- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Testing general relativity using Bayesian model selection: Applications to observations of gravitational waves from compact binary systems

Walter Del Pozzo1,2,*, John Veitch1,3, and Alberto Vecchio1

  • 1School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom
  • 2Nikhef National Institute for Subatomic Physics, Science Park 105, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • 3Physics and Astronomy, Cardiff University, Queen’s Buildings, The Parade, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom

  • *walterdp@nikhef.nl
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 83, 082002 – Published 29 April, 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.83.082002

Abstract

Second-generation interferometric gravitational-wave detectors, such as Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, are expected to begin operation by 2015. Such instruments plan to reach sensitivities that will offer the unique possibility to test general relativity in the dynamical, strong-field regime and investigate departures from its predictions, in particular, using the signal from coalescing binary systems. We introduce a statistical framework based on Bayesian model selection in which the Bayes factor between two competing hypotheses measures which theory is favored by the data. Probability density functions of the model parameters are then used to quantify the inference on individual parameters. We also develop a method to combine the information coming from multiple independent observations of gravitational waves, and show how much stronger inference could be. As an introduction and illustration of this framework—and a practical numerical implementation through the Monte Carlo integration technique of nested sampling—we apply it to gravitational waves from the inspiral phase of coalescing binary systems as predicted by general relativity and a very simple alternative theory in which the graviton has a nonzero mass. This method can (and should) be extended to more realistic and physically motivated theories.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (66)

  1. C. M. Will, Living Rev. Relativity 9, 3 (2006), http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-2006-3.
  2. B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Living Rev. Relativity 12, 2 (2009), http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2009-2.
  3. B. C. Barish and R. Weiss, Phys. Today 52, 44 (1999).
  4. B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 076901 (2009).
  5. F. Acernese et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 21, S385 (2004).
  6. http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/advLIGO/.
  7. http://wwwcascina.virgo.infn.it/advirgo/.
  8. C. Cutler and K. S. Thorne, in General Relativity and Gravitation, edited by N. T. Bishop and D. M. Sunil (World Scientific, Singapore, 2002), p. 72.
  9. K. Kokkotas, Rev. Mod. Astrophys. 20, 140 (2008).
  10. J. Abadie et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 173001 (2010).
  11. P. Bender et al., LISA Pre-Phase A Report, Second Edition, MPQ 233 (1998).
  12. S. Kawamura et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 23, S125 (2006).
  13. A. Freise, S. Chelkowski, S. Hild, W. Del Pozzo, A. Perreca, A. Vecchioand , Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 085012 (2009).
  14. S. Hild, S. Chelkowski, A. Freise, J. Franc, N. Morgado, R. Flaminio, and R. DeSalvo, Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 015003 (2010).
  15. M. Punturo et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 084007 (2010).
  16. C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 50, 6058 (1994).
  17. F. D. Ryan, Phys. Rev. D 56, 1845 (1997).
  18. C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 57, 2061 (1998).
  19. C. M. Will, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, S219 (2003).
  20. C. M. Will and N. Yunes, Classical Quantum Gravity 21, 4367 (2004).
  21. E. Berti, A. Buonanno, and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 71, 084025 (2005).
  22. K. Glampedakis and S. Babak, Classical Quantum Gravity 23, 4167 (2006).
  23. M. Kesden, J. Gair, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. D 71, 044015 (2005).
  24. S. A. Hughes, AIP Conf. Proc. 873, 233 (2006).
  25. K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 74, 024006 (2006).
  26. K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, M. S. S. Qusailah, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Classical Quantum Gravity 23, L37 (2006).
  27. E. Berti, V. Cardoso, C. M. Willand , Phys. Rev. D 73, 064030 (2006).
  28. L. Barack and C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 75, 042003 (2007).
  29. S. Alexander, L. S. Finn, and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 78, 066005 (2008).
  30. J. R. Gair, C. Li, and I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024035 (2008).
  31. N. Yunes and L. S. Finn, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 154, 012041 (2009).
  32. K. G. Arun and C. M. Will, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 155002 (2009).
  33. A. Stavridis and C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 80, 044002 (2009).
  34. N. Yunes and C. F. Sopuerta, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 228, 012051 (2010).
  35. N. Yunes and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 80, 122003 (2009).
  36. T. A. Apostolatos, G. Lukes-Gerakopoulos, and G. Contopoulos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 111101 (2009).
  37. B. F. Schutz, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 094020 (2009).
  38. D. Keppel and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D 82, 122001 (2010).
  39. C. K. Mishra, K. G. Arun, B. R. Iyer, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064010 (2010).
  40. E. T. Jaynes and G. L. Bretthorst, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2003).
  41. C. Rao, Bull. Calcutta Math. Soc. 37, 81 (1945).
  42. H. Cramer, Mathematical Methods of Statistics (Pergamon Press, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1946).
  43. D. Nicholson and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4588 (1998).
  44. R. Balasubramanian and S. V. Dhurandhar, Phys. Rev. D 57, 3408 (1998).
  45. M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008).
  46. M. Zanolin, S. Vitale, and N. Makris, Phys. Rev. D 81, 124048 (2010).
  47. B. F. Schutz, Nature (London) 323, 310 (1986).
  48. I. Mandel, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084029 (2010).
  49. W. R. Gilks, S. Richardson, and D. J. Spiegelhalter, Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, 1996).
  50. P. J. Green, Biometrika 82, 711 (1995).
  51. A. Gelman and X.-L. Meng, Stat. Sci. 13, 163 (1998).
  52. J. Skilling, AIP Conf. Proc. 735, 395 (2004).
  53. J. Veitch and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 81, 062003 (2010).
  54. J. Veitch and A. Vecchio, Phys. Rev. D 78, 022001 (2008).
  55. J. Veitch and A. Vecchio, Classical Quantum Gravity 25, 184010 (2008).
  56. B. Aylott et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 165008 (2009).
  57. B. Aylott, J. Veitch, and A. Vecchio, Classical Quantum Gravity 26, 114011 (2009).
  58. L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativity 9, 4 (2006), http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-4.
  59. L. Blanchet, T. Damour, B. R. Iyer, C. M. Will, and A. G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3515 (1995).
  60. E. Komatsu et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 192, 18 (2011).

