pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.17752 · v1 · pith:FOEYKOGSnew · submitted 2026-06-16 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.CO

Intrinsic handedness in O1-O4a black-hole mergers: probing orbital precession, remnant retention in dense environments and cosmological mirror asymmetry

Juan Calder\'on Bustillo , Adri\'an del Rio , Nicol\'as Sanchis-Gual , Koustav Chandra This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 00:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.CO
keywords gravitational wavesblack hole mergersorbital precessionremnant recoilhandednessLIGO-Virgocosmological symmetryhierarchical mergers
0
0 comments X

The pith

Black-hole merger handedness analysis of 91 events indicates precessing dynamics in 92% and at most 8% remnant retention in clusters.

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

The paper establishes that the handedness of gravitational waves from black-hole mergers, quantified by V_GW, serves as a probe for orbital precession, remnant retention in dense environments, and cosmological mirror symmetry. Analysis of 91 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA events shows that most favor non-vanishing V_GW, pointing to precessing orbits. Using a relation to recoil velocity, the retention fraction in clusters is limited to 8%. The average V_GW is consistent with zero, supporting no preferred handedness in the universe. Inclusion of newer data tightens the constraint on the average.

Core claim

Precessing binary black-holes produce an imbalance of right- and left-handed gravitational waves. Using the quantity V_GW to measure this handedness in 91 observed mergers, 92% of events favor non-vanishing values indicating precessing dynamics. The relation to remnant recoil constrains at most 8% to remain bound in clusters. The distribution is consistent with symmetry under V_GW to -V_GW, with average -1.9^{+6.1}_{-6.6} x 10^{-3}.

What carries the argument

V_GW, the observer-independent gravitational analogue of the optical Stokes parameter that quantifies the intrinsic handedness of the emitted radiation.

If this is right

  • Orbital precession is predominant in the population of binary black-hole mergers.
  • At most 8% of merger remnants could remain bound to globular or nuclear star clusters for hierarchical mergers.
  • The cosmological distribution of black-hole mergers shows no preferred handedness, consistent with statistical isotropy.
  • The addition of O4a data reduces uncertainties in the average handedness by about 40%.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Future observations could use this handedness measure to distinguish between different black-hole formation channels.
  • Improved measurements might test for violations of mirror symmetry on cosmological scales.
  • This approach links local dynamics to global cosmological properties through a single observable.

Load-bearing premise

The recently established relation between V_GW and the remnant black hole recoil holds accurately enough for the observed events.

What would settle it

Observing a retention fraction significantly higher than 8% in cluster environments or detecting a statistically significant non-zero average V_GW.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.17752 by Adri\'an del Rio, Juan Calder\'on Bustillo, Koustav Chandra, Nicol\'as Sanchis-Gual.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Posterior probability distribution for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Evidence for non-zero VGW for each of the analysed events. For each event, we show the relative Bayes factor for the VGW ̸= 0 scenario versus the VGW = 0 one, based on the publicly available posterior samples. 0.800 0.825 0.850 0.875 0.900 0.925 0.950 0.975 1.000 VGW 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 p( VGW |d) O1-O4a O1-O3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Fraction ζ of events of the analysed O1-O4a black-hole mergers with non-null VGW. We show the posterior distributions for O1-O4a events (blue) and O1-O3 events (orange). The prior distribution is uniform in [0, 1]. shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Distribution of VGW across the analysed black-hole mergers. We show median values and 90% credible bounds for O1-O4a events (green) and O1-O3 events (red). 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 VGW 0 20 40 60 80 100 O1-O4a O1-O3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: shows the ⟨VGW⟩ distribution for both O1-O3 and O1-O4a events. We respectively obtain ⟨VGW⟩ = 0.4 +11.0 −10.0 ×10−3 and ⟨VGW⟩ = −1.9 +6.1 −6.6 ×10−3 . Despite the visible shift of the median towards negative values after adding O4a events, both results are fully consistent with ⟨VGW⟩ = 0, satisfying mirror symmetry and the Cosmological Principle. The addition of O4a events reduces uncertainties by nearly 4… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Symmetry of the distribution for VGW with respect to VGW = 0. tion of Science (JSPS) in Japan; National Research Foundation (NRF) and Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT) in Korea; Academia Sinica (AS) and National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in Taiwan. This manuscript has LIGO DCC number P-2600280. . APPENDIX I: DETAILS ON VGW → −VGW SYMMETRY [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Event retention in Globular clusters. We show the individual Bayes Factors for retention versus ejection in Globular Clusters for all the studied events, in base-10 logarithm. GW150914_095045 GW170729_185629 GW170809_082821 GW170818_022509 GW170823_131358 GW190413_052954 GW190413_134308 GW190421_213856 GW190426_190642 GW190503_185404 GW190513_205428 GW190514_065416 GW190517_055101 GW190519_153544 GW190521_… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Event retention in Nuclear Star Clusters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: shows in green the 90% credible bounds for the distribution of VGW on the analized 01-o4a events shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Precessing binary black-holes generically produce an imbalance of right- and left- handed gravitational waves, reflecting the breaking of mirror symmetry by the merger dynamics. We study this phenomenon using the observer-independent quantity $V_{\rm GW}$, a gravitational analogue of the optical Stokes parameter that quantifies the intrinsic handedness of the emitted radiation. Using 91 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA black-hole mergers from the O1-O4a observing runs, we find that $92\%$ of the analyzed events favour non-vanishing $V_{\rm GW}$, indicating a predominance of precessing dynamics across the events. Through a recently established relation between $V_{\rm GW}$ and the remnant black hole recoil, we further constrain the retention of merger remnants in dense stellar environments, finding that at most $8\%$ could remain gravitationally bound to globular or nuclear star clusters and subsequently participate in hierarchical merger channels. We finally investigate the cosmological distribution of black-hole merger handedness. The observed $V_{\rm GW}$ distribution is consistent with symmetry under $V_{\rm GW}\rightarrow -V_{\rm GW}$, and yields an average value $\langle V_{\rm GW}\rangle=-1.9^{+6.1}_{-6.6}\times10^{-3}$ ($90\%$ credibility), consistent with the absence of a preferred handedness and with expectations from large-scale statistical isotropy. In particular, the inclusion of O4a events reduces uncertainties in $\langle V_{\rm GW} \rangle$ by $\sim 40\%$ with respect to O1-O3 events. These results establish black-hole merger handedness as a unified probe of orbital precession, remnant recoil, hierarchical formation, and cosmological mirror symmetry.

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 / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes 91 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA black-hole merger events from O1-O4a using the observer-independent quantity V_GW to quantify intrinsic handedness of the emitted gravitational waves. It reports that 92% of events favor non-vanishing V_GW (indicating precessing dynamics), derives an upper limit of at most 8% on remnant retention in dense environments via a V_GW-recoil relation, and finds the distribution consistent with mirror symmetry with ⟨V_GW⟩ = -1.9^{+6.1}_{-6.6}×10^{-3} (90% credibility), with O4a data reducing uncertainties by ~40%.

Significance. If the V_GW-recoil relation holds with sufficient accuracy across the relevant parameter space of the observed events, the work provides a unified statistical probe linking orbital precession signatures, remnant retention fractions in clusters, and tests of large-scale isotropy using existing gravitational-wave catalogs. The direct handedness measurements on a sizable event sample add empirical constraints on binary dynamics.

major comments (1)
  1. [Retention analysis section] The retention upper limit of at most 8% (abstract and retention analysis section) is obtained by mapping the measured V_GW distribution through the recently established V_GW–recoil relation. This mapping is load-bearing for the bound; the manuscript does not quantify the relation's accuracy, scatter, or additional systematic uncertainties when applied to the specific mass-ratio, spin, and inclination posteriors of the 91 events, so any offset would scale directly into the reported fraction.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'a recently established relation' between V_GW and remnant recoil without an explicit citation; the reference should be provided at first mention.
  2. The determination of the 92% fraction favoring non-vanishing V_GW would benefit from a brief statement of the exact statistical criterion or threshold applied to the individual event posteriors.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive review and for highlighting the importance of the V_GW-recoil mapping in the retention analysis. We address the single major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the presentation of uncertainties.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The retention upper limit of at most 8% (abstract and retention analysis section) is obtained by mapping the measured V_GW distribution through the recently established V_GW–recoil relation. This mapping is load-bearing for the bound; the manuscript does not quantify the relation's accuracy, scatter, or additional systematic uncertainties when applied to the specific mass-ratio, spin, and inclination posteriors of the 91 events, so any offset would scale directly into the reported fraction.

    Authors: We agree that the V_GW-recoil relation is central to deriving the retention bound and that explicit quantification of its accuracy, scatter, and systematics for the specific event posteriors is warranted. The relation originates from a prior study that validated it over mass ratios, spins, and inclinations overlapping with the LIGO catalog; however, the current manuscript does not propagate its reported uncertainties. In the revised version we will add a dedicated paragraph (and supplementary figure) that (i) samples the relation’s published scatter across the 91 events’ posterior medians, (ii) assesses inclination-dependent residuals, and (iii) recomputes the retention fraction with these uncertainties folded in, thereby converting the present 8 % upper limit into a more conservative interval that explicitly reflects mapping systematics. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

V_GW distribution from external LIGO data; retention bound applies prior relation without internal reduction

full rationale

The paper's primary results (92% non-vanishing V_GW fraction, ⟨V_GW⟩ consistent with zero) are direct statistical measurements performed on the 91 external LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA events. The retention upper limit (≤8%) applies a mapping from a previously established V_GW-recoil relation; this step does not reduce any reported quantity to a parameter fitted inside the present analysis or to a self-definition. No equations in the paper equate the measured V_GW statistics to the retention fraction by construction. The cited relation is treated as external input rather than derived here, satisfying the condition for independent support when the underlying simulations are externally falsifiable. This yields only a minor self-citation that is not load-bearing for the central claims.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on the prior definition of V_GW and its established link to recoil velocity; standard statistical assumptions for credibility intervals are also required. No new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The V_GW quantity accurately captures intrinsic handedness arising from precessing binary dynamics.
    Required to interpret the 92% non-vanishing fraction as evidence for precession predominance.
  • domain assumption The relation between V_GW and remnant recoil velocity applies to the LIGO events analyzed here.
    Directly used to translate the V_GW distribution into the 8% retention bound.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5879 in / 1396 out tokens · 36969 ms · 2026-06-27T00:11:09.261821+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

109 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2015, Class

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

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

  2. [2]

    2025 a , GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run

    Abac, et al. 2025 a , GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observations from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run. arXiv:2508.18082

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [4]

    G., et al

    Abac, A. G., et al. 2025 b , The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 993, L25, 10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae0c9c 2025

  4. [5]

    2026 a , GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity

    ---. 2026 a , GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. I. Overview and General Tests. arXiv:2603.19019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  5. [7]

    2026 c , GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity

    ---. 2026 c , GWTC-4.0: Tests of General Relativity. III. Tests of the Remnants. arXiv:2603.19020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  6. [8]

    2026 d , Phys

    ---. 2026 d , Phys. Rev. Lett., 136, 041403, 10.1103/6c61-fm1n

    work page doi:10.1103/6c61-fm1n 2026

  7. [9]

    2020 a , Physical Review Letters, 125, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    Abbott, et al. 2020 a , Physical Review Letters, 125, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  8. [10]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.116.061102 2016

  9. [11]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    ---. 2017 a , Nature, 551, 85, 10.1038/nature24471

    work page doi:10.1038/nature24471 2017

  10. [12]

    2017 b , Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 044001, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa51f4

    ---. 2017 b , Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34, 044001, 10.1088/1361-6382/aa51f4

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aa51f4 2017

  11. [13]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    ---. 2019 a , Phys. Rev. X, 9, 031040, 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.031040

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.9.031040 2019

  12. [14]

    2019 b , Phys

    ---. 2019 b , Phys. Rev. D, 100, 104036, 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.104036

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.104036 2019

  13. [15]

    2020 b , Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.043015

    Abbott, R., et al. 2020 b , Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.043015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.043015 2020

  14. [16]

    2021 a , Physical Review X, 11, 021053

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T., Abraham, S., et al. 2021 a , Physical Review X, 11, 021053

    2021

  15. [17]

    2021 b , SoftwareX , 13, 100658, 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100658

    Abbott, R., et al. 2021 b , SoftwareX , 13, 100658, 10.1016/j.softx.2021.100658

    work page doi:10.1016/j.softx.2021.100658 2021

  16. [18]

    2023 a , Physical Review X, 13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    ---. 2023 a , Physical Review X, 13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039 2023

  17. [19]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    ---. 2023 b , Physical Review X, 13, 10.1103/physrevx.13.011048

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048 2023

  18. [20]

    2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/physrevd.112.084080

    ---. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/physrevd.112.084080

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.112.084080 2025

  19. [21]

    2015, Class

    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

  20. [22]

    2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, 10.1017/pasa.2020.39

    Ackley, K., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 37, 10.1017/pasa.2020.39

    work page doi:10.1017/pasa.2020.39 2020

  21. [23]

    2019, Nature Astron., 3, 35, 10.1038/s41550-018-0658-y

    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

  22. [24]

    2005, Phys.Rev., D71, 062001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.062001

    Allen, B. 2005, Phys.Rev., D71, 062001, 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.062001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.71.062001 2005

  23. [25]

    Antonini, F., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal, 831, 187, 10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/187 2016

  24. [26]

    2017, Phys

    Boh\'e, A., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 044028, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.044028

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.044028 2017

  25. [27]

    Boyle, M., Hemberger, D., Iozzo, D. A. B., et al. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 195006, 10.1088/1361-6382/ab34e2

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab34e2 2019

  26. [28]

    A., Hannam, M., Husa, S., & Sperhake, U

    Br\"ugmann, B., Gonz\'alez, J. A., Hannam, M., Husa, S., & Sperhake, U. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 77, 124047, 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.124047

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.77.124047 2008

  27. [29]

    C., del Rio, A., Leong, S

    Bustillo, J. C., del Rio, A., Leong, S. H. W., & Sanchis-Gual, N. 2025, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 34, 2544004, 10.1142/S0218271825440043

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271825440043 2025

  28. [30]

    C., Lasky, P

    Bustillo, J. C., Lasky, P. D., & Thrane, E. 2021 a , Physical Review D, 103, 10.1103/physrevd.103.024041

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.024041 2021

  29. [31]

    C., Sanchis-Gual, N., Torres-Forné, A., & Font, J

    Bustillo, J. C., Sanchis-Gual, N., Torres-Forné, A., & Font, J. A. 2021 b , Physical Review Letters, 126, 10.1103/physrevlett.126.201101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.126.201101 2021

  30. [32]

    M., & P \"u rrer, M

    Calder \'o n Bustillo, J., Husa, S., Sintes, A. M., & P \"u rrer, M. 2016, Phys. Rev., D93, 084019, 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084019

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.084019 2016

  31. [33]

    2017, Phys

    Calder \'o n Bustillo, J., Laguna, P., & Shoemaker, D. 2017, Phys. Rev., D95, 104038, 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104038

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.104038 2017

  32. [34]

    Calderón Bustillo, J., del Rio, A., Sanchis-Gual, N., Chandra, K., & Leong, S. H. 2025 a , Physical Review Letters, 134, 10.1103/physrevlett.134.031402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.134.031402 2025

  33. [36]

    2025 c , Nature Astronomy, 9, 1530–1540, 10.1038/s41550-025-02632-5

    ---. 2025 c , Nature Astronomy, 9, 1530–1540, 10.1038/s41550-025-02632-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02632-5 2025

  34. [37]

    H., et al

    Calderón Bustillo, J., Sanchis-Gual, N., Leong, S. H., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 10.1103/physrevd.108.123020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.123020 2023

  35. [38]

    A., Miller, S

    Callister, T. A., Miller, S. J., Chatziioannou, K., & Farr, W. M. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 937, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac847e

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac847e 2022

  36. [39]

    2007 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 659, L5, 10.1086/516712

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007 a , The Astrophysical Journal, 659, L5, 10.1086/516712

    work page doi:10.1086/516712 2007

  37. [40]

    O., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C. O., Zlochower, Y., & Merritt, D. 2007 b , Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 231102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.231102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.231102 2007

  38. [41]

    2014, Phys.Rev., D89, 102003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.102003

    Capano, C., Pan, Y., & Buonanno, A. 2014, Phys.Rev., D89, 102003, 10.1103/PhysRevD.89.102003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.102003 2014

  39. [42]

    D., Cabero, M., Westerweck, J., et al

    Capano, C. D., Cabero, M., Westerweck, J., et al. 2023, Physical Review Letters, 131, 10.1103/physrevlett.131.221402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.131.221402 2023

  40. [43]

    C., Pai, A., & Harry, I

    Chandra, K., Bustillo, J. C., Pai, A., & Harry, I. 2022, Physical Review D, 106, 10.1103/physrevd.106.123003

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.123003 2022

  41. [44]

    Chandra, K., & Calder \'o n Bustillo, J. 2025. 2509.17315

    arXiv 2025

  42. [45]

    Chandra, K., Gamba, R., & Chiaramello, D. 2025. 2512.04593

    arXiv 2025

  43. [46]

    C., & Pai, A

    Chandra, K., Gayathri, V., Bustillo, J. C., & Pai, A. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.044035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.044035 2020

  44. [47]

    Chiaramello, D., Cibrario, N., Lange, J., et al. 2025. 2511.19593

    arXiv 2025

  45. [48]

    Collaboration, T. L. S., the Virgo Collaboration, & the KAGRA Collaboration. 2023, Open data from the third observing run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA and GEO. arXiv:2302.03676

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  46. [49]

    2026 a , GWTC-5.0: Observations from the Second Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run and Updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog

    ---. 2026 a , GWTC-5.0: Observations from the Second Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run and Updates to the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. arXiv:2605.27225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  47. [50]

    2026 b , GWTC-5.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries

    ---. 2026 b , GWTC-5.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries. arXiv:2605.27226

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  48. [51]

    2026 c , GWTC-5.0: Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion Rate and Modified Gravitational-wave Propagation

    ---. 2026 c , GWTC-5.0: Constraints on the Cosmic Expansion Rate and Modified Gravitational-wave Propagation. arXiv:2605.27227

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  49. [52]

    2014 a , Class.Quant.Grav., 31, 015016, 10.1088/0264-9381/31/1/015016

    Dal Canton, T., Bhagwat, S., Dhurandhar, S., & Lundgren, A. 2014 a , Class.Quant.Grav., 31, 015016, 10.1088/0264-9381/31/1/015016

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/1/015016 2014

  50. [53]

    H., Lundgren, A

    Dal Canton, T., Nitz, A. H., Lundgren, A. P., et al. 2014 b , Phys.Rev., D90, 082004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.082004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.082004 2014

  51. [54]

    S., Dent, T., Tápai, M., et al

    Davies, G. S., Dent, T., Tápai, M., et al. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 10.1103/physrevd.102.022004

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.022004 2020

  52. [55]

    2021, Physical Review D, 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.065012

    del Rio, A. 2021, Physical Review D, 104, 10.1103/physrevd.104.065012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.065012 2021

  53. [56]

    2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.211301

    del Rio, A., Sanchis-Gual, N., Mewes, V., et al. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 10.1103/physrevlett.124.211301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.124.211301 2020

  54. [57]

    Dickey, J. M. 1971, Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 42, 204. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2958475

    arXiv 1971

  55. [58]

    2025, Are the Circular Polarizations of Observed Gravitational-Waves Even-Handed? arXiv:2508.17103

    Emtsova, E., & Birnholtz, O. 2025, Are the Circular Polarizations of Observed Gravitational-Waves Even-Handed? arXiv:2508.17103

    arXiv 2025

  56. [59]

    M., Fishbach, M., Holz, D

    Essick, R., Farr, W. M., Fishbach, M., Holz, D. E., & Katsavounidis, E. 2023, Physical Review D, 107, 10.1103/physrevd.107.043016

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.043016 2023

  57. [60]

    2026, Physical Review D, 113, 10.1103/pjbd-pjxn

    Estellés, H., Buonanno, A., Enficiaud, R., Foo, C., & Pompili, L. 2026, Physical Review D, 113, 10.1103/pjbd-pjxn

    work page doi:10.1103/pjbd-pjxn 2026

  58. [61]

    2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 195018, 10.1088/1361-6382/acf26c

    Fernandes, T., Vieira, S., Onofre, A., et al. 2023, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40, 195018, 10.1088/1361-6382/acf26c

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acf26c 2023

  59. [62]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4591–4604, 10.1093/mnras/staa2629

    Fragione, G., & Silk, J. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4591–4604, 10.1093/mnras/staa2629

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa2629 2020

  60. [63]

    2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 344, 10.1038/s41550-021-01568-w

    Gayathri, V., Healy, J., Lange, J., et al. 2022, Nature Astronomy, 6, 344, 10.1038/s41550-021-01568-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01568-w 2022

  61. [64]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749–760, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    Gerosa, D., & Fishbach, M. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749–760, 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w 2021

  62. [65]

    2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 10.1103/physrevlett.125.101103

    Gerosa, D., Vitale, S., & Berti, E. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 10.1103/physrevlett.125.101103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101103 2020

  63. [66]

    2024, Phys

    Ghosh, S., Kolitsidou, P., & Hannam, M. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 109, 024061, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.024061

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.024061 2024

  64. [67]

    A., Sperhake, U., Bruegmann, B., Hannam, M., & Husa, S

    Gonzalez, J. A., Sperhake, U., Bruegmann, B., Hannam, M., & Husa, S. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 091101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.091101

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.98.091101 2007

  65. [68]

    2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/vpyp-nvfp

    Gupte, N., Ramos-Buades, A., Buonanno, A., et al. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/vpyp-nvfp

    work page doi:10.1103/vpyp-nvfp 2025

  66. [69]

    E., et al

    Hannam, M., Hoy, C., Thompson, J. E., et al. 2022, Nature, 10.1038/s41586-022-05212-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-022-05212-z 2022

  67. [70]

    2016, Phys

    Harry, I., Privitera, S., Boh \'e , A., & Buonanno, A. 2016, Phys. Rev., D94, 024012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.024012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.024012 2016

  68. [71]

    L., Woosley, S

    Heger, A., Fryer, C. L., Woosley, S. E., Langer, N., & Hartmann, D. H. 2003, Astrophys. J., 591, 288, 10.1086/375341

    work page doi:10.1086/375341 2003

  69. [72]

    2010, 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013

    Hild, S., et al. 2010, 10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/28/9/094013 2010

  70. [73]

    M., & Varma, V

    Isi, M., Farr, W. M., & Varma, V. 2023, The directional isotropy of LIGO-Virgo binaries

    2023

  71. [74]

    M., Scheel, M

    Isi, M., Giesler, M., Farr, W. M., Scheel, M. A., & Teukolsky, S. A. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 10.1103/physrevlett.123.111102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.111102 2019

  72. [75]

    2026, Inference of recoil kicks from binary black hole mergers up to GWTC--4 and their astrophysical implications

    Islam, T. 2026, Inference of recoil kicks from binary black hole mergers up to GWTC--4 and their astrophysical implications. arXiv:2604.04546

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [76]

    2023, NRSurCat-1, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.8115310

    Islam, T., Vajpeyi, A., Feroz Shaik , et al. 2023, NRSurCat-1, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.8115310

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.8115310 2023

  74. [77]

    H., et al

    Islam, T., Vajpeyi, A., Shaik, F. H., et al. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/48ck-2fff

    work page doi:10.1103/48ck-2fff 2025

  75. [78]

    E., & Hannam, M

    Kolitsidou, P., Thompson, J. E., & Hannam, M. 2024, Impact of anti-symmetric contributions to signal multipoles in the measurement of black-hole spins. 2402.00813

    arXiv 2024

  76. [79]

    H., Tomé, A

    Leong, S. H., Tomé, A. F., Bustillo, J. C., del Río, A., & Sanchis-Gual, N. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/1nnp-w5w4

    work page doi:10.1103/1nnp-w5w4 2025

  77. [80]

    2026, GWTC-4.0: Parameter estimation data release, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.16053483

    LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration and KAGRA Collaboration . 2026, GWTC-4.0: Parameter estimation data release, Zenodo, 10.5281/ZENODO.16053483

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.16053483 2026

  78. [81]

    2026, Remnant recoil and host environments of GWTC-4.0 binary black-hole mergers

    Llobera-Querol, J., Hamilton, E., Singh, N., et al. 2026, Remnant recoil and host environments of GWTC-4.0 binary black-hole mergers. arXiv:2604.05492

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  79. [82]

    C., & Leong, S

    Lorenzo-Medina, A., Bustillo, J. C., & Leong, S. H. 2025, Physical Review D, 112, 10.1103/lqqf-y7l8

    work page doi:10.1103/lqqf-y7l8 2025

  80. [83]

    O., & Zlochower, Y

    Lousto, C. O., & Zlochower, Y. 2011, Phys. Rev. Lett., 107, 231102, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.231102

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.107.231102 2011

Showing first 80 references.