Inferring M BH – M bulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background

Read full text
Authors: Cayenne Matt, Kayhan Gültekin, Luke Zoltan Kelley, Laura Blecha, Joseph Simon, Gabriella Agazie, Akash Anumarlapudi, Anne M. Archibald, Zaven Arzoumanian, J. G. Baier, Paul T. Baker, Bence Bécsy
+88 more Adam Brazier, Paul R. Brook, Sarah Burke-Spolaor, Rand Burnette, Robin Case, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde, Maria Charisi, Shami Chatterjee, Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Paul B. Demorest, Heling Deng, Lankeswar Dey, Timothy Dolch, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Emiko C. Gardiner, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Kyle A. Gersbach, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, C. J. Harris, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, David M. Kaplan, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, Bjorn Larsen, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung-Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, P. M. Meyers, Chiara M. F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B. P. Perera, Polina Petrov, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Jessie C. Runnoe, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Sophia V. Sosa Fiscella, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Jacob Taylor, Stephen R. Taylor, Mercedes S. Thompson, Jacob E. Turner, Michele Vallisneri
Cited by: 4
References: 110

Abstract

Abstract We test the impact of an evolving supermassive black hole mass scaling relation ( M BH – M bulge ) on the predictions for the gravitational-wave background (GWB). The observed GWB amplitude is 2–3 times higher than predicted by astrophysically informed models, which suggests the need to revise the assumptions in those models. We compare a semi-analytic model’s ability to reproduce the observed GWB spectrum with a static versus evolving-amplitude M BH – M bulge relation. We additionally consider the influence of the choice of galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) on the modeled GWB spectra. Our models are able to reproduce the GWB amplitude with either a large number density of massive galaxies or a positively evolving M BH – M bulge amplitude (i.e., the M BH / M bulge ratio was higher in the past). If we assume that the M BH – M bulge amplitude does not evolve, our models require a GSMF that implies an undetected population of massive galaxies ( M ⋆ ≥ 10 11 M ⊙ at z > 1). When the M BH – M bulge amplitude is allowed to evolve, we can model the GWB spectrum with all fiducial values and an M BH – M bulge amplitude that evolves as α ( z ) = α 0 (1 + z ) 1.04±0.5 .

Fields of Study & Subjects

Astrophysical Phenomena and Observations Pulsars and Gravitational Waves Research Galaxies: Formation Evolution Phenomena

Publication details

Journal / source
The Astrophysical Journal
Publisher
American Astronomical Society
Volume
997
Issue
2
Pages
188–188
Publication date
22 January 2026
Language
EN