Papers › One to many: comparing single gravitational-wave events to astrophysical populations
One to many: comparing single gravitational-wave events to astrophysical populations
Matthew Mould, Davide Gerosa, Marco Dall'Amico, Michela Mapelli
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Gravitational-wave observations have revealed sources whose unusual properties challenge our understanding of compact-binary formation. Inferring the formation processes that are best able to reproduce such events may therefore yield key astrophysical insights. A common approach is to count the fraction of synthetic events from a simulated population that are consistent with some real event. Though appealing owing to its simplicity, this approach is flawed because it neglects the full posterior information, depends on an ad-hoc region that defines consistency, and fails for high signal-to-noise detections. We point out that a statistically consistent solution is to compute the posterior odds between two simulated populations, which crucially is a relative measure, and show how to include the effect of observational biases by conditioning on source detectability. Applying the approach to several gravitational-wave events and simulated populations, we assess the degree to which we can conclude model preference not just between distinct formation pathways but also between subpopulations within a given pathway.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections