Inferring MBH-Mbulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background

Cayenne Matt; Kayhan Gültekin; Luke Zoltan Kelley; Laura Blecha; Joseph Simon; Gabriella Agazie; Akash Anumarlapudi; Anne M. Archibald; Zaven Arzoumanian; Jeremy G. Baier; Paul T. Baker; Bence Bécsy; Adam Brazier; Paul R. Brook; Sarah Burke-Spolaor; Rand Burnette; Robin Case; J. Andrew Casey-Clyde; Maria Charisi; Shami Chatterjee; Tyler Cohen; James M. Cordes; Neil J. Cornish; Fronefield Crawford; H. Thankful Cromartie; Kathryn Crowter; Megan E. DeCesar; Paul B. Demorest; Heling Deng; Lankeswar Dey; Timothy Dolch; Elizabeth C. Ferrara; William Fiore; Emmanuel Fonseca; Gabriel E. Freedman; Emiko C. Gardiner; Nate Garver-Daniels; Peter A. Gentile; Kyle A. Gersbach; Joseph Glaser; Deborah C. Good; C. J. Harris; Jeffrey S. Hazboun; Ross J. Jennings; Aaron D. Johnson; Megan L. Jones; David L. Kaplan; Matthew Kerr; Joey S. Key; Nima Laal; Michael T. Lam; William G. Lamb; Bjorn Larsen; T. Joseph W. Lazio; Natalia Lewandowska; Tingting Liu; Duncan R. Lorimer; Jing Luo; Ryan S. Lynch; Chung Pei Ma; Dustin R. Madison; Alexander McEwen; James W. McKee; Maura A. McLaughlin; Natasha McMann; Bradley W. Meyers; Patrick M. Meyers; Chiara M.F. Mingarelli; Andrea Mitridate; Cherry Ng; David J. Nice; Stella Koch Ocker; Ken D. Olum; Timothy T. Pennucci; Benetge B.P. Perera; Polina Petrov; Nihan S. Pol; Henri A. Radovan; Scott M. Ransom; Paul S. Ray; Joseph D. Romano; Jessie C. Runnoe; Alexander Saffer; Shashwat C. Sardesai; Ann Schmiedekamp; Carl Schmiedekamp; Kai Schmitz; Brent J. Shapiro-Albert; Xavier Siemens; Sophia V.Sosa Fiscella; Ingrid H. Stairs; Daniel R. Stinebring; Kevin Stovall; Abhimanyu Susobhanan; Joseph K. Swiggum; Jacob Taylor; Stephen R. Taylor; Mercedes S. Thompson; Jacob E. Turner; Michele Vallisneri; Rutger van Haasteren; Sarah J. Vigeland; Haley M. Wahl; Kevin P. Wilson; Caitlin A. Witt; David Wright; Olivia Young

doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

Inferring M_BH-M_bulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background

Cayenne Matt
, Kayhan Gültekin
, Luke Zoltan Kelley
, Laura Blecha
, Joseph Simon
, Gabriella Agazie
, Akash Anumarlapudi
, Anne M. Archibald
, Zaven Arzoumanian
, Jeremy G. Baier
, Paul T. Baker
, Bence Bécsy
, Adam Brazier
, Paul R. Brook
, Sarah Burke-Spolaor
, Rand Burnette
, Robin Case
, J. Andrew Casey-Clyde
, Maria Charisi
, Shami Chatterjee

