Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 19 cited by

Binary Black Hole Phase Space Discovers the Signature of Pair Instability Supernovae Mass Gap

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a phase-space analysis of the GWTC-4 catalog reveals a sharp truncation of first-generation black hole masses at about 45.5 solar masses, matching the predicted lower edge of the pair-instability supernova mass gap.

desk verdict The reported 45.5 Msun PISN cutoff cannot be reproduced from the paper's own mass model; the framework is interesting but the discovery claim is internally inconsistent. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09123 v1 pith:WL5SAEAN submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.CO

Samsuzzaman Afroz , Suvodip Mukherjee This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.CO
keywords gravitationalwavesbinaryblackholespair-instabilitysupernovaPISNmassgapholespectrumGWTC-4cataloghierarchicalmergersphasespace
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

The paper aims to establish that the observed gravitational-wave population carries a clear, data-driven signature of the pair-instability supernova (PISN) mass gap: first-generation black holes formed by stellar collapse are sharply truncated at about 45.5 solar masses, while heavier black holes come from repeated mergers. Applying the Binary Compact Object phase-space framework to the events in the GWTC-4 catalog, the authors separate 1G and 2G populations by mass, spin, and luminosity distance and reconstruct their underlying mass distributions. They find the 1G cutoff at 45.7 solar masses for the primary component and 45.25 for the secondary, matching theoretical predictions that stellar collapse cannot make black holes in roughly the 40-50 to 120 solar mass range. If correct, this means gravitational-wave catalogs can independently measure a fundamental boundary of stellar evolution, and the phase-space representation can disentangle overlapping formation channels that one-dimensional mass fits blur.

What carries the argument

Binary Compact Object (BCO) phase space: the paper's central object is a three-dimensional space whose axes are gravitational-wave observables—either (chirp mass, effective spin, luminosity distance) or (component masses, individual spins, luminosity distance). Formation channels are represented by theoretical trajectories in this space, event posteriors are accumulated into a data density, and a detector selection function keeps only detectable regions. Channel weights come from the overlap between data density and each trajectory. The mass-cutoff claim is read off from weighted samples of the 1G mass distribution, specifically the mass at which the cumulative probability reaches 99.7%.

What would settle it

Re-run the phase-space reconstruction with the high-mass tail slope free (for example, 0.05-0.5) or with a flexible spline mass model; if the inferred 99.7% cutoff shifts by more than about 5 solar masses, the claimed PISN truncation is not robust. A confidently first-generation, low-spin black hole above roughly 50 solar masses would also contradict it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors extend the BCO phase-space framework—a geometric embedding of observed event posteriors in mass-spin-distance space—to the full set of compact-binary mergers in GWTC-4, excluding the neutron-star merger GW170817. Each event is assigned probabilistic weights for two formation channels: first-generation (1G) black holes from isolated stellar evolution and second-generation (2G) products of hierarchical mergers. Reconstructing the underlying mass distributions from these weights, the 1G population shows a sharp decline at a cutoff defined by the 99.7% cumulative probability: about 45.7 solar masses for the primary component and 45.25 solar masses for the secondary. The 2G population

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the assumed shape of the high-mass tail of the first-generation black hole mass distribution; if that assumed tail is wrong, the cutoff at 45.5 solar masses could move or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The lower edge of the pair-instability supernova mass gap would be measured directly from gravitational-wave data at roughly 45.5 solar masses, rather than assumed from stellar models.
  • Black holes above the gap with higher spins would be identified as second-generation merger remnants rather than stellar-collapse products.
  • The framework assigns each detected event a formation-channel probability, giving an event-by-event classification that can be updated as the catalog grows.
  • Including the redshift axis allows the relative contributions of 1G and 2G channels to be tracked across cosmic time.
  • Future detectors with more events can extend the same analysis to additional channels and to the upper edge of the PISN gap.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The value of the cutoff is inherited partly from the assumed 1G mass model: with the high-mass tail slope fixed at alpha=0.15, the 99.7% point of that model sits near 45 solar masses, so the 'data-driven' cutoff should be tested by treating alpha as a free parameter.
  • A flexible or non-parametric mass reconstruction would show whether the sharp truncation is required by the events themselves or imposed by the chosen distribution shape.
  • A single well-measured, low-spin black hole above 50 solar masses that is confidently first-generation would directly challenge the claimed boundary.
  • The same phase-space weighting could be applied to the upper edge of the PISN gap once enough high-mass, high-spin events accumulate, potentially probing nuclear reaction rates.
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 extends the authors' BCO phase-space framework to the GWTC-4 catalog (excluding GW170817) and models two formation channels: 1G black holes from isolated stellar evolution and 2G black holes from hierarchical mergers. The 1G and 2G mass/spin models are specified by Eq. (4) and Eq. (5), with parameters given in Sec. 3. The analysis computes overlap weights between events and the two channels (Eq. 7) and then constructs weighted phase-space samples. The central claim is that this procedure 'discovers' the PISN mass gap: the 1G population is sharply truncated at ~45.5 M_sun (45.7 M_sun for the primary, 45.25 M_sun for the secondary), which is interpreted as the lower edge of the pair-instability mass gap.

