Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 62 references

LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Including the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus halo changes chirp-mass and distance distributions of LISA-resolved double white dwarfs, but leaves the gravitational-wave foreground unchanged.

desk verdict Clean first GSE-aware LISA DWD forecast: resolved chirp-mass and distance distributions shift, foreground does not; single-Z bursts are the usual soft spot but do not erase the qualitative result. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.09980 v1 pith:TAKHAQYL submitted 2026-07-10 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Ann-Marsha Alexis , Katelyn Breivik This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords LISAdoublewhitedwarfsGalactichaloGaia-Sausage-Enceladusgravitational-waveforegroundchirpmassstellarpopulationsynthesis
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

LISA will resolve tens of thousands of close double white dwarfs across the Milky Way and measure their distances and chirp masses. Because those binaries are the end products of ordinary stellar populations, their observed properties should encode the Galaxy’s star-formation history and structure. The paper asks what changes when an older, single-metallicity halo model is replaced by an empirically motivated model that includes the metal-richer, triaxial Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) component uncovered by Gaia. Using population-synthesis binaries scaled to each Galactic component and evolved with gravitational-wave emission, the authors show that the overall strength of the unresolved LISA foreground stays essentially the same, yet the resolved sources display clear shifts: fewer high-chirp-mass systems in the halo, more intermediate-mass carbon-oxygen pairs in the thick disk, and a tail of helium-rich binaries extending to ~40 kpc that traces the GSE’s triaxial shape. The result matters because it converts future LISA catalogs into a direct, all-sky probe of the Galaxy’s accreted halo.

What carries the argument

An empirical Galactic model that splits the halo into a triaxial GSE component ([Fe/H] = –1.2, age 10 Gyr) and a spherical in-situ halo, paired with metallicity-dependent formation efficiencies drawn from a binary population-synthesis grid and evolved to the present day with gravitational-wave orbital decay.

What would settle it

A catalog of LISA-resolved double white dwarfs that shows either (a) a substantial population of high-chirp-mass systems beyond 30 kpc or (b) a distance distribution that remains spherical and cut off near 20–25 kpc would contradict the predicted GSE imprint.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

When the classical metal-poor spherical halo is replaced by an empirical model that includes a younger, higher-metallicity, triaxial GSE component (and an updated thick-disk metallicity), the power spectrum of the unresolved double-white-dwarf foreground remains essentially unchanged, while the chirp-mass and distance distributions of the individually resolved sources change significantly: high-chirp-mass systems become rarer in the halo, carbon-oxygen pairs near 0.6–0.8 solar masses become more common in the thick disk, and resolvable helium-rich binaries reach ~40 kpc along the GSE’s prolate axes.

Load-bearing premise

Every Galactic component is treated as a single fixed metallicity and a single short star-formation burst, so that all binary properties are taken from the nearest discrete metallicity point of an existing synthesis grid.

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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper forecasts the LISA-detectable Galactic double white dwarf (DWD) population under two star-formation histories: a classical fiducial model (single metal-poor halo, lower-metallicity thick disk) versus an empirical model that splits the halo into a younger, metal-richer triaxial Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus (GSE) component plus an in-situ halo and raises the thick-disk metallicity. Using the public COSMIC DWD library of Thiele et al. (2023) scaled by component mass, ages and positions drawn from the analytic density profiles of Table 1, and LEGWORK for GW evolution and SNR, the authors report that the unresolved DWD foreground (PSD and its running-median height) is essentially unchanged, while the resolved (SNR>7) population exhibits clear differences in chirp-mass distributions (excess of 0.6–0.8 M⊙ COCO systems in the empirical thick disk; truncation of high-Mc COCO/ONeX systems in the empirical halo) and an extension of He-hosting sources to ~40 kpc that traces the GSE.

