Paper detail

Systematic biases in parameter estimation of binary black-hole mergers

Parameter estimation of binary-black-hole merger events in gravitational-wave data relies on matched-filtering techniques, which, in turn, depend on accurate model waveforms. Here we characterize the systematic biases introduced in measuring astrophysical parameters of binary black holes by applying the currently most accurate effective-one-body templates to simulated data containing non-spinning numerical-relativity waveforms. For advanced ground-based detectors, we find that the systematic biases are well within the statistical error for realistic signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). These biases grow to be comparable to the statistical errors at high ground-based-instrument SNRs (SNR=50), but never dominate the error budget. At the much larger signal-to-noise ratios expected for space-based detectors, these biases will become large compared to the statistical errors, but for astrophysical black hole mass estimates the absolute biases (of at most a few percent) are still fairly small.

preprint2012arXivOpen 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.