Paper detail

How serious can the stealth bias be in gravitational wave parameter estimation?

The upcoming direct detection of gravitational waves will open a window to probing the strong-field regime of general relativity (GR). As a consequence, waveforms that include the presence of deviations from GR have been developed (e.g. in the parametrized post-Einsteinian approach). TIGER, a data analysis pipeline which builds Bayesian evidence to support or question the validity of GR, has been written and tested. In particular, it was shown recently that data from the LIGO and Virgo detectors will allow to detect deviations from GR smaller than can be probed with Solar System tests and pulsar timing measurements or not accessible with conventional tests of GR. However, evidence from several detections is required before a deviation from GR can be confidently claimed. An interesting consequence is that, should GR not be the correct theory of gravity in its strong field regime, using standard GR templates for the matched filter analysis of interferometer data will introduce biases in the gravitational wave measured parameters with potentially disastrous consequences on the astrophysical inferences, such as the coalescence rate or the mass distribution. We consider three heuristic possible deviations from GR and show that the biases introduced by assuming GR's validity manifest in various ways. The mass parameters are usually the most affected, with biases that can be as large as $30$ standard deviations for the symmetric mass ratio, and nearly one percent for the chirp mass, which is usually estimated with sub-percent accuracy. We conclude that statements about the nature of the observed sources, e.g. if both objects are neutron stars, depend critically on the explicit assumption that GR it the right theory of gravity in the strong field regime.

preprint2013arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 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.