Significance. If the reported differences survive more realistic metallicity spreads and continuous SFHs, LISA’s resolved DWD catalog could furnish an independent, dust-free probe of the GSE’s spatial and chemical imprint—complementing Gaia. The work is timely, methods are fully transparent and reproducible (public COSMIC grid + LEGWORK), and the side-by-side comparison cleanly isolates the effect of the updated halo/thick-disk assumptions. The foreground invariance is a useful null result for LISA data-analysis pipelines. Strengths include the explicit formation-efficiency scaling (Eqs. 1–2), the tabulated number counts (Table 2), and the direct visualization of chirp-mass, frequency and distance shifts (Figs. 3–5).

major comments (3)
  1. [§2.1, Table 1, Fig. 1] §2.1 and Table 1 assign every Galactic component a single fixed metallicity and a single burst (or constant) SFH, then map each to the nearest of the 15 discrete COSMIC grid points of Thiele et al. (2023). The “significant differences” in resolved chirp-mass and distance distributions (abstract, §3.4, Figs. 3–5) are produced by the discontinuous jumps in formation efficiency (Fig. 1) and common-envelope outcomes between [Fe/H] = -2.3 (fiducial halo), -1.2 (GSE) and -0.54 (in-situ/high-α). Real halo and thick-disk populations have metallicity dispersions of several tenths of a dex and more extended SFHs; those spreads would sample a continuum of close-binary fractions and CE efficiencies and could dilute or erase the reported excess of 0.6–0.8 M⊙ COCO systems and the high-Mc truncation. A short robustness test (or at least a quantitative discussion) that draws metallicities from realistic
  2. [Table 2] Table 2, Fiducial Halo HeHe row: N_detached is listed as 5.79×10^6 while N_total = 4.42×10^6 and N_merged = 3.84×10^6; the detached count must be ~5.8×10^5. The same factor-of-ten error propagates into the component total. Because Table 2 underpins every subsequent statement about population sizes, the numbers must be corrected and the text re-checked for consistency.
  3. [§3.4.1] §3.4.1 states that “the HeHe population contains nearly double the number of DWDs due to the increased metallicity in the empirical model.” Table 2 and Fig. 1 show the opposite: higher metallicity lowers the HeHe formation efficiency, and the empirical thick-disk resolved HeHe count falls from 4437 to 2347. The sentence misstates the result and should be rewritten to match the tabulated numbers and the efficiency trend.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Table 1] Table 1 header and caption contain several typographical slips (“agees”, “T able 1”, inconsistent density-reference citations for the thin disk between the two models). Clean these before production.
  2. [Fig. 2, §3.3] Figure 2 caption and surrounding text claim the irreducible foregrounds are “indistinguishable,” yet the running-median curves are plotted only for visual inspection. A quantitative residual (e.g., fractional difference in the 1–10 mHz band) would strengthen the claim.
  3. [§2.4, §4] The analytic SNR approximation (Eqs. 5–10) is known to overestimate the number of resolvable sources relative to iterative foreground-subtraction methods (noted in §4). A brief quantitative comparison of the two approaches for the same population would help readers place the O(10^4) counts in context.
  4. [References] Several arXiv preprints cited as 2026 (Kim et al., Kremer et al., Coughlin et al.) are still future-dated; update the bibliography once the final versions appear.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: independent numerical experiment comparing two externally-sourced SFH models on a shared binary-evolution library.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (GSE inclusion changes resolved chirp-mass and distance distributions while leaving the LISA DWD foreground unchanged) is the output of a side-by-side Monte-Carlo pipeline, not a quantity forced by construction or by a fitted parameter of the present work. Fiducial and empirical Galactic components are assigned fixed masses, ages, metallicities and spatial densities taken from external literature (McMillan 2011, Robin et al. 2003, Ruiter et al. 2009, Naidu et al. 2020, Han et al. 2022; Table 1). Formation efficiencies and binary properties are read from the nearest of the 15 publicly released COSMIC metallicity grids of Thiele et al. (2023); those grids are an input library, not a fit performed here. Positions, ages, GW evolution (Peters 1964 via LEGWORK) and SNR>7 selection are then applied identically to both models. Differences in the resolved populations (Figs. 3–5) and the near-identity of the PSDs (Fig. 2) therefore emerge from the simulation, not from algebraic identity with the inputs. The single minor self-citation (Thiele et al. 2023, overlapping co-author) supplies the binary library but does not underwrite uniqueness, forbid alternatives, or redefine the target observables; it is ordinary reuse of prior code/data and does not raise the score above 1. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-as-prediction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem appear.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a population-synthesis forecast. Its load-bearing inputs are literature-derived component masses, ages, metallicities and density profiles plus the pre-computed COSMIC DWD grids; no new free parameters are fitted to LISA data. The only ad-hoc choices are the SNR threshold and the 1000 R⊙ separation cut used to select potential LISA sources.