Tyler Cohen, James M. Cordes, Neil J. Cornish, Fronefield Crawford, H. Thankful Cromartie, Kathryn Crowter, Megan E. DeCesar, Paul B. Demorest, Heling Deng, Lankeswar Dey, Timothy Dolch, Elizabeth C. Ferrara, William Fiore, Emmanuel Fonseca, Gabriel E. Freedman, Emiko C. Gardiner, Nate Garver-Daniels, Peter A. Gentile, Kyle A. Gersbach, Joseph Glaser, Deborah C. Good, C. J. Harris, Jeffrey S. Hazboun, Ross J. Jennings, Aaron D. Johnson, Megan L. Jones, David L. Kaplan, Matthew Kerr, Joey S. Key, Nima Laal, Michael T. Lam, William G. Lamb, Bjorn Larsen, T. Joseph W. Lazio, Natalia Lewandowska, Tingting Liu, Duncan R. Lorimer, Jing Luo, Ryan S. Lynch, Chung Pei Ma, Dustin R. Madison, Alexander McEwen, James W. McKee, Maura A. McLaughlin, Natasha McMann, Bradley W. Meyers, Patrick M. Meyers, Chiara M.F. Mingarelli, Andrea Mitridate, Cherry Ng, David J. Nice, Stella Koch Ocker, Ken D. Olum, Timothy T. Pennucci, Benetge B.P. Perera, Polina Petrov, Nihan S. Pol, Henri A. Radovan, Scott M. Ransom, Paul S. Ray, Joseph D. Romano, Jessie C. Runnoe, Alexander Saffer, Shashwat C. Sardesai, Ann Schmiedekamp, Carl Schmiedekamp, Kai Schmitz, Brent J. Shapiro-Albert, Xavier Siemens, Sophia V.Sosa Fiscella, Ingrid H. Stairs, Daniel R. Stinebring, Kevin Stovall, Abhimanyu Susobhanan, Joseph K. Swiggum, Jacob Taylor, Stephen R. Taylor, Mercedes S. Thompson, Jacob E. Turner, Michele Vallisneri, Rutger van Haasteren, Sarah J. Vigeland, Haley M. Wahl, Kevin P. Wilson, Caitlin A. Witt, David Wright, Olivia Young

Physics and Astronomy

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
University of California at Berkeley
University of Florida
University of Colorado Boulder
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Newcastle University
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Oregon State University
Widener University
University of Birmingham
Cornell University
West Virginia University
University of Connecticut
Washington State University Pullman
Foundation for Research and Technology-Hellas
New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
Montana State University
Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster
National Research Council
University of British Columbia
George Mason University
National Science Foundation
Hillsdale College
Eureka Scientific, Inc.
University of Maryland, College Park
Vanderbilt University
California Institute of Technology
Naval Research Laboratory
University of Washington
SETI Institute
Rochester Institute of Technology
Yale University
SUNY Oswego
Georgia State University
University of Toronto
Occidental College
Union College
Curtin University
German Electron Synchrotron
Lafayette College
Carnegie Institution of Washington
Tufts University
Eötvös Loránd University
Texas Tech University
University of Puerto Rico
Pennsylvania State University
University of Münster
Oberlin College
Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute)
Wake Forest University

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

We test the impact of an evolving supermassive black hole mass scaling relation (M_BH-M_bulge) on the predictions for the gravitational-wave background (GWB). The observed GWB amplitude is 2-3 times higher than predicted by astrophysically informed models, which suggests the need to revise the assumptions in those models. We compare a semi-analytic model’s ability to reproduce the observed GWB spectrum with a static versus evolving-amplitude M_BH-M_bulge relation. We additionally consider the influence of the choice of galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) on the modeled GWB spectra. Our models are able to reproduce the GWB amplitude with either a large number density of massive galaxies or a positively evolving M_BH-M_bulge amplitude (i.e., the M_BH/M_bulge ratio was higher in the past). If we assume that the M_BH-M_bulge amplitude does not evolve, our models require a GSMF that implies an undetected population of massive galaxies (M_⋆ ≥ 10¹¹M_⊙ at z > 1). When the M_BH-M_bulge amplitude is allowed to evolve, we can model the GWB spectrum with all fiducial values and an M_BH-M_bulge amplitude that evolves as α(z) = α₀(1 + z)^1.04±0.5

Original language	English
Article number	188
Journal	Astrophysical Journal
Volume	997
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480
State	Published - Feb 1 2026

Access to Document

10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

Cite this

Matt, C., Gültekin, K., Kelley, L. Z., Blecha, L., Simon, J., Agazie, G., Anumarlapudi, A., Archibald, A. M., Arzoumanian, Z., Baier, J. G., Baker, P. T., Bécsy, B., Brazier, A., Brook, P. R., Burke-Spolaor, S., Burnette, R., Case, R., Casey-Clyde, J. A., Charisi, M., ... Young, O. (2026). Inferring M_BH-M_bulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background. Astrophysical Journal, 997(2), Article 188. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

