Arxiv:1904.02396V3 [Astro-Ph.CO] 13 Aug 2020 Hog B Oes H Omto N Egrof Merger There and Environments

arXiv:1904.02396v3 [astro-ph.CO] 13 Aug 2020 hog B oes h omto n egrof merger There and environments. evolutionary formation by The guided are ABHs models. ABH through primordial of collapse [ gravitational perturbations by density universe early xii uhhairms itiuinta h one [ the observations than X-ray distribution (GWs) mass from waves heavier inferred gravitational much by a observed exhibit BBHs these of rm[ trum [ galaxies [ dwarf straints ultra-faint of ing [ microlensing EROS/MACHO [ [ milli/microlensing galaxy Kepler local our in [ in bursts PBHs gamma-ray of of cold of abundance fraction the a and to CDM, mas- (CDM), contribute of may matter demise PBHs dark the from black stars. originate astrophysical sive which the (ABHs) than holes histories evolutionary ent mass stellar [ the ob- (PBHs) from holes the come black that might primordial speculate mergers to BBH community served the in interest the investigation intensive under sci- still essential is an (see is which BBHs goal, these entific of origin the derstanding iments, uigLG/ig 1adO bevn us[ runs observing O2 and O1 LIGO/Virgo during ∗ † [email protected] [email protected] 2 natraiewyt xli IOVroBH is BBHs LIGO/Virgo explain to way alternative An the in form that (BHs) holes black the are PBHs e iaybakhl BH egr eedetected were mergers (BBH) hole black binary Ten itnusigPioda lc oe rmAstrophysical from Holes Black Primordial Distinguishing colo hsclSine,Uiest fCieeAcademy Chinese of University Sciences, Physical of School e.g. 48 f PBH e.g. – 47 [ 52 8 ,csi irwv akrud(M)spec- (CMB) background microwave cosmic ], – a encntandb ait fexper- of variety a by constrained been has , ,adGs[ GWs and ], 29 xr-aatcgmary[ gamma-ray extra-galactic n Ersetvl,wihcnsrea ehdt distingui to method the a as for serve distributions can which r rate respectively, event CE PBH, mergerand detectable mass the the of super-solar forecast evolutions a redshift we different and sub-s the for PBH to search mass according targeted the sub-solar detectable by a the matter estimate dark containing we cold PBHs, in for PBHs detec gun mass direct smoking a the Since as disti taken to (ABHs). used holes be black can astrophysical (CE), from Explorer Cosmic and (ET) Telescope ) h atta h opnn masses component the that fact The ]). eivsiaehwtenx eeaingravitational-wave generation next the how investigate We .INTRODUCTION I. 3 etrfrGaiainadcsooy olg fPyia S Physical of College cosmology, and Gravitation for Center 40 1 A e aoaoyo hoeia hsc,Isiueo The of Institute Physics, Theoretical of Laboratory Key CAS 39 ,Sbr/S irlnig[ microlensing Subaru/HSC ], aghuUiest,8 ot nvriyAe,250,Yan 225009, Ave., University South 88 University, Yangzhou 34 ,teeitneo ht dwarfs white of existence the ], 53 4 – ua omlUiest,3 uhnL,408,Cagh,Ch Changsha, 410081, Lu, Lushan 36 University, Normal Hunan yegtcInvto etrfrQatmEet n Applica and Effects Quantum for Center Innovation Synergetic 37 42 – 60 n neg ut differ- quite undergo and ] ,OL irlnig[ microlensing OGLE ], ]. 44 8 uCegChen Zu-Cheng hns cdm fSine,Biig109,China 100190, Beijing Sciences, of Academy Chinese – , 11 46 45 30 ]. ,Xryrdocon- X-ray/radio ], eecp n omcExplorer Cosmic and Telescope ,dnmclheat- dynamical ], – 33 38 a triggered has ] ,femtolensing ], 1 – ,2, 1, 7 .Un- ]. ∗ 43 41 n igGoHuang Qing-Guo and ], ], fSine,N.1AYqa od ejn 009 China 100049, Beijing Road, Yuquan 19A No. Sciences, of e,i hc h Bsaefre hog ihynon- ejection highly envelope through common [ formed or are transfer BBHs mass conservative the which in nel, ae otecutrcr opi sBH [ BBHs as pair to core segre- cluster and the stars to massive of gated evolution the through formed etdt ehairta h hnrska aslimit mass Chandrasekhar the than ∼ heavier be to pected oa asPH ysacigfrteBH otiiga sub- containing BBHs of the abundance for searching the by PBHs on mass limits solar detectable the explore a eeiec fPH.I Sec. In PBHs. of evidence be can Sec. In follows. as organized is per [ (ET) Telescope ground- Einstein GW like generation detectors using third GW by based the ABHs by from especially PBHs observations, distinguishing of bility models. (AOBBH) BBH astrophys- of origin channels ical [ different discriminate spin to the proposed as such [ [ helium BBHs, envelope of of the mixing throughout Properties the center of the in because produced BHs form to geneously evolution the is one second one first The literature. the the in is channels main three exist ee erhb TadC,rsetvl.I Sec. In respectively. CE, and ET tar- the by from search PBHs of geted abundance the on the limits estimate we detectable distribution, mass monochromatic a have ( mass sub-solar order an at LIGO/Virgo, current of than BBHs more many raht osri h bnac fPH ihsuper- ap- with model-independent PBHs ( of a mass abundance solar orig- the adopt LIGO/Virgo constrain we to by proach PBHs, detected distribution events from mass BBH inate broad the a all have and PBHs that considering [ (CE) Explorer Cosmic 69 23 nti ae,w ilepoeadfrcs h possi- the forecast and explore will we paper, this In 1 O – – . 71 27 4 (10 M aefrPHbnre n B binaries, ABH and binaries PBH for rate ,adecnrct itiuin [ distributions eccentricity and ], the is one third The ]. ino u-oa asbakhlscnbe can holes black mass sub-solar of tion yaia formation dynamical B iaisadAHbnre yET by binaries ABH and binaries PBH ⊙ 5 hsprslrms Bsfo ABHs. from PBHs mass super-solar sh vnsprya [ year per events ) nwihsaseov lotceial homo- chemically almost evolve stars which in , gihpioda lc oe (PBHs) holes black primordial nguish [ lrms B iaisadbinaries and binaries PBH mass olar 80 iiso h bnac fsub-solar of abundance the of limits G)dtcos uha Einstein as such detectors, (GW) & , setvl.O h te hand, other the On espectively. 81 1 M ,2 ,4, 3, 2, 1, ineadTechnology, and cience ,drc eeto fsbslrms BHs mass sub-solar of detection direct ], . lsia sltdbnr evolution binary isolated classical ⊙ 1 rmLG/ig vns n then and events, LIGO/Virgo from ) rtclPhysics, oretical M zo,China gzhou, lc oe yEinstein by Holes Black ⊙ † 77 Bs eas Bsaeex- are ABHs Because BBHs. ) ,wihaeepce odetect to expected are which ], tions, 78 ina hne,i hc H are BHs which in channel, , 79 hmclyhomogeneous chemically .Ters fti pa- this of rest The ]. IA II II efcso the on focus we , suigPBHs assuming , 72 61 – 75 – 19 68 aebeen have ] – ,redshift ], 21 28 76 .The ]. chan- , and ] IB II 29 ]. , 2 sub-solar mass PBH and a super-solar mass PBH. Sec. III where dVT/dz is the spacetime sensitivity of a GW de- is dedicated to the super-solar mass BBHs. The redshift tector as a function of redshift and accounts for the selec- evolution of the merger rate for primordial origin BBHs tion effects of that detector. Generally, dVT/dz depends (POBBHs) and AOBBHs can be quite different, which on the properties ξ (e.g. masses and spin) of a binary and results in different redshift distributions of the expected is defined as [85, 86] number of observable BBHs. We estimate and forecast dVT dV T the event number distributions of the PBH and ABH = c obs f(z|ξ), (3) models for ET and CE respectively, which can serve as dz dz 1+ z a complementary tool to distinguish PBHs from ABHs. where V is the comoving volume [87], T is the ob- Finally, we summarize and discuss our results in Sec. IV c obs serving time, and the denominator 1 + z accounts for the converting of cosmic time from source frame to detector II. DISTINGUISH PBHS FROM ABHS BY frame due to the cosmic redshift. Here 0 < f(z|ξ) < 1 SUB-SOLAR MASS BHS is the probability of detecting a BBH with the given parameters ξ at redshift z [88]. The 90% confidential upper limit on the binary merger rate can then be obtained by Direct detection of sub-solar mass BHs can be taken using the loudest event statistic formalism [89], as a smoking gun for PBHs. Nonetheless, the event rate relies both on the merger rate of POBBHs and the sensi- 2.303 R = , (4) tivity of GW detectors. In the following two subsections, 90 VT we will explore the abilities to detect sub-solar mass BHs for different GW detectors by considering the cases when where PBHs have a monochromatic and a general mass func- dVT tions, respectively. VT = dz. (5) dz Z We adopt the semi-analytical approximation from [85, 86] A. Monochromatic mass function to calculate VT by neglecting the effect of spins for BHs and using the IMRPhenomPv2 waveform to simulate the In this subsection, we assume all the PBHs have the BBH templates. Furthermore, we set a single-detector same mass and estimate the detectable limits of fPBH by signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) threshold ρth = 8 as a crite- the targeted search of POBBHs. rion of detection, which roughly corresponds to a network The redshift z evolution of the local merger rate R(z) threshold of 12. Fig. 1 shows the estimated 90% upper in the comoving frame for the monochromatic mass func- limits on the merger rate of equal-mass BBHs, R90, which tion, by accounting the angular momentum exerted both are estimated from Eq. (4). by all PBHs and the background inhomogeneity, is given by [10, 16]

34 105 − 37 t(z) −21/74 R(z)=3.9×106× m−32/37f 2 f 2 + σ2 , LIGO O1+O2 t eq 0 LIGO Design (1) 1000 ET where mM⊙ is the component mass of BBHs measured ) - 1 in the source frame, and σeq is the variance of density yr CE perturbations of the rest DM on scale of order O(100 ∼ - 3 3 10 10 )M⊙ at radiation-matter equality. Following [10, 16], /(Gpc 90 R we choose σeq ≈ 0.005. Here fPBH ≡ ΩPBH/ΩCDM is the energy density fraction of PBHs in CDM and is related to the total abundance of PBHs in non-relativistic matter, 0.100 f, by fPBH ≈ f/0.85. Besides, t(z) is the cosmic time at the redshift of z and t0 ≡ t(0) is the age of our universe.

Note that throughout this paper, we adopt the units in 0.001 which the Newtonian constant G and the speed of light 0.01 0.10 1 10 100 1000 m/M in vacuum c are set to unity. Here we ignore the effects ⊙ of early formed PBH clusters which may alter the merger FIG. 1. The 90% confidential upper limit on the binary rate of PBH binaries and present a rich phenomenology merger rate, R90, as a function of the masses of the equal- [82–84]. We hope to come back to this issue in the future. mass BBHs for LIGO O1 & O2, LIGO Design, ET and CE. The expected number of detection, Nobs, then follows [10, 18] The detectable limit of fPBH by the targeted search dVT from LIGO O1 & O2, LIGO Design, ET and CE are N = R(z) dz, (2) obs dz shown in Fig. 2. The effective observing time of LIGO Z 3

FIG. 2. Constraints on the abundance of PBHs, fPBH, with a monochromatic mass distribution both by the non-detection of SGWBs and the null targeted search result of BBHs. The gray vertical line at 1M⊙ indicates that the constraints from the targeted search are only valid for the sub-solar mass PBHs, because we yet cannot conclude that none of the ten BBHs detected by LIGO/Virgo are of POBBHs. The black, purple, magenta and orange curves are the results of targeted search from LIGO O1 & O2, LIGO Design, ET and CE, respectively. The observing times of LIGO Design, ET and CE are all assumed to be 1 year. The red curve is the updated upper bound of fPBH constrained by the non-detection of SGWB from both LIGO O1 and O2 searches. The results from other experiments are also shown here: extra-galactic gamma-ray (EGγ) [38], existence of white dwarfs in our local galaxy (WD) [40], Subaru HSC microlensing (HSC) [41], Kepler milli/microlensing (Kepler) [42], EROS/MACHO microlensing (EROS) [44], OGLE microlensing (OGLE) [43], dynamical heating of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies (UFD)[46], and accretion constraints by CMB [48–52].

O1 & O2 is set to their total running time of 165.6 days starting frequency fmin [56] [3, 90]. Meanwhile LIGO Design, ET and CE are sup- −8/3 posed to operate at 1 year with full duty. The upper Ntemp ∝ (Mminfmin) . (6) limit for fPBH of sub-solar mass PBHs in the mass range The dramatic increment of computational resource lim- [0.2, 1] M⊙ has been reported in [54, 56] by the null tar- its the current GW search pipeline that it cannot deal geted search result of BBHs in that mass range. We ex- with the BBHs with component masses far below 0.2M⊙ trapolate the results of [54, 56] in several aspects. Firstly, eﬃciently. However, in the future, this issue may be ad- we adopt the merger rate presented in [16], which takes a dressed by the improvement of search algorithms or com- more careful examination of the dynamical evolution of putational technologies. Note also that the upper limits the binary systems than the one used by [54, 56] from the of fPBH in mass range of [10, 300]M⊙ has already been results of [9]. Secondly, we also estimate the detectable derived in [16, 18] by using LIGO/Virgo O1 data. We up- limits of fPBH by the proposed third generation GW de- dated their constraints by using both O1 and O2 data. tectors like CE and ET. Lastly, we do not limit to the And therefore our upper limits are more stringent than mass range of [0.2, 1] M⊙ but extend to the range con- those in [16, 18]. strained by the detectors automatically. In particular, Besides, we update the constraint on fPBH from the since whether the super-solar mass BBHs observed so far null search of stochastic gravitational-wave background are of POBBHs or not is still under debate, we use the (SGWB) from LIGO O1 in [53] to both LIGO O1 and dashed lines to illustrate the detectable limits of fPBH for O2 runs [91–94]. The method adopted in this paper is the super-solar mass PBHs. Furthermore, as the masses described in the Appendix. Usually one may expect that go down below 0.2M⊙, the search diﬃculty arises because the null detection in the targeted search would give a the number of templates required in the template bank, tighter constraint on the abundance of PBHs than that Ntemp, scales both as the minimum mass Mmin and the from SGWBs. However, the GW signals from light BBHs 4 are so weak to be resolved individually by GW observa- function, P (m|θ~), takes the form of tions, and hence the null detection of SGWBs provides 34 − 37 a more stringent constraint on the abundance of light t 21 ~ 6 2 2 2 − 74 R12(t|θ) ≈ 3.9 · 10 × f (f + σeq) PBHs because those weak signals can superpose to form t0 a detectable SGWB. See a cross of the red and black P (m1|θ~) P (m2|θ~) P (m1|θ~) P (m2|θ~) curves around 0.1M⊙ in Fig. 2. Actually, it is also true × min , + for other detections, such as LIGO design, ET and CE. m1 m2 ! m1 m2 ! 3 36 37 37 ×(m1m2) (m1 + m2) , (9) −3 −1 B. General mass function – a model independent in units of Gpc yr , where the component masses m1 approach and m2 are in units of M⊙. The time (or redshift)- dependent merger rate can be obtained by integrating A null search result of the sub-solar mass PBHs in over the component masses LIGO’s O1 and O2 data has been reported in [54–56].