free parameters (4)
  • GSE halo mass fraction = 0.42
    42 % of total halo mass assigned to GSE following Han et al. (2022); remaining 58 % to in-situ halo. Directly scales the number of GSE DWDs.
  • SNR detection threshold = 7
    Sources with SNR > 7 are declared resolved; standard but arbitrary cut that sets the size of the resolved catalog.
  • Maximum initial separation for DWD selection = 1000 R_sun
    Only systems with a < 1000 R⊙ are retained from the COSMIC grids; controls which progenitors can enter the LISA band.
  • Component metallicities and ages = see Table 1
    Single [Fe/H] and single burst age per component taken from Robin/Naidu/Han; formation efficiency is read from the nearest COSMIC grid point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Binary evolution and close-binary fraction follow the fiducial COSMIC model of Thiele et al. (2023) with metallicity-dependent Moe et al. (2019) binary fraction.
    All formation efficiencies and DWD property distributions are taken from that public grid; no re-simulation of binary physics is performed.
  • domain assumption Each Galactic component forms with a single metallicity and a simple SFH (constant or 1 Gyr burst).
    Stated in §2.1 and Table 1; allows direct mapping onto the discrete COSMIC metallicity grid.
  • domain assumption LISA noise curve and SNR formulae of Robson et al. (2019) / Flanagan & Hughes (1998) as implemented in LEGWORK are adequate for population forecasts.
    Used throughout §2.4; analytic stationary/evolving SNR approximations replace full time-domain analysis.
  • domain assumption Spatial density profiles (triaxial GSE, spherical halo, exponential disks, McMillan bulge) correctly describe the present-day stellar distribution.
    Positions of DWDs are drawn from these analytic profiles (Table 1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TAKHAQYL

@misc{pith2026260709980,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LISA's view of the Galactic Halo: forecasts for the Galactic double white dwarf population using Gaia data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TAKHAQYL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.09980}
}
read the original abstract

