4.7 Article

Testing general relativity using Bayesian model selection: Applications to observations of gravitational waves from compact binary systems

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 83, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.082002

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council of the United Kingdom
  2. STFC [Gravitational Waves, ST/I000887/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I000887/1, ST/I000887/1 Gravitational Waves, Gravitational Waves] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Second-generation interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, such as Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, are expected to begin operation by 2015. Such instruments plan to reach sensitivities that will offer the unique possibility to test general relativity in the dynamical, strong-field regime and investigate departures from its predictions, in particular, using the signal from coalescing binary systems. We introduce a statistical framework based on Bayesian model selection in which the Bayes factor between two competing hypotheses measures which theory is favored by the data. Probability density functions of the model parameters are then used to quantify the inference on individual parameters. We also develop a method to combine the information coming from multiple independent observations of gravitational waves, and show how much stronger inference could be. As an introduction and illustration of this framework-and a practical numerical implementation through the Monte Carlo integration technique of nested sampling-we apply it to gravitational waves from the inspiral phase of coalescing binary systems as predicted by general relativity and a very simple alternative theory in which the graviton has a nonzero mass. This method can (and should) be extended to more realistic and physically motivated theories.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available