However, the search was only targeted at the POBBHs R(t|θ~)= R12(t|θ~) dm1 dm2. (10) with component masses between 0.2M⊙ and 1M⊙. In Z this subsection, we propose to search for the POBBHs The local merger rate density distribution then reads [60] with a component of sub-solar mass and the other of super-solar mass, which are expected to emit stronger R (t |θ~)= Rp(m ,m |θ~), (11) GWs. 12 0 1 2 Here we extend the discussion in the former subsection where the local merger rate R ≡ R(t0|θ~) is chosen to the case in which PBHs exhibit a broad mass distri- such that the population distribution of BBH mergers, bution, and assume that all the ten BBHs observed by p(m ,m |θ~), is normalized. LIGO/Virgo so far are POBBHs. Contrary to the pre- 1 2 ~ vious works [60, 95–97] by choosing some speciﬁc mass To extract the population parameters {θ, R} from the functions, e.g. a power-law or lognormal ones, which are merger events observed by LIGO/Virgo, it is necessary to pertinent to some speciﬁc formation models of PBHs, we perform the hierarchical Bayesian inference on the BBHs’ take a model-independent approach by binning the mass mass distribution [3, 69, 85, 86, 100–102]. If we have ~ function P (m) from 0.2M⊙ to 100M⊙ as the data of N BBH detections, d = (d1,...,dN ), then the likelihood for an inhomogeneous Poisson process is

P0, 0.2 M⊙ ≤ m< 1 M⊙ [69, 100–102] P , 1 M ≤ m< 30 M P (m)=  1 ⊙ ⊙ (7) N ~ ~ N −Rβ(θ~) ~ ~ ~ ~ P2, 30 M⊙ ≤ m< 60 M⊙ p(d|θ, R) ∝ R e dλ p(di|λ) p(λ|θ), (12)  i P3, 60 M⊙ ≤ m ≤ 100 M⊙ Y Z   where ~λ ≡ {m ,m }. The likelihood of an individual where Pi = {P0, P1, P2, P3} are four constants satisfying 1 2 ~ the normalization condition event p(di|λ) is proportional to the posterior of that event p(~λ|di), as the standard priors on masses for each event P (m) dm =0.8P0 + 29P1 + 30P2 + 40P3 =1. (8) in LIGO/Virgo analysis are taken to be uniform. We Z will use the publicly available posterior samples of ten BBHs [3, 7] from LIGO/Virgo observations to evaluate Here, only three out of the four Pis are independent and the integral in Eq. (12). Meanwhile, β(θ~) is deﬁned as we will choose θ~ = {P1, P2, P3} as free parameters. θ~ will be ﬁtted by the ten BBHs from LIGO’s O1 and O2 runs. In this subsection, we are only interested in β(θ~) ≡ d~λVT (~λ) p(~λ|θ~), (13) the PBHs with masses in the range of [mmin,mmax] = Z [0.2M⊙, 100M⊙]. Here mmin = 0.2M⊙ corresponds to in which VT (~λ) is given by Eq. (5). The posterior prob- the lower mass bound of LIGO’s O1 search for the sub- ability distribution p(θ,~ R|d~) can be directly estimated solar mass ultracompact binaries in [54]. by The merger rate for POBBHs with a general mass 1 function is given in [10]. The time-dependent comov- p(θ,~ R|d~) ∝ p(d~|θ,~ R) p(θ,~ R), (14) ing merger rate density for a general normalized mass where as usual the prior distribution p(θ,~ R)[4, 85] is chosen to be uniform for θ~ parameters and log-uniform for local merger rate R, 1 In [95–99], the authors ignored the relative distribution of PBHs, and cannot guarantee that PBH binaries be formed from the 1 closest neighboring PBHs. p(θ,~ R) ∝ . (15) R 5

Integrating over R in Eq. (14), it is then easy to obtain the marginalized posterior

10 POBBHs

a −N Fiduc l

p(θ~|d~) ∝ β(θ~) d~λ p(di|~λ) p(~λ|θ~), (16)

b¢£e G¡ B- d

h i i Z

ngD¥ ¦y Y L¤ l

(0)

t¨©

which has been widely used in previous population infer- Fl§ l

ences [3, 4, 60, 85, 86, 103]. ( 1

0 0

10- 2

LIGO O1+O2 0 10

1 5 0.0 -

⊙ 10- 4 0 2 4 6 8 10

h z R d f P(m)/M FIG. 4. Redshift distribution of the normalized merger rate, PBH f R(z)/R(0), for the POBBHs and AOBBHs, respectively. For 10- 6 both the POBBHs and AOBBHs, we only count the BBHs with masses in the range of 5M⊙ ≤ m2 ≤ m1 ≤ 95M⊙. We ET assume PBHs have a broad mass distribution of Eq. (7), and the best-ﬁts values are used to calculate the merger rate of CE POBBHs. See text for the details on the assumptions on 10- 8 0.5 1 5 10 50 100 diﬀerent AOBBH models.

m/M⊙ more chance to detect the sub-solar mass BBHs if they FIG. 3. Constraints on the abundance of PBHs, fPBH, in do exist. In addition to search for the BBHs with two CDM. The blue regions with 1M⊙ ≤ m ≤ 100M⊙ are inferred from LIGO’s O1 and O2 events, where the centered sub-solar mass components as LIGO/Virgo have done, dashed lines are the median values and the shaded bars rep- we also propose to search for the BBHs with one sub- resent the 90% Poisson errors. Four lines shown in the mass solar mass component (with mass lying in [0.2, 1]M⊙) range [0.2, 1]M⊙ represent the constraints from null targeted and another super-solar mass one (with mass lying in searches of LIGO O1, LIGO O1 & O2, ET and CE, respec- [1, 100]M⊙). Using the loudest event statistic formalism tively. [see Eq. (4)] and the values of θ~ inferred from LIGO’s O1 and O2 runs, fPBH0 can be constrained to an un- Using ten BBH events from LIGO’s O1 and O2 runs, precedented level. Assuming no such BBHs will be de- −7 we find the median value and 90% equal-tailed credible tected, ET implies fPBH0 ≤ 4.1 × 10 while CE implies ~ +0.7 −8 intervals for the parameters {θ, R} to be P1 =2.1−0.8 × fPBH0 ≤ 4.5 × 10 . The results of the constraints on −2 +4.7 −3 +15.2 −4 f (and f ) when PBHs have a broad mass dis- 10 , P2 = 5.4−3.1 × 10 , P3 = 5.1−4.6 × 10 , and PBH PBH0 R = 308+193 Gpc−3 yr−1, from which we also infer the tribution are shown in Fig. 3. Note that the red line in −135 Fig. 3 shows the upper limit of f ≤ 1.6 × 10−2 from fraction of PBHs in CDM to be f =3.3 +2.3 × 10−3. PBH0 PBH −1.8 the null targeted search of BBHs with two sub-solar mass Such an abundance of PBHs is consistent with previous components, assuming that PBHs take a flat distribution estimations that 10−3 . f . 10−2, confirming that PBH in the mass range [0.2, 1]M . the dominant fraction of CDM should not originate from ⊙ It is worthy to note that the targeted search of BBHs PBHs in the mass range of [0.2, 100]M [9, 10, 16, 60, ⊙ with a sub-solar mass and a super-solar mass components 95, 96]. From now on we will investigate the possibility will improve the detectable limit of f by an order of of detecting sub-solar mass BBHs. Here we denote the PBH O(102 ∼ 103), comparing to the targeted search for BBHs abundance of PBHs in the mass range of [0.2, 1]M as ⊙ with two sub-solar mass BHs as shown in Fig. 2.

fPBH0 ≡ fPBHP0 ∆m0, (17)

