Paper detail

Avoiding selection bias in gravitational wave astronomy

When searching for gravitational waves in the data from ground-based gravitational wave detectors it is common to use a detection threshold to reduce the number of background events which are unlikely to be the signals of interest. However, imposing such a threshold will also discard some real signals with low amplitude, which can potentially bias any inferences drawn from the population of detected signals. We show how this selection bias is naturally avoided by using the full information from the search, considering both the selected data and our ignorance of the data that are thrown away, and considering all relevant signal and noise models. This approach produces unbiased estimates of parameters even in the presence of false alarms and incomplete data. This can be seen as an extension of previous methods into the high false rate regime where we are able to show that the quality of parameter inference can be optimised by lowering thresholds and increasing the false alarm rate.

preprint2013arXivOpen 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.