Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

What's in a binary black hole's mass parameter?

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2304.03498 v2 pith:AYQ3AAM4 submitted 2023-04-07 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

What's in a binary black hole's mass parameter?

classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords massodotchirpprimaryblackpeakbinarydistribution
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The black hole masses measured from gravitational wave observations appear to cluster around specific mass values. Consequently, the primary~(and chirp) mass distribution of binary black holes inferred using these measurements shows four emerging peaks. These peaks are approximately located at a primary~(chirp) mass value of 10$M_\odot$~(8$M_\odot$), 20$M_\odot$~(14$M_\odot$), 35$M_\odot$~(28$M_\odot$) and 63$M_\odot$~(49$M_\odot$). Although the presence of the first and third peaks has been attributed to binary black hole formation in star clusters or due to the evolution of stellar binaries in isolation, the second peak has received relatively less attention because it lacks significance in the primary mass distribution. In this article, we report that confidence in the second peak depends on the mass parameter we choose to model the population on. Unlike primary mass, this peak is significant when modelled on the chirp mass. We discuss the disparity as a consequence of mass asymmetry in the observations that cluster at the second peak. Finally, we report this asymmetry as part of a potential trend in the mass ratio distribution manifested as a function of the chirp mass, but not as a function of primary mass, when we include the observation GW190814 in our modelling. The chirp mass is not a parameter of astrophysical relevance. Features present in the chirp mass, but not in the primary mass, are relatively difficult to explain and expected to garner significant interest.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

  1. Uncovering Hierarchical Sub-Population of Binary Black Holes

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    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.

  2. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for core-collapse IMBHs in GWTC-4; heavy BHs from hierarchical mergers, with low-spin mass distribution truncating at ~65 solar masses and PIMG upper edge estimated at 150 solar masses.

  3. How do the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA's Heavy Black Holes Form? No evidence for core-collapse Intermediate-mass black holes in GWTC-4

    astro-ph.HE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    No evidence for core-collapse formed low-spin IMBHs in GWTC-4, with 90% upper limit on merger rate of 0.077 Gpc^{-3} yr^{-1}, low-spin BH mass truncation at 65 solar masses consistent with pair-instability gap lower e...

  4. Evidence for additional structure in the effective spin distribution hints at multiple formation pathways in GWTC-5.0

    astro-ph.HE 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    GWTC-5.0 analysis finds evidence for structure beyond a non-skewed Gaussian bulk in χ_eff, with suggestive mass-dependent excess of positive over negative spins outside the bulk at 13:1 odds in one mass bin.