Confronting the primordial black hole scenario with the gravitational-wave events detected by LIGO-Virgo

Zu-Cheng Chen,1, 2, ∗ Chen Yuan,1, 2, † and Qing-Guo Huang1, 2, 3, 4, ‡ 1CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China 2School of Physical Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 19A Yuquan Road, Beijing 100049, China 3School of Fundamental Physics and Mathematical Sciences Hangzhou Institute for Advanced Study, UCAS, Hangzhou 310024, China 4Center for Gravitation and Cosmology, College of Physical Science and Technology, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China (Dated: August 27, 2021) Adopting a binned method, we model-independently reconstruct the mass function of primordial black holes (PBHs) from GWTC-2 and find that such a PBH mass function can be explained by a broad red-tilted power spectrum of curvature perturbations. Even though GW190521 with component masses in upper mass gap (m > 65M ) can be naturally interpreted in the PBH scenario, the events (including GW190814, GW190425, GW200105, and GW200115) with component masses in the light mass range (m < 3M ) are quite unlikely to be explained by binary PBHs although there are no electromagnetic counterparts because the corresponding PBH merger rates are much smaller than those given by LIGO-Virgo. Furthermore, we predict that both the gravitational-wave (GW) background generated by the binary PBHs and the scalar-induced GWs accompanying the formation of PBHs should be detected by the ground-based and space-borne GW detectors and pulsar timing arrays in the future.

Introduction. Primordial black holes (PBHs) [1,2] are five gravitational-wave (GW) events [14–17]. formed in the very early Universe due to the collapse of over-densed regions which are generated by the en- hanced curvature power spectrum on small scales com- In this letter, we will give a comprehensive investiga- pared to those on the cosmic microwave background tion for the possibility that if the GW events, in particu- (CMB) scales. PBHs can not only represent the dark lar the five events mentioned above, can be explained in matter (DM) in the Universe, but also may potentially the PBH scenario. We adopt a binned method to model- provide an explanation to the merger events detected independently reconstruct the PBH mass function from by LIGO-Virgo Collaboration (LVC) if the fraction of GWTC-2 [18], and we find that GW190521 can be ex- the stellar mass PBHs in cold dark matter (CDM) is plained by a binary PBH merger. But the other four −3 GW events (GW190814, GW190425, GW200105, and fPBH ∼ few × 10 [3–12]. GW200115) are quite unlikely to be interpreted as binary Among all the merger events detected by LVC, some of PBHs because the corresponding merger rates of binary them are likely to have ambiguities in the astrophysical PBHs are much smaller than those given by LVC even scenario. Firstly, the primary component of GW190521 though the PBH mass function around ∼ 1M is signif- has a high probability to be within the pair-instability icantly enhanced due to the softening of the equation of supernovae mass gap [13], implying that the primary state during the QCD phase transition [19]. black hole (BH) might not have stellar origin. Secondly, even though the component masses of GW190425 lie in In addition, we compute the gravitational-wave back- the mass range of [1.12M , 2.52M ] and are consistent ground (GWB) from both the PBH binary coalescences with the individual binary component being neutron star [20] and the so-called scalar-induced gravitational waves arXiv:2108.11740v1 [astro-ph.CO] 26 Aug 2021 (NS) [14], the source-frame chirp mass and total mass (SIGWs) generated by the curvature perturbation during are significantly larger than any known binary NS sys- the formation of PBHs [21]. We find that the GWB asso- tem. Thirdly, GW190814 is reported to have a compact ciated with PBHs is compatible with the current limits of object with a mass of 2.5 − 2.67M [15], which falls in observations and should be detected by the ground-based the “lower mass gap” where no NSs or BHs have been and space-borne GW detectors and pulsar timing arrays observed in a double compact-object system. Finally, in the future. LVC recently reported GW200105 and GW200115 [16] in which the secondary component masses are respectively +0.3 +0.7 1.9−0.2M and 1.5−0.3M , indicating that both of them A model-independent reconstruction of PBH mass are well below the maximal mass of a NS. In addition, function. In this work, the PBH mass is considered in there are no electromagnetic counterparts to confirm and the range of [1M , 130M ]. To infer the PBH mass func- PBHs are speculated to provide an explanation to these tion from the GWTC-2, we adopt a model-independent 2 approach using the following binned mass function  P1, 1 M ≤ m < 3 M  P , 3 M ≤ m < 10 M  2 P (m) = P3, 10 M ≤ m < 40 M (1)  P4, 40 M ≤ m < 80 M  P5, 80 M ≤ m ≤ 130 M in which the mass function P (m) is normalized by R P (m)dm = 1. Therefore, only four of Pi(i = 1, ··· , 5) ~ are independent, and θ = {P1,P2,P3,P4} are chosen to be the free parameters. The merger rate density in units of Gpc−3 yr−1 for a general mass function, P (m|θ~), takes the form of [4] FIG. 1. The median values and the 90% credible intervals 34  − 37 of the population parameters fPBHPi with i = 1, ··· , 5. The t 21 ~ 6 2 2 2 − 74 R12(t|θ) ≈ 2.8 · 10 × fPBH(0.7fPBH + σeq) blue curve corresponds to the mass function of PBHs gener- t0 ated by a broad tilted curvature power spectrum. ! ! P (m |θ~) P (m |θ~) P (m |θ~) P (m |θ~) × min 1 , 2 1 + 2 m1 m2 m1 m2 with component masses in the upper mass gap (m > 3 36 65M ) and the light mass range (m < 3M ) are listed ×(m m ) 37 (m + m ) 37 , (2) 1 2 1 2 in the third column of Tab.I. Compared to the merger where the component masses m1 and m2 are in units of rates given by LVC (the second column of Tab.I), we M , fPBH ≡ ΩPBH/ΩCDM is the energy density fraction conclude that the upper mass gap event GW190521 can of PBHs in CDM, and σeq ≈ 0.005 [4, 22] is the variance be explained by the PBH scenario, while the events with of density perturbations of the rest CDM on scale of order at least one component mass being smaller than 3M 0 3 O(10 ∼ 10 )M at radiation-matter equality. (GW190425, GW190814, GW200105, and GW200115) We perform the hierarchical Bayesian inference [23–29] are quite unlikely to be explained in the PBH scenario ~ because the merger rates of corresponding binary PBHs to extract the population parameters {θ, fPBH} from ob- served BBHs. Given the data of N binary BH (BBH) are at least one order of magnitude smaller than those ~ given by LVC. detections, d = (d1, . . . , dN ), the likelihood for an inho- mogeneous Poisson process is [26–29] −3 −1 −3 −1 Event RLVC[Gpc yr ] RPBH[Gpc yr ] N +0.30 +0.15 Z GW190521 0.13−0.11 [13] 0.12−0.08 ~ Y p(d~|θ,~ R) ∝ e−β(θ) d~λ p(~λ|d ) R (~λ|θ~), (3) +1050 +2.0 i 12 GW190425 460−390 [14] 1.0−0.8 i +16 +0.05 GW190814 7−6 [15] 0.07−0.04 +38 +1.3 ~ ~ GW200105 16−14 [16] 0.9−0.5 where λ ≡ {m1, m2}, p(λ|di) is the posterior of an in- +82 +1.2 ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ GW200115 36−30 [16] 0.8−0.5 dividual event, and β(θ) ≡ dλ V T (λ) R12(λ|θ) where VT (~λ) is the spacetime sensitivity volume of LIGO-Virgo detectors. We use the GW events from GWTC-2 by dis- TABLE I. The local merger rate inferred by LIGO-Virgo and carding events with false alarm rate larger than 1 yr−1, PBH. events with the secondary component mass smaller than It is also worthy figuring out a physical explanation for 3M to avoid contamination from putative events involv- ing neutron stars [11], and the events with non-vanishing the PBH mass function reconstucted from GWTC-2 in effective spin because the spin of PBHs is expected to Fig.1. Here, we take into account a broad tilted power be negligible at formation [30, 31]. The median value spectrum for the curvature perturbations, namely and 90% equal-tailed credible intervals for the parameters P (k) = A(k/k )αΘ(k − k )Θ(k − k), (4) ~ R min min max {θ, fPBH} are represented by crosses in Fig.1. The results are P = 1.8+0.8 × 10−1M −1, P = 1.1+1.4 × 10−2M −1, where Θ is the heaviside theta function, kmin = 3.2 × 1 −0.8 2 −0.8 5 −1 6 −1 +0.5 −2 −1 +1.2 −3 −1 10 Mpc and kmax = 9.5 × 10 Mpc . After PBHs are P3 = 1.5−0.4 × 10 M , P4 = 2.0−1.0 × 10 M , and +0.9 −3 formed, they evolve like dust-like matter during radiation fPBH = 2.8−0.7 × 10 . Therefore, the total local merger +186 −3 −1 dominated era, and then rate is 154−88 Gpc yr according to Eq. (2).  1/2 From our binned reconstruction of PBH mass function, 1 Meq fPBHP (m) = β (m) , (5) the inferred merger rates of binary PBHs for the events ΩCDMm m 3

