Paper detail

Accuracy and effectualness of closed-form, frequency-domain waveforms for non-spinning black hole binaries

The coalescences of binary black hole (BBH) systems, here taken to be non-spinning, are among the most promising sources for gravitational wave (GW) ground-based detectors, such as LIGO and Virgo. To detect the GW signals emitted by BBHs, and measure the parameters of the source, one needs to have in hand a bank of GW templates that are both effectual (for detection), and accurate (for measurement). We study the effectualness and the accuracy of the two types of parametrized banks of templates that are directly defined in the frequency-domain by means of closed-form expressions, namely 'post-Newtonian' (PN) and 'phenomenological' models. In absence of knowledge of the exact waveforms, our study assumes as fiducial, target waveforms the ones generated by the most accurate version of the effective one body (EOB) formalism. We find that, for initial GW detectors the use, at each point of parameter space, of the best closed-form template (among PN and phenomenological models) leads to an effectualness >97% over the entire mass range and >99% in an important fraction of parameter space; however, when considering advanced detectors, both of the closed-form frequency-domain models fail to be effectual enough in significant domains of the two-dimensional [total mass and mass ratio] parameter space. Moreover, we find that, both for initial and advanced detectors, the two closed-form frequency-domain models fail to satisfy the minimal required accuracy standard in a very large domain of the two-dimensional parameter space. In addition, a side result of our study is the determination, as a function of the mass ratio, of the maximum frequency at which a frequency-domain PN waveform can be 'joined' onto a NR-calibrated EOB waveform without undue loss of accuracy.

preprint2010arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

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

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.