@article{5cf732b867134496b251389febb83c85,

title = "Inferring MBH-Mbulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background",

abstract = "We test the impact of an evolving supermassive black hole mass scaling relation (MBH-Mbulge) on the predictions for the gravitational-wave background (GWB). The observed GWB amplitude is 2-3 times higher than predicted by astrophysically informed models, which suggests the need to revise the assumptions in those models. We compare a semi-analytic model{\textquoteright}s ability to reproduce the observed GWB spectrum with a static versus evolving-amplitude MBH-Mbulge relation. We additionally consider the influence of the choice of galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) on the modeled GWB spectra. Our models are able to reproduce the GWB amplitude with either a large number density of massive galaxies or a positively evolving MBH-Mbulge amplitude (i.e., the MBH/Mbulge ratio was higher in the past). If we assume that the MBH-Mbulge amplitude does not evolve, our models require a GSMF that implies an undetected population of massive galaxies (M⋆ ≥ 1011M⊙ at z > 1). When the MBH-Mbulge amplitude is allowed to evolve, we can model the GWB spectrum with all fiducial values and an MBH-Mbulge amplitude that evolves as α(z) = α0(1 + z)1.04±0.5",

author = "Cayenne Matt and Kayhan G{\"u}ltekin and Kelley, \{Luke Zoltan\} and Laura Blecha and Joseph Simon and Gabriella Agazie and Akash Anumarlapudi and Archibald, \{Anne M.\} and Zaven Arzoumanian and Baier, \{Jeremy G.\} and Baker, \{Paul T.\} and Bence B{\'e}csy and Adam Brazier and Brook, \{Paul R.\} and Sarah Burke-Spolaor and Rand Burnette and Robin Case and Casey-Clyde, \{J. Andrew\} and Maria Charisi and Shami Chatterjee and Tyler Cohen and Cordes, \{James M.\} and Cornish, \{Neil J.\} and Fronefield Crawford and Cromartie, \{H. Thankful\} and Kathryn Crowter and DeCesar, \{Megan E.\} and Demorest, \{Paul B.\} and Heling Deng and Lankeswar Dey and Timothy Dolch and Ferrara, \{Elizabeth C.\} and William Fiore and Emmanuel Fonseca and Freedman, \{Gabriel E.\} and Gardiner, \{Emiko C.\} and Nate Garver-Daniels and Gentile, \{Peter A.\} and Gersbach, \{Kyle A.\} and Joseph Glaser and Good, \{Deborah C.\} and Harris, \{C. J.\} and Hazboun, \{Jeffrey S.\} and Jennings, \{Ross J.\} and Johnson, \{Aaron D.\} and Jones, \{Megan L.\} and Kaplan, \{David L.\} and Matthew Kerr and Key, \{Joey S.\} and Nima Laal and Lam, \{Michael T.\} and Lamb, \{William G.\} and Bjorn Larsen and Lazio, \{T. Joseph W.\} and Natalia Lewandowska and Tingting Liu and Lorimer, \{Duncan R.\} and Jing Luo and Lynch, \{Ryan S.\} and Ma, \{Chung Pei\} and Madison, \{Dustin R.\} and Alexander McEwen and McKee, \{James W.\} and McLaughlin, \{Maura A.\} and Natasha McMann and Meyers, \{Bradley W.\} and Meyers, \{Patrick M.\} and Mingarelli, \{Chiara M.F.\} and Andrea Mitridate and Cherry Ng and Nice, \{David J.\} and Ocker, \{Stella Koch\} and Olum, \{Ken D.\} and Pennucci, \{Timothy T.\} and Perera, \{Benetge B.P.\} and Polina Petrov and Pol, \{Nihan S.\} and Radovan, \{Henri A.\} and Ransom, \{Scott M.\} and Ray, \{Paul S.\} and Romano, \{Joseph D.\} and Runnoe, \{Jessie C.\} and Alexander Saffer and Sardesai, \{Shashwat C.\} and Ann Schmiedekamp and Carl Schmiedekamp and Kai Schmitz and Shapiro-Albert, \{Brent J.\} and Xavier Siemens and Fiscella, \{Sophia V.Sosa\} and Stairs, \{Ingrid H.\} and Stinebring, \{Daniel R.\} and Kevin Stovall and Abhimanyu Susobhanan and Swiggum, \{Joseph K.\} and Jacob Taylor and Taylor, \{Stephen R.\} and Thompson, \{Mercedes S.\} and Turner, \{Jacob E.\} and Michele Vallisneri and \{van Haasteren\}, Rutger and Vigeland, \{Sarah J.\} and Wahl, \{Haley M.\} and Wilson, \{Kevin P.\} and Witt, \{Caitlin A.\} and David Wright and Olivia Young",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2026. The Author(s). Published by the American Astronomical Society.",

year = "2026",

month = feb,

day = "1",

doi = "10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480",

language = "English",

volume = "997",

journal = "Astrophysical Journal",

issn = "0004-637X",

publisher = "American Astronomical Society",

number = "2",

}

Matt, C, Gültekin, K, Kelley, LZ, Blecha, L, Simon, J, Agazie, G, Anumarlapudi, A, Archibald, AM, Arzoumanian, Z, Baier, JG, Baker, PT, Bécsy, B, Brazier, A, Brook, PR, Burke-Spolaor, S, Burnette, R, Case, R, Casey-Clyde, JA, Charisi, M, Chatterjee, S, Cohen, T, Cordes, JM, Cornish, NJ, Crawford, F, Cromartie, HT, Crowter, K, DeCesar, ME, Demorest, PB, Deng, H, Dey, L, Dolch, T, Ferrara, EC, Fiore, W, Fonseca, E, Freedman, GE, Gardiner, EC, Garver-Daniels, N, Gentile, PA, Gersbach, KA, Glaser, J, Good, DC, Harris, CJ, Hazboun, JS, Jennings, RJ, Johnson, AD, Jones, ML, Kaplan, DL, Kerr, M, Key, JS, Laal, N, Lam, MT, Lamb, WG, Larsen, B, Lazio, TJW, Lewandowska, N, Liu, T, Lorimer, DR, Luo, J, Lynch, RS, Ma, CP, Madison, DR, McEwen, A, McKee, JW, McLaughlin, MA, McMann, N, Meyers, BW, Meyers, PM, Mingarelli, CMF, Mitridate, A, Ng, C, Nice, DJ, Ocker, SK, Olum, KD, Pennucci, TT, Perera, BBP, Petrov, P, Pol, NS, Radovan, HA, Ransom, SM, Ray, PS, Romano, JD, Runnoe, JC, Saffer, A, Sardesai, SC, Schmiedekamp, A, Schmiedekamp, C, Schmitz, K, Shapiro-Albert, BJ, Siemens, X, Fiscella, SVS, Stairs, IH, Stinebring, DR, Stovall, K, Susobhanan, A, Swiggum, JK, Taylor, J, Taylor, SR, Thompson, MS, Turner, JE, Vallisneri, M, van Haasteren, R, Vigeland, SJ, Wahl, HM, Wilson, KP, Witt, CA, Wright, D & Young, O 2026, 'Inferring M_BH-M_bulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background', Astrophysical Journal, vol. 997, no. 2, 188. https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

TY - JOUR

T1 - Inferring MBH-Mbulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background

AU - Matt, Cayenne

AU - Gültekin, Kayhan

AU - Kelley, Luke Zoltan

AU - Blecha, Laura

AU - Simon, Joseph

AU - Agazie, Gabriella

AU - Anumarlapudi, Akash

AU - Archibald, Anne M.

AU - Arzoumanian, Zaven

AU - Baier, Jeremy G.

AU - Baker, Paul T.

AU - Bécsy, Bence

AU - Brazier, Adam

AU - Brook, Paul R.

AU - Burke-Spolaor, Sarah

AU - Burnette, Rand

AU - Case, Robin

AU - Casey-Clyde, J. Andrew

AU - Charisi, Maria

AU - Chatterjee, Shami

AU - Cohen, Tyler

AU - Cordes, James M.

AU - Cornish, Neil J.

AU - Crawford, Fronefield

AU - Cromartie, H. Thankful

AU - Crowter, Kathryn

AU - DeCesar, Megan E.

AU - Demorest, Paul B.

AU - Deng, Heling

AU - Dey, Lankeswar

AU - Dolch, Timothy

AU - Ferrara, Elizabeth C.

AU - Fiore, William

AU - Fonseca, Emmanuel

AU - Freedman, Gabriel E.

AU - Gardiner, Emiko C.

AU - Garver-Daniels, Nate

AU - Gentile, Peter A.

AU - Gersbach, Kyle A.

AU - Glaser, Joseph

AU - Good, Deborah C.

AU - Harris, C. J.

AU - Hazboun, Jeffrey S.

AU - Jennings, Ross J.

AU - Johnson, Aaron D.

AU - Jones, Megan L.

AU - Kaplan, David L.

AU - Kerr, Matthew

AU - Key, Joey S.

AU - Laal, Nima

AU - Lam, Michael T.

AU - Lamb, William G.

AU - Larsen, Bjorn

AU - Lazio, T. Joseph W.

AU - Lewandowska, Natalia

AU - Liu, Tingting

AU - Lorimer, Duncan R.