17 where Meq ≈ 2.8×10 M is the horizon mass at matter- spectrum provides a quite reasonable explanation for the radiation equality and β(m) describes the mass fraction PBH mass function implied by GWTC-2. of the Universe that collapse to form PBHs. Using Press- GWB associated with PBHs. GWB is supposed to be Schechter formalism [32], β(m) can be evaluated by inte- a superposition of incoherent GWs that are characterized grating the probability distribution function (PDF) P (δ) statistically. The GWB associated with PBHs includes of the density contrast δ that is larger than the threshold two main contributions: one is the coalescences of binary value, namely PBHs [20] and the other is SIGW inevitably generated by the curvature perturbations during the formation of Z ∞ m β(m) = dδ P (δ), (6) PBHs [21]. M δc H For binary systems, the energy-density spectrum of a GWB which defined as the energy density of GWs per where logarithm frequency, f, can be calculated as [51–55]  g −1/6  k −2 Z M ' 17 M (7) f R12(z) dEGW H 10.75 6 −1 ΩGW(f) = dzdm1dm2 , 10 Mpc ρcH0 (1 + z) E(z) dfs (11) is the horizon mass. Here g is the degress of free- where ρ = 3H2/(8π) is the critical energy den- dom of relativistic particles, δ is the threshold value c 0 c sity of our Universe, f is frequency of GWs in the of density contrast for the formation of PBHs, P (δ) = s 2 2 source frame, H0 is the Hubble constant, and E(z) = −δ /(2σk) p 2 e / 2πσk with variance σk related to the curva- q 4 3 ture power spectrum by Ωr (1 + z) + Ωm(1 + z) + ΩΛ accounts for the evolu- tion of our Universe with Ωr,Ωm and Ωλ the density  2 Z ∞ 4 2 4 dq 2  q  2 parameters for radiation, matter and dark energy. Here, σk = W (q, RH ) T (q, RH )PR(q), we adopt the best-fit results from Planck 2018 [56] and 9 0 q k (8) approximate the energy spectrum dEGW/dfs emitted by where an individual BBH using expressions from [54, 57, 58]. √ √ √ The corresponding GWB is shown as the blue band in sin(kRH / 3) − (kRH / 3) cos(kRH / 3) Fig.2, indicating that it is compatible with the current T (k, RH ) = 3 √ 3 (kRH / 3) limits given by LIGO O3 [42], and should be detected (9) by the future ground-based and space-borne GW detec- is the transfer function during radiation dominated era. tors, such as Neutron Star Extreme Matter Observatory A window function W (k, RH ) is needed to smooth out (NEMO) [50], Cosmic Explorer (CE) [49], Einstein Tele- the density contrast on a comoving length R ∼ k−1, for scope (ET) [48], Taiji [47], TianQin [46] and LISA [45]. which we use a top-hap window function in real space, On the other hand, it is known that the GWs should be namely generated by the scalar curvature perturbations at sec- ond order in perturbation theory [59–69]. In this sense, sin(kR ) − (kR ) cos(kR ) H H H SIGWs are inevitably produced during the formation of W (k, RH ) = 3 3 . (10) (kRH ) PBHs. The perturbed metric in Newton gauge is given The PBH mass m is related to the density contrast by by γ the critical collapse, namely m = MH κ (δ − δc) [33–35]   h   ds2 = a2 −(1 + 2Φ)dη2 + (1 − 2Φ)δ + ij dxi dxj , with κ = 3.3 and γ = 0.36 [36]. For the equation of ij 2 state w = 1/3, the numerical simulation indicates δc ≈ (12) 0.45 [37, 38]. The threshold value of density contrast where Φ is the Bardeen potential, hij is the second-order δc slightly decreases due to the softening of equation of transverse and traceless tensor mode and η is the confor- state [39, 40] during the QCD phase transition [40, 41], mal time. The equation of motion for Φ is govern by and therefore the PBH mass function around m ∼ 1M 00 2
0 2 2
2 2 should be significantly enhanced [19]. In this letter, the Φ + 3H(η) 1 + cs Φ + 3H cs − w Φ − cs∇ Φ = 0, data of equation of state and the sound speed are adopted (13) from [40]. where w and cs are the equation of state and the sound Here, the best-fit values for A and α are A = 0.0047 speed, respectively. Φk(η) is related to its initial value and α = −0.11, and then the PBH mass function gener- Φk ≡ Φk(η → 0) by Φk(η) = ΦkTΦ(kη), where TΦ(kη) ated by such a broad tilted curvature power spectrum is is the transfer function. The equation of motion for the illustrated by the blue curve in Fig.1. In particular, the second-order tensor modes, hij, takes the form enhancement of PBH mass function around m ∼ 1M 00 0 2 `m hij + 2Hhij − ∇ hij = −4Tij S`m, (14) just attributes to the softening of the equation of state `m (+) (+)lm (×) (×)lm during the QCD phase transition. In a word, our results with Tij = eij (k)e (k) + eij (k)e (k) selects indicate that such a broad red-tilted curvature power the transverse-traceless part of the source term, with eij 4

10 6

LIGO O3

LIGO Design 10 7

10 8 LISA

NANOGrav 12.5-yr NEMO

10 9

TianQin

10 10

FAST SIGW W

G Binary PBHs ET Taiji 10 11 CE

10 12

10 13

10 14

10 15 10 11 10 10 10 9 10 8 10 7 10 6 10 5 10 4 10 3 10 2 10 1 100 101 102 103 104 Frequency/Hz

FIG. 2. The GWB associated with PBHs. The blue band corresponds to the GWB from the coalescences of binary PBHs, and the red curve corresponds to the SIGWs generated by the curvature perturbation during the formation of PBHs. The two dark shaded regions are ruled out by the LIGO O3 [42] and NANOGrav 12.5-year data [43], respectively. We also show the sensitivity curves of FAST [44], LISA [45], TianQin [46], Taiji [47], LIGO Design, Einstein Telescope (ET) [48], Cosmic Explorer (CE) [49] and NEMO [50]. the polarization tensor and H = a0/a. The source term For the curvature power spectrum given in Eq. (4) is given by with A and α taking their best-fit values, SIGWs are illustrated as the red curve in Fig.2. We find that the 4  ∂ Φ0   ∂ Φ0  S = 2Φ∂ ∂ Φ− ∂ Φ + i ∂ Φ + j . predicted SIGWs are compatible with NANOGrav 12.5- ij i j 3(1 + w) i H(η) j H(η) yr data [43], and should be detected by FAST [44] in (15) the future. Note that recent analysis implies there is no Here the prime denotes the derivative with respect to statistically significant evidence for the tensor transverse η. Following [70], Eq. (14) can be solved by the Green’s polarization mode in both NANOGrav 12.5-yr data set function and the transfer function method, and the en- and Parkes Pulsar Timing Array Second Data Release ergy density parameter by today is given by [71, 72]. 2 Z ∞ Z 1+u 2 "  2 2 2# Ωr v 1 + v − u Conclusion and Discussion. In this letter, we use a ΩGW= du dv 2 1 − 6 0 |1−u| u 2v binned PBH mass function to model-independently re- construct the PBH mass function from GWTC-2, and ×P (uk)P (vk)I2(u, v), (16) R R find that such a mass function can be naturally explained where Φ = −2R/3 and k = 2πf. The kernel function by a broad red-tilted curvature power spectrum. By com- takes the form [70] paring the merger rates of binary PBHs with those given ( by LVC, we conclude that GW190521 with the primary 9(u2 + v2 − 3)2  2 2 2 component being within the pair-instability supernovae I (u, v) = 6 6 − 4uv + (u + v − 3) 32u v mass gap can be explained by the merger of binary PBHs, 2 ) but the light components (i.e. m < 3M ) in GW190814, 3 − (u + v) 2 2 √ × ln + π2 u2 + v2 − 3
Θ(u + v − 3) . GW190425, GW200105, and GW200115 events should 3 − (u − v)2 be NSs or other exotic compact objects. In addition, (17) the PBH scenario proposed in this letter can be tested 5 by searching for the GWB generated by the binary PBHs GWTC-2 gravitational wave catalog,” Phys. Rev. D 103, and the SIGW inevitably produced by the curvature per- 023026 (2021), arXiv:2011.01865 [gr-qc]. turbations during the formation of PBHs. [11] V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, “Bayesian Evidence for Both Astrophysical and Pri- Acknowledgments. We also acknowledge the mordial Black Holes: Mapping the GWTC-2 Catalog use of HPC Cluster of ITP-CAS and HPC Cluster to Third-Generation Detectors,” JCAP 05, 003 (2021), of Tianhe II in National Supercomputing Center in arXiv:2102.03809 [astro-ph.CO]. Guangzhou. This work is supported by the National [12] Gabriele Franciolini, Vishal Baibhav, Valerio De Luca, Ken K. Y. Ng, Kaze W. K. Wong, Emanuele Berti, Key Research and Development Program of China Grant Paolo Pani, Antonio Riotto, and Salvatore Vi- No.2020YFC2201502, grants from NSFC (grant No. tale, “Quantifying the evidence for primordial black 11975019, 11690021, 11991052, 12047503), the Key Re- holes in LIGO/Virgo gravitational-wave data,” (2021), search Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences arXiv:2105.03349 [gr-qc]. (Grant NO. XDPB15), Key Research Program of Fron- [13] R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190521: A tier Sciences, CAS, Grant NO. ZDBS-LY-7009, CAS Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150M ,” Project for Young Scientists in Basic Research YSBR- Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 101102 (2020), arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]. 006, and the science research grants from the China [14] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190425: Manned Space Project with NO. CMS-CSST-2021-B01. Observation of a Compact Binary Coalescence with To- tal Mass ∼ 3.4M ,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020), arXiv:2001.01761 [astro-ph.HE]. [15] R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 23 Solar ∗ [email protected] Mass Black Hole with a 2.6 Solar Mass Compact Object,” † [email protected] Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 ‡ Corresponding author: [email protected] [astro-ph.HE]. [1] Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in the [16] R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, KAGRA, VIRGO), early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, 399– “Observation of Gravitational Waves from Two Neutron 415 (1974). Star–Black Hole Coalescences,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, [2] Bernard J. Carr, “The Primordial black hole mass spec- L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]. trum,” Astrophys. J. 201, 1–19 (1975). [17] V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and [3] Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, and A. Riotto, “GW190521 Mass Gap Event and the Primor- Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial Black Hole Scenario dial Black Hole Scenario,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 051101 for the Gravitational-Wave Event GW150914,” Phys. (2021), arXiv:2009.01728 [astro-ph.CO]. Rev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016), [erratum: Phys. Rev. [18] R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC-2: Lett.121,no.5,059901(2018)], arXiv:1603.08338 [astro- Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and ph.CO]. Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run,” [4] Zu-Cheng Chen and Qing-Guo Huang, “Merger Rate Dis- Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021), arXiv:2010.14527 [gr- tribution of Primordial-Black-Hole Binaries,” Astrophys. qc]. J. 864, 61 (2018), arXiv:1801.10327 [astro-ph.CO]. [19] Christian T. Byrnes, Mark Hindmarsh, Sam Young, and [5] Martti Raidal, Christian Spethmann, Ville Vasko- Michael R. S. Hawkins, “Primordial black holes with an nen, and Hardi Veerm¨ae,“Formation and Evolution accurate QCD equation of state,” JCAP 08, 041 (2018), of Primordial Black Hole Binaries in the Early Uni- arXiv:1801.06138 [astro-ph.CO]. verse,” JCAP 1902, 018 (2019), arXiv:1812.01930 [astro- [20] Zu-Cheng Chen, Fan Huang, and Qing-Guo Huang, ph.CO]. “Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background from Bi- [6] V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and A. Riotto, “Pri- nary Black Holes and Binary Neutron Stars and Im- mordial Black Holes Confront LIGO/Virgo data: Cur- plications for LISA,” Astrophys. J. 871, 97 (2019), rent situation,” JCAP 06, 044 (2020), arXiv:2005.05641 arXiv:1809.10360 [gr-qc]. [astro-ph.CO]. [21] Ryo Saito and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “Gravitational wave [7] Alex Hall, Andrew D. Gow, and Christian T. Byrnes, background as a probe of the primordial black hole abun- “Bayesian analysis of LIGO-Virgo mergers: Primordial dance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 161101 (2009), [Erratum: vs. astrophysical black hole populations,” Phys. Rev. D Phys. Rev. Lett.107,069901(2011)], arXiv:0812.4339 102, 123524 (2020), arXiv:2008.13704 [astro-ph.CO]. [astro-ph]. [8] S. Bhagwat, V. De Luca, G. Franciolini, P. Pani, and [22] Yacine Ali-Ha¨ımoud, Ely D. Kovetz, and Marc A. Riotto, “The importance of priors on LIGO-Virgo pa- Kamionkowski, “Merger rate of primordial black- rameter estimation: the case of primordial black holes,” hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D96, 123523 (2017), JCAP 01, 037 (2021), arXiv:2008.12320 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1709.06576 [astro-ph.CO]. [9] Gert H¨utsi,Martti Raidal, Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi [23] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “The Rate Veerm¨ae,“Two populations of LIGO-Virgo black holes,” of Binary Black Hole Mergers Inferred from Advanced (2020), arXiv:2012.02786 [astro-ph.CO]. LIGO Observations Surrounding GW150914,” Astro- [10] Kaze W. K. Wong, Gabriele Franciolini, Valerio De Luca, phys. J. Lett. 833, L1 (2016), arXiv:1602.03842 [astro- Vishal Baibhav, Emanuele Berti, Paolo Pani, and Anto- ph.HE]. nio Riotto, “Constraining the primordial black hole sce- [24] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Sup- nario with Bayesian inference and machine learning: the plement: The Rate of Binary Black Hole Mergers In- 6

