Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

A Survey of Four Precessing Waveform Models for Binary Black Hole Systems

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2402.06781 v1 pith:IJF42VMH submitted 2024-02-09 gr-qc astro-ph.IM

classification gr-qcastro-ph.IM
keywords textttmodelswaveformprecessingwaveformsfaithfulnessmodelparameter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

Angular momentum and spin precession are expected to be generic features of a significant fraction of binary black hole systems. As such, it is essential to have waveform models that faithfully incorporate the effects of precession. Here, we assess how well the current state of the art models achieve this for waveform strains constructed only from the $\ell=2$ multipoles.Specifically, we conduct a survey on the faithfulness of the waveform models %(approximants) \texttt{SEOBNRv5PHM}, \texttt{TEOBResumS}, \texttt{IMRPhenomTPHM}, \texttt{IMRPhenomXPHM} to the numerical relativity (NR) surrogate \texttt{NRSur7dq4} and to NR waveforms from the \texttt{SXS} catalog. The former assessment involves systems with mass ratios up to six and dimensionless spins up to 0.8. The latter employs $317$ short and $23$ long \texttt{SXS} waveforms. For all cases, we use reference inclinations of zero and $90^\circ$. We find that all four models become more faithful as the mass ratio approaches unity and when the merger-ringdown portion of the waveforms are excluded. We also uncover a correlation between the co-precessing $(2,\pm2)$ multipole mismatches and the overall strain mismatch. We additionally find that for high inclinations, precessing $(2,\pm 1)$ multipoles that are more faithful than their $(2,\pm2)$ counterparts, and comparable in magnitude, improve waveform faithfulness. As a side note, we show that use of uniformly-filled parameter spaces may lead to an overestimation of precessing model faithfulness. We conclude our survey with a parameter estimation study in which we inject two precessing \texttt{SXS} waveforms (at low and high masses) and recover the signal with \texttt{SEOBNRv5PHM}, \texttt{IMRPhenomTPHM} and \texttt{IMRPhenomXPHM}. As a bonus, we present preliminary multidimensional fits to model unfaithfulness for Bayesian model selection in parameter estimation studies.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Impact of numerical-relativity waveform calibration on parametrized post-Einsteinian tests

    gr-qc 2026-03 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    NR late-inspiral calibration systematics in IMRPhenomD produce false ppE GR violations at O5 SNRs ≳60; an uncertainty-aware baseline restores consistency with GR up to SNR 330.

  2. Fast frequency-domain gravitational waveforms for precessing binaries with a new twist

    gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    IMRPhenomXPHM-SpinTaylor computes precession angles by numerically solving post-Newtonian spin equations in the frequency domain and improves match to numerical relativity from mean mismatch 6.3e-3 to 5.1e-3.

Pith tools