BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Isobel M. Romero-Shaw

Isobel M. Romero-Shaw contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
astro-ph.HEgr-qcastro-ph.IM

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Eccentricity or spin precession? Distinguishing subdominant effects in gravitational-wave data

Eccentricity and spin precession are key observables in gravitational-wave astronomy, encoding precious information about the astrophysical formation of compact binaries together with fine details of the relativistic two-body problem. However, the two effects can mimic each other in the emitted signals, raising issues around their distinguishability. Since inferring the existence of both eccentricity and spin precession simultaneously is -- at present -- not possible, current state-of-the-art analyses assume that either one of the effects may be present in the data. In such a setup, what are the conditions required for a confident identification of either effect? We present simulated parameter inference studies in realistic LIGO/Virgo noise, studying events consistent with either spin precessing or eccentric binary black hole coalescences and recovering under the assumption that either of the two effects may be at play. We quantify how the distinguishability of eccentricity and spin precession increases with the number of visible orbital cycles, confirming that the signal must be sufficiently long for the two effects to be separable. The threshold depends on the injected source, with inclination, eccentricity, and effective spin playing crucial roles. In particular, for injections similar to GW190521, we find that it is impossible to confidently distinguish eccentricity from spin precession.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

A Rosetta Stone for eccentric gravitational waveform models

Orbital eccentricity is a key signature of dynamical binary black hole formation. The gravitational waves from a coalescing binary contain information about its orbital eccentricity, which may be measured if the binary retains sufficient eccentricity near merger. Dedicated waveforms are required to measure eccentricity. Several models have been put forward, and show good agreement with numerical relativity at the level of a few percent or better. However, there are multiple ways to define eccentricity for inspiralling systems, and different models internally use different definitions of eccentricity, making it difficult to directly compare eccentricity measurements. In this work, we systematically compare two eccentric waveform models, $\texttt{SEOBNRE}$ and $\texttt{TEOBResumS}$, by developing a framework to translate between different definitions of eccentricity. This mapping is constructed by minimizing the relative mismatch between the two models over eccentricity and reference frequency, before evolving the eccentricity of one model to the same reference frequency as the other model. We show that for a given value of eccentricity passed to $\texttt{SEOBNRE}$, one must input a $20$-$50\%$ smaller value of eccentricity to $\texttt{TEOBResumS}$ in order to obtain a waveform with the same empirical eccentricity. We verify this mapping by repeating our analysis for eccentric numerical relativity simulations, demonstrating that $\texttt{TEOBResumS}$ reports a correspondingly smaller value of eccentricity than $\texttt{SEOBNRE}$.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

When models fail: an introduction to posterior predictive checks and model misspecification in gravitational-wave astronomy

Bayesian inference is a powerful tool in gravitational-wave astronomy. It enables us to deduce the properties of merging compact-object binaries and to determine how these mergers are distributed as a population according to mass, spin, and redshift. As key results are increasingly derived using Bayesian inference, there is increasing scrutiny on Bayesian methods. In this review, we discuss the phenomenon of \textit{model misspecification}, in which results obtained with Bayesian inference are misleading because of deficiencies in the assumed model(s). Such deficiencies can impede our inferences of the true parameters describing physical systems. They can also reduce our ability to distinguish the "best fitting" model: it can be misleading to say that Model~A is preferred over Model~B if both models are manifestly poor descriptions of reality. Broadly speaking, there are two ways in which models fail: models that fail to adequately describe the data (either the signal or the noise) have misspecified likelihoods. Population models -- designed, for example, to describe the distribution of black hole masses -- may fail to adequately describe the true population due to a misspecified prior. We recommend tests and checks that are useful for spotting misspecified models using examples inspired by gravitational-wave astronomy. We include companion python notebooks to illustrate essential concepts.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2019arXiv

Searching for Eccentricity: Signatures of Dynamical Formation in the First Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalogue of LIGO and Virgo

Binary black holes are thought to form primarily via two channels: isolated evolution and dynamical formation. The component masses, spins, and eccentricity of a binary black hole system provide clues to its formation history. We focus on eccentricity, which can be a signature of dynamical formation. Employing the spin-aligned eccentric waveform model SEOBNRE, we perform Bayesian inference to measure the eccentricity of binary black hole merger events in the first Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalogue of LIGO and Virgo. We find that all of these events are consistent with zero eccentricity. We set upper limits on eccentricity ranging from 0.02 to 0.05 with 90% confidence at a reference frequency of 10 Hz. These upper limits do not significantly constrain the fraction of LIGO-Virgo events formed dynamically in globular clusters, because only ~ 5% are expected to merge with measurable eccentricity. However, with the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalogue set to expand dramatically over the coming months, it may soon be possible to significantly constrain the fraction of mergers taking place in globular clusters using eccentricity measurements.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access