Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 64 references

Tracing the light: Identification for the optical counterpart candidates of binary black-holes during O3

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that two AGN flares are physical counterparts to the binary black-hole mergers GW190521 and GW190803 022701, and that the pair yields a Hubble-constant estimate of $H_0 = 72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1}\…

desk verdict Useful update on AGN-GW counterpart candidates, but the new 'strong' association for GW190803 rests on an uncalibrated pflare feeding the prior odds. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02475 v1 pith:PPQEFJ7V submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.HE

Lei He , Zhengyan Liu , Rui Niu , Bingzhou Gao , Mingshen Zhou , Purun Zou , Runduo Liang , Wen Zhao
show 4 more authors
Ning Jiang Zhen-Yi Cai Zi-Gao Dai Ye-Fei Yuan
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords activegalacticnucleigravitationalwavesourcesstellarmassblackholesAGNflareselectromagneticcounterpartsHubbleconstantZwickyTransientFacilityBayesianoddsratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Using three additional years of public survey photometry, this paper re-examines seven active-galactic-nucleus (AGN) flares previously proposed as electromagnetic counterparts to binary black-hole mergers seen in the third gravitational-wave observing run (O3). It argues that only three of the flares remain statistically significant once the longer baseline is modelled as stochastic AGN variability, and that a Bayesian odds-ratio analysis singles out two physical associations: AGN J124942.30+344928.9 with GW190521 and AGN J120437.98+500024.0 with GW190803 022701. For these two pairs the paper derives a Hubble constant of $H_0 = 72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1}\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ under a flat prior, improving to $73.5^{+9.8}_{-6.9}\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ when combined with the GW170817 measurement. A sympathetic reader would care because secure counterparts would turn black-hole mergers in AGN disks into standard sirens with an independent route to measuring the Hubble constant and a probe of the disk environment.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a Bayesian odds ratio $O_A/C = B_A/C \times P_A/C$ comparing the hypothesis that a flare and a gravitational-wave event share a common origin against chance coincidence. The prior odds are built from the flare probability $p_{\mathrm{flare}}$ -- computed by fitting a Gaussian process with a Matérn-1/2 covariance kernel $k(t,t') = \rho^2 \exp(-|t-t'|/\tau)$ to the non-flare parts of each light curve and simulating 10,000 realizations -- and from $n_s$, the number of catalogued quasars inside each event's 90% localization volume. The Bayes factor uses the gravitational-wave posteriors, the AGN's fixed sky position and redshift, and environmental corrections (relativistic and gravitational redshift from motion in the disk), with priors on primary mass favouring AGN-disk formation and on orbital radius set by kick-velocity estimates. The ratio therefore converts 'how unlikely is this flare on its own' and 'how many other AGNs could have been the host' into a single evidence number.

What would settle it

Reanalyse the two surviving light curves with a kernel that explicitly includes long-timescale red noise or a power-law power spectrum and recompute $p_{\mathrm{flare}}$; if the flare test statistic no longer stands out from the simulated distribution, or the prior odds drop below the strong-evidence threshold, the association claim would fail. A complementary check is to detect a second flare in either AGN and test whether it arrives at the recurrence time predicted by the disk-radius posterior.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that two optical flares in AGN disks are physically associated with binary black-hole mergers: pair 3 (J124942.30+344928.9 with GW190521) and pair 4 (J120437.98+500024.0 with GW190803 022701) both reach log odds ratios above 6 under uniform-prior coincidence models and remain above 4.9 even with AGN-density-informed priors. The extended six-year light curves show no secondary flares in either host up to 2024 October 31, and the flare probabilities $p_{\mathrm{flare}}$ are 0.9999 for both. The same analysis downgrades three of the original seven flares to stochastic variability and removes a fourth as a likely blazar, leaving only three candidate flares, of which two are statistically favoured as counterparts. Combining the two associations yields $H_0 = 72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1}\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$, consistent with both early-universe cosmic-microwave-background constraints and local distance-ladder measurements.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Gaussian-process model with a Matérn-1/2 kernel, fitted to the quiescent parts of each light curve, correctly captures all intrinsic AGN variability, so that the reported flare probabilities (0.9999) are true probabilities and the small residual $(1-p_{\mathrm{flare}})$ that drives the prior odds is not understated by missed long-term or red-noise variation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Only three of the original seven candidate flares survive the extended baseline, so earlier short-baseline flare identifications must be treated with caution.
  • Two AGN–GW pairs, pair 3 and pair 4, are identified as the most robust optical counterpart candidates, with log odds ratios in the very-strong-evidence range.
  • If the associations hold, the combined measurement $H_0 = 72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1}\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ adds an independent standard-siren point consistent with both early- and late-universe values, and improves to $73.5^{+9.8}_{-6.9}\ \mathrm{km\,s^{-1}\,Mpc^{-1}}$ with GW170817 included.
  • The absence of secondary flares up to 2024 October 31 places a lower bound on the merger remnant's disk radius ($r \gtrsim 900\,R_{\rm s}$ for pair 3), and continued monitoring is the declared test of the association.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A longer-baseline re-analysis of any future AGN-flare counterpart search is likely to follow the same pattern: initial flare significance drops as red-noise AGN variability is better sampled, so multi-year baselines should become the standard for candidate confirmation.
  • Because the prior odds scale with $(1-p_{\mathrm{flare}})n_s$, a deeper or more complete quasar catalog in the localization volumes could materially change the odds for the two surviving pairs; the association claim is therefore testable by catalog improvement before any new observation.
  • If a secondary flare is caught in either host and broad asymmetric line emission appears in follow-up spectroscopy, the AGN-disk counterpart picture would be confirmed; if no such flare appears over the predicted recurrence window, the recurrence-time model underlying pair 3 would be falsified.
  • If secure, these two associations would be the first electromagnetic counterparts to binary black-hole mergers formed in AGN disks, giving a population-level handle on hierarchical merger rates and disk properties.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper re-evaluates the seven AGN flares proposed by Graham et al. (2023) as electromagnetic counterparts to O3 BBH mergers, using three additional years of ZTF photometry (DR23). The authors compute a flare probability pflare with a Gaussian-process model of the non-flare variability, retain three candidate AGNs, and then apply the Bayesian odds-ratio framework of Morton et al. (2023) with prior odds set by Eq. (5). They conclude that two AGN-GW pairs are strongly associated: J124942.30+344928.9 with GW190521 and J120437.98+500024.0 with GW190803 022701. Using these two pairs, they derive H0 = 72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1} km/s/Mpc, improving to 73.5^{+9.8}_{-6.9} when combined with GW170817.

Significance. The extended baseline and updated catalog are a useful contribution: three of the original seven flares are no longer significant, and the paper provides a transparent, quantitative odds-ratio framework that can be reproduced with public data and public software. If the pair-4 association survived calibration, it would be an important candidate EM counterpart to a BBH merger in an AGN disk. However, I agree with the stress-test concern: the central new claim for pair 4 is carried by pflare, which enters the prior odds in Eq. (5) from the same light curves used to select the candidate, and pflare is an uncalibrated Monte Carlo tail fraction with no quoted uncertainty. Pair 3 is more robust because its Bayes factor is high and it has prior literature support, but the pair-4 result and the combined H0 constraint need substantial additional work before they can be taken as strong evidence.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.1, Eq. (5)] The prior odds are computed as P_A/C = 1/[(1-pflare) n_s], where pflare comes from Section 2.2. Because pflare is estimated from exactly the ZTF light curves used to select the candidates, the 'prior' is not independent of the data and double-counts the flare significance: a candidate is retained on the strength of pflare, and the same pflare then inflates the association odds. The numerical impact is decisive for pair 4 (J120437.98+500024.0 / GW190803 022701): with log B=5.7 and n_s=7315, changing pflare from 0.9999 to 0.99 reduces log P_A/C by about 2, moving log odds from 6.0 to roughly 4.0 (uniform) and from 4.9 to roughly 2.9 (AGN-weighted), i.e., from 'very strong' to 'positive'. Please replace pflare in Eq. (5) with an independent rate of similar flares (e.g., from ZTF alert statistics in non-GW-selected AGN), or at minimum report the odds ratio as a function of pflare and propagate the uncertainty in pflare. The same equation also assumes n_s from the Million Quasars Catalog is complete; an underestimation of n_s directly inflates the prior odds.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eqs. (1)-(3) and Table 1] The quantity pflare is a tail fraction from 10,000 GP simulations under a Matern-1/2 kernel, yet Table 1 quotes 0.9999 for both surviving AGNs, which is at the Monte Carlo resolution (in fact the observed lambda may exceed all simulations). There is no posterior predictive check that the fitted GP reproduces the 50-day excursion statistics of the non-flare data, and the exponential autocovariance cannot represent long-timescale red noise or seasonal sampling artifacts; if the true false-positive rate is several times 10^-3 rather than 10^-4, the prior odds for pair 4 drop by the amount quantified above. Please add calibration tests: (i) simulate from the fitted GP and compute the distribution of the maximum lambda over all sliding 50-day windows excluding the candidate flare; (ii) apply the same pipeline to AGN light curves without candidate flares; (iii) repeat with a red-noise kernel (e.g., Matern-3/2 or a broken power-law PSD) and report the resulting pflare values. Reporting pflare as a probability without an uncertainty is not supported by the current computation.
  3. [Section 6, Table 4] The H0 constraints are derived conditionally on the two associations being real, but the analysis does not propagate the association odds into the H0 posterior. Given that the evidence for pair 4 depends on the uncalibrated pflare, the combined result H0=72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1} km/s/Mpc should be presented as conditional on the associations, or the posterior should marginalize over association status using the odds. The current wording 'hint towards a larger value of H0' overstates what a 68% interval spanning roughly 48-96 km/s/Mpc can say; I recommend softening this claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 5.1] The text says 'yielding an odds ratio of log O=8.6' while Table 3 gives log O=8.3 for pair 3; please make the numbers consistent.
  2. [Section 5.1] The event name 'GW190542 065416' appears to be a typo for GW190514 065416.
  3. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract says the two flares 'exhibit a strong correlation' while Section 7 says 'show a positive tendency for association'; please align the wording with the quantitative scale defined in Section 5.
  4. [Figure 1] The caption refers to blue lines indicating events that remain as possible associations, but the figure is not legible in print; please add labels to the vertical lines or a legend.
  5. [Section 2.2] The text states L=50 days 'consistent with' Graham et al., but no sensitivity to L is given; a brief test with L=30 and L=80 days would help establish that the pflare values are not driven by the chosen window.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Data-dependent 'prior' in Eq. (5) double-counts the pflare flare significance, but independent GW Bayes factors keep the central association claim from collapsing.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 2.2 (Eq. 3) and Section 4.1 (Eq. 5)]
    "In our analysis, N is estimated as the number of AGNs within the localization region of the GW event that could potentially produce flares of similar significance (G. Ashton et al. 2021). The prior odds are then calculated as: P A C = 1 N = 1 (1 − pflare)ns ."

    Eq. (5) defines the association 'prior' entirely in terms of pflare, which Eq. (3) fits to the very same light curve that contains the candidate flare. The odds ratio O = B·P therefore embeds the flare's own significance twice: once as the candidate-selection statistic and again as the chance-coincidence prior. Numerically, pair 4's log P = +0.3 comes from (1−pflare)ns with pflare = 0.9999; if pflare were 0.99 instead, log P would fall to about −4.3 and log O would drop from 6.0 to roughly 1.4, below the paper's 'positive evidence' threshold of 3. Thus the 'strong correlation' conclusion for the newly emphasized pair is partly a re-statement of the pflare fit, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The Bayesian association framework is largely self-contained: the Bayes factors are computed from GW posterior samples, AGN sky position, redshift, and mass priors, and the H0 inference follows standard dark-siren logic without reusing the optical light curve. The principal circular element is the 'prior odds' in Eq. (5), which uses pflare — a statistic fitted to the same ZTF light curve that defines the candidate flare — as the false-alarm probability in N = (1−pflare)ns. This double-counts the flare significance in the final odds ratio and is numerically material for pair 4, whose 'strong correlation' label depends on pflare = 0.9999. However, the surviving pairs have independently large GW-based Bayes factors, so the central result is not equivalent to the fitted input alone. There are no load-bearing self-citation chains, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no renaming of known results; the remaining concerns about Matern-1/2 calibration are robustness issues rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The work rests on modeling choices rather than new physics: a Gaussian process null model for AGN variability, a Keplerian recurrence-time argument to bound the BBH-SMBH separation, a uniform surface-density prior in the disk, a non-spinning SMBH approximation, the completeness of the Million Quasars Catalog, and the interpretation of no observed secondary flare as a non-return condition. No free new entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • GP amplitude ρ = fitted per AGN (values not reported)
    Hyperparameter of the Matern-1/2 kernel fitted to non-flare data in Section 2.2; sets the scale of the null λ distribution.
  • GP timescale τ = fitted per AGN (values not reported)
    Second kernel hyperparameter; controls correlation length of the null light curves and hence the simulated λ distribution.
  • Flare window length L = 50 days
    Hand-fixed interval around the flare peak for the λ statistic, 'consistent with the approach in Graham et al. (2023)'.
  • pflare threshold = 0.995
    Empirical cut inherited from Graham et al. (2023) that defines whether a flare counts as genuine.
  • Outer disk radius for r prior = 3 × 10^3 Rs
    Upper bound for the separation integral in Eq. (13), adopted from Morton et al. (2023).
  • H0 flat prior range = [20, 160] km/s/Mpc
    Uniform prior chosen for the H0 inference in Section 6.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The Matern-1/2 kernel Gaussian process, fitted to non-flare segments, is a correct model of AGN stochastic variability.
    Section 2.2 uses this GP to generate the null distribution of the λ statistic that defines pflare; long-term trends or red noise would bias pflare.
  • domain assumption Kick velocities are too small to alter the binary orbit, so the recurrence time follows Kepler's law with the original radius.
    Section 3.2 and Eq. (14) use this to convert the absence of a secondary flare into a lower bound on r.
  • domain assumption The AGN disk has uniform surface density, so p(r|HA) ∝ r.
    Section 4.2, adopted for the association model integral in Eq. (13).
  • domain assumption The central SMBH is non-spinning, so the relativistic and gravitational redshift corrections take the simple forms of Eqs. (10)-(12).
    Section 4.2; a spinning SMBH would change the mapping between the GW effective parameters and the AGN redshift.
  • domain assumption The Million Quasars Catalog is complete enough for z<1.2 AGNs in the relevant sky regions.
    Section 4.1 uses ns from this catalog to set the prior odds; incompleteness underestimates N and inflates the odds.
  • domain assumption The absence of a secondary flare by 2024 October 31 is due to the remnant not returning, not to observational gaps.
    Section 5.1 uses Eq. (14) to set the lower bound on r from the recurrence time; seasonal gaps or a faint secondary flare would invalidate this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tracing the light: Identification for the optical counterpart candidates of binary black-holes during O3." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPQEFJ7V

@misc{pith2026250702475,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tracing the light: Identification for the optical counterpart candidates of binary black-holes during O3},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPQEFJ7V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02475}
}
abstract

The accretion disks of active galactic nuclei (AGN) are widely considered the ideal environments for binary black hole (BBH) mergers and the only plausible sites for their electromagnetic (EM) counterparts. Graham et al.(2023) identified seven AGN flares that are potentially associated with gravitational-wave (GW) events detected by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) Collaboration during the third observing run. In this article, utilizing an additional three years of Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) public data after their discovery, we conduct an updated analysis and find that only three flares can be identified. By implementing a joint analysis of optical and GW data through a Bayesian framework, we find two flares exhibit a strong correlation with GW events, with no secondary flares observed in their host AGN up to 2024 October 31. Combining these two most robust associations, we derive a Hubble constant measurement of $H_{0}= 72.1^{+23.9}_{-23.1} \ \mathrm{km \ s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$ and incorporating the multi-messenger event GW170817 improves the precision to $H_{0}=73.5^{+9.8}_{-6.9} \ \mathrm{km \ s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$. Both results are consistent with existing measurements reported in the literature.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02475 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The ZTF g- and r-band light curves for the seven AGNs associated with GW events. The vertical lines represent the trigger times of the GW events. The blue lines indicate the events that remain as possible associations after our analysis, while associations with all other events have been excluded [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (left) A real AGN light curve (blue line) and 100 random light curves (gray lines) generated with the same GP model fitted to the AGN data. The two red vertical dashed lines indicate the selected time interval for computing the λ value. (right) The distribution of λ values from the simulated light curves, with the red vertical line representing λ value from the real AGN. For each AGN, pflare is independently calcula… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. , as well as the position of flares and the 90% confidence area of GW events used in this work. For each GW event, we calculate ns with the postprocess.crossmatch function from the ligo.skymap7 Python package, and the results are listed in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The primary mass prior distributions for association model (blue curve) and coincidence model (orange curve). 5. RESULTS The Bayes factor, prior odds and odds ratio for each matched pair of AGN flares and GW events are presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p0…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Hubble constant posterior distributions for single pair (left) and pair combination (right), compared to the reported values from Planck and SH0ES (1-σ credible interval). one in this AGN, with the peak luminosity comparable to the earlier flare. If this AGN is not a b…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T

    Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017b, Nature, 551, 85, doi: 10.1038/nature24471

    doi:10.1038/nature24471

  2. [2]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 125, 101102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.101102 2020

  3. [3]

    D., Abraham, S., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Abraham, S., et al. 2021, Physical Review X, 11, 021053, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.11.021053

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.11.021053 2021

  4. [4]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023a, Physical Review X, 13, 041039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041039

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.041039

  5. [5]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2023b, Physical Review X, 13, 011048, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048

    doi:10.1103/physrevx.13.011048

  6. [6]

    D., Acernese, F., et al

    Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., Acernese, F., et al. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 022001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.022001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.022001 2024

  7. [7]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y., Ashdown, M., et al. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 641, A6, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  8. [8]

    2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    Aigrain, S., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2023, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 61, 329, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-103508 2023

Show all 64 references
  1. [9]

    M., & Piotrzkowski, B

    Ashton, G., Ackley, K., Hernandez, I. M., & Piotrzkowski, B. 2021, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38, 235004, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ac33bb

    2021 doi

  2. [10]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfd2 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Ashton, G., Burns, E., Dal Canton, T., et al. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 860, 6, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aabfd2 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. ...

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    Bartos, I., Kocsis, B., Haiman, Z., & M´ arka, S. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 835, 165, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/165

    2017 doi

  4. [12]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018002, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aaecbe

    2018 doi

  5. [13]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Barlow, T., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 068003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab0c2a

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    2024, Physical Review D, 110, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    Cabrera, T., Palmese, A., Hu, L., et al. 2024, Physical Review D, 110, 123029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.123029

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Farr, W. M. 2021, ApJL, 922, L5, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2ccc

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    M., & Isi, M

    Chen, H.-Y., Haster, C.-J., Vitale, S., Farr, W. M., & Isi, M. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 513, 2152, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac989 Tracing the light 15

    2022 doi

  9. [17]

    2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    Chen, K., & Dai, Z.-G. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 961, 206, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0dfd

    2024 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Cotton, W

    Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al. 1998, The Astronomical Journal, 115, 1693, doi: 10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  11. [19]

    Crossfield, I. J. M., Ciardi, D. R., Petigura, E. A., et al. 2016, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 226, 7, doi: 10.3847/0067-0049/226/1/7 de Mink, S. E., & Mandel, I. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 460, 3545, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1219 Di...

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    J., & Stanway, E

    Eldridge, J. J., & Stanway, E. R. 2016, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 462, 3302, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw1772

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 3630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2499

    Fabj, G., & Samsing, J. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 535, 3630, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2499

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    Farr, W. M. 2020,, https://git.ligo.org/ RatesAndPopulations/lalinfsamplereweighting/

    2020

  15. [23]

    Flesch, E. W. 2023, The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 6, 10.21105/astro.2308.01505, doi: 10.21105/astro.2308.01505

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Agol, E., Ambikasaran, S., & Angus, R. 2017, The Astronomical Journal, 154, 220, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa9332

    2017 doi

  17. [25]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 498, 4591, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2629

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

    2020 doi

  18. [26]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe388

    Gayathri, V., Healy, J., Lange, J., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 908, L34, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe388

    2021 doi

  19. [27]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 749, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01398-w

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

    2021 doi

  20. [28]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 Gonz´ alez, J

    Goldstein, A., Veres, P., Burns, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f41 Gonz´ alez, J. A., Sperhake, U., Br¨ ugmann, B., Hannam, M., & Husa, S. 2007, Physical Review Letters, 98, 091101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.091101

    2017 doi

  21. [29]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 078001, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/ab006c

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    J., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., Ford, K. E. S., McKernan, B., et al. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 251102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.251102

    2020 doi

  23. [31]

    J., McKernan, B., Ford, K

    Graham, M. J., McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 942, 99, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca480

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    Griffiths, R.-R., Jiang, J., Buisson, D. J. K., et al. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 914, 144, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abfa9f

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Gu, M.-F., & Ai, Y. L. 2011, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 528, A95, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201016280

    2011 doi

  26. [34]

    R., Millman, K

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

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 90, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

    2007 doi

  28. [36]

    E., & Raftery, A

    Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. 1995, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773, doi: 10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572 Koz lowski, S., Kochanek, C. S., Udalski, A., et al. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 708, 927, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/708/2/927

    1995

  29. [37]

    2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09495

    Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., Chen, T., & Fan, Y.-Z. 2025, arXiv, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2501.09495

    2025 doi arXiv

  30. [38]

    L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C

    MacLeod, C. L., Ivezi´ c,ˇZ., Kochanek, C. S., et al. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 721, 1014, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/721/2/1014

    2010 doi

  31. [39]

    2020, Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 1–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    Mapelli, M. 2020, Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes (Singapore: Springer Singapore), 1–65, doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    M., & Moriya, T

    Marchant, P., Langer, N., Podsiadlowski, P., Tauris, T. M., & Moriya, T. J. 2016, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 588, A50, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628133

    2016 doi

  33. [41]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2018, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 131, 018003, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aae8ac

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa740

    Wysocki, D. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 494, 1203, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa740

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    McKernan, B., Ford, K. E. S., Bartos, I., et al. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 884, L50, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab4886

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al

    Morton, S. L., Rinaldi, S., Torres-Orjuela, A., et al. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 123039, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.123039

    2023 doi

  37. [45]

    J., et al

    Mukherjee, S., Ghosh, A., Graham, M. J., et al. 2020, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2009.14199

    2020 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    McLachlan, G. J. 2020, Cogent Mathematics & Statistics, 7, 1750861, doi: 10.1080/25742558.2020.1750861

    2020

  39. [47]

    G., Yuan, W., Macri, L

    Riess, A. G., Yuan, W., Macri, L. M., et al. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 934, L7, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac5c5b 16 Lei He et al

    2022 doi

  40. [48]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 517, L5, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101

    Rinaldi, S., & Del Pozzo, W. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters, 517, L5, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slac101

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F

    Rodriguez, C. L., Chatterjee, S., & Rasio, F. A. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 084029, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    2016 doi

  42. [50]

    L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al

    Rodriguez, C. L., Zevin, M., Amaro-Seoane, P., et al. 2019, Physical Review D, 100, 043027, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043027

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    J., et al

    Samsing, J., Bartos, I., D’Orazio, D. J., et al. 2022, Nature, 603, 237, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-04333-1

    2022 doi

  44. [52]

    2023, Physical Review D, 108, 083033, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083033

    Santini, A., Gerosa, D., Cotesta, R., & Berti, E. 2023, Physical Review D, 108, 083033, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.083033

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    Savchenko, V., Ferrigno, C., Kuulkers, E., et al. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 848, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa8f94

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    P., & Price, L

    Singer, L. P., & Price, L. R. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 024013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024013

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    P., Mapelli, M., P´ erigois, C., et al

    Vaccaro, M. P., Mapelli, M., P´ erigois, C., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 685, A51, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202348509

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    Vajpeyi, A., Thrane, E., Smith, R., McKernan, B., & Saavik Ford, K. E. 2022, The Astrophysical Journal, 931, 82, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac6180

    2022 doi

  49. [57]

    E., Scheel, M

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

    2019 doi

  50. [58]

    2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 101104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.101104

    Varma, V., Isi, M., & Biscoveanu, S. 2020, Physical Review Letters, 124, 101104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.101104

    2020 doi

  51. [59]

    C., & Gerosa, D

    Varma, V., Stein, L. C., & Gerosa, D. 2018, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/ZENODO.1435832

    2018 doi

  52. [60]

    2022, Physical Review Letters, 128, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191102

    Varma, V., Biscoveanu, S., Islam, T., et al. 2022, Physical Review Letters, 128, 191102, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.128.191102

    2022 doi

  53. [61]

    C., Li, Y.-R., & Du, P

    Wang, J.-M., Liu, J.-R., Ho, L. C., Li, Y.-R., & Du, P. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 916, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac0b46

    2021 doi

  54. [62]

    Woosley, S. E. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal, 836, 244, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/244

    2017 doi

  55. [63]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcbff

    Yang, S., Yan, D., Zhang, P., Dai, B., & Zhang, L. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 907, 105, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcbff

    2021 doi

  56. [64]

    2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    Yang, Y., Bartos, I., Gayathri, V., et al. 2019, Physical Review Letters, 123, 181101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.181101

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.