III. DISTINGUISH PBHS FROM ABHS BY where ∆m0 = (1 − 0.2)M⊙ =0.8M⊙. As a consequence of the above analysis, it is then straightforward to infer SUPER-SOLAR MASS BHS −3 the upper bound of fPBH0 to be fPBH0 ≤ 1.8 × 10 by LIGO’s O1 and O2 runs. In the future, if third- Besides the method of using sub-solar mass BBHs to generation ground-based GW detectors are in operation, distinguish PBHs from ABHs, there is another way by ex- the detection ability will be greatly enhanced and we have ploring the redshift evolution of the event rate of super- 6 solar mass BBHs. In [10], we found that the merger where z is the redshift and the parameter values of rate of POBBHs increases as a function of redshift z, {k,a,b,zm} are dependent on the specific AOBBH forma- namely R(z) ∝ t(z)−34/37, which is independent of both tion scenarios. In this paper, we will consider 4 different the abundance and mass function of PBHs. However, AOBBH models. the merger rate predicted by the AOBBHs will firstly in- The first one is the Fiducial model in which the crease with z, then peaks at some low redshift, and lastly SFR is a fit to the observations of the luminous galax- −1 −3 rapidly decreases with z. Fig. 4 shows the merger rate of ies and the fit parameters are k =0.178 M⊙ yr Mpc , POBBHs and AOBBHs as a function of redshift z. The zm = 2.00, a = 2.37, b = 1.80 as given by [109], and −1 difference between the merger rate of these two models the time delay distribution has the form of Pd ∝ td increases at the higher redshift. Currently, LIGO can with tmin < td < tmax, where the minimum delay time only observe BBHs at low redshifts (with z < 1), but of a binary system to evolve until coalescence is set to future GW detectors such as CE and ET will be able to be tmin = 50 Myr, and the maximum delay time tmax is probe much higher redshifts (with z ≥ 10). In this sec- set to the Hubble time [110]. This model corresponds to tion, we will demonstrate how well the third-generation the classical isolated binary evolution of AOBBH model ground-based detectors like CE and ET can be used to [105]. distinguish PBHs from ABHs according to the quite dif- The second one is the GRB-based model which different event rate distributions at high redshifts. fers from the fiducial model by using the SFR cal- To comply with the previous studies [4, 104], we ibrated from the gamma ray bursts (GRB) at high restrict the component masses of BBHs to the range redshift, and the fit parameters are given by k = −1 −3 mmin ≤ m2 ≤ m1 and m1 + m2 ≤ mmax, with mmin = 0.146 M⊙ yr Mpc , zm = 1.72, a = 2.80, b = 2.46 5M⊙ and mmax = 100M⊙. To calculate the observ- as given by [109]. able events rate, we first need to know the merger rate The third one is the LongDelay model which is iden- distribution. For PBHs, we assume they have a broad tical to the Fiducial model but assumes a significantly mass distribution of Eq. (7) and adopt the best-fits from longer minimum time delay tmin = 5Gyr. The model is Sec. IIB. For ABHs, the merger rate is a convolution potentially consistent with the chemically homogeneous of the birthrate of ABHs Rbirth(z,m) with the distribu- evolution of rapidly rotating massive stars in very tight tion of the time delays Pd(td) between the formation and binaries [111]. merger of AOBBHs (see e.g. [105]) The last one is the FlatDelay model assuming a flat time delay distribution with tmin = 50 Myr and tmax = tmax 1 Gyr. This model is inspired by the supposition that dy- R12(z)= Rbirth(t(z) − td,m1) × Pd(td) dtd, (18) namical formation of the most massive binaries is likely Ztmin to happen fairly early in the history of the host environ- ment [110]. where td is the time delay, and t(z) is the age of the Uni- verse at merger. The birthrate R can be estimated Fig. 4 compares the redshift distribution of the nor- birth malized merger rate, R(z)/R(0), for the POBBH and by [105] different AOBBH models, respectively. It is shown that the merger rate of LongDelay model decreases quickly −1 Rbirth(t,mbh)= ψ[t−τ(m)] φ(m) δ(m−gbh (mbh)) dm, as redshift increases and GRB-based model has a relative high merger rate at high redshift comparing to the Z (19) Fiducial and the FlatDelay models. Moreover, the where m is the mass of the remnant BH, τ(m) is the bh merger rate from all the AOBBH models decreases at lifetime of a progenitor star of mass m and φ(m) ∝ high redshift while the merger rate from the POBBH m−2.35 is the initial mass function (IMF) [106]. We con- model increases at high redshift. The redshift dependent sider the WWp model [107] of BH formation in which m observable events number density of a GW detector can and m are related by bh be calculated by β mbh m 1 dNobs dVT = A γ , (20) = dm1dm2 R12(z) . (22) m 40M⊙ Z(z) +1 dz dz 0.01Z⊙ Z Integrating over the redshift z results in the total number where Z(z) is the metallicity and an explicit functional of observable events, Nobs, form can be found in [24]. The parameter values in dNobs Eq. (20) are A =0.3, β =0.8 and γ =0.2 [105]. Solving Nobs = dz . (23) −1 dz Eq. (20) yields the functional form m = gbh (mbh). The Z star formation rate (SFR) ψ(t) in Eq. (19) is given by Note that Eq. (2) is a special case of Eq. (23) when [108] m1 = m2 = m. Fig. 5 shows the expected number of observable BBHs, dNobs/dz, as a function of redshift for a exp[b(z − zm)] CE and ET, respectively. Fig. 6 shows the total num- ψ(z)= k , (21) a − b + b exp[a(z − zm)] ber of observable BBHs, Nobs, as a function of redshift 7

80000

POBBHw

C E

x {| 70000 F duc l

10000

POBBH

}~ B- d

60000 Fduc l

B- d

Fl l

00000

#$%& '( ! " l

100000

)*+, -/

< Fl l ;

40000

o N d

30000

0000 20000

10000

0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10

d f

2 468 9 :

1 d f 120000

Ã Ä POBBH

60000

u v

¢£ F¡duc l 100000

POBBH>

¦§¨© ¤¥ B- d

^0000

F?duc l

¬®¯ °±

ª « l

HIJK

BF B- d 80000

³´µ ¶· Fl² l

40000

PQST UV

M O l

Â Á

WXYZ [\ À

q Fl l 60000

m l ]0000 d

40000 20000

20000 10000

0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10

¹ º»¼ ½ ¾

¸ d f

` cdf j k _ d f FIG. 6. Redshift distribution of the total number of observ- FIG. 5. Redshift distribution of the expected number of able BBHs, Nobs, for CE (top panel) and ET (bottom panel), observable BBHs, dNobs/dz, for CE (top panel) and ET respectively. For both the POBBHs and AOBBHs, we only (bottom panel), respectively. For both the POBBHs and count the BBHs with masses in the range of 5M ≤ m2 ≤ AOBBHs, we only count the BBHs with masses in the range ⊙ m1 ≤ 95M⊙. We assume PBHs have a broad mass distribu- of 5M ≤ m2 ≤ m1 ≤ 95M . We assume PBHs have a broad ⊙ ⊙ tion of Eq. (7), and the best-fits values are used to calculate mass distribution of Eq. (7), and the best-fits values are used the merger rate of POBBHs. See text for the details on the to calculate the merger rate of POBBHs. See text for the assumptions on different AOBBH models. details on the assumptions on different AOBBH models.

of total number of observable events after redshift z =5 for CE and ET, respectively. The third-generation GW could possibly point to a population of POBBHs. detectors like CE and ET are expected to detect O(105) BBH mergers each year and dig much deeper at redshit, IV. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION and the fact that the redshift distribution of dNobs/dz for POBBHs and AOBBHs are quite different from each other can be taken as a complementary tool to distinguish Even though several BBH coalescences have been de- these two formation models of BBHs. In particular, the tected by LIGO/Virgo, the origin of these BHs is still contribution to the expected number of observable BBHs unknown. In this paper, we explore how well the next from high redshift (with z > 5) for all the 4 AOBBH generation detectors, such as ET and CT, can be used to models can be negligible, and hence the total number of distinguish PBHs from ABHs. observable events, Nobs, approaches a constant number Firstly, we investigate the possibility of direct detection at z > 5. However, for the POBBHs, the contribution of sub-solar mass BBHs, hence validating the existence of from the higher redshift cannot be ignored, and therefore PBHs. For PBHs with a monochromatic mass function, Nobs still increases when z > 5. Therefore, an “excess” we estimate and forecast the detectable limit of fPBH 8 from the targeted search of BBHs by LIGO, ET, and Appendix: Constrain fPBH by SGWB CE, respectively. Furthermore, in order to get better sensitivity, we propose to search for the BBHs containing Another way to constrain fPBH is through the SGWB a sub-solar mass PBH and a super-solar mass PBH. We [53] which is a superposition of the energy spectra emit- predict that the abundance of PBHs in the mass range ted by the BBHs that are unlikely to be resolved indi- −7 of [0.2, 1]M⊙ can be constrained to an order of O(10 ) vidually. This method differs from the one by targeted −8 and O(10 ) if no such BBHs are to be detected by ET search mainly due to it also utilizes the redshift depen- and CE, respectively. dence of the merger rate (see Eq. (A.2) below). Notice Secondly, we explore the possibility of utilizing the red- that the targeted search is more sensitive to the local shift evolution of the merger rate of super-solar mass merger rate. The energy-density spectrum of a SGWB is BBHs to distinguish PBHs from ABHs. We estimate and characterized by the dimensionless quantity [117] forecast the redshift distribution of the expected number of observable BBHs for the PBH and ABH models, re- ν dρGW ΩGW(ν)= , (A.1) spectively. When the third generation ground-based GW ρc dν detectors like CE and ET are in operation, it is expected 5 2 to detect O(10 ) BBH mergers each year and reach much where ρc =3H0 /(8π) is the critical energy density of our deeper redshift (z & 10), and the redshift distribution of universe, dρGW is the energy density in the frequency detectable BBH events can serve as an alternative means interval [ν, ν + dν], and we take the value of Hubble con- −1 −1 to distinguish PBHs from ABHs. stant H0 = 67.74kmsec Mpc from Planck [118]. For Throughout this paper, we assume that all the the binary mergers, the magnitude of a SGWB can be LIGO/Virgo BBHs originate from the same formation calculated via [119–122] channel. However, this assumption can be too oversim- ν zmax R(z) dE plified because the observed BBHs might be a mixing Ω (ν)= dz GW , (A.2) GW ρ H (1 + z) E(z) dν of POBBHs and AOBBHs. To identify each BBH as a c 0 Z0 s POBBH or AOBBH will be quite difficult in this scenario. In addition to the mass and redshift distribution where νs = (1+ z) ν is the frequency in source-frame, 4 3 of BBHs, other information, e.g. spin distribution, will E(z) = Ωr (1 + z) +Ωm(1 + z) +ΩΛ accounts for also be invaluable in order to find out the progenitors the evolutionq of our universe, and the factor (1 + z) in of the LIGO/Virgo BBHs. For instance, it is expected the denominator of Eq. (A.2) converts the merger rate, that PBHs formed in the early universe have negligible R(z), from source frame to detector frame. We adopt the spins [112–114], while the ABHs which originated from −5 best-fit results from Planck [118] that Ωr =9.15 × 10 , the Population III star binaries, favor a relatively high Ωm =0.3089, and ΩΛ =1−Ωm −Ωr. The cutoff redshift spin distribution [115]. is chosen to be zmax = ν3/ν − 1 [53], in which ν3 is given by Eq. (A.3) below. Furthermore, the energy spectrum dEGW/dνs, emitted by an individual BBH with equal component masses m = m = m, is approximated by ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 1 2 [121, 123, 124]

−1/3 We would like to thank Lu Chen, Yun Fang, Fan νs , νs <ν1, 2/3 5/3 Huang, Jun Li, Lang Liu, Shi Pi, You Wu, Yu Sang, dEGW π M η νs ν−1/3, ν ≤ ν <ν , =  ν1 1 s 2 Sai Wang, Hao Wei, Chen Yuan, and Xue Zhang for 2 4 dνs 3  νs ν4 useful conversations. We acknowledge the use of HPC  4/3 2 2 2 , ν2 ≤ νs <ν3, ν1ν2 (4(νs−ν2) +ν4 ) Cluster of ITP-CAS. This work is supported by grants (A.3)  from NSFC (grant No. 11690021, 11975019, 11947302, where M = m1 +m2 =2 m is the total mass of the BBH, 2 2 11991053), the Strategic Priority Research Program of η = m1m2/M =1/4, and νi = aiη + biη + ci / (πM) Chinese Academy of Sciences (Grant No. XDB23000000, with i = {1, 2, 3}. The coefficients ai, bi and ci are pre- XDA15020701), and Key Research Program of Frontier sented in Table I of [125]. Again, all masses are measured Sciences, CAS, Grant NO. ZDBS-LY-7009. This research in the source frame and units of M⊙. has made use of data, software and/or web tools obtained For a network of n individual detectors, the SNR ρ for from the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center [116] measuring the SGWB with an observation time Tobs is (https://www.gw-openscience.org), a service of LIGO given by [117, 126] Laboratory, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the 1/2 Virgo Collaboration. LIGO is funded by the U.S. Na- n n 2 2 ΓIJ (ν) Sh(ν) tional Science Foundation. Virgo is funded by the French ρ = 2Tobs dν , (A.4) PnI (ν) PnJ (ν) Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the "Z I=1 J>I # Italian Istituto Nazionale della Fisica Nucleare (INFN) p X X and the Dutch Nikhef, with contributions by Polish and where PnI (ν) is the auto power spectral density for the Hungarian institutes. noise in detector I and ΓIJ (ν) is the overlap reduction 9 function [127, 128]. In Eq. (A.4), Sh is the strain power through [126] density spectrum of a SGWB, which is related to ΩGW 3H2 Ω (ν) S (ν)= 0 GW . (A.5) h 2π2 ν3 Here we set ρ = 1, which corresponds to 1σ confidential level, as the criterion for the detection of SGWBs.

[1] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), “Obser- “Are LIGO’s Black Holes Made From Smaller vation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Black Holes?” Astrophys. J. 840, L24 (2017), Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1703.06869 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]. [13] Sebastien Clesse and Juan Garc´ıa-Bellido, “The clus- [2] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), tering of massive Primordial Black Holes as Dark “GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves Matter: measuring their mass distribution with Ad- from a 22-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Co- vanced LIGO,” Phys. Dark Univ. 15, 142–147 (2017), alescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016), arXiv:1603.05234 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1606.04855 [gr-qc]. [14] Fabio Antonini and Frederic A. Rasio, “Merg- [3] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), “Bi- ing black hole binaries in galactic nu- nary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced clei: implications for advanced-LIGO de- LIGO Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. X6, 041015 (2016), tections,” Astrophys. J. 831, 187 (2016), arXiv:1606.04856 [gr-qc]. arXiv:1606.04889 [astro-ph.HE]. [4] B. P. Abbott et al. (VIRGO, LIGO Scien- [15] Kohei Inayoshi, Ryosuke Hirai, Tomoya Kin- tific), “GW170104: Observation of a 50-Solar- ugawa, and Kenta Hotokezaka, “Formation Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at Red- pathway of Population III coalescing binary shift 0.2,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017), black holes through stable mass transfer,” arXiv:1706.01812 [gr-qc]. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 468, 5020–5032 (2017), [5] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Sci- arXiv:1701.04823 [astro-ph.HE]. entific), “GW170608: Observation of a [16] Yacine Ali-Ha¨ımoud, Ely D. Kovetz, and Marc 19-solar-mass Binary Black Hole Coa- Kamionkowski, “Merger rate of primordial black- lescence,” Astrophys. J. 851, L35 (2017), hole binaries,” Phys. Rev. D96, 123523 (2017), arXiv:1711.05578 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1709.06576 [astro-ph.CO]. [6] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), [17] Rosalba Perna, Yi-Han Wang, Nathan Leigh, and “GW170814: A Three-Detector Observation of Matteo Cantiello, “On the Apparent Dichotomy Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Between the Masses of Black Holes Inferred via Coalescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017), X-rays and via Gravitational Waves,” (2019), arXiv:1709.09660 [gr-qc]. arXiv:1901.03345 [astro-ph.HE]. [7] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “GWTC- [18] Bradley J. Kavanagh, Daniele Gaggero, 1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Com- and Gianfranco Bertone, “Merger rate of pact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo dur- a subdominant population of primordial ing the First and Second Observing Runs,” (2018), black holes,” Phys. Rev. D98, 023536 (2018), arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1805.09034 [astro-ph.CO]. [8] Simeon Bird, Ilias Cholis, Julian B. Muñoz, Yacine Ali- [19] Carl L. Rodriguez, Meagan Morscher, Bharath Pat- Ha¨ımoud, Marc Kamionkowski, Ely D. Kovetz, Alvise tabiraman, Sourav Chatterjee, Carl-Johan Haster, Raccanelli, and Adam G. Riess, “Did LIGO detect and Frederic A. Rasio, “Binary Black Hole Merg- dark matter?” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 201301 (2016), ers from Globular Clusters: Implications for Ad- arXiv:1603.00464 [astro-ph.CO]. vanced LIGO,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 051101 (2015), [9] Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.116,no.2,029901(2016)], and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial Black arXiv:1505.00792 [astro-ph.HE]. Hole Scenario for the Gravitational-Wave Event [20] Carl L. Rodriguez, Sourav Chatterjee, and Fred- GW150914,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061101 (2016), eric A. Rasio, “Binary Black Hole Mergers from Glob- arXiv:1603.08338 [astro-ph.CO]. ular Clusters: Masses, Merger Rates, and the Impact [10] Zu-Cheng Chen and Qing-Guo Huang, of Stellar Evolution,” Phys. Rev. D93, 084029 (2016), “Merger Rate Distribution of Primordial-Black- arXiv:1602.02444 [astro-ph.HE]. Hole Binaries,” Astrophys. J. 864, 61 (2018), [21] Dawoo Park, Chunglee Kim, Hyung Mok Lee, Yeong- arXiv:1801.10327 [astro-ph.CO]. Bok Bae, and Krzysztof Belczynski, “Black Hole [11] Sebastien Clesse and Juan Garc´ıa-Bellido, Binaries Dynamically Formed in Globular Clusters,” “Seven Hints for Primordial Black Hole Dark Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 469, 4665–4674 (2017), Matter,” Phys. Dark Univ. 22, 137–146 (2018), arXiv:1703.01568 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1711.10458 [astro-ph.CO]. [22] You Wu, “The merger history of primordial-black-hole [12] Maya Fishbach, Daniel E. Holz, and Ben Farr, binaries,” (2020), arXiv:2001.03833 [astro-ph.CO]. 10

[23] Krzysztof Belczynski, Alessandra Buonanno, Mat- arXiv:0801.0116 [astro-ph]. teo Cantiello, Chris L. Fryer, Daniel E. Holz, [37] Misao Sasaki, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, Ilya Mandel, M. Coleman Miller, and Marek and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Primordial black Walczak, “The Formation and Gravitational- holes—perspectives in gravitational wave as- Wave Detection of Massive Stellar Black- tronomy,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 063001 (2018), Hole Binaries,” Astrophys. J. 789, 120 (2014), arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1403.0677 [astro-ph.HE]. [38] B. J. Carr, Kazunori Kohri, Yuuiti [24] Krzysztof Belczynski, Daniel E. Holz, Tomasz Sendouda, and Jun’ichi Yokoyama, “New Bulik, and Richard O’Shaughnessy, “The first cosmological constraints on primordial gravitational-wave source from the isolated evolution black holes,” Phys. Rev. D81, 104019 (2010), of two 40-100 Msun stars,” Nature 534, 512 (2016), arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1602.04531 [astro-ph.HE]. [39] A. Barnacka, J. F. Glicenstein, and R. Mod- [25] S. E. Woosley, “The Progenitor of erski, “New constraints on primordial black Gw150914,” Astrophys. J. 824, L10 (2016), holes abundance from femtolensing of gamma- arXiv:1603.00511 [astro-ph.HE]. ray bursts,” Phys. Rev. D86, 043001 (2012), [26] Carl L. Rodriguez and Abraham Loeb, “Red- arXiv:1204.2056 [astro-ph.CO]. shift Evolution of the Black Hole Merger Rate [40] Peter W. Graham, Surjeet Rajendran, and from Globular Clusters,” Astrophys. J. 866, L5 (2018), Jaime Varela, “Dark Matter Triggers of Su- arXiv:1809.01152 [astro-ph.HE]. pernovae,” Phys. Rev. D92, 063007 (2015), [27] Nick Choksi, Marta Volonteri, Monica Colpi, Oleg Y. arXiv:1505.04444 [hep-ph]. Gnedin, and Hui Li, “The star clusters that make [41] Hiroko Niikura et al., “Microlensing constraints on pri- black hole binaries across cosmic time,” (2018), mordial black holes with the Subaru/HSC Andromeda arXiv:1809.01164 [astro-ph.GA]. observation,” (2017), arXiv:1701.02151 [astro-ph.CO]. [28] S. E. de Mink, M. Cantiello, N. Langer, [42] Kim Griest, Agnieszka M. Cieplak, and Matthew J. and O. R. Pols, “Chemically Homoge- Lehner, “New Limits on Primordial Black Hole Dark neous Evolution in Massive Binaries,” in Matter from an Analysis of Kepler Source Microlensing American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 181302 (2013). American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. [43] Hiroko Niikura, Masahiro Takada, Shuichiro Yokoyama, 1314, edited by Vicky Kalogera and Marc van der Sluys Takahiro Sumi, and Shogo Masaki, “Earth-mass (2010) pp. 291–296, arXiv:1010.2177 [astro-ph.SR]. black holes? - Constraints on primordial black holes [29] S. E. de Mink and I. Mandel, “The chemically ho- with 5-years OGLE microlensing events,” (2019), mogeneous evolutionary channel for binary black hole arXiv:1901.07120 [astro-ph.CO]. mergers: rates and properties of gravitational- [44] P. Tisserand et al. (EROS-2), “Limits on wave events detectable by advanced LIGO,” the Macho Content of the Galactic Halo Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 460, 3545–3553 (2016), from the EROS-2 Survey of the Magellanic arXiv:1603.02291 [astro-ph.HE]. Clouds,” Astron. Astrophys. 469, 387–404 (2007), [30] Grzegorz Wiktorowicz, Krzysztof Belczynski, arXiv:astro-ph/0607207 [astro-ph]. and Thomas J. Maccarone, “Black Hole X-ray [45] Josh Calcino, Juan Garcia-Bellido, and Tamara M. Transients: The Formation Puzzle,” (2013), Davis, “Updating the MACHO fraction of the arXiv:1312.5924 [astro-ph.HE]. Milky Way dark halowith improved mass models,” [31] J. Casares and P. G. Jonker, “Mass Measure- Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 479, 2889–2905 (2018), ments of Stellar and Intermediate Mass Black- arXiv:1803.09205 [astro-ph.CO]. Holes,” Space Sci. Rev. 183, 223–252 (2014), [46] Timothy D. Brandt, “Constraints on MACHO Dark arXiv:1311.5118 [astro-ph.HE]. Matter from Compact Stellar Systems in Ultra- [32] J. M. Corral-Santana, J. Casares, T. Muñoz- Faint Dwarf Galaxies,” Astrophys. J. 824, L31 (2016), Darias, P. Rodr´ıguez-Gil, T. Shahbaz, M. A. P. arXiv:1605.03665 [astro-ph.GA]. Torres, C. Zurita, and A. A. Tyndall, [47] Daniele Gaggero, Gianfranco Bertone, Francesca “A Black Hole Nova Obscured by an Inner Calore, Riley M. T. Connors, Mark Lovell, Disk Torus,” Science 339, 1048–1051 (2013), Sera Markoff, and Emma Storm, “Searching arXiv:1303.0034 [astro-ph.GA]. for Primordial Black Holes in the radio and X- [33] Jesus M. Corral-Santana, Jorge Casares, Teo Munoz- ray sky,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 241101 (2017), Darias, Franz E. Bauer, Ignacio G. Martinez- arXiv:1612.00457 [astro-ph.HE]. Pais, and David M. Russell, “BlackCAT: A [48] Yacine Ali-Ha¨ımoud and Marc Kamionkowski, “Cos- catalogue of stellar-mass black holes in X-ray mic microwave background limits on accreting pri- transients,” Astron. Astrophys. 587, A61 (2016), mordial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D95, 043534 (2017), arXiv:1510.08869 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1612.05644 [astro-ph.CO]. [34] Stephen Hawking, “Gravitationally collapsed objects of [49] Daniel Aloni, Kfir Blum, and Raphael Flauger, very low mass,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 152, 75 “Cosmic microwave background constraints on primor- (1971). dial black hole dark matter,” JCAP 1705, 017 (2017), [35] Bernard J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, “Black holes in arXiv:1612.06811 [astro-ph.CO]. the early Universe,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 168, [50] Benjamin Horowitz, “Revisiting Primordial Black 399–415 (1974). Holes Constraints from Ionization History,” (2016), [36] Maxim Yu. Khlopov, “Primordial Black Holes,” arXiv:1612.07264 [astro-ph.CO]. Res. Astron. Astrophys. 10, 495–528 (2010), [51] Lu Chen, Qing-Guo Huang, and Ke Wang, “Constraint 11

on the abundance of primordial black holes in dark arXiv:1805.03046 [gr-qc]. matter from Planck data,” JCAP 1612, 044 (2016), [64] Simon Stevenson, Christopher P. L. Berry, arXiv:1608.02174 [astro-ph.CO]. and Ilya Mandel, “Hierarchical analysis [52] Vivian Poulin, Pasquale D. Serpico, Francesca of gravitational-wave measurements of bi- Calore, Sebastien Clesse, and Kazunori Kohri, nary black hole spin–orbit misalignments,” “CMB bounds on disk-accreting massive primor- Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 2801–2811 (2017), dial black holes,” Phys. Rev. D96, 083524 (2017), arXiv:1703.06873 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1707.04206 [astro-ph.CO]. [65] A. I. Bogomazov, V. M. Lipunov, A. V. Tutukov, and [53] Sai Wang, Yi-Fan Wang, Qing-Guo Huang, and A. M. Cherepashchuk, “Spin of LIGO/VIRGO merging Tjonnie G. F. Li, “Constraints on the Primordial Black black holes as the result of binary evolution,” (2018), Hole Abundance from the First Advanced LIGO Ob- arXiv:1811.02294 [astro-ph.HE]. servation Run Using the Stochastic Gravitational-Wave [66] Martin Lopez, Aldo Batta, Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, Background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 191102 (2018), Irvin Martinez, and Johan Samsing, “Tidal Dis- arXiv:1610.08725 [astro-ph.CO]. ruptions of Stars by Binary Black Holes: Modify- [54] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), ing the Spin Magnitudes and Directions of LIGO “Search for sub-solar mass ultracompact bi- Sources in Dense Stellar Environments,” (2018), naries in Advanced LIGO’s first observ- arXiv:1812.01118 [astro-ph.HE]. ing run,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 231103 (2018), [67] M. Arca Sedda and Matthew Benacquista, arXiv:1808.04771 [astro-ph.CO]. “Using final black hole spins and masses to [55] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), infer the formation history of the observed “Search for Subsolar Mass Ultracompact Bi- population of gravitational wave sources,” naries in Advanced LIGO’s Second Observ- Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482, 2991–3010 (2019), ing Run,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 161102 (2019), arXiv:1806.01285 [astro-ph.GA]. arXiv:1904.08976 [astro-ph.CO]. [68] Ben Farr, Daniel E. Holz, and Will M. Farr, “Us- [56] Ryan Magee, Anne-Sylvie Deutsch, Phoebe Mc- ing Spin to Understand the Formation of LIGO and Clincy, Chad Hanna, Christian Horst, Duncan Virgo’s Black Holes,” Astrophys. J. 854, L9 (2018), Meacher, Cody Messick, Sarah Shandera, and arXiv:1709.07896 [astro-ph.HE]. Madeline Wade, “Methods for the detection of [69] Maya Fishbach, Daniel E. Holz, and Will M. Farr, gravitational waves from subsolar mass ultracom- “Does the Black Hole Merger Rate Evolve with Red- pact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D98, 103024 (2018), shift?” Astrophys. J. 863, L41 (2018), [Astrophys. J. arXiv:1808.04772 [astro-ph.IM]. Lett.863,L41(2018)], arXiv:1805.10270 [astro-ph.HE]. [57] Sai Wang, Takahiro Terada, and Kazunori [70] Razieh Emami and Abraham Loeb, “Formation Red- Kohri, “Prospective constraints on the primor- shift of the Massive Black Holes Detected by LIGO,” dial black hole abundance from the stochastic (2018), arXiv:1810.09257 [astro-ph.HE]. gravitational-wave backgrounds produced by coa- [71] Yang Bai, Vernon Barger, and Sida Lu, “Mea- lescing events and curvature perturbations,” (2019), suring the Black Hole Mass Spectrum from Red- arXiv:1903.05924 [astro-ph.CO]. shifts of aLIGO Binary Merger Events,” (2018), [58] Zu-Cheng Chen, Chen Yuan, and Qing-Guo Huang, arXiv:1802.04909 [astro-ph.HE]. “Pulsar Timing Array Constraints on Primordial Black [72] Johan Samsing, Morgan MacLeod, and En- Holes with NANOGrav 11-Year Data Set,” (2019), rico Ramirez-Ruiz, “The Formation of Eccen- arXiv:1910.12239 [astro-ph.CO]. tric Compact Binary Inspirals and the Role of [59] Chen Yuan, Zu-Cheng Chen, and Qing- Gravitational Wave Emission in Binary-Single Guo Huang, “Probing primordial–black-hole Stellar Encounters,” Astrophys. J. 784, 71 (2014), dark matter with scalar induced gravita- arXiv:1308.2964 [astro-ph.HE]. tional waves,” Phys. Rev. D100, 081301 (2019), [73] Johan Samsing, “Eccentric Black Hole Mergers Forming arXiv:1906.11549 [astro-ph.CO]. in Globular Clusters,” Phys. Rev. D97, 103014 (2018), [60] Zu-Cheng Chen, Fan Huang, and Qing-Guo Huang, arXiv:1711.07452 [astro-ph.HE]. “Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background from Bi- [74] Johan Samsing, Morgan MacLeod, and nary Black Holes and Binary Neutron Stars,” Enrico Ramirez-Ruiz, “Dissipative Evolu- Astrophys. J. 871, 97 (2019), arXiv:1809.10360 [gr-qc]. tion of Unequal-mass Binary–single Interac- [61] Will M. Farr, Simon Stevenson, M. Coleman Miller, Ilya tions and Its Relevance to Gravitational-wave Mandel, Ben Farr, and Alberto Vecchio, “Distinguish- Detections,” Astrophys. J. 853, 140 (2018), ing Spin-Aligned and Isotropic Black Hole Populations arXiv:1706.03776 [astro-ph.HE]. With Gravitational Waves,” Nature 548, 426 (2017), [75] Marcus E. Lower, Eric Thrane, Paul D. arXiv:1706.01385 [astro-ph.HE]. Lasky, and Rory Smith, “Measuring eccentric- [62] Vaibhav Tiwari, Stephen Fairhurst, and Mark Han- ity in binary black hole inspirals with gravi- nam, “Constraining black-hole spins with gravitational tational waves,” Phys. Rev. D98, 083028 (2018), wave observations,” Astrophys. J. 868, 140 (2018), arXiv:1806.05350 [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1809.01401 [gr-qc]. [76] M. Punturo et al., “The Einstein Telescope: A third- [63] Ken K. Y. Ng, Salvatore Vitale, Aaron Zim- generation gravitational wave observatory,” Proceed- merman, Katerina Chatziioannou, Davide Gerosa, ings, 14th Workshop on Gravitational wave data anal- and Carl-Johan Haster, “Gravitational-wave astro- ysis (GWDAW-14): Rome, Italy, January 26-29, 2010, physics with effective-spin measurements: asymmetries Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 194002 (2010). and selection biases,” Phys. Rev. D98, 083007 (2018), [77] Benjamin P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific), “Exploring 12

the Sensitivity of Next Generation Gravitational Wave LIGO O1 Data,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 081102 (2019), Detectors,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 044001 (2017), arXiv:1811.12922 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:1607.08697 [astro-ph.IM]. [93] Benjamin P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), [78] T. Regimbau, M. Evans, N. Christensen, E. Kat- “A search for the isotropic stochastic background us- savounidis, B. Sathyaprakash, and S. Vitale, “Dig- ing data from Advanced LIGO’s second observing run,” ging deeper: Observing primordial gravitational (2019), arXiv:1903.02886 [gr-qc]. waves below the binary black hole produced stochas- [94] Benjamin P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Di- tic background,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 151105 (2017), rectional limits on persistent gravitational waves using arXiv:1611.08943 [astro-ph.CO]. data from Advanced LIGO’s first two observing runs,” [79] Salvatore Vitale and Will M. Farr, “Measuring the star (2019), arXiv:1903.08844 [gr-qc]. formation rate with gravitational waves from binary [95] Martti Raidal, Ville Vaskonen, and Hardi black holes,” (2018), arXiv:1808.00901 [astro-ph.HE]. Veermäe, “Gravitational Waves from Primordial [80] S. Chandrasekhar and E. A. Milne, “The Highly Black Hole Mergers,” JCAP 1709, 037 (2017), Collapsed Configurations of a Stellar Mass,” arXiv:1707.01480 [astro-ph.CO]. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 91, 456–466 (1931). [96] Bence Kocsis, Teruaki Suyama, Takahiro Tanaka, [81] Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, “The maximum mass of and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Hidden universality in ideal white dwarfs,” Astrophys. J. 74, 81–82 (1931). the merger rate distribution in the primordial [82] Ville Vaskonen and Hardi Veermäe, “Lower black hole scenario,” Astrophys. J. 854, 41 (2018), bound on the primordial black hole merger arXiv:1709.09007 [astro-ph.CO]. rate,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 043015 (2020), [97] Martti Raidal, Christian Spethmann, Ville Vaskonen, arXiv:1908.09752 [astro-ph.CO]. and Hardi Veermäe, “Formation and Evolution of Pri- [83] Manuel Trashorras, Juan Garc´ıa-Bellido, and Sav- mordial Black Hole Binaries in the Early Universe,” vas Nesseris, “The clustering dynamics of primor- (2018), arXiv:1812.01930 [astro-ph.CO]. dial black boles in N-body simulations,” (2020), [98] Lang Liu, Zong-Kuan Guo, and Rong-Gen Cai, arXiv:2006.15018 [astro-ph.CO]. “Effects of the merger history on the merger [84] Karsten Jedamzik, “Primordial Black Hole Dark Mat- rate of primordial black hole binaries,” (2019), ter and the LIGO/Virgo observations,” (2020), arXiv:1901.07672 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:2006.11172 [astro-ph.CO]. [99] Lang Liu, Zong-Kuan Guo, and Rong-Gen Cai, “Ef- [85] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), fects of the surrounding primordial black holes on the “The Rate of Binary Black Hole Mergers In- merger rate of primordial black hole binaries,” (2018), ferred from Advanced LIGO Observations Sur- arXiv:1812.05376 [astro-ph.CO]. rounding GW150914,” Astrophys. J. 833, L1 (2016), [100] Daniel Wysocki, Jacob Lange, and Richard O. ’shaugh- arXiv:1602.03842 [astro-ph.HE]. nessy, “Reconstructing phenomenological distributions [86] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), “Sup- of compact binaries via gravitational wave observa- plement: The Rate of Binary Black Hole Mergers In- tions,” (2018), arXiv:1805.06442 [gr-qc]. ferred from Advanced LIGO Observations Surround- [101] Ilya Mandel, Will M. Farr, and Jonathan R. Gair, ing GW150914,” Astrophys. J. Suppl. 227, 14 (2016), “Extracting distribution parameters from multiple un- arXiv:1606.03939 [astro-ph.HE]. certain observations with selection biases,” (2018), [87] David W. Hogg, “Distance measures in cosmology,” arXiv:1809.02063 [physics.data-an]. (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9905116 [astro-ph]. [102] Eric Thrane and Colm Talbot, “An introduction to [88] R. O’Shaughnessy, V. Kalogera, and K. Bel- Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy: pa- czynski, “Binary Compact Object Coales- rameter estimation, model selection, and hierarchical cence Rates: The Role of Elliptical Galax- models,” (2018), arXiv:1809.02293 [astro-ph.IM]. ies,” Astrophys. J. 716, 615–633 (2010), [103] Maya Fishbach and Daniel E. Holz, “Where Are LIGO’s arXiv:0908.3635 [astro-ph.CO]. Big Black Holes?” Astrophys. J. 851, L25 (2017), [89] Rahul Biswas, Patrick R. Brady, Jolien D. E. arXiv:1709.08584 [astro-ph.HE]. Creighton, and Stephen Fairhurst, “The Loudest [104] Benjamin P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scien- event statistic: General formulation, properties and tific), “GW170817: Implications for the Stochastic applications,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 175009 (2009), Gravitational-Wave Background from Compact Binary [Erratum: Class. Quant. Grav.30,079502(2013)], Coalescences,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 091101 (2018), arXiv:0710.0465 [gr-qc]. arXiv:1710.05837 [gr-qc]. [90] B.P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scien- [105] Irina Dvorkin, Elisabeth Vangioni, Joseph Silk, tific), “GW170817: Observation of Gravita- Jean-Philippe Uzan, and Keith A. Olive, “Metallicity- tional Waves from a Binary Neutron Star In- constrained merger rates of binary black holes spiral,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), and the stochastic gravitational wave background,” arXiv:1710.05832 [gr-qc]. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 461, 3877–3885 (2016), [91] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), arXiv:1604.04288 [astro-ph.HE]. “Upper Limits on the Stochastic Gravitational- [106] Edwin E. Salpeter, “The Luminosity function and stel- Wave Background from Advanced LIGO’s First lar evolution,” Astrophys. J. 121, 161–167 (1955). Observing Run,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 121101 (2017), [107] S. E. Woosley and T. A. Weaver, “The Evo- [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett.119,no.2,029901(2017)], lution and explosion of massive stars. 2. Ex- arXiv:1612.02029 [gr-qc]. plosive hydrodynamics and nucleosynthesis,” [92] Arianna I. Renzini and Carlo R. Contaldi, “Gravi- Astrophys. J. Suppl. 101, 181–235 (1995). tational Wave Background Sky Maps from Advanced [108] Kentaro Nagamine, Volker Springel, and Lars 13

Hernquist, “Abundance of damped Lyman-alpha [118] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck), “Planck absorbers in cosmological SPH simulations,” 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parame- Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 348, 421 (2004), ters,” Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016), arXiv:astro-ph/0302187 [astro-ph]. arXiv:1502.01589 [astro-ph.CO]. [109] E. Vangioni, K.A. Olive, T. Prestegard, J. Silk, P. Pe- [119] E. S. Phinney, “A Practical theorem on gravitational titjean, and V. Mandic, “The Impact of Star For- wave backgrounds,” astro-ph/0108028 (2001). mation and Gamma-Ray Burst Rates at High Red- [120] T. Regimbau and V. Mandic, “Astrophysical Sources shift on Cosmic Chemical Evolution and Reioniza- of Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Background,” Pro- tion,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 447, 2575 (2015), ceedings, 12th Workshop on Gravitational wave data arXiv:1409.2462 [astro-ph.GA]. analysis (GWDAW-12): Cambridge, USA, December [110] B. P. Abbott et al. (Virgo, LIGO Scientific), 13-16, 2007, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 184018 (2008), “GW150914: Implications for the stochas- arXiv:0806.2794 [astro-ph]. tic gravitational wave background from binary [121] Xing-Jiang Zhu, E. Howell, T. Regimbau, D. Blair, black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 131102 (2016), and Zong-Hong Zhu, “Stochastic Gravitational Wave arXiv:1602.03847 [gr-qc]. Background from Coalescing Binary Black Holes,” [111] Ilya Mandel and Selma E. de Mink, “Merging binary Astrophys. J. 739, 86 (2011), arXiv:1104.3565 [gr-qc]. black holes formed through chemically homoge- [122] Xing-Jiang Zhu, Eric J. Howell, David G. Blair, neous evolution in short-period stellar binaries,” and Zong-Hong Zhu, “On the gravitational wave Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 458, 2634–2647 (2016), background from compact binary coalescences arXiv:1601.00007 [astro-ph.HE]. in the band of ground-based interferometers,” [112] Takeshi Chiba and Shuichiro Yokoyama, “Spin Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 431, 882–899 (2013), Distribution of Primordial Black Holes,” arXiv:1209.0595 [gr-qc]. PTEP 2017, 083E01 (2017), arXiv:1704.06573 [gr-qc]. [123] C. Cutler, Eric Poisson, G. J. Sussman, and L. S. Finn, [113] Mehrdad Mirbabayi, Andrei Gruzinov, and Jorge “Gravitational radiation from a particle in circular or- Noreña, “Spin of Primordial Black Holes,” (2019), bit around a black hole. 2: Numerical results for the arXiv:1901.05963 [astro-ph.CO]. nonrotating case,” Phys. Rev. D47, 1511–1518 (1993). [114] V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, A. Malhotra, [124] David F. Chernoff and Lee Samuel Finn, “Grav- and A. Riotto, “The initial spin probability distribution itational radiation, inspiraling binaries, and of primordial black holes,” JCAP 1905, 018 (2019), cosmology,” Astrophys. J. 411, L5–L8 (1993), arXiv:1903.01179 [astro-ph.CO]. arXiv:gr-qc/9304020 [gr-qc]. [115] Tomoya Kinugawa, Hiroyuki Nakano, and [125] P. Ajith et al., “A Template bank for gravitational Takashi Nakamura, “Gravitational wave quasi- waveforms from coalescing binary black holes. I. Non- normal mode from Population III massive spinning binaries,” Phys. Rev. D77, 104017 (2008), black hole binaries in various models of pop- [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D79,129901(2009)], ulation synthesis,” PTEP 2016, 103E01 (2016), arXiv:0710.2335 [gr-qc]. arXiv:1606.00362 [astro-ph.HE]. [126] Eric Thrane and Joseph D. Romano, “Sensitiv- [116] Michele Vallisneri, Jonah Kanner, Roy Williams, ity curves for searches for gravitational-wave Alan Weinstein, and Branson Stephens, “The LIGO backgrounds,” Phys. Rev. D88, 124032 (2013), Open Science Center,” Proceedings, 10th International arXiv:1310.5300 [astro-ph.IM]. LISA Symposium: Gainesville, Florida, USA, May [127] N. Christensen, “Measuring the stochastic gravitational 18-23, 2014, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012021 (2015), radiation background with laser interferometric anten- arXiv:1410.4839 [gr-qc]. nas,” Phys. Rev. D46, 5250–5266 (1992). [117] Bruce Allen and Joseph D. Romano, “Detect- [128] Eanna E. Flanagan, “The Sensitivity of the laser inter- ing a stochastic background of gravitational ferometer gravitational wave observatory (LIGO) to a radiation: Signal processing strategies and stochastic background, and its dependence on the detec- sensitivities,” Phys. Rev. D59, 102001 (1999), tor orientations,” Phys. Rev. D48, 2389–2407 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9710117 [gr-qc]. arXiv:astro-ph/9305029 [astro-ph].