TY - JOUR
T1 - Improved Analysis of GW150914 Using a Fully Spin-Precessing Waveform Model
AU - Abbott, B.P.
AU - Abbott, R.
AU - Abbott, T.D.
AU - Abernathy, M.R.
AU - Acernese, F.
AU - Ackley, K.
AU - Adams, C.
AU - Adams, T.
AU - Addesso, P.
AU - Adhikari, R.X.
AU - Adya, V.B.
AU - Affeldt, C.
AU - Agathos, M.
AU - Agatsuma, K.
AU - Aggarwal, N.
AU - Aguiar, O.D.
AU - Aiello, L.
AU - Ain, A.
AU - Ajith, P.
AU - Allen, B.
AU - Allocca, A.
AU - Altin, P.A.
AU - Anderson, S.B.
AU - Anderson, W.G.
AU - Arai, K.
AU - Araya, M.C.
AU - Arceneaux, C.C.
AU - Areeda, J.S.
AU - Arnaud, N.
AU - Arun, K.G.
AU - Ascenzi, S.
AU - Ashton, G.
AU - Ast, M.
AU - Aston, S.M.
AU - Astone, P.
AU - Aufmuth, P.
AU - Aulbert, C.
AU - Babak, S.
AU - Bacon, P.
AU - Bader, M.K.M.
AU - Baker, P.T.
AU - Baldaccini, F.
AU - Ballardin, G.
AU - Ballmer, S.W.
AU - Danilishin, S.L.
AU - Hennig, J.
AU - Hild, S.
AU - Steinlechner, J.
AU - Steinlechner, S.
AU - van den Brand, J.F.J.
AU - LIGO Scientific Collaboration
AU - Virgo Collaboration
PY - 2016/10/21
Y1 - 2016/10/21
N2 - This paper presents updated estimates of source parameters for GW150914, a binary black-hole coalescence event detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) in 2015 [Abbott et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).]. Abbott et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016).] presented parameter estimation of the source using a 13-dimensional, phenomenological precessing-spin model (precessing IMRPhenom) and an 11-dimensional nonprecessing effective-onebody (EOB) model calibrated to numerical-relativity simulations, which forces spin alignment (nonprecessing EOBNR). Here, we present new results that include a 15-dimensional precessing-spin waveform model (precessing EOBNR) developed within the EOB formalism. We find good agreement with the parameters estimated previously [Abbott et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016).], and we quote updated component masses of 35(-3)(+5) M-circle dot and 30(-4)(+3) M-circle dot (where errors correspond to 90% symmetric credible intervals). We also present slightly tighter constraints on the dimensionless spin magnitudes of the two black holes, with a primary spin estimate < 0.65 and a secondary spin estimate < 0.75 at 90% probability. Abbott et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016).] estimated the systematic parameter-extraction errors due to waveform-model uncertainty by combining the posterior probability densities of precessing IMRPhenom and nonprecessing EOBNR. Here, we find that the two precessing-spin models are in closer agreement, suggesting that these systematic errors are smaller than previously quoted.
AB - This paper presents updated estimates of source parameters for GW150914, a binary black-hole coalescence event detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) in 2015 [Abbott et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).]. Abbott et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016).] presented parameter estimation of the source using a 13-dimensional, phenomenological precessing-spin model (precessing IMRPhenom) and an 11-dimensional nonprecessing effective-onebody (EOB) model calibrated to numerical-relativity simulations, which forces spin alignment (nonprecessing EOBNR). Here, we present new results that include a 15-dimensional precessing-spin waveform model (precessing EOBNR) developed within the EOB formalism. We find good agreement with the parameters estimated previously [Abbott et al. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016).], and we quote updated component masses of 35(-3)(+5) M-circle dot and 30(-4)(+3) M-circle dot (where errors correspond to 90% symmetric credible intervals). We also present slightly tighter constraints on the dimensionless spin magnitudes of the two black holes, with a primary spin estimate < 0.65 and a secondary spin estimate < 0.75 at 90% probability. Abbott et al. [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016).] estimated the systematic parameter-extraction errors due to waveform-model uncertainty by combining the posterior probability densities of precessing IMRPhenom and nonprecessing EOBNR. Here, we find that the two precessing-spin models are in closer agreement, suggesting that these systematic errors are smaller than previously quoted.
KW - GRAVITATIONAL-RADIATION
U2 - 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041014
DO - 10.1103/PhysRevX.6.041014
M3 - Article
SN - 2160-3308
VL - 6
JO - Physical Review X
JF - Physical Review X
IS - 4
M1 - 041014
ER -