Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 958

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library

Open access
Veitch, J., Raymond, V., Farr, B., Farr, W., Graff, P., Vitale, S., Aylott, B., Blackburn, K., Christensen, N., Coughlin, M., Del Pozzo, W., Feroz, F., Gair, J., Haster, C.-J., Kalogera, V., Littenberg, T., Mandel, I., O’Shaughnessy, R., Pitkin, M., Rodriguez, C., Röver, C., Sidery, T., Smith, R., Van Der Sluys, M., Vecchio, A., Vousden, W., Wade, L.·2015·Physical Review D

Abstract

The Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave (GW) detectors will begin operation in the coming years, with compact binary coalescence events a likely source for the first detections. The gravitational waveforms emitted directly encode information about the sources, including the masses and spins of the compact objects. Recovering the physical parameters of the sources from the GW observations is a key analysis task. This work describes the LALInference software library for Bayesian parameter estimation of compact binary signals, which builds on several previous methods to provide a well-tested toolkit which has already been used for several studies. We show that our implementation is able to correctly recover the parameters of compact binary signals from simulated data from the advanced GW detectors. We demonstrate this with a detailed comparison on three compact binary systems: a binary neutron star, a neutron star--black hole binary and a binary black hole, where we show a cross comparison of results obtained using three independent sampling algorithms. These systems were analyzed with nonspinning, aligned spin and generic spin configurations respectively, showing that consistent results can be obtained even with the full 15-dimensional parameter space of the generic spin configurations. We also demonstrate statistically that the Bayesian credible intervals we recover correspond to frequentist confidence intervals under correct prior assumptions by analyzing a set of 100 signals drawn from the prior. We discuss the computational cost of these algorithms, and describe the general and problem-specific sampling techniques we have used to improve the efficiency of sampling the compact binary coalescence parameter space.

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.91.042003

Cites

2 of 2 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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Veitch, J., Raymond, V., Farr, B., Farr, W., Graff, P., Vitale, S., Aylott, B., Blackburn, K., Christensen, N., Coughlin, M., Del Pozzo, W., Feroz, F., Gair, J., Haster, C.-J., Kalogera, V., Littenberg, T., Mandel, I., O’Shaughnessy, R., Pitkin, M., Rodriguez, C., Röver, C., Sidery, T., Smith, R., Van Der Sluys, M., Vecchio, A., Vousden, W., & Wade, L.
Venue
Physical Review D
Published
2015-02-06
Volume
91
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0556-2821 (ISSN-L)
  • 1550-7998
  • 1550-2368
OpenAlex
W2037939815
Cited by
958
References
2
FWCI
46.30
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.