation explicitly in the abstract and methods, and add a discussion paragraph on possible biases to the recovered z_peak if the true mapping differs. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [abstract and methods] Abstract and methods description: the simulation setup provides no indication that the inference includes a complete end-to-end treatment of detector selection effects, noise realizations, or a full error budget beyond the stated models. Without these details it is not possible to verify whether the reported precisions remain valid under realistic systematics.

    Authors: The methods section outlines the injection of simulated binary black hole signals drawn from the population models into the detector network, with recovery that accounts for selection effects through the network sensitivity. However, we acknowledge that the description of noise realizations and the complete error budget could be expanded for clarity. We will revise the methods section to provide additional details on the noise modeling, selection function implementation, and error budget assumptions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; simulation-based recovery is self-contained

full rationale

The paper conducts a forward simulation study: signals are drawn from three specified population models plus an inverse time-delay prescription with an injected z_peak=1.5, then recovered via Bayesian inference on detector networks. The quoted precisions (±0.1 for A#; ±0.02 for CE+ET) are the resulting posterior widths under those explicit modeling choices, not quantities forced to equal the inputs by algebraic identity, parameter renaming, or self-citation. No load-bearing step reduces the central claim to a tautology or prior author result; the derivation remains independent of the target constraints once the population models and selection effects are stated.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim depends on the validity of the three population models and the inverse time-delay prescription linking mergers to star formation; these are domain assumptions rather than derived quantities.

free parameters (1)
  • z_peak
    The target parameter whose recovery precision is being quantified; its value is injected at 1.5 in the simulations.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Binary black hole merger rate traces star formation rate density after an inverse time delay
    Invoked to connect the observed merger distribution to the underlying star-formation history.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5797 in / 1437 out tokens · 45329 ms · 2026-06-28T05:06:09.195031+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

300 extracted references · 259 canonical work pages · 44 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    doi:10.1016/0375-9601(93)90758-R , journal =

    work page doi:10.1016/0375-9601(93)90758-r

  2. [2]

    Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases

    Mandel, Ilya and Farr, Will M. and Gair, Jonathan R. Extracting distribution parameters from multiple uncertain observations with selection biases. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2019. doi:10.1093/mnras/stz896. arXiv:1809.02063

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stz896 2019

  3. [3]

    Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy , year = 2022, editor =

    Inferring the Properties of a Population of Compact Binaries in Presence of Selection Effects. Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy , year = 2022, editor =. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_45-1 , adsurl =

    work page doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7_45-1 2022

  4. [4]

    Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I , year = 1922, month = mar, volume =

    On some relations in stellar statistics. Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I , year = 1922, month = mar, volume =

    1922

  5. [5]

    Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I , year = 1925, month = feb, volume =

    A contribution to the problem of determining the distribution in space of the stars. Meddelanden fran Lunds Astronomiska Observatorium Serie I , year = 1925, month = feb, volume =

    1925

  6. [6]

    Accuracy Requirements for Empirically-Measured Selection Functions

    Farr, Will M. Accuracy Requirements for Empirically-Measured Selection Functions. Research Notes of the AAS. 2019. doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab1d5f. arXiv:1904.10879

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ab1d5f 2019

  7. [7]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Precision Requirements for Monte Carlo Sums within Hierarchical Bayesian Inference. arXiv e-prints , keywords =. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2204.00461 , archivePrefix =. 2204.00461 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.00461

  8. [8]

    Growing pains: understanding the impact of likelihood uncertainty on hierarchical Bayesian inference for gravitational-wave astronomy

    Talbot, Colm and Golomb, Jacob. Growing pains: understanding the impact of likelihood uncertainty on hierarchical Bayesian inference for gravitational-wave astronomy. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2023. doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2968. arXiv:2304.06138

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad2968 2023

  9. [9]

    2025a, Journal of Open Source Software, 10, 7753, doi: 10.21105/joss.07753

    Talbot, Colm and Farah, Amanda and Galaudage, Shanika and Golomb, Jacob and Tong, Hui. GWPopulation: Hardware agnostic population inference for compact binaries and beyond. J. Open Source Softw. 2025. doi:10.21105/joss.07753. arXiv:2409.14143

    work page doi:10.21105/joss.07753 2025

  10. [10]

    2014, ARA&A, 52, 415, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615

    Madau, Piero and Dickinson, Mark. Cosmic Star Formation History. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 2014. doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615. arXiv:1403.0007

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125615 2014

  11. [11]

    Double Compact Objects I: The Significance Of The Common Envelope On Merger Rates

