Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 203

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Parameter estimation of inspiralling compact binaries using 3.5 post-Newtonian gravitational wave phasing: The nonspinning case

Open access
Arun, K. G., Iyer, Bala R, Sathyaprakash, B. S., Sundararajan, Pranesh A·2005·Physical Review D

Abstract

We revisit the problem of parameter estimation of gravitational-wave chirp signals from inspiralling nonspinning compact binaries in the light of the recent extension of the post-Newtonian (PN) phasing formula to order $(v/c{)}^{7}$ beyond the leading Newtonian order. We study in detail the implications of higher post-Newtonian orders from 1PN up to 3.5PN in steps of 0.5PN ($\ensuremath{\sim}v/c$), and examine their convergence. In both initial and advanced detectors the estimation of the chirp mass ($\mathcal{M}$) and symmetric mass ratio ($\ensuremath{\eta}$) improve at higher PN orders but oscillate with every half-a-PN order. In initial LIGO, for a $10{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}--10{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}$ binary at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 10, the improvement in the estimation of $\mathcal{M}$ ($\ensuremath{\eta}$) at 3.5PN relative to 2PN is $\ensuremath{\sim}19%$ (52%). We compare parameter estimation in different detectors and assess their relative performance in two different ways: at a fixed SNR, with the aim of understanding how the bandwidth improves parameter estimation, and for a fixed source, to gauge the importance of sensitivity. Errors in parameter estimation at a fixed SNR are smaller for VIRGO than for both initial and advanced LIGO. This is because of the larger bandwidth over which it observes the signals. However, for sources at a fixed distance it is advanced LIGO that achieves the lowest errors owing to its greater sensitivity. Finally, we compute the amplitude corrections due to the ``frequency-sweep'' in the Fourier domain representation of the waveform within the stationary phase approximation and discuss its implication on parameter estimation. We find that the amplitude corrections change the errors in $\mathcal{M}$ and $\ensuremath{\eta}$ by less than 10% for initial LIGO at a signal-to-noise ratio of 10. Our analysis makes explicit the significance of higher PN order modeling of the inspiralling compact binary on parameter estimation.

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.71.084008

Cites

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.

Metadata

Authors
Arun, K. G., Iyer, B. R., Sathyaprakash, B. S., & Sundararajan, P. A.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2005-04-06
Volume
71
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2005280645
Cited by
203
References
0
FWCI
5.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Parameter estimation of inspiralling compact binaries using 3.5 post-Newtonian gravitational wave phasing: The nonspinning case. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1103/physrevd.71.084008
The paper
Arun, K. G., Iyer, B. R., Sathyaprakash, B. S., & Sundararajan, P. A. (2005). Parameter estimation of inspiralling compact binaries using 3.5 post-Newtonian gravitational wave phasing: The nonspinning case. Physical Review D. https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.71.084008

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.