McFACTS III: Compact Binary Mergers from Active Galactic Nucleus Disks over an Entire Synthetic Universe
Le résumé fourni par la source
Abstract The active galactic nucleus (AGN) channel for the formation of binary black hole (BBH) mergers has been previously studied as a potential formation channel for the merging compact binaries observed by the LIGO–Virgo–KAGRA (LVK) scientific collaboration. The first two papers in this series explored the McFACTS code for the evolution of black hole orbits in AGN accretion disks for individual galaxy models and described the characteristics of predicted BBH populations in realizations of those models (such as the correlation between mass ratio and aligned spin). In this work, we explore the impact of the properties of AGN host galaxies and assume an AGN lifetime and cosmological model for the density of AGN in a universe like our own. By sampling from an inferred population of AGN, we marginalize over galaxy mass to predict a population of BBH mergers observable by modern ground-based gravitational-wave observatories. We find that for reasonable assumptions, AGN disk environments may account for massive BBH mergers such as GW190521 and GW190929_012149. We find that the majority of observable BBH mergers from our simulation are expected to originate in galaxies with a supermassive black hole between 107 M ⊙ and 109.4 M ⊙. We also find that if hierarchical mergers from AGN disks account for a substantial part of the LVK population, our current models require an AGN lifetime of 0.5–2.5 Myr.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé, mais le titre doit être comparé manuellement.
- Titre Crossref
- <tt>McFACTS</tt> III: Compact Binary Mergers from Active Galactic Nucleus Disks over an Entire Synthetic Universe
- Date Crossref
- 05/08/2025
- Éditeur
- American Astronomical Society
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.