AU - Luo, Jing

AU - Lynch, Ryan S.

AU - Ma, Chung Pei

AU - Madison, Dustin R.

AU - McEwen, Alexander

AU - McKee, James W.

AU - McLaughlin, Maura A.

AU - McMann, Natasha

AU - Meyers, Bradley W.

AU - Meyers, Patrick M.

AU - Mingarelli, Chiara M.F.

AU - Mitridate, Andrea

AU - Ng, Cherry

AU - Nice, David J.

AU - Ocker, Stella Koch

AU - Olum, Ken D.

AU - Pennucci, Timothy T.

AU - Perera, Benetge B.P.

AU - Petrov, Polina

AU - Pol, Nihan S.

AU - Radovan, Henri A.

AU - Ransom, Scott M.

AU - Ray, Paul S.

AU - Romano, Joseph D.

AU - Runnoe, Jessie C.

AU - Saffer, Alexander

AU - Sardesai, Shashwat C.

AU - Schmiedekamp, Ann

AU - Schmiedekamp, Carl

AU - Schmitz, Kai

AU - Shapiro-Albert, Brent J.

AU - Siemens, Xavier

AU - Fiscella, Sophia V.Sosa

AU - Stairs, Ingrid H.

AU - Stinebring, Daniel R.

AU - Stovall, Kevin

AU - Susobhanan, Abhimanyu

AU - Swiggum, Joseph K.

AU - Taylor, Jacob

AU - Taylor, Stephen R.

AU - Thompson, Mercedes S.

AU - Turner, Jacob E.

AU - Vallisneri, Michele

AU - van Haasteren, Rutger

AU - Vigeland, Sarah J.

AU - Wahl, Haley M.

AU - Wilson, Kevin P.

AU - Witt, Caitlin A.

AU - Wright, David

AU - Young, Olivia

PY - 2026/2/1

Y1 - 2026/2/1

N2 - We test the impact of an evolving supermassive black hole mass scaling relation (MBH-Mbulge) on the predictions for the gravitational-wave background (GWB). The observed GWB amplitude is 2-3 times higher than predicted by astrophysically informed models, which suggests the need to revise the assumptions in those models. We compare a semi-analytic model’s ability to reproduce the observed GWB spectrum with a static versus evolving-amplitude MBH-Mbulge relation. We additionally consider the influence of the choice of galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) on the modeled GWB spectra. Our models are able to reproduce the GWB amplitude with either a large number density of massive galaxies or a positively evolving MBH-Mbulge amplitude (i.e., the MBH/Mbulge ratio was higher in the past). If we assume that the MBH-Mbulge amplitude does not evolve, our models require a GSMF that implies an undetected population of massive galaxies (M⋆ ≥ 1011M⊙ at z > 1). When the MBH-Mbulge amplitude is allowed to evolve, we can model the GWB spectrum with all fiducial values and an MBH-Mbulge amplitude that evolves as α(z) = α0(1 + z)1.04±0.5

AB - We test the impact of an evolving supermassive black hole mass scaling relation (MBH-Mbulge) on the predictions for the gravitational-wave background (GWB). The observed GWB amplitude is 2-3 times higher than predicted by astrophysically informed models, which suggests the need to revise the assumptions in those models. We compare a semi-analytic model’s ability to reproduce the observed GWB spectrum with a static versus evolving-amplitude MBH-Mbulge relation. We additionally consider the influence of the choice of galaxy stellar mass function (GSMF) on the modeled GWB spectra. Our models are able to reproduce the GWB amplitude with either a large number density of massive galaxies or a positively evolving MBH-Mbulge amplitude (i.e., the MBH/Mbulge ratio was higher in the past). If we assume that the MBH-Mbulge amplitude does not evolve, our models require a GSMF that implies an undetected population of massive galaxies (M⋆ ≥ 1011M⊙ at z > 1). When the MBH-Mbulge amplitude is allowed to evolve, we can model the GWB spectrum with all fiducial values and an MBH-Mbulge amplitude that evolves as α(z) = α0(1 + z)1.04±0.5

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105034175766

U2 - 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

DO - 10.3847/1538-4357/ae2480

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:105034175766

SN - 0004-637X

VL - 997

JO - Astrophysical Journal

JF - Astrophysical Journal

IS - 2

M1 - 188

ER -

Inferring M_BH-M_bulge Evolution from the Gravitational-wave Background

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this