The population of close double white dwarfs (DWDs) in the Milky Way will make up the largest population of sources resolved by LISA, with a subset of the population having three-dimensional position and chirp mass measurements obtained from LISA observations. Because white dwarfs are the bulk of the Milky Way's stellar remnant population, the positions and masses of close DWDs resolved by LISA are defined by the stellar population properties that host them. Recent Gaia data has unveiled a triaxial accreted component of the Galactic stellar halo: the Gaia-Sausage-Enceladus, which contains stars that are more metal-rich than the extremely metal-poor population of stars residing in the stellar halo beyond 30 kpc. In this work, we assess the size and characteristics of the population of close DWDs using an empirically motivated Galactic model which incorporates the GSE and compare to the classical Galactic model that contains only a single very metal-poor halo population. To do this, we simulate a realistic present-day Galactic DWD population and determine its gravitational wave signal in LISA using LEGWORK. We find that incorporating the metal-rich population from the GSE imprints significant differences in the chirp mass and distance distributions of resolved DWDs, but that the strength and height of the gravitational wave foreground remains unchanged.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.09980 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The formation efficiency from the fiducial model of Thiele et al. (2023) for each DWD type: HeHe (brown), HeCO (pink), COCO (grey), and ONeX (olive). Each dot and vertical dashed line corresponds to a metallicity assigned to a Galactic component in our simulations. The components in order of increasing metallicity are the fiducial halo, the GSE halo, the fiducial thick disk, the high-α thick disk/in￾situ halo, and t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the PSD as a function of GW fre￾quency for the fiducial (top) and empirical (bottom) Galaxy model. The alternate Galaxy model is plotted in grey for comparison in each panel while the colored lines show the PSD. In each panel, the irreducible fore￾ground of both signals is approximated with a running median with 10000 frequency bins and is plotted in the lighter blue and purple colors corresponding to the fidu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of LISA observables of the resolved DWD LISA population for the fiducial and empirical thick disk or high-α thick disk. Each color represents a different DWD type (HeHe, HeCO, COCO, ONeX). The brown, bright pink, grey and olive colors correspond to DWD types HeHe, HeCO, COCO and ONeX. The dashed black line represents all the DWD types in the component. LISA will resolve more COCO DWDs within the ran… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The frequency, chirp mass, and distance distribution of the LISA-resolved DWD population for the fiducial and empirical halo. Each color depicts a different DWD type: HeHe (brown), HeCO (pink), COCO (grey), ONeX (olive). The dashed line shows the distributions for all …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The top panel shows the heliocentric distance of the DWDs with SNR > 7. The black lines corresponds to all the other components. The bottom panel shows the Galactocentric positions of the resolved sources in the fiducial halo in blue, the GSE halo in purple and the in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T

    Amaro-Seoane, P., Andrews, J., Arca Sedda, M., et al. 2023, Living Reviews in Relativity, 26, 2, doi: 10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 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. M., Sip˝ ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-38...

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00041-y 2023

  2. [2]

    2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    Behnel, S., Bradshaw, R., Citro, C., et al. 2011, Computing in Science Engineering, 13, 31, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2010.118

    doi:10.1109/mcse.2010.118 2011

  3. [3]

    Deason, A. J. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 611, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty982

    doi:10.1093/mnras/sty982 2018

  4. [4]

    L., Fattahi, A., et al

    Belokurov, V., Sanders, J. L., Fattahi, A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 494, 3880, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa876

    doi:10.1093/mnras/staa876 2020

  5. [5]

    2006, ApJ, 645, 589, doi: 10.1086/504024

    Benacquista, M., & Holley-Bockelmann, K. 2006, ApJ, 645, 589, doi: 10.1086/504024

    work page doi:10.1086/504024 2006

  6. [6]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc585

    Biscoveanu, S., Kremer, K., & Thrane, E. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 949, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acc585

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acc585 2023

  7. [7]

    2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 12

    Breivik, K., Kremer, K., Bueno, M., et al. 2018, ApJL, 854, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 12

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaaa23 2018

  8. [8]

    Breivik, K., Mingarelli, C. M. F., & Larson, S. L. 2020a, Constraining Galactic Structure with the LISA White Dwarf Foreground. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02200

    arXiv 1912

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    Breivik, K., Coughlin, S., Zevin, M., et al. 2020, ApJ, 898, 71, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9d85

    2020 doi

  2. [10]

    2025, Astropy, v7.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15473616

    Collaboration, A. 2025, Astropy, v7.1.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15473616

    2025 doi

  3. [11]

    2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    Collette, A. 2013, Python and HDF5 (O’Reilly)

    2013

  4. [12]

    A., et al

    Collette, A., Kluyver, T., Caswell, T. A., et al. 2023, h5py/h5py: 3.8.0, 3.8.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.7560547

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    J., & Larson, S

    Cornish, N. J., & Larson, S. L. 2003, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 20, S163–S170, doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/20/10/319

    2003 doi

  6. [14]

    2026, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: v4.0.0, v4.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20030671 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M

    Coughlin, S., Breivik, K., Zevin, M., et al. 2026, COSMIC-PopSynth/COSMIC: v4.0.0, v4.0.0, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.20030671 Di Matteo, P., Haywood, M., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2019, A&A, 632, A4, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834929

