The Missing Link between Black Holes in High-mass X-Ray Binaries and Gravitational-wave Sources: Observational Selection Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There are few observed high-mass X-ray binaries (HMXBs) that harbor massive black holes (BHs), and none are likely to result in a binary black hole (BBH) that merges within a Hubble time; however, we know that massive merging BBHs exist from gravitational-wave (GW) observations. We investigate the role that X-ray and GW observational selection effects play in determining the properties of their respective detected binary populations. We find that, as a result of selection effects, detectable HMXBs and detectable BBHs form at different redshifts and metallicities, with detectable HMXBs forming at much lower redshifts and higher metallicities than detectable BBHs. We also find disparities in the mass distributions of these populations, with detectable merging BBH progenitors pulling to higher component masses relative to the full detectable HMXB population. Fewer than 3% of detectable HMXBs host BHs >35M ⊙ in our simulated populations. Furthermore, we find the probability that a detectable HMXB will merge as a BBH system within a Hubble time is ≃0.6%. Thus, it is unsurprising that no currently observed HMXB is predicted to form a merging BBH with high probability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".