Comparing astrophysical models to gravitational-wave data in the observable space
Alexandre Toubiana, Davide Gerosa, Matthew Mould, Stefano Rinaldi, Manuel Arca Sedda, Tristan Bruel, Riccardo Buscicchio, Jonathan Gair, Lavinia Paiella, Filippo Santoliquido, Rodrigo Tenorio, Cristiano Ugolini

TL;DR
This paper advocates for directly comparing astrophysical models to gravitational-wave data in the observable space, simplifying validity checks and potentially improving population inference accuracy.
Contribution
It introduces a method for direct observable population comparison, bypassing deconvolution of selection effects, and demonstrates its application to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data.
Findings
Observable population comparison respects model validity domains.
Unbiased inference of observable populations is achievable.
Application to LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA data shows promising results.
Abstract
Comparing population-synthesis models to the results of hierarchical Bayesian inference in gravitational-wave astronomy requires a careful understanding of the domain of validity of the models fitted to data. This comparison is usually done using the inferred astrophysical distribution: from the data that were collected, one deconvolves selection effects to reconstruct the generating population distribution. In this paper, we demonstrate the benefits of instead comparing observable populations directly. In this approach, the domain of validity of the models is trivially respected, such that only the relevant parameter space regions as predicted by the astrophysical models of interest contribute to the comparison. With this in mind, it can be useful to fit the observed population directly, rather than effectively deconvolving the selection effects only to fold them back in when…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
