Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Comparing astrophysical models to gravitational-wave data in the observable space

Alexandre Toubiana1,2,*, Davide Gerosa1,2, Matthew Mould3,4,5, Stefano Rinaldi6, Manuel Arca Sedda7,8, Tristan Bruel1,2, Riccardo Buscicchio1,2,9, Jonathan Gair10, Lavinia Paiella7,8 et al.

Filippo Santoliquido7,8, Rodrigo Tenorio1,2, and Cristiano Ugolini7,8

  • *Contact author: alexandre.toubiana@unimib.it

Phys. Rev. D 113, 083006 – Published 3 April, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/8xkp-zpj1

Abstract

Comparing population-synthesis models to the results of hierarchical Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy requires a careful understanding of the domain of validity of the models fitted to data. This comparison is usually done using the inferred astrophysical distribution: from the data that were collected, one deconvolves selection effects to reconstruct the generating population distribution. In this paper, we demonstrate the benefits of instead comparing observable populations directly. In this approach, the domain of validity of the models is trivially respected, such that only the relevant parameter space regions as predicted by the astrophysical models of interest contribute to the comparison. With this in mind, it can be useful to fit the observed population directly, rather than effectively deconvolving the selection effects only to fold them back in when reconstructing the observable population. We clarify that unbiased inference of the observable compact-binary population is indeed possible. Crucially, this approach still requires incorporating selection effects, but in a manner that differs from the standard implementation. We apply our observable-space reconstruction to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data from their third observing run and illustrate its potential by comparing the results to the predictions of a fiducial population-synthesis model.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (79)

