Paper detail

Assessing the model waveform accuracy of gravitational waves

With the improvement in sensitivity of gravitational wave (GW) detectors and the increasing diversity of GW sources, there is a strong need for accurate GW waveform models for data analysis. While the current model accuracy assessments require waveforms generated by numerical relativity (NR) simulations as the "true waveforms", in this paper we propose an assessment approach that does not require NR simulations, which enables us to assess model accuracy everywhere in the parameter space. By measuring the difference between two waveform models, we derive a necessary condition for a pair of waveform models to both be accurate, for a particular set of parameters. We then apply this method to the parameter estimation samples of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalogs GWTC-3 and GWTC-2.1, and find that the waveform accuracy for high signal-to-noise ratio events in some cases fails our assessment criterion. Based on analysis of real events' posterior samples, we discuss the correlation between our quantified accuracy assessments and systematic errors in parameter estimation. We find waveform models that perform worse in our assessment are more likely to give inconsistent estimations. We also investigate waveform accuracy in different parameter regions, and find the accuracy degrades as the spin effects go up, the mass ratio deviates from one, or the orbital plane is near-aligned to the line of sight. Furthermore, we make predictions of waveform accuracy requirements for future detectors and find the accuracy of current waveform models should be improved by at least 3 orders of magnitude, which is consistent with previous works.

preprint2022arXivOpen 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.