  61. Disentangling D from λg assumes that the cosmological parameters are known, as well as the source redshift. In reality, a statement on λg requires that one folds into the analysis the uncertainty about both the cosmology and the redshift, which, if no electromagnetic counterpart is observed, can be reconstructed from the luminosity distance and the cosmological parameters. For the purpose of this study, as we limit ourselves to distances for which z≪1, we can ignore these effects and we set D=DL and 1+z=1.

  62. We have used the analytical expression of the Advanced LIGO noise curve as included in the LSC Analysis Library, which is given by the expression of the noise spectral density S(f)=S0[x−4.14−5x2+111(1−x2+0.5x4)/(1+0.5x2)], where S0=10−49  Hz−1 and x≡f/215  Hz. Notice that a range of possible interferometer configurations will be possible with advanced LIGO, and they would yield different noise curves, which in turn differ from the one considered here. Equally, Advanced Virgo is expected to have a noise performance comparable to that of Advanced LIGO, although slightly different in the details. As the study here is not about the relative performance of different instruments, but rather about the actual method used to perform experimental tests on general relativity using observations given a specific instrument, the specific choice of the noise curve does not affect the qualitative behavior of the results presented here, although it does affect the quantitative details.

  63. C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007).
  64. H. Jeffreys, Theory of Probability (Oxford University Press, New York, 1961).
  65. https://www.lsc-group.phys.uwm.edu/daswg/projects/lalapps.html.

  66. For each injection we perform 10 parallel runs using 10 independent nested sampling chains. We then compute the mean of the value of eta recovered by each run and compute the 95% confidence interval of the mean. We do not include the statistical uncertainty on eta arising from each run.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 83, 082002– Published 29 April, 2011
  • Received 27 November 2010

© 2011 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation