Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Calibration uncertainty’s impact on gravitational-wave observations

Reed Essick

  • Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, 31 Caroline Street North, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 2Y5, Canada

Phys. Rev. D 105, 082002 – Published 18 April, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.082002

Abstract

Our ability to characterize astrophysical gravitational waves depends on our understanding of the detectors used to observe them. Specifically, our ability to calibrate current kilometer-scale interferometers can potentially confound the inference of astrophysical signals. Current calibration uncertainties are dominated by systematic errors between the modeled and observed detector responses and 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 (Λ˜) for a 1.4+1.4M system to better than ±1 (0.2% relative uncertainty) for signals with signal-to-noise ratios 104. At this signal-to-noise ratio, calibration uncertainty increases σΛ˜ by a factor of 2 compared to stationary Gaussian noise alone. Furthermore, 1% calibration uncertainty limits the precision to always be σΛ˜0.5. At more modest signal-to-noise ratios (30) characteristic of the current set of detected events, the uncertainty in Λ˜ will be σΛ˜100 and will be dominated by the Gaussian noise rather than calibration uncertainty. 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.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (65)

  1. J. Aasi et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Advanced LIGO, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015).
  2. F. Acernese et al. (VIRGO Collaboration), Advanced Virgo: A second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015).
  3. T. Akutsu et al. (KAGRA Collaboration), KAGRA: 2.5 generation interferometric gravitational wave detector, Nat. Astron. 3, 35 (2019).
  4. L. McCuller, C. Whittle, D. Ganapathy, K. Komori, M. Tse, A. Fernandez-Galiana, L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. MacInnis, F. Matichard, K. Mason, N. Mavalvala, R. Mittleman, H. Yu, M. E. Zucker, and M. Evans, Frequency-dependent Squeezing for Advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171102 (2020).
  5. H. Yu et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Quantum correlations between light and the kilogram-mass mirrors of LIGO, Nature (London) 583, 43 (2020).
  6. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with binary black holes from the second LIGO-Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Phys. Rev. D 103, 122002 (2021).
  7. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, and KAGRA Collaborations), Tests of general relativity with GWTC-3, arXiv:2112.06861.
  8. R. Abbott et al., Population properties of compact objects from the second LIGO–Virgo gravitational-wave transient catalog, Astrophys. J. Lett. 913, L7 (2021).
  9. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, and KAGRA Collaborations), The population of merging compact binaries inferred using gravitational waves through GWTC-3, arXiv:2111.03634.
  10. I. Legred, K. Chatziioannou, R. Essick, S. Han, and P. Landry, Impact of the PSR J0740+6620 radius constraint on the properties of high-density matter, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063003 (2021).
  11. R. Essick, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Detailed examination of astrophysical constraints on the symmetry energy and the neutron skin of Pb208 with minimal modeling assumptions, Phys. Rev. C 104, 065804 (2021).
  12. A. D. Viets, M. Wade, A. L. Urban, S. Kandhasamy, J. Betzwieser, D. A. Brown, J. Burguet-Castell, C. Cahillane, E. Goetz, K. Izumi, S. Karki, J. S. Kissel, G. Mendell, R. L. Savage, X. Siemens, D. Tuyenbayev, and A. J. Weinstein, Reconstructing the calibrated strain signal in the advanced LIGO detectors, Classical Quantum Gravity 35, 095015 (2018).
  13. L. Sun et al., Characterization of systematic error in Advanced LIGO calibration, Classical Quantum Gravity 37, 225008 (2020).
  14. M. P. Ross, T. Mistry, L. Datrier, J. Kissel, K. Venkateswara, C. Weller, K. Kumar, C. Hagedorn, E. Adelberger, J. Lee, E. Shaw, P. Thomas, D. Barker, F. Clara, B. Gateley, T. M. Guidry, E. Daw, M. Hendry, and J. Gundlach, Initial results from the LIGO Newtonian calibrator, Phys. Rev. D 104, 082006 (2021).
  15. D. Estevez, B. Mours, and T. Pradier, Newtonian calibrator tests during the Virgo O3 data taking, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 075012 (2021).
  16. S. Vitale, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, C. Van Den Broeck, I. Mandel, B. Aylott, and J. Veitch, Effect of calibration errors on Bayesian parameter estimation for gravitational wave signals from inspiral binary systems in the advanced detectors era, Phys. Rev. D 85, 064034 (2012).
  17. M. Pitkin, C. Messenger, and L. Wright, Astrophysical calibration of gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 93, 062002 (2016).
  18. R. Essick and D. E. Holz, Calibrating gravitational-wave detectors with GW170817, Classical Quantum Gravity 36, 125002 (2019).
  19. E. Payne, C. Talbot, P. D. Lasky, E. Thrane, and J. S. Kissel, Gravitational-wave astronomy with a physical calibration model, Phys. Rev. D 102, 122004 (2020).
  20. S. Vitale, C.-J. Haster, L. Sun, B. Farr, E. Goetz, J. Kissel, and C. Cahillane, Physical approach to the marginalization of LIGO calibration uncertainties, Phys. Rev. D 103, 063016 (2021).
  21. S. Karki et al., The Advanced LIGO photon calibrators, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 114503 (2016).
  22. D. Bhattacharjee, Y. Lecoeuche, S. Karki, J. Betzwieser, V. Bossilkov, S. Kandhasamy, E. Payne, and R. L. Savage, Fiducial displacements with improved accuracy for the global network of gravitational wave detectors, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 015009 (2021).
  23. C. Cahillane, J. Betzwieser, D. A. Brown, E. Goetz, E. D. Hall, K. Izumi, S. Kandhasamy, S. Karki, J. S. Kissel, G. Mendell, R. L. Savage, D. Tuyenbayev, A. Urban, A. Viets, M. Wade, and A. J. Weinstein, Calibration uncertainty for Advanced LIGO’s first and second observing runs, Phys. Rev. D 96, 102001 (2017).
  24. LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations, LIGO and Virgo calibaration uncertainty (O1, O2 and O3), https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T2100313/public (2021).
  25. W. Farr, B. Farr, and T. Littenberg, Modelling calibration errors in CBC waveforms, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1400682/public (2014).
  26. L. Lindblom, Optimal calibration accuracy for gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 80, 042005 (2009).
  27. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-1: A Gravitational-wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First and Second Observing Runs, Phys. Rev. X 9, 031040 (2019).
  28. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First Half of the Third Observing Run, Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021).
  29. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run, arXiv:2108.01045.
  30. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, and KAGRA Collaborations), GWTC-3: Compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the second part of the third observing run, arXiv:2111.03606.
  31. R. Essick, S. Vitale, and M. Evans, Frequency-dependent responses in third generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084004 (2017).
  32. M. Evans et al., A Horizon Study for cosmic explorer: Science, observatories, and community, arXiv:2109.09882.
  33. J. Veitch et al., Parameter estimation for compact binaries with ground-based gravitational-wave observations using the LALInference software library, Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015).
  34. B. Allen, W. G. Anderson, P. R. Brady, D. A. Brown, and J. D. E. Creighton, Findchirp: An algorithm for detection of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012).
  35. C. Talbot and E. Thrane, Gravitational-wave astronomy with an uncertain noise power spectral density, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 043298 (2020).
  36. C. Talbot, E. Thrane, S. Biscoveanu, and R. Smith, Inference with finite time series: Observing the gravitational universe through windows, Phys. Rev. Research 3, 043049 (2021).
  37. D. Tuyenbayev, R. Savage, T. Sadecki, and S. Karki, Index of photon calibrator gold standard and checking standard NIST calibrations, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1500036/public (2020).
  38. Y. Lecoeuche, M. Szczepanczyk, R. Savage, S. Karki, and T. Sadecki, Pcal gold standard and working standard configuration change proposal (2020), https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800359/public.
  39. A. Zimmerman, C.-J. Haster, and K. Chatziioannou, On combining information from multiple gravitational wave sources, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124044 (2019).
  40. M. Isi, K. Chatziioannou, and W. M. Farr, Hierarchical Test of General Relativity with Gravitational Waves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 121101 (2019).
  41. L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Model waveform accuracy standards for gravitational wave data analysis, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008).
