Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Rapid model comparison of equations of state from gravitational wave observation of binary neutron star coalescences

Shaon Ghosh*

Xiaoshu Liu, Jolien Creighton, and Ignacio Magaña Hernandez

Wolfgang Kastaun

Geraint Pratten

  • Montclair State University, 1 Normal Ave, Montclair, New Jersey 07043, USA and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA

  • University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA

  • Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), Callinstr. 38, D-30167 Hannover, Germany and Leibniz Universität Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany

  • School of Physics and Astronomy and Institute for Gravitational Wave Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 9TT, United Kingdom

  • *ghoshs@montclair.edu

Phys. Rev. D 104, 083003 – Published 1 October, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083003

Abstract

The discovery of the coalescence of binary neutron star GW170817 was a watershed moment in the field of gravitational wave astronomy. Among the rich variety of information that we were able to uncover from this discovery was the first non-electromagnetic measurement of the neutron star radius, and the cold nuclear equation of state. It also led to a large equation of state model selection study from gravitational-wave data. In those studies Bayesian nested sampling runs were conducted for each candidate equation of state model to compute their evidence in the gravitational-wave data. Such studies, though invaluable, are computationally expensive and require repeated, redundant, computation for any new models. We present a novel technique to conduct model selection of equation of state in an extremely rapid fashion ( minutes) on any arbitrary model. We test this technique against the results of a nested-sampling model selection technique published earlier by the LIGO/Virgo collaboration, and show that the results are in good agreement with a median fractional error in Bayes factor of about 10%, where we assume that the true Bayes factor is calculated in the aforementioned nested sampling runs. We found that the highest fractional error occurs for equation of state models that have very little support in the posterior distribution, thus resulting in large statistical uncertainty. We then used this method to combine multiple binary neutron star mergers to compute a joint-Bayes factor between equation of state models. This is achieved by stacking the evidence of the individual events and computing the Bayes factor from these stacked evidences for each pairs of equation of state.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (47)

  1. J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939).
  2. F. Özel and P. Freire, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, 401 (2016).
  3. L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 398, 569 (1992).
  4. R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, Astron. J. 129, 1993 (2005).
  5. ATNF-CSIRO, ATNF Pulsar Catalog, https://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/ (2019), [Online; accessed 19-Nov-2019].
  6. NASA, NICER, https://www.nasa.gov/nicer (2019), [Online; accessed 26-Nov-2019].
  7. M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019).
  8. T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, P. S. Ray, R. M. Ludlam, S. Guillot, Z. Arzoumanian, C. L. Baker, A. V. Bilous, D. Chakrabarty, K. C. Gendreau, A. K. Harding, W. C. G. Ho, J. M. Lattimer, S. M. Morsink, and T. E. Strohmayer, Astrophys. J. 887, L21 (2019).
  9. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Classical Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015).
  10. F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO Collaboration), Classical Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015).
  11. E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 57, 5287 (1998).
  12. T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008).
  13. E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008).
  14. J. S. Read, C. Markakis, M. Shibata, K. Uryu, J. D. E. Creighton, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124033 (2009).
  15. W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 071101 (2013).
  16. M. Agathos, J. Meidam, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Tompitak, J. Veitch, S. Vitale, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023012 (2015).
  17. M. van der Sluys, I. Mandel, V. Raymond, V. Kalogera, C. Röver, and N. Christensen, Classical Quant. Grav. 26, 204010 (2009).
  18. J. Veitch and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 81, 062003 (2010).
  19. V. Raymond, M. V. van der Sluys, I. Mandel, V. Kalogera, C. Rver, and N. Christensen, Classical Quant. Grav. 27, 114009 (2010).
  20. C. L. Rodriguez, B. Farr, V. Raymond, W. M. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, D. Fazi, and V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. 784, 119 (2014).
  21. J. Veitch et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015).
  22. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019).
  23. B. P. Abbott et al. (The LIGO Scientific and the Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018).
  24. S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 091102 (2018).
  25. J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124032 (2009).
  26. L. Lindblom, Phys. Rev. D 82, 103011 (2010).
  27. P. Landry and R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D 99, 084049 (2019).
  28. P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123007 (2020).
  29. C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Nat. Astron. 4, 625 (2020).
  30. T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, L. Issa, I. Tews, and S. Antier, Science 370, 1450 (2020).
  31. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Classical Quant. Grav. 37, 045006 (2020).
  32. B. P. Abbott et al., SoftwareX 13, 100658 (2021).
  33. LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, GW170817, https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/html/GWTC-1-confident/GW170817/v3 (2017).
  34. J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006)..
  35. M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014).
  36. L. Wade, J. D. E. Creighton, E. Ochsner, B. D. Lackey, B. F. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103012 (2014).
  37. D. Bini, T. Damour, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124034 (2012).
  38. LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, LALSuite, https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/lalsuite (2018).
  39. N. Metropolis, A. W. Rosenbluth, M. N. Rosenbluth, A. H. Teller, and E. Teller, J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087 (1953).
  40. W. Hastings, Biometrika 57, 97 (1970).
  41. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L3 (2020).
  42. LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, GW190425, https://www.gw-openscience.org/eventapi/html/O3_Discovery_Papers/GW190425/v1 (2019).
  43. S. Ghosh, GWXtreme package, https://pypi.org/project/GWXtreme/ (2020), [Online; accessed 07-Jun-2020].
  44. S. Ghosh, GWXtreme documentation, https://gwxtreme.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ (2020), [Online; accessed 07-Jun-2020].
  45. B. D. Lackey and L. Wade, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043002 (2015).
  46. S. Ghosh, X. Liu, J. Creighton, W. Kastaun, G. Pratten, and I. Magaña, Dataset for Rapid Model Comparison of Equations of State from Gravitational Wave Observation of Binary Neutron Star Coalescences (2021), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4679013.
  47. https://www.gw-openscience.org/.

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation