Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 177

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Including higher order multipoles in gravitational-wave models for precessing binary black holes

Open access
Khan, Sebastian, Ohme, Frank, Chatziioannou, Katerina, Hannam, Mark·2020·Physical Review D

Abstract

Estimates of the source parameters of gravitational-wave (GW) events produced by compact binary mergers rely on theoretical models for the GW signal. We present the first frequency-domain model for the inspiral, merger, and ringdown of the GW signal from precessing binary black hole systems that also includes multipoles beyond the leading-order quadrupole. Our model, PhenomPv3HM, is a combination of the higher-multipole nonprecessing model PhenomHM and the spin-precessing model PhenomPv3 that includes two-spin precession via a dynamical rotation of the GW multipoles. We validate the new model by comparing to a large set of precessing numerical-relativity simulations and find excellent agreement across the majority of the parameter space they cover. For mass ratios $<5$ the mismatch improves, on average, from $\ensuremath{\sim}6%$ to $\ensuremath{\sim}2%$ compared to PhenomPv3 when we include higher multipoles in the model. However, we find mismatches $\ensuremath{\sim}8%$ for a mass-ratio-6 and highly spinning simulation. We quantify the statistical uncertainty in the recovery of binary parameters by applying standard Bayesian parameter estimation methods to simulated signals. We find that, while the primary black hole spin parameters should be measurable even at moderate signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) $\ensuremath{\sim}30$, the secondary spin requires much larger SNRs $\ensuremath{\sim}200$. We also quantify the systematic uncertainty expected by recovering our simulated signals with different waveform models in which various physical effects---such as the inclusion of higher modes and/or precession---are omitted and find that even in the low-SNR case ($\ensuremath{\sim}17$) the recovered parameters can be biased. Finally, as a first application of the new model we analyze the binary black hole event GW170729. We find larger values for the primary black hole mass of ${58.25}_{\ensuremath{-}12.53}^{+11.73}\text{ }\text{ }{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}$ (90% credible interval). The lower limit ($\ensuremath{\sim}46\text{ }\text{ }{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}$) is comparable to the proposed maximum black hole mass predicted by different stellar evolution models due to the pulsation pair-instability supernova (PPISN) mechanism. If we assume that the primary black hole in GW170729 formed through a PPISN, then out of the four PPISN models we consider only the model of Woosley [1] is consistent with our mass measurements at the 90% confidence level.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevd.101.024056

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 177

Metadata

Authors
Khan, S., Ohme, F., Chatziioannou, K., & Hannam, M.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2020-01-30
Volume
101
Issue
2
ISSN
  • 2470-0010 (ISSN-L)
  • 2470-0029
OpenAlex
W2986151175
Cited by
177
References
1
FWCI
14.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.