AG-2026.03-425·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: astro-ph.GAgr-qc
On the Astrophysical Origin of Binary Black Hole Subpopulations: A Tale of Three Channels?
Authors
- Anarya Ray
- Shirsha Mukherjee
- Michael Zevin
- Vicky Kalogera
Abstract
There is increasing evidence for multiple binary black hole~(BBH) subpopulations in the cumulative gravitational wave catalog by the LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA Collaboration. The astrophysical interpretation of this complex underlying population is subject to theoretical uncertainties in treatments of binary stellar evolution, core collapse, and host environments. In this \textit{Letter}, using parametrized mixture models, we show that the BBH detection sample comprises three astrophysical subpopulations that are likely dominated by specific formation channels. In particular, we show that the $10M_{\odot}$ peak and the $35M_{\odot}$ feature in the BBH mass spectrum correspond to distinct mass-ratio, spin alignment, spin precession, and redshift evolution properties. We show that mass-based transitions reported in the distribution of BBH parameters naturally emerge from our inferred distributions without explicit modeling. Our results are consistent with the current observed population arising from specific relative abundances of isolated binary evolution, dynamical formation in globular clusters, and higher-generation BBH mergers. Under this interpretation, we constrain the relative underlying fraction of these channels to be $79.0^{+11.5}_{-10.9}\%$, $14.5^{+11.6}_{-8.0}\%$, and, $2.5^{+5.5}_{-1.8}\%$, respectively, and find these relative fractions to be evolving over cosmic time with more than $1σ$ confidence. Our interpretation relies on simple theoretical predictions that are mostly robust against uncertainties in BBH formation, with more definite conclusions expected in the near future.
Submitted
18 March 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2603.17987
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.