Significance. If supported, a data-driven measurement of the PISN lower mass gap from GW data would be astrophysically important and would strengthen the case for mapping GW observations to stellar evolution. The phase-space framework is a useful exploratory tool: it makes channel assignment explicit, incorporates the detector selection function, and can be applied event-by-event. These are genuine strengths. However, the headline result is not reproducible from the model described in the paper, and the paper's own equations imply that the quoted cutoff is essentially a property of the fixed 1G mass prior rather than a measurement from GWTC-4. The claimed novelty is also weakened by the paper's own references to earlier tentative evidence for the gap [57,78,80].

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eq. (4); Sec. 5, Fig. 10] The reported 45.5 M_sun cutoff is not the 99.7% quantile of the 1G mass model defined in Eq. (4). For m>=M_median, the density is exp[-(m-M_median)^2/(2 sigma^2)] * exp[-alpha (m-M_median)]. With M_median=8 M_sun, sigma=1.5 M_sun, alpha=0.15, the 99.7th percentile is about 12 M_sun; the probability above 40 M_sun is effectively zero. The quoted values 45.7/45.25 resemble the quantile of the exponential factor alone, m_med + ln(1/0.003)/alpha, with the Gaussian factor omitted. Thus the pipeline as described cannot produce Figure 10's cutoff; either an undisclosed model choice or an error in the cutoff definition is present.
  2. [Sec. 5, Eq. (7)] Even setting the arithmetic aside, defining the cutoff as the 99.7% quantile of the assumed 1G P(m) is circular. The overlap weights in Eq. (7) assign channel probabilities, but they do not update the high-mass tail of the 1G generative model or constrain alpha. A smooth, gap-free distribution of this form always has some 99.7% quantile, so reporting that quantile as evidence for a physical truncation is not a data-driven measurement. A valid test would need to fit alpha and a possible truncation/cutoff to the observed event posteriors and compare models with and without the gap.
  3. [Secs. 4-6] The robustness claim in Sec. 6 is unsupported. Only M_median and the spin mean are varied in Sec. 4; alpha, sigma, the delay-time index, and the minimum delays are fixed. The high-mass tail of Eq. (4) is controlled by alpha, so even a modest change in alpha shifts the 99.7% quantile substantially, and a shallower tail could erase the claimed boundary. No credible intervals, posterior on alpha, or model-comparison statistic are given. The paper itself concedes at the end of Sec. 5 that the inference is 'astrophysical model dependent and not robust,' which undercuts the 'compelling evidence' language in Sec. 6.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. 5] The abstract claims 'discover for the first time,' but Sec. 5 states that the value is 'in agreement with the analysis from GWTC-3 and GWTC-4, which has shown a tentative evidence [57,78,80].' This inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [Fig. 10] The figure shows no uncertainty bands or credible intervals, and the derivation of the 45.7/45.25 vertical lines is unclear. Please state explicitly whether these come from the generative model's CDF or from the weighted samples, and add errors.
  3. [Sec. 4] The statement that allowing the mass mean up to 100 M_sun 'would not significantly affect' the results is confusing: a median of 100 M_sun would peak at 100 M_sun. If the intended statement concerns the number of observed systems at that mass, the text should say so.
  4. [Eq. (7) and Appendix A] The relationship between the practical weight in Eq. (7) and the formal overlap in Eq. (A13) should be made explicit. As written, Eq. (7) does not show how selection effects or redshift enter, even though Appendix A emphasizes both.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The claimed ~45.5 M_sun 1G cutoff is defined as the 99.7% quantile of the paper's own hand-set mass model (Eq 4), so the 'PISN mass gap discovery' reduces to a property of the input prior; with the published parameters the number is not even reproducible.

  1. self definitional [Sec. 3 (mass-model parameters) and Sec. 5 (cutoff definition/claim)]
    "For the 1G population we adopt parameters Mmedian = 8M⊙, σ=1.5M⊙, and α=0.15 ... we quantitatively identify as the mass where the cumulative probability density P(m) reaches 99.7%. ... This cutoff occurs at approximately 45.7M⊙ for the primary component and 45.25M⊙ for the secondary."

    By construction the cutoff is the 99.7% quantile of P(m) in Eq. 4. P(m) has no fitted cutoff; its high-mass tail is fixed by input α=0.15 and σ=1.5. Sec. 4 varies only Mmedian and spin mean, so every 1G model shares the same exponential tail. Reading the 'PISN mass gap' off this quantile reports a property of the assumed generative distribution, not a data-driven measurement. The event weights in Eq. 7 can only select among fixed-tail models; they cannot create mass support beyond the prior. With the stated numbers that quantile is ~12 M⊙, so the quoted 45.7/45.25 M⊙ is not even reproducible from Eq. 4—the central claim is either prior-determined or internally inconsistent.

