4.7 Article

LISA detections of massive black hole inspirals: Parameter extraction errors due to inaccurate template waveforms

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 76, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.104018

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The planned Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is expected to detect the inspiral and merger of massive black hole binaries (MBHBs) at z less than or similar to 5 with signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) of hundreds to thousands. Because of these high SNRs, and because these SNRs accrete over periods of weeks to months, it should be possible to extract the physical parameters of these systems with high accuracy; for instance, for a similar to 10(6)M(circle dot) MBHBs at z=1 it should be possible to determine the two masses to similar to 0.1% and the sky location to similar to 1 degrees. However, those are just the errors due to noise: there will be additional theoretical errors due to inaccuracies in our best model waveforms, which are still only approximate. The goal of this paper is to estimate the typical magnitude of these theoretical errors. We develop mathematical tools for this purpose, and apply them to a somewhat simplified version of the MBHB problem, in which we consider just the inspiral part of the waveform and neglect spin-induced precession, eccentricity, and PN amplitude corrections. For this simplified version, we estimate that theoretical uncertainties in sky position will typically be similar to 1 degrees, i.e., comparable to the statistical uncertainty. For the mass and spin parameters, our results suggest that while theoretical errors will be rather small absolutely, they could still dominate over statistical errors (by roughly an order of magnitude) for the strongest sources. The tools developed here should be useful for estimating the magnitude of theoretical errors in many other problems in gravitational-wave astronomy.

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