ferred from Advanced LIGO Observations Surround- arXiv:1201.2379 [gr-qc]. ing GW150914,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 227, 14 (2016), [40] Ken’ichi Saikawa and Satoshi Shirai, “Primordial grav- arXiv:1606.03939 [astro-ph.HE]. itational waves, precisely: The role of thermodynam- [25] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Binary ics in the Standard Model,” JCAP 05, 035 (2018), Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observ- arXiv:1803.01038 [hep-ph]. ing Run,” Phys. Rev. X6, 041015 (2016), [erratum: Phys. [41] Sz. Borsanyi et al., “Calculation of the axion mass based Rev.X8,no.3,039903(2018)], arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]. on high-temperature lattice quantum chromodynamics,” [26] Daniel Wysocki, Jacob Lange, and Richard Nature 539, 69–71 (2016), arXiv:1606.07494 [hep-lat]. O’Shaughnessy, “Reconstructing phenomenological [42] R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, LIGO Scientific), distributions of compact binaries via gravitational “Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave back- wave observations,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 043012 (2019), ground from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s arXiv:1805.06442 [gr-qc]. third observing run,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 022004 (2021), [27] Maya Fishbach, Daniel E. Holz, and Will M. Farr, “Does arXiv:2101.12130 [gr-qc]. the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Redshift?” [43] Zaven Arzoumanian et al. (NANOGrav), “The Astrophys. J. Lett. 863, L41 (2018), arXiv:1805.10270 NANOGrav 12.5 yr Data Set: Search for an Isotropic [astro-ph.HE]. Stochastic Gravitational-wave Background,” Astro- [28] Ilya Mandel, Will M. Farr, and Jonathan R. Gair, “Ex- phys. J. Lett. 905, L34 (2020), arXiv:2009.04496 tracting distribution parameters from multiple uncer- [astro-ph.HE]. tain observations with selection biases,” Mon. Not. Roy. [44] Rendong Nan, Di Li, Chengjin Jin, Qiming Wang, Lichun Astron. Soc. 486, 1086–1093 (2019), arXiv:1809.02063 Zhu, Wenbai Zhu, Haiyan Zhang, Youling Yue, and Lei [physics.data-an]. Qian, “The Five-Hundred-Meter Aperture Spherical Ra- [29] Eric Thrane and Colm Talbot, “An introduction to dio Telescope (FAST) Project,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 20, Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: pa- 989–1024 (2011), arXiv:1105.3794 [astro-ph.IM]. rameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical [45] Heather Audley et al. (LISA), “Laser Interferome- models,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 36, e010 (2019), ter Space Antenna,” (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro- [Erratum: Publ.Astron.Soc.Austral. 37, e036 (2020)], ph.IM]. arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]. [46] Jun Luo et al. (TianQin), “TianQin: a space-borne grav- [30] V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, A. Malho- itational wave detector,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 035010 tra, and A. Riotto, “The initial spin probability distri- (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]. bution of primordial black holes,” JCAP 05, 018 (2019), [47] Wen-Rui Hu and Yue-Liang Wu, “The Taiji Pro- arXiv:1903.01179 [astro-ph.CO]. gram in Space for gravitational wave physics and [31] Mehrdad Mirbabayi, Andrei Gruzinov, and Jorge the nature of gravity,” National Science Review 4, Nore˜na,“Spin of Primordial Black Holes,” JCAP 03, 017 685–686 (2017), https://academic.oup.com/nsr/article- (2020), arXiv:1901.05963 [astro-ph.CO]. pdf/4/5/685/31566708/nwx116.pdf. [32] William H. Press and Paul Schechter, “Formation of [48] M. Punturo et al., “The Einstein Telescope: A third- galaxies and clusters of galaxies by selfsimilar gravita- generation gravitational wave observatory,” Proceedings, tional condensation,” Astrophys. J. 187, 425–438 (1974). 14th Workshop on Gravitational wave data analysis [33] Matthew W. Choptuik, “Universality and scaling in grav- (GWDAW-14): Rome, Italy, January 26-29, 2010, Class. itational collapse of a massless scalar field,” Phys. Rev. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010). Lett. 70, 9–12 (1993). [49] Benjamin P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), “Explor- [34] Charles R. Evans and Jason S. Coleman, “Observation of ing the Sensitivity of Next Generation Gravitational critical phenomena and selfsimilarity in the gravitational Wave Detectors,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), collapse of radiation fluid,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1782– arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]. 1785 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402041. [50] K. Ackley et al., “Neutron Star Extreme Matter Obser- [35] Jens C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, “Near-critical gravi- vatory: A kilohertz-band gravitational-wave detector in tational collapse and the initial mass function of primor- the global network,” Publ. Astron. Soc. Austral. 37, e047 dial black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5481–5484 (1998), (2020), arXiv:2007.03128 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:astro-ph/9709072. [51] Bruce Allen and Joseph D. Romano, “Detecting a [36] Tatsuhiko Koike, Takashi Hara, and Satoshi Adachi, stochastic background of gravitational radiation: Signal “Critical behavior in gravitational collapse of radia- processing strategies and sensitivities,” Phys. Rev. D 59, tion fluid: A Renormalization group (linear perturba- 102001 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117. tion) analysis,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5170–5173 (1995), [52] E. S. Phinney, “A Practical theorem on gravitational arXiv:gr-qc/9503007. wave backgrounds,” astro-ph/0108028 (2001). [37] Ilia Musco, John C. Miller, and Luciano Rezzolla, [53] T. Regimbau and V. Mandic, “Astrophysical Sources “Computations of primordial black hole formation,” of Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background,” Proceed- Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 1405–1424 (2005), arXiv:gr- ings, 12th Workshop on Gravitational wave data analysis qc/0412063. (GWDAW-12): Cambridge, USA, December 13-16, 2007, [38] Ilia Musco, John C. Miller, and Alexander G. Polnarev, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 184018 (2008), arXiv:0806.2794 “Primordial black hole formation in the radiative era: [astro-ph]. Investigation of the critical nature of the collapse,” Class. [54] Xing-Jiang Zhu, E. Howell, T. Regimbau, D. Blair, and Quant. Grav. 26, 235001 (2009), arXiv:0811.1452 [gr-qc]. Zong-Hong Zhu, “Stochastic Gravitational Wave Back- [39] Ilia Musco and John C. Miller, “Primordial black hole ground from Coalescing Binary Black Holes,” Astrophys. formation in the early universe: critical behaviour and J. 739, 86 (2011), arXiv:1104.3565 [gr-qc]. self-similarity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 145009 (2013), [55] Xing-Jiang Zhu, Eric J. Howell, David G. Blair, and 7

Zong-Hong Zhu, “On the gravitational wave background horizon to small scales,” Phys. Rev. D71, 043508 (2005), from compact binary coalescences in the band of ground- arXiv:astro-ph/0407611 [astro-ph]. based interferometers,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 431, [65] Kouji Nakamura, “Second-order gauge invariant cosmo- 882–899 (2013), arXiv:1209.0595 [gr-qc]. logical perturbation theory: Einstein equations in terms [56] N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), “Planck 2018 results. VI. of gauge invariant variables,” Prog. Theor. Phys. 117, Cosmological parameters,” Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 17–74 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0605108 [gr-qc]. (2020), arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]. [66] Chen Yuan, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, [57] C. Cutler, Eric Poisson, G. J. Sussman, and L. S. Finn, “Scalar induced gravitational waves in different gauges,” “Gravitational radiation from a particle in circular orbit Phys. Rev. D 101, 063018 (2020), arXiv:1912.00885 around a black hole. 2: Numerical results for the nonro- [astro-ph.CO]. tating case,” Phys. Rev. D47, 1511–1518 (1993). [67] Chen Yuan, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, [58] David F. Chernoff and Lee Samuel Finn, “Gravitational “Probing Primordial-Black-Hole Dark Matter with radiation, inspiraling binaries, and cosmology,” Astro- Scalar Induced Gravitational Waves,” Phys. Rev. D100, phys. J. 411, L5–L8 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9304020 [gr-qc]. 081301 (2019), arXiv:1906.11549 [astro-ph.CO]. [59] Kenji Tomita, “Non-linear theory of gravitational insta- [68] Chen Yuan, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, bility in the expanding universe,” Progress of Theoretical “Log-dependent slope of scalar induced gravitational Physics 37, 831–846 (1967). waves in the infrared regions,” (2019), arXiv:1910.09099 [60] Sabino Matarrese, Ornella Pantano, and Diego Saez, [astro-ph.CO]. “A General relativistic approach to the nonlinear evolu- [69] Chen Yuan and Qing-Guo Huang, “A topic review on tion of collisionless matter,” Phys. Rev. D47, 1311–1323 probing primordial black hole dark matter with scalar (1993). induced gravitational waves,” (2021), arXiv:2103.04739 [61] Sabino Matarrese, Ornella Pantano, and Diego Saez, [astro-ph.GA]. “General relativistic dynamics of irrotational dust: Cos- [70] Kazunori Kohri and Takahiro Terada, “Semianalytic cal- mological implications,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 320–323 culation of gravitational wave spectrum nonlinearly in- (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9310036 [astro-ph]. duced from primordial curvature perturbations,” Phys. [62] Sabino Matarrese, Silvia Mollerach, and Marco Bruni, Rev. D97, 123532 (2018), arXiv:1804.08577 [gr-qc]. “Second order perturbations of the Einstein-de Sitter [71] Zu-Cheng Chen, Chen Yuan, and Qing-Guo universe,” Phys. Rev. D58, 043504 (1998), arXiv:astro- Huang, “Non-tensorial Gravitational Wave Back- ph/9707278 [astro-ph]. ground in NANOGrav 12.5-Year Data Set,” (2021), [63] Hyerim Noh and Jai-chan Hwang, “Second-order pertur- arXiv:2101.06869 [astro-ph.CO]. bations of the Friedmann world model,” Phys. Rev. D69, [72] Yu-Mei Wu, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing-Guo Huang, 104011 (2004). “Constraining the Polarization of Gravitational Waves [64] Carmelita Carbone and Sabino Matarrese, “A Unified with the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array Second Data Re- treatment of cosmological perturbations from super- lease,” (2021), arXiv:2108.10518 [astro-ph.CO].