Paper detail

Divergence in mass ratio distributions between low-mass and high-mass coalescing binary black holes

Coalescing binary black hole (BBH) systems are likely formed via several channels, and it is challenging to understand their formation / evolutionary processes. Some features in the mass function of the primary components ($m_1$), such as the distinct Gaussian-like peak located at $\sim 34M_\odot$, have been previously found. In this work, we investigate the possible dependence of the mass ratio ($q=m_2/m_1$) distribution on the primary mass. We find a Bayesian odds ratio of 18.1 in favor of divergence in the mass ratio distributions between the low- and high-mass ranges over an invariable mass ratio distribution. The BBHs with $m_1\gtrsim29M_{\odot}$ have a stronger preference to be symmetric compared to those with $m_1\lesssim29M_{\odot}$ at a 97.6\% credible level. Additionally, we find mild evidence that the BBHs with $m_1$ located in the Gaussian-like peak have a mass ratio distribution different from that of other BBHs. Our findings may be in favor of some formation channels, such as the chemically homogeneous evolution and the dynamical assembly in globular clusters/nuclear star clusters, which are more likely to provide symmetric BBHs in the high-mass range.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.