national aeronautics and space administration jet propulsion laboratory
DESCRIPTION
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, California. LISA detections of Massive BH Binaries: parameter estimation errors from inaccurate templates. CC & M. Vallisneri, PRD 76, 104018 (2007); arXiv: 0707.2982. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
National Aeronautics andSpace Administration
Jet Propulsion LaboratoryCalifornia Institute of TechnologyPasadena, California
CC & M. Vallisneri, PRD 76, 104018 (2007); arXiv: 0707.2982
LISA detections of Massive BH Binaries: parameter estimation errors from inaccurate templates
![Page 2: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
€
h(θ tr )€
h(θbf )
€
n€
s
Vector space of all possible signals
€
€
manifold h(θ i)€
•
€
•
(to lowest order)
€
(s1 | s2) ≡ 2˜ s 1
*( f )˜ s 2( f )df
Sh ( f )∫
natural inner product:
![Page 3: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Vector space of all possible signals
€
hAP (θ tr )
€
hGR (θ tr )
€
hAP (θbf )
€
manifold hAP (θ i)€
manifold hGR (θ i)
€
•
(to lowest order)
€
Δ thθi
€
•
![Page 4: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Remarks on Scalings
€
Δ nθi∝ SNR−1
€
Δ thθi is independent of SNR
so theoretical errors become relatively more important at higher SNR.
One naturally thinks of LISA detections of MBH mergers,where SNR~1000.
c.f. E Berti, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 785 (2006)
![Page 5: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
LISA error boxes for MBHBs
for pair of BHs merging at z =1,SNR~ 1000 and typical errors due to noise are:
€
~ 106 Msun
€
Δ(ln M1) ~ Δ(ln M2) ~ 10−3
€
Δθsky ~ 0.1−1o
€
Δ(lnS1) ~ Δ(ln S2) ~ 10−3 −10−2
€
Δ(lnDL ) ~ 10−3 −10−2
cf. Lang&Hughes, gr-qc/0608062
Will need resolution to search for optical counterparts
€
~ 5o
But how big are the theoretical errors?
(neglecting lensing)
![Page 6: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
We want to evaluate:
to lowest order
to same order
where is true GR waveform and is our best approximation (~3.5 PN).
€
hGR (θbf )
€
hAP (θbf )
But we don’t know !
€
hGR (θbf )
![Page 7: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Since PN approx converges slowly,we adopt the substitute:
€
hGR (θ) − hAP (θ)⇒ h3.5PN (θ) − h3PN (θ)
Extra simplifying approximations for first-cut application:
• Spins parallel (so no spin-induced precession)• Include spin-orbit term, but not spin-spin ( ,but not )• No higher harmonics (just m=2)• Stationary phase approximation for Fourier transform• Low-frequency approximation for LISA response
€
β
€
σ
![Page 8: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
…so we evaluated
€
Δθthi
using above substitutions and approximations.
Check: is linear approx self-consistent? I.e., is
€
hAP (θbf )− hAP (θ tr ) ≈ Δθ i∂i hAP ? No.
![Page 9: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Back to the drawing board:
Recall our goal was to find the best-fit params, i.e., the values that minimize the function
€
θbfi
There are many ways this minimization could be done, e.g.,using the Amoeba or Simulated Annealing or Markov ChainMonte Carlo.
But these are fairly computationally intensive, so we wanted a more efficient method.
![Page 10: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
ODE Method for minimizing
Motivation: linearized approach would have been fine ifonly had been smaller. That would have happenedif only the difference were smaller. Thissuggests finding the best fit by dividing the big jump intolittle steps:
€
Δθthi
€
hGR (θ) − hAP (θ)
€
hAP
| | | | | | | | | | …….| | | | | | | | | |
€
hGR
€
hλ →
€
θbf
€
θtr
€
θλ →
![Page 11: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
ODE Method (cont’d)
where
and
Integrate from to , with initial condition ;
arrive at .
€
λ =0
€
λ =1
€
θ |λ = 0= θbf
€
θ |λ =1= θ tr
Actually, this method is only guaranteed to arrive at a localbest-fit, not the global best-fit, but in practice, for our problem, we think it does find the global best fit.
![Page 12: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
ODE Method (cont’d)
Define the MATCH Between two waveforms by:
Then we always find:
despite the fact that “initial” match is always low:
€
< 0.50
![Page 13: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
One-step Method
approx by value,
which is
€
λ =0use
implies
then approximate
using ave. values
![Page 14: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Comparison of our 2 quick estimates
Original one-step formula:
Improved one-step formula:
The two versions agree in the limit of small errors, butfor realistic errors the improved version is much more accurate (e.g., in much better agreement with ODE method). Improved version agrees with ODE error estimates to better than ~30%.
![Page 15: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Why the improvement?A close analogy:
€
f (x) ≡ e ig(x )say
Two Taylor expansions:
€
f (x) ≈ f (x0) + f '(x0) ⋅(x − x0)
€
f (x) ≈ exp[i{g(x0) + g'(x0) ⋅(x − x0)}]
reliable << 1 cycle
reliable as long as
€
g' '(x0) ⋅(x − x0)2 <<1
![Page 16: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Actually, considered 2 versions of
plus hybrid version:
€
hGR (θ) − hAP (θ)⇒ h3.5PN (θ) − h3PN (θ)
€
hGR (θ) − hAP (θ)⇒ h3.5PN (θ) − h3PN* (θ)
Hybrid waveforms are basically waveforms that have been improved by also adding 3.5PN terms that are lowest order in the symmetric mass ratio .
€
h3PN*
€
h3PN
€
ηMotivation: lowest-order terms in can be obtained to almostarbitrary accuracy by solving case of tiny mass orbiting a BH,using BH perturbation theory. Such hybrid waveforms firstdiscussed in Kidder, Will and Wiseman (1993). €
η
![Page 17: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Median results based on 600 random sky positions andorientations, for each of 8 representative mass combinations
![Page 18: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
(Crude) Summary of Results
Mass errors:
€
Δ n Mc
Mc
~ 10−5 −10−4
€
Δ th* Mc
Mc
~ 2 ×10−5 − 2 ×10−4
€
Δ th Mc
Mc
~ 10−3 −10−2
€
Δ nη
η~ 10−3 −10−2
€
Δ th* η
η~ 3×10−3 − 3×10−2
€
Δ thη
η~ 2 ×10−1 − 5 ×10−1
(noise errors scaled to SNR = 1000)
Sky location errors:
€
Δ nθsky ~ 1o
€
Δ th* θ sky ~ 0.1o
€
Δ thθ sky ~ 1o
![Page 19: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Summary• Introduced new, very efficient methods for estimating the size of parameter estimation errors due to inaccurate templates:
-- ODE method -- one-step method (2nd, improved version)
• Applied methods to simplified version of MBHB mergers(no higher harmonics, no precession, no merger); found:
-- for masses, theoretical errors are larger than random noise errors (for SNR = 1000), but still small for hybrid waveforms -- theoretical errors do not significantly degrade angular resolution, so should not hinder searches for EM counterparts
![Page 20: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory](https://reader035.vdocument.in/reader035/viewer/2022062315/56814bf2550346895db8dee1/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Future Work
• Improve model of MBH waveforms (include spin, etc.)• Develop more sophisticated approach to dealing with theoretical uncertainties (Bayesian approach to models?)
• Apply new tools to many related problems, e.g.:
--Accuracy requirements for numerical merger waveforms? --Accuracy requirements for EMRI waveforms? (2nd order perturbation theory necessary?) --Effect of long-wavelength approx on ground-based results? (i.e., the “Grishchuk effect”) --Quickly estimate param corrections for results obtained with “cheap” templates (e.g., for grid-based search using “easy-to-generate” waveforms, can quickly update best fit).