  42. M. Was, M.-A. Bizouard, V. Brisson, F. Cavalier, M. Davier, P. Hello, N. Leroy, F. Robinet, and M. Vavoulidis, On the background estimation by time slides in a network of gravitational wave detectors, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 015005 (2010).
  43. K. Cannon, C. Hanna, and D. Keppel, Method to estimate the significance of coincident gravitational-wave observations from compact binary coalescence, Phys. Rev. D 88, 024025 (2013).
  44. S. A. Usman et al., The PyCBC search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence, Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 215004 (2016).
  45. R. Lynch, S. Vitale, R. Essick, E. Katsavounidis, and F. Robinet, Information-theoretic approach to the gravitational-wave burst detection problem, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104046 (2017).
  46. M. Drago, S. Klimenko, C. Lazzaro, E. Milotti, G. Mitselmakher, V. Necula, B. O’Brian, G. A. Prodi, F. Salemi, M. Szczepanczyk, S. Tiwari, V. Tiwari, G. V, G. Vedovato, and I. Yakushin, coherent WaveBurst, a pipeline for unmodeled gravitational-wave data analysis, SoftwareX 14, 100678 (2021).
  47. F. Aubin, F. Brighenti, R. Chierici, D. Estevez, G. Greco, G. M. Guidi, V. Juste, F. Marion, B. Mours, E. Nitoglia, O. Sauter, and V. Sordini, The MBTA pipeline for detecting compact binary coalescences in the third LIGO–Virgo observing run, Classical Quantum Gravity 38, 095004 (2021).
  48. M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Gravitational waveform accuracy requirements for future ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Research 2, 023151 (2020).
  49. B. Edelman, F. J. Rivera-Paleo, J. D. Merritt, B. Farr, Z. Doctor, J. Brink, W. M. Farr, J. Gair, J. S. Key, J. McIver, and A. B. Nielsen, Constraining unmodeled physics with compact binary mergers from GWTC-1, Phys. Rev. D 103, 042004 (2021).
  50. C. E. Rasmussen and C. K. I. Williams, Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
  51. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, Virgo, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Upper limits on the isotropic gravitational-wave background from Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run, Phys. Rev. D 104, 022004 (2021).
  52. R. Abbott et al. (KAGRA, VIRGO, and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), All-sky search for continuous gravitational waves from isolated neutron stars in the early O3 LIGO data, Phys. Rev. D 104, 082004 (2021). arXiv:2107.00600.
  53. V. Tiwari, Estimation of the sensitive volume for gravitational-wave source populations using weighted Monte Carlo integration, Classical Quantum Gravity 35, 145009 (2018).
  54. W. M. Farr, Accuracy requirements for empirically measured selection functions, Research Notes AAS 3, 66 (2019).
  55. R. Essick, Constructing mixture models for sensitivity estimates from subsets of separate injections, Research Notes AAS 5, 220 (2021).
  56. E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Constraining neutron-star tidal love numbers with gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008).
  57. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Properties of the Binary Neutron Star Merger GW170817, Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019).
  58. M. Vallisneri, Use and abuse of the Fisher information matrix in the assessment of gravitational-wave parameter-estimation prospects, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008).
  59. L. Barsotti et al., Updated Advanced LIGO sensitivity design curve, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800044/public (2018).
  60. K. Kuns et al., Cosmic explorer strain sensitivity, https://dcc.cosmicexplorer.org/public/0163/T2000017/004/ce_strain.txt (2021).
  61. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Exploring the sensitivity of next generation gravitational wave detectors, Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 044001 (2017).
  62. D. Reitze et al., Cosmic explorer: The U.S. contribution to gravitational-wave astronomy beyond LIGO, Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019).
  63. S. Fairhurst, Source localization with an advanced gravitational wave detector network, Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 105021 (2011).
  64. I. Mandel, C. P. L. Berry, F. Ohme, S. Fairhurst, and W. M. Farr, Parameter estimation on compact binary coalescences with abruptly terminating gravitational waveforms, Classical Quantum Gravity 31, 155005 (2014).
  65. S. Vitale, Three observational differences for binary black holes detections with second- and third-generation gravitational-wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D 94, 121501 (2016).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation