Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 637

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

Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for compact binary inspiral signals in gravitational-wave detectors

Open access
Buonanno, Alessandra, Iyer, Bala R., Ochsner, Evan, Pan, Yi, Sathyaprakash, B. S.·2009·Physical Review D

Abstract

The two-body dynamics in general relativity has been solved perturbatively using the post-Newtonian (PN) approximation. The evolution of the orbital phase and the emitted gravitational radiation are now known to a rather high order up to $\mathcal{O}({v}^{8})$, $v$ being the characteristic velocity of the binary. The orbital evolution, however, cannot be specified uniquely due to the inherent freedom in the choice of parameter used in the PN expansion, as well as the method pursued in solving the relevant differential equations. The goal of this paper is to determine the (dis)agreement between different PN waveform families in the context of initial and advanced gravitational-wave detectors. The waveforms employed in our analysis are those that are currently used by Initial LIGO/Virgo, that is, the time-domain PN models TaylorT1, TaylorT2, TaylorT3, the Fourier-domain representation TaylorF2 (or stationary phase approximant), and the effective-one-body model, and two more recent models, TaylorT4 and TaylorEt. For these models we examine their overlaps with one another for a number of different binaries at 2PN, 3PN, and 3.5PN orders to quantify their differences. We then study the overlaps of these families with the prototype effective-one-body family, currently used by Initial LIGO, calibrated to numerical-relativity simulations to help us decide whether there exist preferred families, in terms of detectability and computational cost, that are the most appropriate as search templates. We conclude that as long as the total mass remains less than a certain upper limit ${M}_{\mathrm{crit}}$, all template families at 3.5PN order (except TaylorT3 and TaylorEt) are equally good for the purpose of detection. The value of ${M}_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is found to be $\ensuremath{\sim}12{M}_{\ensuremath{\bigodot}}$ for Initial, Enhanced, and Advanced LIGO. From a purely computational point of view, we recommend that 3.5PN TaylorF2 be used below ${M}_{\mathrm{crit}}$ and that the effective-one-body model calibrated to numerical-relativity simulations be used for total binary mass $M>{M}_{\mathrm{crit}}$.

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.80.084043

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 637

Metadata

Authors
Buonanno, A., Iyer, B. R., Ochsner, E., Pan, Y., & Sathyaprakash, B. S.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2009-10-29
Volume
80
Issue
8
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2106532428
Cited by
637
References
1
FWCI
9.25
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

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.