    2026 doi

  7. [15]

    2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    Casagrande, L. 2021, MNRAS, 508, 1489, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab2614

    2021 doi

  8. [16]

    E., & Hughes, S

    Flanagan, E. E., & Hughes, S. A. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 4535, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4535 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201833051

    1998 doi

  9. [17]

    J., Brook, C

    Gallart, C., Bernard, E. J., Brook, C. B., et al. 2019, Nature Astronomy, 3, 932, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0829-5

    2019 doi

  10. [18]

    J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B

    Han, J. J., Conroy, C., Johnson, B. D., et al. 2022, The Astronomical Journal, 164, 249

    2022

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, L1

    Hayden, M., Recio-Blanco, A., De Laverny, P., Mikolaitis, S., & Worley, C. 2017, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 608, L1

    2017

  13. [21]

    D., et al

    Haywood, M., Di Matteo, P., Lehnert, M. D., et al. 2018, ApJ, 863, 113, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aad235

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    H., et al

    Helmi, A., Babusiaux, C., Koppelman, H. H., et al. 2018, Nature, 563, 85, doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0625-x

    2018 doi

  15. [23]

    L., & Webbink, R

    Hils, D., Bender, P. L., & Webbink, R. F. 1990, ApJ, 360, 75, doi: 10.1086/169098

    1990 doi

  16. [24]

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

    2007 doi

  17. [25]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3868

    Iorio, G., & Belokurov, V. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 482, 3868

    2019

  18. [26]

    K., Lee, Y

    Kim, Y. K., Lee, Y. S., & Beers, T. C. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2604.13482, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2604.13482

    2026 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed

    Kluyver, T., Ragan-Kelley, B., P´ erez, F., et al. 2016, in Positioning and Power in Academic Publishing: Players, Agents and Agendas, ed. F. Loizides & B. Schmidt, IOS Press, 87–90

    2016

  20. [28]

    2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    Koppelman, H., Helmi, A., & Veljanoski, J. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 860, L11, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aac882

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    M., & Barausse, E

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., & Barausse, E. 2019, MNRAS, 483, 5518, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty3440

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    M., Groot, P

    Korol, V., Rossi, E. M., Groot, P. J., et al. 2017, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 470, 1894–1910, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1285

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Kremer, K., Breivik, K., & Ye, C. S. 2026, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2605.05308, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2605.05308

    2026 doi arXiv

  24. [32]

    2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.191103

    Kremer, K., Chatterjee, S., Breivik, K., et al. 2018, Physical Review Letters, 120, doi: 10.1103/physrevlett.120.191103

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    B., et al

    Lamberts, A., Blunt, S., Littenberg, T. B., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 490, 5888–5903, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz2834

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1546

    Liu, J., Han, Z., Zhang, F., & Zhang, Y. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 719, 1546

    2010

  27. [35]

    T., Schiavon, R

    Mackereth, J. T., Schiavon, R. P., Pfeffer, J., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 3426, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2955

    2019 doi

  28. [36]

    N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., et al

    Mazzola, C. N., Badenes, C., Moe, M., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 499, 1607, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2859

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    McMillan, P. J. 2011, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 414, 2446

    2011

  30. [38]

    M., & Badenes, C

    Moe, M., Kratter, K. M., & Badenes, C. 2019, ApJ, 875, 61, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d88

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    C., Evans, N

    Myeong, G. C., Evans, N. W., Belokurov, V., Amorisco, N. C., & Koposov, S. E. 2018, MNRAS, 475, 1537, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx3262

    2018 doi

  32. [40]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2020, The Astrophysical Journal, 901, 48, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abaef4

    2020 doi

  33. [41]

    P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al

    Naidu, R. P., Conroy, C., Bonaca, A., et al. 2021, ApJ, 923, 92, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac2d2d

    2021 doi

  34. [42]

    Yungelson, L. R. 2001, A&A, 368, 939, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20010049

    2001 doi

  35. [43]

