Paper detail

Poking Holes: Looking for Gaps in LIGO/Virgo's Black Hole Population

Stellar evolution models predict the existence of a gap in the black hole mass spectrum from $\sim55 M_\odot - 120 M_\odot$ due to pair-instability supernovae (PISNe). We investigate the possible existence of such an "upper" mass gap in the second gravitational wave transient catalog (GWTC-2) by hierarchically modeling the astrophysical distribution of black hole masses. We extend the Truncated and Powerlaw+Peak mass distribution families to allow for an explicit gap in the mass distribution, and apply the extended models to GWTC-2. We find that with the Truncated model there is mild evidence favoring an upper mass gap with log Bayes Factor $\ln \mathcal{B} = 2.79$, inferring the lower and upper bounds at $56.12_{-4.38}^{+7.54} M_\odot$, and $103.74_{-6.32}^{+17.01} M_\odot$ respectively. When using the Powerlaw+Peak model, we find no preference for the gap. When imposing tighter priors on the gap bounds centered on the expected PISN gap bounds, the log Bayes factors in favor of a gap mildly increase. These results are however contingent on the parameter inference for the most massive binary, GW190521, for which follow up analyses showed the source may be an intermediate mass ratio merger that has component masses straddling the gap. Using the GW190521 posterior samples from the analysis in Nitz & Capano (2021), we find an increase in Bayes factors in favor of the gap. However, the overall conclusions are unchanged: There is no preference for a gap when using the Powerlaw+Peak model. This work paves the way for constraining the physics of pair-instability and pulsational pair-instability supernovae and high-mass black hole formation.

preprint2022arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.