  1. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  2. F. Acernese et al. (Virgo Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015).
  3. T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 05A101 (2021).
  4. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023).
  5. T. Callister, in Encyclopedia of Astrophysics (First Edition), edited by I. Mandel (Elsevier, Oxford, 2026), first edition ed., pp. 546–569.
  6. I. Mandel and A. Farmer, Phys. Rep. 955, 1 (2022).
  7. M. Mapelli, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer, Singapore, 2021).
  8. I. Mandel, W. M. Farr, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 486, 1086 (2019).
  9. S. Vitale, D. Gerosa, W. M. Farr, and S. R. Taylor, in Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy (Springer, Singapore, 2022), p. 45.
  10. M. Zevin, S. S. Bavera, C. P. L. Berry, V. Kalogera, T. Fragos, P. Marchant, C. L. Rodriguez, F. Antonini, D. E. Holz, and C. Pankow, Astrophys. J. 910, 152 (2021).
  11. K. W. K. Wong, K. Breivik, K. Kremer, and T. Callister, Phys. Rev. D 103, 083021 (2021).
  12. Y. Bouffanais, M. Mapelli, F. Santoliquido, N. Giacobbo, G. Iorio, and G. Costa, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 505, 3873 (2021).
  13. G. Franciolini, V. Baibhav, V. De Luca, K. K. Y. Ng, K. W. K. Wong, E. Berti, P. Pani, A. Riotto, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 105, 083526 (2022).
  14. M. Mould, D. Gerosa, and S. R. Taylor, Phys. Rev. D 106, 103013 (2022).
  15. A. Q. Cheng, M. Zevin, and S. Vitale, Astrophys. J. 955, 127 (2023).
  16. S. Colloms, C. P. L. Berry, J. Veitch, and M. Zevin, Astrophys. J. 988, 189 (2025).
  17. C. Plunkett, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 112, 023039 (2025).
  18. K. Leyde, S. R. Green, A. Toubiana, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064056 (2024).
  19. J.-Q. Jiang, H.-L. Huang, J. He, Y.-T. Wang, and Y.-S. Piao, arXiv:2505.15530.
  20. C. Talbot and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J. 856, 173 (2018).
  21. T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 922, L5 (2021).
  22. C. Adamcewicz and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 517, 3928 (2022).
  23. S. Biscoveanu, T. A. Callister, C.-J. Haster, K. K. Y. Ng, S. Vitale, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 932, L19 (2022).
  24. G. Franciolini and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123024 (2022).
  25. Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-J. Li, J. S. Vink, Y.-Z. Fan, S.-P. Tang, Y. Qin, and D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J. Lett. 941, L39 (2022).
  26. Y.-J. Li, Y.-Z. Wang, S.-P. Tang, and Y.-Z. Fan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 051401 (2024).
  27. G. Pierra, S. Mastrogiovanni, and S. Perriès, Astron. Astrophys. 692, A80 (2024).
  28. V. Gennari, S. Mastrogiovanni, N. Tamanini, S. Marsat, and G. Pierra, Phys. Rev. D 111, 123046 (2025).
  29. A. Hussain, M. Isi, and A. Zimmerman, Astrophys. J. 996, 71 (2026).
  30. S. Rinaldi and W. Del Pozzo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 509, 5454 (2021).
  31. V. Tiwari, Astrophys. J. 928, 155 (2022).
  32. J. Sadiq, T. Dent, and D. Wysocki, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123014 (2022).
  33. B. Edelman, B. Farr, and Z. Doctor, Astrophys. J. 946, 16 (2023).
  34. D. Ruhe, K. Wong, M. Cranmer, and P. Forré, arXiv:2211.09008.
  35. A. M. Farah, B. Edelman, M. Zevin, M. Fishbach, J. M. Ezquiaga, B. Farr, and D. E. Holz, Astrophys. J. 955, 107 (2023).
  36. T. A. Callister and W. M. Farr, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021005 (2024).
  37. A. Toubiana, M. L. Katz, and J. R. Gair, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 524, 5844 (2023).
  38. J. Heinzel, M. Mould, S. Álvarez-López, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. D 111, 063043 (2025).
  39. R. Tenorio, A. Toubiana, T. Bruel, D. Gerosa, and J. R. Gair, Astrophys. J. Lett. 994, L52 (2025).
  40. R. Essick and M. Fishbach, Astrophys. J. 962, 169 (2024).
  41. M. Arca Sedda, M. Mapelli, M. Benacquista, and M. Spera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 520, 5259 (2023).
  42. S. M. Gaebel, J. Veitch, T. Dent, and W. M. Farr, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484, 4008 (2019).
  43. J. Roulet, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, L. Dai, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 102, 123022 (2020).
  44. T. Callister, M. Fishbach, D. Holz, and W. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L32 (2020).
  45. R. J. E. Smith, C. Talbot, F. Hernandez Vivanco, and E. Thrane, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 496, 3281 (2020).
  46. N. Bers and S. Biscoveanu, Astrophys. J. 997, 108 (2026).
  47. B. Cousins, K. Schumacher, A. K.-W. Chung, C. Talbot, T. Callister, D. E. Holz, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 101003 (2026).
  48. S. Ferraiuolo, S. Mastrogiovanni, S. Escoffier, and E. Kajfasz, Astron. Astrophys. 701, A36 (2025).
  49. G. Giarda, A. I. Renzini, C. Pacilio, and D. Gerosa, Classical Quantum Gravity 42, 195015 (2025).
  50. D. Gerosa, G. Pratten, and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 102, 103020 (2020).
  51. C. Talbot and E. Thrane, Astrophys. J. 927, 76 (2022).
  52. T. A. Callister, R. Essick, and D. E. Holz, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123041 (2024).
  53. S. Rinaldi, arXiv:2405.06366.
  54. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Phys. Rev. X 13, 011048 (2023).
  55. N. Karnesis, M. L. Katz, N. Korsakova, J. R. Gair, and N. Stergioulas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 526, 4814 (2023).
  56. LIGO/Virgo/KAGRA Collaborations, Zenodo, 10.5281/zenodo.11254021 (2024).
  57. M. Fishbach, D. E. Holz, and W. M. Farr, Astrophys. J. Lett. 863, L41 (2018).
  58. M. Arca Sedda and M. Benacquista, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 482, 2991 (2019).
  59. M. Arca Sedda, M. Mapelli, M. Spera, M. Benacquista, and N. Giacobbo, Astrophys. J. 894, 133 (2020).
  60. M. Arca Sedda et al., arXiv:2603.20430.
  61. R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D 108, 043011 (2023).
  62. D. Gerosa and M. Bellotti, Classical Quantum Gravity 41, 125002 (2024).
  63. A. Lorenzo-Medina and T. Dent, Classical Quantum Gravity 42, 045008 (2025).
  64. C. Talbot and J. Golomb, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 526, 3495 (2023).
  65. R. Essick and W. Farr, arXiv:2204.00461.
  66. W. M. Farr, Res. Notes AAS 3, 66 (2019).
  67. J. Heinzel and S. Vitale, arXiv:2509.07221.
  68. A. G. Abac et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), arXiv:2508.18082.
  69. C. M. Fabbri, D. Gerosa, A. Santini, M. Mould, A. Toubiana, and J. Gair, Phys. Rev. D 111, 104053 (2025).
  70. S. Rinaldi, A. Toubiana, and J. R. Gair, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2025) 031.
  71. S. Alvarez-Lopez, J. Heinzel, M. Mould, and S. Vitale, arXiv:2506.20731.
  72. https://gwosc.org.
  73. P. Madau and T. Fragos, Astrophys. J. 840, 39 (2017).
  74. M. Mapelli, Y. Bouffanais, F. Santoliquido, M. Arca Sedda, and M. C. Artale, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 511, 5797 (2022).
  75. N. Neumayer, A. Seth, and T. Böker, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 28, 4 (2020).
  76. S. S. Bavera, T. Fragos, Y. Qin, E. Zapartas, C. J. Neijssel, I. Mandel, A. Batta, S. M. Gaebel, C. Kimball, and S. Stevenson, Astron. Astrophys. 635, A97 (2020).
  77. N. Giacobbo, M. Mapelli, and M. Spera, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 474, 2959 (2018).
  78. N. Giacobbo and M. Mapelli, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 2011 (2018).
  79. N. Giacobbo and M. Mapelli, Astrophys. J. 891, 141 (2020).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation