What You Don’t Know Can Hurt You: Use and Abuse of Astrophysical Models in Gravitational-wave Population Analyses

Abstract

One of the goals of gravitational-wave astrophysics is to infer the number and properties of the formation channels of binary black holes (BBHs); to do so, one must be able to connect various models with the data. We explore benefits and potential issues with analyses using models informed by population synthesis. We consider five possible formation channels of BBHs, as in Zevin et al. (2021b). First, we confirm with the GWTC-3 catalog what Zevin et al. (2021b) found in the GWTC-2 catalog, i.e., that the data are not consistent with the totality of observed BBHs forming in any single channel. Next, using simulated detections, we show that the uncertainties in the estimation of the branching ratios can shrink by up to a factor of ∼1.7 as the catalog size increases from 50 to 250, within the expected number of BBH detections in LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA's fourth observing run. Finally, we show that this type of analysis is prone to significant biases. By simulating universes where all sources originate from a single channel, we show that the influence of the Bayesian prior can make it challenging to conclude that one channel produces all signals. Furthermore, by simulating universes where all five channels contribute but only a subset of channels are used in the analysis, we show that biases in the branching ratios can be as large as ∼50% with 250 detections. This suggests that caution should be used when interpreting the results of analyses based on strongly modeled astrophysical subpopulations.

Spin Doctors: How to Diagnose a Hierarchical Merger Origin

“…2. Additional potential formation channels have been proposed in addition to the canonical "dynamical-versus-isolated" distinction (see, e.g., Mandel & Farmer 2022 for a review), as well as subchannels to these canonical birth environments, which muddles the ability to pin down specific birth environments (Cheng et al 2023). 3.…”

The Redshift Evolution of the Binary Black Hole Mass Distribution from Dense Star Clusters

“…Limited by statistical uncertainties (due to the small number of detections) and systematical uncertainties (due to imperfect simulations), however, the contributions from different channels are still uncertain, particularly as a function of redshift (e.g., Zevin et al 2021;Mapelli et al 2022;Arca Sedda et al 2023;Cheng et al 2023;Raikman et al 2024). A greater number of detections will impose more stringent constraints on the redshift evolution of properties such as the merger rate (e.g., Fishbach et al 2018), the mass distribution (e.g., , and the spin distribution (e.g., Biscoveanu et al 2022).…”

Consistent Eccentricities for Gravitational-wave Astronomy: Resolving Discrepancies between Astrophysical Simulations and Waveform Models

“…Despite ( )  100 binary black hole (BBH) signals being detected by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) network (Aso et al 2013;Acernese et al 2015;LIGO Collaboration et al 2015;Abbott et al 2018;Akutsu et al 2021) to date (Abbott et al 2023a), the distinct pathways that led to the formation and merger of these BBH signals remains a mystery. Measurements of masses, spins, and redshift evolution have helped to identify broad constraints on the underlying physical processes that lead to BBH formation (Abbott et al 2023b), although the measurement uncertainties paired with the inherent uncertainties embedded within formation-channel modeling make it difficult to use these measurables to robustly pin down3 the formation pathway for a single BBH or the relative fraction of BBHs resulting from one formation channel compared to another (see, e.g., Zevin et al 2021b;Cheng et al 2023).…”