full rationale

The paper's central, abstract-level claim is a data-driven discovery of a 1G BH mass cutoff at ~45.5 M⊙ (Secs. 5-6). However, the analysis defines the cutoff operationally as the 99.7% cumulative point of the mass model P(m) (Sec. 5), and P(m) is fixed in Sec. 3 as Eq. 4 with Mmedian=8 M⊙, σ=1.5 M⊙, α=0.15. The exponential tail parameter α is not fit or marginalized; Sec. 4 varies only mass mean and spin mean. Thus, in the described pipeline, the cutoff is a quantile of the prior mass function, not an independent observable. This is the self-definitional/fitted-input pattern: the parameter controlling the tail is an input, and the 'measured' gap boundary is its quantile. The paper itself concedes the astrophysical connection is 'model dependent and not robust.' The finding is aggravated by an internal inconsistency: the stated Eq. 4 parameters give a 99.7% quantile near 12 M⊙, not 45.5 M⊙, so the headline number cannot be reproduced from the described equations. I do not score 10 because the framework application to GWTC-4 and the event weighting are independent computational content, and the circularity is concentrated in the PISN-cutoff step rather than the entire method. Self-citations [24,25] for the phase-space framework are not load-bearing here: the framework itself is defined in the paper. Score 8 reflects that the central claimed discovery reduces to (or fails to follow from) the assumed mass model.

Assumptions & free parameters 15 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced. The analysis relies on a hand-set Gaussian-plus-exponential mass model and fixed spin/delay parameters; the most consequential is the 1G exponential tail slope alpha=0.15, which places the 99.7% cumulative mass near 45 Msun and therefore predetermines the claimed PISN cutoff.

free parameters (15)
  • 1G mass distribution median Mmedian = 8 Msun (grid 5-12 Msun)
    Peak of the Gaussian core in Eq (4); chosen a priori and used as the grid center for the 1G channel.
  • 1G Gaussian width sigma = 1.5 Msun
    Width of the low-mass Gaussian in Eq (4); fixed by hand in Sec 3.
  • 1G exponential tail slope alpha = 0.15
    Sets the decay of the high-mass tail in Eq (4). This fixed parameter controls the 99.7% cumulative point near 45 Msun reported as the PISN cutoff in Sec 5.
  • 2G mass distribution median Mmedian = 16 Msun (grid 15-35 Msun)
    Peak of the Gaussian core assumed for hierarchical remnants; chosen in Sec 3.
  • 2G Gaussian width sigma = 2.0 Msun
    Width of the 2G mass distribution; chosen.
  • 2G exponential tail slope alpha = 0.06
    Decay of the 2G high-mass tail; chosen. Controls the modeled support above the PISN gap.
  • 1G spin mean mu_chi = 0.2
    Center of the Gaussian spin distribution for 1G black holes; chosen, not fit.
  • 2G spin mean mu_chi = 0.7
    Center of the Gaussian spin distribution for 2G remnants; taken from merger-dynamics expectations.
  • 2G spin width sigma_chi = 0.1
    Width of the 2G spin Gaussian; chosen.
  • 1G minimum delay time = 500 Myr
    Assumed minimum merger delay for 1G binaries in Sec 3.
  • 2G minimum delay time = 1 Gyr
    Assumed minimum delay for 2G mergers in Sec 3.
  • Delay-time power-law index d = not stated
    Exponent in Eq (1); no numerical value is given, so the rate calculations are not fully specified.
  • Local merger rate R0 = 20 Gpc^-3 yr^-1
    Fiducial rate in Eq (2) chosen within the 90% interval cited from ref 58.
  • Observation time T_obs = 32 months
    Used to compute NGW in Eq (6); chosen to match the first part of the fourth observing run.
  • Cutoff threshold = 99.7% cumulative probability (3 sigma)
    Adopted in Sec 5 as the definition of the mass cutoff; an arbitrary statistical choice. A different threshold gives a different quoted cutoff.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Madau-Dickinson star formation history
    Used in Eq (2) to convert star formation to merger rate; standard but an external astrophysical model.
  • domain assumption Power-law delay-time distribution pt(td)
    Eq (1) assumes delay times follow a truncated power law; the index d is not specified.
  • domain assumption Only 1G isolated binaries and 2G hierarchical mergers contribute
    Other channels such as AGN disks, primordial black holes, and dynamical clusters are excluded in Sec 4; if they contribute, the phase-space overlaps and channel probabilities change.
  • domain assumption 2G remnants retain about 95% of progenitor mass and have spin near 0.7
    Used to set the 2G mass and spin priors; based on numerical relativity expectations, but an assumption for the population.
  • ad hoc to paper Mass and spin distributions are Gaussian or Gaussian-plus-exponential
    Eqs (4)-(5) impose functional forms that are not derived or tested; the central cutoff is a property of this choice.
  • domain assumption Detector selection function via matched-filter SNR with unspecified PSD and threshold
    Appendix A defines S(X), but the exact noise PSD, waveform, and rho_th are not given; selection strongly shapes the phase-space density.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Binary Black Hole Phase Space Discovers the Signature of Pair Instability Supernovae Mass Gap." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WL5SAEAN

@misc{pith2026250909123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Binary Black Hole Phase Space Discovers the Signature of Pair Instability Supernovae Mass Gap},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WL5SAEAN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09123}
}
abstract

The rapidly expanding catalog of gravitational-wave detections provides a powerful probe of the formation history of compact binaries across cosmic time. In this work, we extend the Binary Compact Object (BCO) phase-space framework to the full set of events in the GWTC-4 catalog to map the observed binary formation scenarios in a data-driven way. Applying this framework, we identify distinct regions of phase-space associated with different channels and discover for the first time a unique mass-cutoff scale in a data-driven way. The mapping of these on different formation channels reveals a population of first-generation (1G) black holes sharply truncated at approximately 45.5 $M_\odot$, consistent with the theoretically predicted pair-instability supernova (PISN) mass gap. These findings demonstrate the capability of the BCO phase-space to disentangle overlapping formation pathways, establish robust connections between gravitational-wave observations and binary evolution, and highlight the potential of upcoming observing runs to reveal rare populations and exotic origins.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 19 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Four-dimensional Model-agnostic Probe into the Astrophysical Origins of Binary Black Hole Subpopulations

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    A GPU-accelerated binned Gaussian process yields the first model-agnostic 4D BBH population in (m1, q, χeff, χp), revealing four mass-based subpopulations and new spin-mass-ratio correlations.

  2. Reversible-jump MCMC reveals binary black hole subpopulations with distinct redshift evolution

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    Reversible-jump MCMC analysis of LIGO binary black hole mergers identifies three subpopulations with distinct properties and independent redshift evolution.

  3. Secondary-Mass Features improve Spectral-Siren $H_0$ Constraints

    astro-ph.CO 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    A new model emphasizing secondary mass features and pairing transitions improves spectral siren H0 constraints by ~30% using 142 GW events from GWTC-4.0.

  4. High-mass binary black hole mergers from detailed binary evolution models

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Fully-conservative BH accretion is disfavored for high-mass BBH mergers; Eddington/GRRMHD accretion with kicks can match part of the LVK high-mass population but still needs another channel.

  5. Assessing the waveform systematics from parameter estimation to population inference with eccentricity

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Eccentric waveform-model differences, small per event, accumulate across the GWTC-4 catalog and alter inferred redshift evolution and effective-spin population distributions.

  6. Uncovering Hierarchical Sub-Population of Binary Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A flexible six-component fit to 259 LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA black-hole mergers finds a roughly geometric sequence of mass peaks but no aligned-spin signal except in the lowest-mass component.

  7. Distinct spin properties and astrophysical origin of low mass binary black holes in gravitational wave data

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Hierarchical Bayesian analysis of GWTC-5.0 data identifies a mass transition at 15.2 solar masses separating distinct effective-spin distributions, pointing to different formation channels for low-mass binary black holes.

  8. A Strongly Parametrized Mass Ratio Model for the Stable Mass Transfer Channel: a Case Study of the $10 \, \rm{M}_{\odot}$ Peak

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A parametrized analytical model for BBH mass ratios from the stable mass transfer channel is derived and applied to the 10 solar-mass peak in GWTC-4, favoring little mass-ratio reversal.

  9. A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GWTC-4.0 data shows low-spin black holes up to 70 solar masses, moving the low-spin cutoff to 68.5 solar masses and favoring a high pair-instability mass gap.

  10. A new group of low-spin $50-70M_\odot$ Black Holes and the high pair-instability mass cutoff

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    GWTC-4.0 reveals low-spin black holes up to ~68.5 Msun, implying a higher pair-instability mass cutoff and a lower 12C(alpha,gamma)16O rate.

  11. The Chirp-Mass Ladder: A New Rung Emerges

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 conditional novelty 5.5 of 10

    GWTC-5 chirp-mass peaks form a ~1.9-spaced ladder with a new ~19 M⊙ rung matching predicted 2G+3G mergers, unifying prior 1G+2G spin-transition groups under one hierarchical scenario.

  12. The Chirp-Mass Ladder: A New Rung Emerges

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The chirp-mass distribution of GW-detected binary black holes shows a ladder of peaks doubling in mass, with a new intermediate peak at 19 solar masses confirming a prior prediction from the hierarchical merger model.

  13. BBH-Genesis: Disentangling Binary Black Hole Formation Channels with GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    BBH-Genesis applied to GWTC-4 finds strongest support for a two-channel model of binary black hole populations with possible mild evidence for an AGN-related third channel.

  14. Compactness Peaks and Subpopulations: Probing Stellar Physics and Formation Channels of Merging Binary Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A stripped-star-motivated five-component model for binary black hole populations is preferred over the LVK baseline by a log10 Bayes factor of 7.69 and attributes the observed mass features to isolated, dynamical, and...

  15. Is the Binary Black Hole Population Inference from Gravitational-Wave Data Robust?

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    Waveform modeling uncertainties can distort features in the binary black hole mass distribution inferred from gravitational-wave data more than statistical uncertainties.

  16. Population of Binary Black Holes Inferred from One Hundred and Fifty Gravitational Wave Signals

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A population analysis of 153 LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA black-hole mergers reports chirp-mass peaks near 8, 14, and 27 solar masses, spaced by ~1.9, which the author interprets as possible hierarchical mergers.

  17. Considering lensing effect on gravitational wave signals from black holes in mass gap

    astro-ph.HE 2025-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    Gravitational lensing could in principle explain apparent mass-gap black-hole mergers, but the required magnifications are μ≈12–39 for GW190521 and μ≈320–444 for GW231123 depending on assumptions—and the paper's abstr...

  18. The first decade of gravitational-wave measurements of black hole spins

    gr-qc 2026-06 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    A decade of gravitational-wave data shows most merging stellar-mass black holes have small spins, with subdominant fast-spinning, misaligned, and hierarchical-merger populations.

  19. The first decade of gravitational-wave measurements of black hole spins

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted

    A review summarizing formation-channel predictions, waveform effects, and population-level constraints on stellar-mass black hole spins from the first decade of gravitational-wave observations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 16 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Nature Rev

    Bailes, M.,et al.: Gravitational-wave physics and astronomy in the 2020s and 2030s. Nature Rev. Phys.3(5), 344–366 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42254-021-00303-8

    2021

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint (2021) arXiv:2104.02445 [gr-qc] 21

    Arimoto, M., et al.: Gravitational Wave Physics and Astronomy in the nascent era. arXiv preprint (2021) arXiv:2104.02445 [gr-qc] 21

    arXiv 2021

  3. [3]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    Mapelli, M.: Formation Channels of Single and Binary Stellar-Mass Black Holes, (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 16-1

    doi:10.1007/978-981-15-4702-7 2021

  4. [4]

    mnras (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stad1630 arXiv:2211.11774 [astro-ph.HE]

    Iorio, G.,et al.: Compact object mergers: exploring uncertainties from stellar and binary evolution with SEVN. mnras (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/ stad1630 arXiv:2211.11774 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  5. [5]

    Barrett, J.W., Gaebel, S.M., Neijssel, C.J., Vigna-G´ omez, A., Stevenson, S., Berry, C.P.L., Farr, W.M., Mandel, I.: Accuracy of inference on the physics of binary evolution from gravitational-wave observations. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.477(4), 4685–4695 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty908 arXiv:1711.06287 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Astrophys

    Dominik, M., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., Holz, D., Berti, E., Bulik, T., Mandel, I., O’Shaughnessy, R.: Double Compact Objects I: The Significance of the Common Envelope on Merger Rates. Astrophys. J.759, 52 (2012) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/759/1/52 arXiv:1202.4901 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2012

  7. [7]

    Astrophys

    Bailyn, C.D., Jain, R.K., Coppi, P., Orosz, J.A.: The Mass distribution of stel- lar black holes. Astrophys. J.499, 367 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1086/305614 arXiv:astro-ph/9708032

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Abbott, B.P.,et al.: Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run. Phys. Rev. X6(4), 041015 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevX.6.041015 arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.X 8, 039903 (2018)]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Acernese, F.,et al.: Advanced Virgo: a second-generation interferometric gravita- tional wave detector. Class. Quant. Grav.32(2), 024001 (2015) https://doi.org/ 10.1088/0264-9381/32/2/024001 arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    PTEP2021(5), 05–101 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    Akutsu, T.,et al.: Overview of KAGRA: Detector design and construction history. PTEP2021(5), 05–101 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1093/ptep/ptaa125 arXiv:2005.05574 [physics.ins-det]

    2021

  3. [11]

    Abbott, B.P.,et al.: GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Com- pact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs. Phys. Rev. X9(3), 031040 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevX.9.031040 arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Abbott, B.P.,et al.: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett.116(6), 061102 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.061102 arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Abbott, R.,et al.: Population of Merging Compact Binaries Inferred Using Gravitational Waves through GWTC-3. Phys. Rev. X13(1), 011048 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.011048 arXiv:2111.03634 [astro-ph.HE] 22

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bouffanais, Y., Mapelli, M., Santoliquido, F., Giacobbo, N., Di Carlo, U.N., Rastello, S., Artale, M.C., Iorio, G.: New insights on binary black hole forma- tion channels after GWTC-2: young star clusters versus isolated binaries. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.507(4), 5224–5235 (...

    2021 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Franciolini, G., Baibhav, V., De Luca, V., Ng, K.K.Y., Wong, K.W.K., Berti, E., Pani, P., Riotto, A., Vitale, S.: Searching for a subpopulation of primordial black holes in LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave data. Phys. Rev. D105(8), 083526 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.1...

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Astrophys

    Cheng, A.Q., Zevin, M., Vitale, S.: What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: Use and Abuse of Astrophysical Models in Gravitational-wave Population Analy- ses. Astrophys. J.955(2), 127 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aced98 arXiv:2307.03129 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Antonelli, A., Kritos, K., Ng, K.K.Y., Cotesta, R., Berti, E.: Classifying the generation and formation channels of individual LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observa- tions from dynamically formed binaries. Phys. Rev. D108(8), 084044 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.108.084044 arXiv:...

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    ApJ 950(2), 181 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acc863 arXiv:2206.04062 [astro-ph.HE]

    Wong, K.W.K., Breivik, K., Farr, W.M., Luger, R.: Backward Population Syn- thesis: Mapping the Evolutionary History of Gravitational-wave Progenitors. ApJ 950(2), 181 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/acc863 arXiv:2206.04062 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Astrophys

    Tiwari, V., Fairhurst, S.: The Emergence of Structure in the Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution. Astrophys. J. Lett.913(2), 19 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/abfbe7 arXiv:2011.04502 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Astrophys

    Tiwari, V.: Exploring Features in the Binary Black Hole Population. Astrophys. J. 928(2), 155 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ac589a arXiv:2111.13991 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Tiwari, V.: Examining the Gap in the Chirp Mass Distribution of Binary Black Holes (2025) arXiv:2507.15697 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  14. [22]

    Berry, C.P., Carney, M., Zevin, M., Thrane, E., Kalogera, V.: Black Hole Genealogy: Identifying Hierarchical Mergers with Gravitational Waves

    Kimball, C., Talbot, C., L. Berry, C.P., Carney, M., Zevin, M., Thrane, E., Kalogera, V.: Black Hole Genealogy: Identifying Hierarchical Mergers with Gravitational Waves. Astrophys. J.900(2), 177 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/aba518 arXiv:2005.00023 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Astrophys

    Kimball, C.,et al.: Evidence for Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in the Second LIGO–Virgo Gravitational Wave Catalog. Astrophys. J. Lett.915(2), 35 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0aef arXiv:2011.05332 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Afroz, S., Mukherjee, S.: Phase space of binary black holes from gravitational 23 wave observations to unveil its formation history. Phys. Rev. D112(2), 023531 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/7zc2-g9vq arXiv:2411.07304 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Afroz, S., Mukherjee, S.: The Phase Space of Low-Mass Binary Compact Objects from LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Catalog: Hints on the Chances of Different Formation Scenarios (2025) arXiv:2505.22739 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Astrophys

    Miller, M.C., Lauburg, V.M.: Mergers of Stellar-Mass Black Holes in Nuclear Star Clusters. Astrophys. J.692, 917–923 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/ 692/1/917 arXiv:0804.2783 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society402(1), 371–380 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966

    Banerjee, S., Baumgardt, H., Kroupa, P.: Stellar-mass black holes in star clusters: Implications for gravitational-wave radiation. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro- nomical Society402(1), 371–380 (2010) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966. 2009.16103.x

    2010

  20. [28]

    Physical Review D89(6), 064007 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064007

    Samsing, J.: Eccentric black hole mergers formed in globular clusters. Physical Review D89(6), 064007 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.064007

    2014 doi

  21. [29]

    Astrophys

    Fragione, G., Rasio, F.A.: Demographics of Hierarchical Black Hole Mergers in Dense Star Clusters. Astrophys. J.951(2), 129 (2023) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/acd9c9 arXiv:2302.11613 [astro-ph.GA]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Physical Review D93(8), 084029 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    Rodriguez, C.L., Chatterjee, S., Rasio, F.A.: Binary black hole mergers from globular clusters: Implications for advanced ligo. Physical Review D93(8), 084029 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.084029

    2016 doi

  23. [31]

    The Astrophysical Journal910(2), 14 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0ea7

    Zevin, M., Berry, C.P.L., Farr, B., Stevenson, S., Mandel, I.: Hierarchical mergers of binary black holes in the ligo-virgo era. The Astrophysical Journal910(2), 14 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac0ea7

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    Bird, S., Cholis, I., Mu˜ noz, J.B., Ali-Ha ¨ ımoud, Y., Kamionkowski, M., Kovetz, E.D., Raccanelli, A., Riess, A.G.: Did LIGO detect dark matter? Phys. Rev. Lett.116(20), 201301 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.201301 arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Clesse, S., Garc ´ ıa-Bellido, J.: The clustering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark Matter: measuring their mass distribution with Advanced LIGO. Phys. Dark Univ.15, 142–147 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2016.10.002 arXiv:1603.05234 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Sasaki, M., Suyama, T., Tanaka, T., Yokoyama, S.: Primordial Black Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914. Phys. Rev. Lett.117(6), 061101 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.061101 arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 059901 (2018)]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Popular Astronomy22, 275–294 (1914)

    Russell, H.N.: Relations Between the Spectra and Other Characteristics of the 24 Stars. Popular Astronomy22, 275–294 (1914)

    1914

  28. [36]

    ApJ574(2), 740–753 (2002) https://doi

    Tremaine, S., Gebhardt, K., Bender, R., Bower, G., Dressler, A., Faber, S.M., Filippenko, A.V., Green, R., Grillmair, C., Ho, L.C., Kormendy, J., Lauer, T.R., Magorrian, J., Pinkney, J., Richstone, D.: The Slope of the Black Hole Mass versus Velocity Dispersion Correlation. Ap...

    2002 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Orsaria, M.G., Malfatti, G., Mariani, M., Ranea-Sandoval, I.F., Garc ´ ıa, F., Spinella, W.M., Contrera, G.A., Lugones, G., Weber, F.: Phase transitions in neu- tron stars and their links to gravitational waves. J. Phys. G46(7), 073002 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6471/...

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    GWTC-4.0: Updating the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog with Observa- tions from the First Part of the Fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Observing Run (2025) arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Abbott, B.P.,et al.: GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett.119(16), 161101 (2017) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Farrell, E.J., Groh, J.H., Hirschi, R., Murphy, L., Kaiser, E., Ekstr¨ om, S., Georgy, C., Meynet, G.: Is GW190521 the merger of black holes from the first stellar generations? Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.502(1), 40–44 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mnrasl/slaa196 arXiv:2009.0...

    2021 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Belczynski, K., Hirschi, R., Kaiser, E.A., Liu, J., Casares, J., Lu, Y., O’Shaughnessy, R., Heger, A., Justham, S., Soria, R.: The Formation of a 70 Msun Black Hole at High Metallicity (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab6d77 arXiv:1911.12357 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Spera, M., Mapelli, M.: Very massive stars, pair-instability supernovae and intermediate-mass black holes with the SEVN code. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.470(4), 4739–4749 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stx1576 arXiv:1706.06109 [astro-ph.SR]

    2017 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Astrophys

    Farmer, R., Renzo, M., Mink, S., Fishbach, M., Justham, S.: Constraints from gravitational wave detections of binary black hole mergers on the 12C (α, γ)16O rate. Astrophys. J. Lett.902(2), 36 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ abbadd arXiv:2006.06678 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Hendriks, D.D., Son, L.A.C., Renzo, M., Izzard, R.G., Farmer, R.: Pulsational pair-instability supernovae in gravitational-wave and electromagnetic transients. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(3), 4130–4147 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/ mnras/stad2857 arXiv:2309.09339 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Farmer, R., Renzo, M., Mink, S.E., Marchant, P., Justham, S.: Mind the gap: 25 The location of the lower edge of the pair instability supernovae black hole mass gap (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab518b arXiv:1910.12874 [astro- ph.SR]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Leung, S.-C., Nomoto, K., Blinnikov, S.: Pulsational Pair-instability Super- novae. I. Pre-collapse Evolution and Pulsational Mass Ejection. Astrophys. J.887, 72 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab4fe5 arXiv:1901.11136 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Vink, J.S., Sabhahit, G.N., Higgins, E.R.: The maximum black hole mass at solar metallicity. Astron. Astrophys.688, 10 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/ 0004-6361/202450655 arXiv:2407.07204 [astro-ph.SR]

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Zhang, F.-H., Han, Z.-W., Li, L.-F., Hurley, J.R.: Inclusion of binaries in evolu- tionary population synthesis. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.357, 1088–1103 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.08739.x arXiv:astro-ph/0412008

    2005

  41. [49]

    Mandel, I., Farmer, A.: Merging stellar-mass binary black holes. Phys. Rept.955, 1–24 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2022.01.003 arXiv:1806.05820 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Marchant, P., Pappas, K.M.W., Gallegos-Garcia, M., Berry, C.P.L., Taam, R.E., Kalogera, V., Podsiadlowski, P.: The role of mass transfer and common envelope evolution in the formation of merging binary black holes. Astron. Astrophys. 650, 107 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/000...

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Bavera, S.S.,et al.: The impact of mass-transfer physics on the observable prop- erties of field binary black hole populations. Astron. Astrophys.647, 153 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202039804 arXiv:2010.16333 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bavera, S.S., Fragos, T., Qin, Y., Zapartas, E., Neijssel, C.J., Mandel, I., Batta, A., Gaebel, S.M., Kimball, C., Stevenson, S.: The origin of spin in binary black holes: Predicting the distributions of the main observables of Advanced LIGO. Astron. Astrophys.635, 97 (2020) h...

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Madau, P., Dickinson, M.: Cosmic Star Formation History. Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52, 415–486 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-astro-081811-125615 arXiv:1403.0007 [astro-ph.CO]

    2014 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Astrophys

    Dominik, M., Berti, E., O’Shaughnessy, R., Mandel, I., Belczynski, K., Fryer, C., Holz, D.E., Bulik, T., Pannarale, F.: Double Compact Objects III: Gravitational Wave Detection Rates. Astrophys. J.806(2), 263 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1088/ 0004-637X/806/2/263 arXiv:1405.7016 ...

    2015 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Karathanasis, C., Revenu, B., Mukherjee, S., Stachurski, F.: GWSim: Python 26 package for creating mock GW samples for different astrophysical populations and cosmological models of binary black holes. Astron. Astrophys.677, 124 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/2022452...

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Mukherjee, S.: The redshift dependence of black hole mass distribution: is it reliable for standard sirens cosmology? Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.515(4), 5495– 5505 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2152 arXiv:2112.10256 [astro- ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Karathanasis, C., Mukherjee, S., Mastrogiovanni, S.: Binary black holes pop- ulation and cosmology in new lights: signature of PISN mass and formation channel in GWTC-3. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.523(3), 4539–4555 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad1373 arXiv:2204.13495...

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    GWTC-4.0: Population Properties of Merging Compact Binaries (2025) arXiv:2508.18083 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Pretorius, F.: Evolution of binary black hole spacetimes. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101 arXiv:gr- qc/0507014

    2005

  52. [60]

    Ossokine, S., Dietrich, T., Foley, E., Katebi, R., Lovelace, G.: Assessing the Ener- getics of Spinning Binary Black Hole Systems. Phys. Rev. D98(10), 104057 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.104057 arXiv:1712.06533 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Scheel, M.A., Boyle, M., Chu, T., Kidder, L.E., Matthews, K.D., Pfeiffer, H.P.: High-accuracy waveforms for binary black hole inspiral, merger, and ringdown. Phys. Rev. D79, 024003 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.024003 arXiv:0810.1767 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Campanelli, M., Lousto, C.O., Zlochower, Y.: Spinning-black-hole binaries: The orbital hang up. Phys. Rev. D74, 041501 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.74.041501 arXiv:gr-qc/0604012

    2006 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D.E., Farr, B.: Are LIGO’s Black Holes Made From Smaller Black Holes? Astrophys. J. Lett.840(2), 24 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3847/ 2041-8213/aa7045 arXiv:1703.06869 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Stegmann, J., Antonini, F., Schneider, F.R.N., Tiwari, V., Chattopadhyay, D.: Binary black hole mergers from merged stars in the Galactic field. Phys. Rev. D106(2), 023014 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.023014 arXiv:2203.16544 [astro-ph.GA]

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Chattopadhyay, D., Stegmann, J., Antonini, F., Barber, J., Romero-Shaw, I.M.: Double black hole mergers in nuclear star clusters: eccentricities, spins, masses, and the growth of massive seeds. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.526(4), 4908–4928 27 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnra...

    2023 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Antonini, F., Romero-Shaw, I.M., Callister, T.: Star Cluster Population of High Mass Black Hole Mergers in Gravitational Wave Data. Phys. Rev. Lett.134(1), 011401 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.134.011401 arXiv:2406.19044 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  59. [67]

    mnras (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2936 arXiv:2210.05040 [astro-ph.HE]

    Stevenson, S., Clarke, T.: Constraints on the contributions to the observed binary black hole population from individual evolutionary pathways in iso- lated binary evolution. mnras (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2936 arXiv:2210.05040 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mapelli, M.: Binary Black Hole Mergers: Formation and Populations. Front. Astron. Space Sci.7, 38 (2020) https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2020.00038 arXiv:2105.12455 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020

  61. [69]

    Antonini, F., Gieles, M.: Merger rate of black hole binaries from globular clusters: theoretical error bars and comparison to gravitational wave data from GWTC-2. Phys. Rev. D102, 123016 (2020) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123016 arXiv:2009.01861 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Mould, M., Gerosa, D., Dall’Amico, M., Mapelli, M.: One to many: comparing single gravitational-wave events to astrophysical populations. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.525(3), 3986–3997 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2502 arXiv:2305.18539 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kimball, C., Berry, C.P.L., Kalogera, V.: What GW170729’s exceptional mass and spin tells us about its family tree. Res. Notes AAS4(1), 2 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.3847/2515-5172/ab66be arXiv:1903.07813 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Astrophys

    Andrews, J.J., Cronin, J., Kalogera, V., Berry, C.P.L., Zezas, A.: Targeted Model- ing of GW150914’s Binary Black Hole Source with Dartboard. Astrophys. J. Lett. 914(2), 32 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ac00a6 arXiv:2011.13918 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Astrophys

    Woosley, S.E., Heger, A.: The Pair-Instability Mass Gap for Black Holes. Astrophys. J. Lett.912(2), 31 (2021) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/abf2c4 arXiv:2103.07933 [astro-ph.SR]

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Marchant, P., Moriya, T.: The impact of stellar rotation on the black hole mass- gap from pair-instability supernovae. Astron. Astrophys.640, 18 (2020) https: //doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/202038902 arXiv:2007.06220 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Costa, G., Ballone, A., Mapelli, M., Bressan, A.: Formation of black holes in the pair-instability mass gap: Evolution of a post-collision star. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.516(1), 1072–1080 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stac2222 arXiv:2204.03492 [astro-ph.SR] 28

    2022 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Fishbach, M., Holz, D.E.: Where Are LIGO’s Big Black Holes? Astrophys. J. Lett. 851(2), 25 (2017) https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/aa9bf6 arXiv:1709.08584 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Astrophys

    Talbot, C., Thrane, E.: Measuring the binary black hole mass spectrum with an astrophysically motivated parameterization. Astrophys. J.856(2), 173 (2018) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aab34c arXiv:1801.02699 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Antonini, F., Callister, T., Dosopoulou, F., Romero-Shaw, I., Chattopadhyay, D.: Inferring the pair-instability mass gap from gravitational wave data (2025) arXiv:2506.09154 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Li, Y.-J., Wang, Y.-Z., Tang, S.-P., Fan, Y.-Z.: Resolving the Stellar-Collapse and Hierarchical-Merger Origins of the Coalescing Black Holes. Phys. Rev. Lett.133(5), 051401 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.051401 arXiv:2303.02973 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Tong, H., et al.: Evidence of the pair instability gap in the distribution of black hole masses (2025) arXiv:2509.04151 [astro-ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Computing in science & engineering13(2), 22–30 (2011)

    Van Der Walt, S., Colbert, S.C., Varoquaux, G.: The numpy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation. Computing in science & engineering13(2), 22–30 (2011)

    2011

  74. [82]

    [Online; accessed ¡today¿] (2001–)

    Jones, E., Oliphant, T., Peterson, P., et al.: SciPy: Open source scientific tools for Python. [Online; accessed ¡today¿] (2001–). http://www.scipy.org/

    2001

  75. [83]

    Computing in science & engineering9(03), 90–95 (2007)

    Hunter, J.D.: Matplotlib: A 2d graphics environment. Computing in science & engineering9(03), 90–95 (2007)

    2007

  76. [84]

    Astronomy & Astrophysics 558, 33 (2013) 29

    Robitaille, T.P., Tollerud, E.J., Greenfield, P., Droettboom, M., Bray, E., Ald- croft, T., Davis, M., Ginsburg, A., Price-Whelan, A.M., Kerzendorf, W.E.,et al.: Astropy: A community python package for astronomy. Astronomy & Astrophysics 558, 33 (2013) 29

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.