Pan, Yi and Buonanno, Alessandra and Boyle, Michael and Buchman, Luisa T. and Kidder, Lawrence E. and Pfeiffer, Harald P. and Scheel, Mark A. (2011) Inspiral-merger-ringdown multipolar waveforms of nonspinning black-hole binaries using the effective-one-body formalism. Physical Review D, 84 (12). p. 124052. ISSN 0556-2821 http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20120131-112645220
- Published Version
See Usage Policy.
Use this Persistent URL to link to this item: http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechAUTHORS:20120131-112645220
We calibrate an effective-one-body (EOB) model to numerical-relativity simulations of mass ratios 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6, by maximizing phase and amplitude agreement of the leading (2, 2) mode and of the subleading modes (2, 1), (3, 3), (4, 4) and (5, 5). Aligning the calibrated EOB waveforms and the numerical waveforms at low frequency, the phase difference of the (2, 2) mode between model and numerical simulation remains below ∼0.1 rad throughout the evolution for all mass ratios considered. The fractional amplitude difference at peak amplitude of the (2, 2) mode is 2% and grows to 12% during the ringdown. Using the Advanced LIGO noise curve we study the effectualness and measurement accuracy of the EOB model, and stress the relevance of modeling the higher-order modes for parameter estimation. We find that the effectualness, measured by the mismatch between the EOB and numerical-relativity polarizations which include only the (2, 2) mode, is smaller than 0.2% for binaries with total mass 20–200M_⊙ and mass ratios 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. When numerical-relativity polarizations contain the strongest seven modes, and stellar-mass black holes with masses less than 50M_⊙ are considered, the mismatch for mass ratio 6 (1) can be as high as 7% (0.2%) when only the EOB (2, 2) mode is included, and an upper bound of the mismatch is 0.5% (0.07%) when all the four subleading EOB modes calibrated in this paper are taken into account. For binaries with intermediate-mass black holes with masses greater than 50M_⊙ the mismatches are larger. We also determine for which signal-to-noise ratios the EOB model developed here can be used to measure binary parameters with systematic biases smaller than statistical errors due to detector noise.
|Additional Information:||© 2011 American Physical Society. Received 22 June 2011; published 27 December 2011. We thank Enrico Barausse and Andrea Taracchini for useful discussions, and Ben Lackey and Cole Miller for informative interactions. A. B. and Y. P. acknowledge support from NSF Grant No. PHY-0903631. A. B. also acknowledges support from NASA Grant No. NNX09AI81G. M. B., L. B., L. K., H. P., and M. S. are supported in part by grants from the Sherman Fairchild Foundation to Caltech and Cornell, and from the Brinson Foundation to Caltech; by NSF Grants No. PHY-0601459 and No. PHY-0652995 at Caltech; by NASA Grant No. NNX09AF97G at Caltech; by NSF Grants No. PHY-0652952 and No. PHY-0652929 at Cornell; and by NASA Grant No. NNX09AF96G at Cornell. H. P. gratefully acknowledges support from the NSERC of Canada , from Canada Research Chairs Program, and from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.|
|Classification Code:||PACS: 04.25.D-, 04.25.dg, 04.25.Nx, 04.30.-w|
|Usage Policy:||No commercial reproduction, distribution, display or performance rights in this work are provided.|
|Deposited By:||Jason Perez|
|Deposited On:||31 Jan 2012 21:01|
|Last Modified:||26 Dec 2012 14:46|
Repository Staff Only: item control page