    Dominik, Michal and Belczynski, Krzysztof and Fryer, Christopher and Holz, Daniel and Berti, Emanuele and Bulik, Tomasz and Mandel, Ilya and O'Shaughnessy, Richard. Double Compact Objects I: The Significance of the Common Envelope on Merger Rates. Astrophys. J. 2012. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/52. arXiv:1202.4901

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/52 2012

  12. [12]

    and others

    P \'e rez-Gonz \'a lez, Pablo G. and others. The Rise of the Galactic Empire: Ultraviolet Luminosity Functions at z 17 and z 25 Estimated with the MIDIS+NGDEEP Ultra-deep JWST/NIRCam Data Set. Astrophys. J. 2025. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf8c9. arXiv:2503.15594

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/adf8c9 2025

  13. [13]

    Botticella, M. T. and Smartt, S. J. and Kennicutt, Jr., R. C. and Cappellaro, E. and Sereno, M. and Lee, J. C. A comparison between star formation rate diagnostics and rate of core collapse supernovae within 11 Mpc. Astron. Astrophys. 2012. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117343. arXiv:1111.1692

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117343 2012

  14. [14]

    , keywords =

    Gravitationally bound gas determines star formation in the Galaxy. , keywords =. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453608 , archivePrefix =. 2505.07763 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202453608

  15. [15]

    , keywords =

    Dave, Romeel. The galaxy stellar mass-star formation rate relation: Evidence for an evolving stellar initial mass function?. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2008. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12866.x. arXiv:0710.0381

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12866.x 2008

  16. [16]

    , keywords =

    The Prevalence of Bursty Star Formation in Low-mass Galaxies at z = 1─7 from H -to-UV Diagnostics. , keywords =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae102f , archivePrefix =. 2510.05388 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae102f

  17. [17]

    , keywords =

    The JWST EXCELS survey: A spectroscopic investigation of the ionizing properties of star-forming galaxies at 1<z<8. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1995 , archivePrefix =. 2509.26591 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf1995

  18. [18]

    J., & Stanway, E

    Dave, Romeel and Finlator, Kristian and Oppenheimer, Benjamin D. An Analytic Model for the Evolution of the Stellar, Gas, and Metal Content of Galaxies. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2012. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x. arXiv:1108.0426

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20148.x 2012

  19. [19]

    The Evolution of the Galaxy Rest-Frame Ultraviolet Luminosity Function Over the First Two Billion Years

    Finkelstein, Steven L. and others. The Evolution of the Galaxy Rest-frame Ultraviolet Luminosity Function Over the First two Billion Years. Astrophys. J. 2015. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/810/1/71. arXiv:1410.5439

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/810/1/71 2015

  20. [20]

    , keywords =

    The first GLIMPSE of the faint galaxy population at Cosmic Dawn with JWST: The evolution of the ultraviolet luminosity function across z 9 - 15. , keywords =. doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2267 , archivePrefix =. 2509.24881 , primaryClass =

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staf2267

  21. [21]

    arXiv e-prints , keywords =

    Constraining Cosmological and Astrophysical Parameters with the Cosmic Star Formation History. arXiv e-prints , keywords =

  22. [22]

    P., Naab, T., & White, S

    Moster, Benjamin P. and Naab, Thorsten and White, Simon D. M. Galactic star formation and accretion histories from matching galaxies to dark matter haloes. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2013. doi:10.1093/mnras/sts261. arXiv:1205.5807

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/sts261 2013

  23. [23]

    Double Compact Objects II: Cosmological Merger Rates

    Dominik, Michal and Belczynski, Krzysztof and Fryer, Christopher and Holz, Daniel E. and Berti, Emanuele and Bulik, Tomasz and Mandel, Ilya and O'Shaughnessy, Richard. Double Compact Objects II: Cosmological Merger Rates. Astrophys. J. 2013. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/779/1/72. arXiv:1308.1546

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/779/1/72 2013

  24. [24]

    M., Ng, K., & Rodriguez, C

    Vitale, Salvatore and Farr, Will M. and Ng, Ken and Rodriguez, Carl L. Measuring the star formation rate with gravitational waves from binary black holes. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2019. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c0. arXiv:1808.00901

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c0 2019

  25. [25]

    gwforge: a user-friendly package to generate gravitational-wave mock data

    Chandra, Koustav. gwforge: a user-friendly package to generate gravitational-wave mock data. Class. Quant. Grav. 2025. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad9b68. arXiv:2407.21109

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad9b68 2025

  26. [26]

    A Mock Data Challenge for the Einstein Gravitational-Wave Telescope

    Regimbau, Tania and others. A Mock Data Challenge for the Einstein Gravitational-Wave Telescope. Phys. Rev. D. 2012. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.122001. arXiv:1201.3563

