Paper detail

TIGER: A data analysis pipeline for testing the strong-field dynamics of general relativity with gravitational wave signals from coalescing compact binaries

The direct detection of gravitational waves with upcoming second-generation gravitational wave detectors such as Advanced LIGO and Virgo will allow us to probe the genuinely strong-field dynamics of general relativity (GR) for the first time. We present a data analysis pipeline called TIGER (Test Infrastructure for GEneral Relativity), which is designed to utilize detections of compact binary coalescences to test GR in this regime. TIGER is a model-independent test of GR itself, in that it is not necessary to compare with any specific alternative theory. It performs Bayesian inference on two hypotheses: the GR hypothesis $\mathcal{H}_{\rm GR}$, and $\mathcal{H}_{\rm modGR}$, which states that one or more of the post-Newtonian coefficients in the waveform are not as predicted by GR. By the use of multiple sub-hypotheses of $\mathcal{H}_{\rm modGR}$, in each of which a different number of parameterized deformations of the GR phase are allowed, an arbitrarily large number of 'testing parameters' can be used without having to worry about a model being insufficiently parsimonious if the true number of extra parameters is in fact small. TIGER is well-suited to the regime where most sources have low signal-to-noise ratios, again through the use of these sub-hypotheses. Information from multiple sources can trivially be combined, leading to a stronger test. We focus on binary neutron star coalescences, for which sufficiently accurate waveform models are available that can be generated fast enough on a computer to be fit for use in Bayesian inference. We show that the pipeline is robust against a number of fundamental, astrophysical, and instrumental effects, such as differences between waveform approximants, a limited number of post-Newtonian phase contributions being known, the effects of neutron star spins and tidal deformability on the orbital motion, and instrumental calibration errors.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access6 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.