Paper detail

The effect of different eLISA-like configurations on massive black hole parameter estimation

As the theme for the future L3 Cosmic Vision mission, ESA has recently chosen the `Gravitational Wave Universe'. Within this call, a mission concept called eLISA has been proposed. This observatory has a current initial configuration consisting of 4 laser links between the three satellites, which are separated by a distance of one million kilometers, constructing a single channel Michelson interferometer. However, the final configuration for the observatory will not be fixed until the end of this decade. With this in mind, we investigate the effect of different eLISA-like configurations on massive black hole detections. This work compares the results of a Bayesian inference study of 120 massive black hole binaries out to a redshift of $z\sim13$ for a $10^6$m arm-length eLISA with four and six links, as well as a $2\times10^6$m arm-length observatory with four links. We demonstrate that the original eLISA configuration should allow us to recover the luminosity distance of the source with an error of less than 10% out to a redshift of $z\sim4$, and a sky error box of $\leq10^2\,deg^2$ out to $z\sim0.1$. In contrast, both alternative configurations suggest that we should be able to conduct the same parameter recovery with errors of less than 10% in luminosity distance out to $z\sim12$ and $\leq10^2\,deg^2$ out to $z\sim0.4$. Using the information from these studies, we also infer that if we were able to construct a 2Gm, 6-link detector, the above values would shift to $z\sim20$ for luminosity distance and $z\sim0.9$ for sky error. While the final configuration will also be dependent on both technological and financial considerations, our study suggests that increasing the size of a two arm detector is a viable alternative to the inclusion of a third arm in a smaller detector. More importantly, this work further suggests no clear scientific loss between either choice.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author1 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.