    Nissanke, S., Vallisneri, M., Nelemans, G., & Prince, T. A. 2012, ApJ, 758, 131, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/758/2/131 pandas development team, T. 2025, pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas, v2.3.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17229934

    2012 doi

  36. [44]

    Perez, F., & Granger, B. E. 2007, Computing in Science and Engineering, 9, 21, doi: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.53

    2007 doi

  37. [45]

    Peters, P. C. 1964, Physical Review, 136, 1224, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.136.B1224 13

    1964 doi

  38. [46]

    M., & Foreman-Mackey, D

    Price-Whelan, A. M., & Foreman-Mackey, D. 2017, The Journal of Open Source Software, 2, doi: 10.21105/joss.00357

    2017 doi

  39. [47]

    C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S

    Robin, A. C., Reyl´ e, C., Derri` ere, S., & Picaud, S. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 409, 523

    2003

  40. [48]

    J., & Liu, C

    Robson, T., Cornish, N. J., & Liu, C. 2019, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36, 105011, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/ab1101

    2019 doi

  41. [49]

    2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 383

    Holley-Bockelmann, K. 2009, The Astrophysical Journal, 693, 383

    2009

  42. [50]

    J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S

    Ruiter, A. J., Belczynski, K., Benacquista, M., Larson, S. L., & Williams, G. 2010, The Astrophysical Journal, 717, 1006–1021, doi: 10.1088/0004-637x/717/2/1006

    2010 doi

  43. [51]

    2024, Predicting gravitational wave signals from BPASS White Dwarf Binary and Black Hole Binary populations of a Milky Way-like galaxy model for LISA

    Tang, P., Eldridge, J., Meyer, R., et al. 2024, Predicting gravitational wave signals from BPASS White Dwarf Binary and Black Hole Binary populations of a Milky Way-like galaxy model for LISA. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20484

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    E., & Luger, R

    Thiele, S., Breivik, K., Sanderson, R. E., & Luger, R. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal, 945, 162 Van Rossum, G., & Drake, F. L. 2009, Python 3 Reference Manual (Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace) van Zeist, W. G. J., van Roestel, J., Nelemans, G., et al. 2025, A&A, 699, A172, doi...

    2023 doi

  45. [53]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    Vincenzo, F., Spitoni, E., Calura, F., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, L47, doi: 10.1093/mnrasl/slz070

    2019 doi

  46. [54]

    2025, TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK: LEGWORK v0.5.2, v0.5.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15579534

    Wagg, T., & Breivik, K. 2025, TeamLEGWORK/LEGWORK: LEGWORK v0.5.2, v0.5.2, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.15579534

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    2022a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3998, doi: 10.21105/joss.03998

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S. 2022a, The Journal of Open Source Software, 7, 3998, doi: 10.21105/joss.03998

    doi

  48. [56]

    Wagg, T., Breivik, K., & de Mink, S. E. 2022b, ApJS, 260, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ac5c52

    doi

  49. [57]

    2025, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.4, v1.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    Wagg, T., Broekgaarden, F., Van-Lane, P., Wu, K., & G¨ ultekin, K. 2025, TomWagg/software-citation-station: v1.4, v1.4, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17654855

    2025 doi

  50. [58]

    Wagg, T., & Broekgaarden, F. S. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2406.04405. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04405

    2024

  51. [59]

    Waskom, M. L. 2021, Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 3021, doi: 10.21105/joss.03021 Wes McKinney. 2010, in Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference, ed. St´ efan van der Walt & Jarrod Millman, 56–61, doi: 10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a

    2021 doi

  52. [60]

    Yu, S., & Jeffery, C. S. 2010, A&A, 521, A85, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201014827

    2010 doi

  53. [61]

    Yu, S., & Jeffery, C. S. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 1602–1608, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sts445

    2012 doi

  54. [62]

    2023, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 669, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    Zhanwen, H. 2023, Astronomy &; Astrophysics, 669, A82, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202243893

    2023 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.