REVIEW 2 cited by
Length dependence of waveform mismatch: a caveat on waveform accuracy
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
abstract
The Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes Collaboration's code SpEC can now routinely simulate binary black hole mergers undergoing $\sim25$ orbits, with the longest simulations undergoing nearly $\sim180$ orbits. While this sounds impressive, the mismatch between the highest resolutions for this long simulation is $\mathcal{O}(10^{-1})$. Meanwhile, the mismatch between resolutions for the more typical simulations tends to be $\mathcal{O}(10^{-4})$, despite the resolutions being similar to the long simulations'. In this note, we explain why mismatch alone gives an incomplete picture of code -- and waveform -- quality, especially in the context of providing waveform templates for LISA and 3G detectors, which require templates with $\mathcal{O}(10^{3}) - \mathcal{O}(10^{5})$ orbits. We argue that to ready the GW community for the sensitivity of future detectors, numerical relativity groups must be aware of this caveat, and also run future simulations with at least three resolutions to properly assess waveform accuracy.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Impact of numerical-relativity waveform calibration on parametrized post-Einsteinian tests
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.
-
A comprehensive look into the accuracy of SpEC binary black hole waveforms
Simulated black-hole merger waveforms accumulate numerical error over time, but the merger stage is not intrinsically less accurate once aligned on its own, and resolution-exchanged differences show no systematic bias...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.