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.86.122001 2012

  27. [27]

    Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference

    Wilson, Edwin B. Probable Inference, the Law of Succession, and Statistical Inference. J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 1927. doi:10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953

    work page doi:10.1080/01621459.1927.10502953 1927

  28. [28]

    The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z=0-8

    Behroozi, Peter S. and Wechsler, Risa H. and Conroy, Charlie. The Average Star Formation Histories of Galaxies in Dark Matter Halos from z= 0-8. Astrophys. J. 2013. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/770/1/57. arXiv:1207.6105

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0004-637x/770/1/57 2013

  29. [29]

    Ensuring Consistency between Noise and Detection in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference

    Essick, Reed and Fishbach, Maya. Ensuring Consistency between Noise and Detection in Hierarchical Bayesian Inference. Astrophys. J. 2024. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad1604. arXiv:2310.02017

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

  30. [30]

    Romero-Shaw, I. M. and others. Bayesian inference for compact binary coalescences with bilby: validation and application to the first LIGO Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalogue. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2020. doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2850. arXiv:2006.00714

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2850 2020

  31. [31]

    PESummary , year =

    Hoy, Charlie. PESummary , year =

  32. [32]

    Probing the peak of star formation with the stochastic background of binary black hole mergers

    Bers, Nico and Biscoveanu, Sylvia. Probing the Peak of Star Formation with the Stochastic Background of Binary Black Hole Mergers. Astrophys. J. 2026. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2319. arXiv:2506.21868

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2319 2026

  33. [33]

    The cosmic merger rate of stellar black hole binaries from the Illustris simulation

    Mapelli, Michela and Giacobbo, Nicola and Ripamonti, Emanuele and Spera, Mario. The cosmic merger rate of stellar black hole binaries from the Illustris simulation. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2017. doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2123. arXiv:1708.05722

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1093/mnras/stx2123 2017

  34. [34]

    Santoliquido, Filippo and Mapelli, Michela and Giacobbo, Nicola and Bouffanais, Yann and Artale, M. Celeste. The cosmic merger rate density of compact objects: impact of star formation, metallicity, initial mass function and binary evolution. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 2021. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab280. arXiv:2009.03911

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab280 2021

  35. [35]

    2025, A&A, 698, A144, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452757

    Sgalletta, Cecilia and Mapelli, Michela and Boco, Lumen and Santoliquido, Filippo and Artale, M. Celeste and Iorio, Giuliano and Lapi, Andrea and Spera, Mario. The more accurately the metal-dependent star formation rate is modeled, the larger the predicted excess of binary black hole mergers. Astron. Astrophys. 2025. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452757. arXiv...

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202452757 2025

  36. [36]

    Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?

    Fishbach, Maya and Holz, Daniel E. and Farr, Will M. Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?. Astrophys. J. Lett. 2018. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad800. arXiv:1805.10270

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aad800 2018

  37. [37]

    and Vijaykumar, Aditya and Ajith, Parameswaran

    Singh, Mukesh Kumar and Kapadia, Shasvath J. and Vijaykumar, Aditya and Ajith, Parameswaran. Impact of Higher Harmonics of Gravitational Radiation on the Population Inference of Binary Black Holes. Astrophys. J. 2024. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad499b. arXiv:2312.07376

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad499b 2024

  38. [38]

    Semianalytic sensitivity estimates for catalogs of gravitational-wave transients

    Essick, Reed. Semianalytic sensitivity estimates for catalogs of gravitational-wave transients. Phys. Rev. D. 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.043011. arXiv:2307.02765

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.043011 2023

  39. [39]

    Accounting for Source Uncertainties in Analyses of Astronomical Survey Data

    Loredo, Thomas J. Accounting for source uncertainties in analyses of astronomical survey data. AIP Conf. Proc. 2004. doi:10.1063/1.1835214. arXiv:astro-ph/0409387

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1063/1.1835214 2004

  40. [40]

    gwfish: A simulation software to evaluate parameter-estimation capabilities of gravitational-wave detector networks

    Dupletsa, Ulyana and Harms, Jan and Banerjee, Biswajit and Branchesi, Marica and Goncharov, Boris and Maselli, Andrea and Oliveira, Ana Carolina Silva and Ronchini, Samuele and Tissino, Jacopo. gwfish: A simulation software to evaluate parameter-estimation capabilities of gravitational-wave detector networks. Astron. Comput. 2023. doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2022...

