Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Calibration Uncertainty's Impact on Gravitational-Wave Observations

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 2202.00823 v1 pith:WHNEPSFB submitted 2022-02-02 astro-ph.IM gr-qc

classification astro-ph.IMgr-qc
keywords calibrationuncertaintyastrophysicalsignalslambdatildealwaysconstrained
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
abstract

Our ability to calibrate current kilometer-scale interferometers can potentially confound the inference of astrophysical signals. Current calibration uncertainties are well described by a Gaussian process. I exploit this description to analytically examine the impact of calibration uncertainty. I derive closed-form expressions for the conditioned likelihood of the calibration error given the observed data and an astrophysical signal (astrophysical calibration) as well as for the marginal likelihood for the data given a signal (integrated over the calibration uncertainty). I show that calibration uncertainty always reduces search sensitivity and the amount of information available about astrophysical signals. Additionally, calibration uncertainty will fundamentally limit the precision to which loud signals can be constrained, a crucial factor when considering the scientific potential of proposed third-generation interferometers. For example, I estimate that with $1\%$ uncertainty in the detector response's amplitude and phase, one will only be able to measure the leading-order tidal parameter ($\tilde\Lambda$) for a 1.4+1.4$\,M_\odot$ system to better than $\pm 1$ ($\sim 0.2\%$ relative uncertainty) for signals with signal-to-noise ratios $\gtrsim 10^4$. At this signal-to-noise ratio, calibration uncertainty increases $\sigma_{\tilde\Lambda}$ by a factor of $2$ compared to stationary Gaussian noise alone. Furthermore, 1\% calibration uncertainty limits the precision to always be $\sigma_{\tilde\Lambda} \gtrsim 0.5$. I also show how to best select the frequencies at which calibration should be precisely constrained in order to minimize the information lost about astrophysical parameters. It is not necessary to constrain the calibration errors to be small at all frequencies to perform precise astrophysical inference for individual signals.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Compressive Meta-Learning

    cs.LG 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Meta-learned neural encoders and decoders for compressive learning aim to make parameter estimation from compact database sketches faster and more accurate than randomized, data-independent compressive learning.

Pith tools