Paper detail

Accuracy and precision of gravitational-wave models of inspiraling neutron star -- black hole binaries with spin: comparison with numerical relativity in the low-frequency regime

Coalescing binaries of neutron stars (NS) and black holes (BH) are one of the most important sources of gravitational waves for the upcoming network of ground based detectors. Detection and extraction of astrophysical information from gravitational-wave signals requires accurate waveform models. The Effective-One-Body and other phenomenological models interpolate between analytic results and $10-30$ orbit numerical relativity (NR) merger simulations. In this paper we study the accuracy of these models using new NR simulations that span $36-88$ orbits, with mass-ratios and black hole spins $(q,χ_{BH}) = (7, \pm 0.4), (7, \pm 0.6)$, and $(5, -0.9)$. We find that: (i) the recently published SEOBNRv1 and SEOBNRv2 models of the Effective-One-Body family disagree with each other (mismatches of a few percent) for black hole spins $\geq 0.5$ or $\leq -0.3$, with waveform mismatch accumulating during early inspiral; (ii) comparison with numerical waveforms indicate that this disagreement is due to phasing errors of SEOBNRv1, with SEOBNRv2 in good agreement with all of our simulations; (iii) Phenomenological waveforms disagree with SEOBNRv2 over most of the NSBH binary parameter space; (iv) comparison with NR waveforms shows that most of the model's dephasing accumulates near the frequency interval where it switches to a phenomenological phasing prescription; and finally (v) both SEOBNR and post-Newtonian (PN) models are effectual for NSBH systems, but PN waveforms will give a significant bias in parameter recovery. Our results suggest that future gravitational-wave detection searches and parameter estimation efforts targeted at NSBH systems with $q\lesssim 7$ and $χ_\mathrm{BH} \approx [-0.9, +0.6]$ will benefit from using SEOBNRv2 templates. For larger black hole spins and/or binary mass-ratios, we recommend the models be further investigated as suitable NR simulations become available.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access8 authors1 topic

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 map preview

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.