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ascom.2022.100671 2023

  41. [41]

    Estimating the parameters of non-spinning binary black holes using ground-based gravitational-wave detectors: Statistical errors

    Ajith, P. and Bose, Sukanta. Estimating the parameters of non-spinning binary black holes using ground-based gravitational-wave detectors: Statistical errors. Phys. Rev. D. 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.084032. arXiv:0901.4936

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.084032 2009

  42. [42]

    Use and Abuse of the Fisher Information Matrix in the Assessment of Gravitational-Wave Parameter-Estimation Prospects

    Vallisneri, Michele. Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter-estimation prospects. Phys. Rev. D. 2008. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.77.042001. arXiv:gr-qc/0703086

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.042001 2008

  43. [43]

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/12/4/009 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/12/4/009

  44. [44]

    doi:10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 , journal =

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007

  45. [45]

    Phys. Rev. , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.064035 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.064035

  46. [46]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

    doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 , eid =. arXiv , author =:1602.03837 , journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102

  47. [47]

    Phys. Rev. Lett. , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.241103

  48. [48]

    Class. Quant. Grav. , number =. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa6854 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa6854

  49. [49]

    Phys. Rev. D , note =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.112004 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.112004

  50. [50]

    doi:10.1038/nature24471 , eprint =

    Nature , number =. doi:10.1038/nature24471 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24471

  51. [51]

    Astrophys. J. Lett. , number =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f , eprint =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab960f 2041

  52. [52]

    Astrophys. J. Lett. , number =. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aba493 2041

  53. [53]

    Phys. Rev. Lett. , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102

  54. [54]

    arXiv , author =:2010.14550 , month =

    arXiv 2010

  55. [55]

    , collaboration =

    Acernese, F. , collaboration =. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. , number =. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/610/1/012014 , editor =

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/610/1/012014

  56. [56]

    General relativistic celestial mechanics of binary systems

    Damour, Thibault and Deruelle, Nathalie , journal =. General relativistic celestial mechanics of binary systems. 1985 , zbl =

    1985

  57. [57]

    Phenomenological template family for black-hole coalescence waveforms

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/S31 , editor =. arXiv , author =:0704.3764 , journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0264-9381/24/19/s31

  58. [58]

    Phys. Rev. Lett. , pages =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.241101 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.106.241101

  59. [59]

    The NINJA-2 catalog of hybrid post-Newtonian/numerical-relativity waveforms for non-precessing black-hole binaries

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124001 , editor =. arXiv , author =:1201.5319 , journal =

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.1088/0264-9381/29/12/124001

  60. [60]

    Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics , volume =

    PTEP , month =. doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1093/ptep/ptaa125

  61. [61]

    Phys. Rev. D , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.L121503 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.l121503

  62. [62]

    Phys. Rev. D , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.104031 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.104031

  63. [63]

    Phys. Rev. D , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084037 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.084037

  64. [64]

    Phys. Rev. D , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044022 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.044022

  65. [65]

    gwastro/pycbc: PyCBC release v1.16.11 , url =

    Alex Nitz and others , doi =. gwastro/pycbc: PyCBC release v1.16.11 , url =

  66. [66]

    Phys. Rev. D , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.062003 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.062003

  67. [67]

    The LVK Collaboration , howpublished =

  68. [68]

    A\# Strain Sensitivity , url =

  69. [69]

    A+/O5 strain curve projections , url =

  70. [70]

    Cosmic Explorer Strain Sensitivity , url =

  71. [71]

    ET sensitivity curves used for CoBA Science Study , url =

  72. [72]

    and others

    Soni, S. and others. LIGO Detector Characterization in the first half of the fourth Observing run. Class. Quant. Grav. 2025. doi:10.1088/1361-6382/adc4b6. arXiv:2409.02831

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

  73. [73]

    and others

    Capote, E. and others. Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing run. Phys. Rev. D. 2025. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.062002. arXiv:2411.14607

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.062002 2025

  74. [74]

    Phys. Rev. D , pages =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.85.122006 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.122006

  75. [75]

    arXiv , author =:1702.00786 , journal =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  76. [76]

    Gen. Rel. Grav. , number =. doi:10.1007/s10714-019-2546-x , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1007/s10714-019-2546-x

  77. [77]

    Astrophys. J. , number =. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e , eprint =

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa6f5e

  78. [78]

    Phys. Rev. Lett. , number =. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011401 , eprint =

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.011401

  79. [79]

    arXiv , author =:2509.04637 , month =

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  80. [80]

    and Cutler, Curt and Sussman, Gerald J

    Apostolatos, Theocharis A. and Cutler, Curt and Sussman, Gerald J. and Thorne, Kip S. , doi =. Phys. Rev. D , pages =

Showing first 80 references.