Paper detail

Fisher vs. Bayes : A comparison of parameter estimation techniques for massive black hole binaries to high redshifts with eLISA

Massive black hole binaries are the primary source of gravitational waves (GW) for the future eLISA observatory. The detection and parameter estimation of these sources to high redshift would provide invaluable information on the formation mechanisms of seed black holes, and on the evolution of massive black holes and their host galaxies through cosmic time. The Fisher information matrix has been the standard tool for GW parameter estimation in the last two decades. However, recent studies have questioned the validity of using the Fisher matrix approach. For example, the Fisher matrix approach sometimes predicts errors of $\geq100\%$ in the estimation of parameters such as the luminosity distance and sky position. With advances in computing power, Bayesian inference is beginning to replace the Fisher matrix approximation in parameter estimation studies. In this work, we conduct a Bayesian inference analysis for 120 sources situated at redshifts of between $0.1\leq z\leq 13.2$, and compare the results with those from a Fisher matrix analysis. The Fisher matrix results suggest that for this particular selection of sources, eLISA would be unable to localize sources at redshifts of $z\lesssim6$. In contrast, Bayesian inference provides finite error estimations for all sources in the study, and shows that we can establish minimum closest distances for all sources. The study further predicts that we should be capable with eLISA, out to a redshift of at least $z\leq13$, of predicting a maximum error in the chirp mass of $\lesssim 1\%$, the reduced mass of $\lesssim20\%$, the time to coalescence of 2 hours, and to a redshift of $z\sim5$, the inclination of the source with a maximum error of $\sim60$ degrees.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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.