- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Use and interpretation of signal-model indistinguishability measures for gravitational-wave astronomy

Jonathan E. Thompson1,2, Charlie Hoy3, Edward Fauchon-Jones4, and Mark Hannam4

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 112, 064011 – Published 5 September, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/ddz7-x9zz

Abstract

The difference (“mismatch”) between two gravitational-wave signals is often used to estimate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at which they will be distinguishable in a measurement or, alternatively, when the errors in a signal model will lead to biased measurements. It is well known that the standard approach to calculate this “indistinguishability SNR” is too conservative: a model may fail the criterion at a given SNR, but not necessarily incur a biased measurement of any individual parameters. This problem can be solved by taking into account errors orthogonal to the model space (which, therefore, do not induce a bias), and calculating indistinguishability SNRs for individual parameters, rather than the full N-dimensional parameter space. We illustrate this approach with the simple example of aligned-spin binary black hole signals, and calculate accurate estimates of the SNR at which each parameter measurement will be biased. In general, biases occur at much higher SNRs than predicted from the standard mismatch calculation. Which parameters are most easily biased depends sensitively on the details of a given waveform model, and the location in parameter space, and in some cases the bias SNR is as high as the conservative estimate. We also illustrate how the parameter bias SNR can be used to robustly specify waveform accuracy requirements for future detectors.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (97)

  1. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
  2. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016); 8, 039903(E) (2018).
  3. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 11, 021053 (2021).
  4. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and VIRGO Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 109, 022001 (2024).
  5. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration), Phys. Rev. X 13, 041039 (2023).
  6. R. Abbott, T. Abbott, K. Ackley, C. Adams, V. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos et al., Living Rev. Relativity 23, 1 (2020).
  7. D. Reitze et al., Bull. Am. Astron. Soc. 51, 035 (2019), https://inspirehep.net/literature/1743201.
  8. M. Evans et al., arXiv:2306.13745.
  9. M. Punturo et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 084007 (2010).
  10. S. Hild et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 094013 (2011).
  11. M. Maggiore et al. (ET Collaboration), J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2020) 050.
  12. A. Abac et al., arXiv:2503.12263.
  13. P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA Collaboration), arXiv:1702.00786.
  14. S. Babak, A. Petiteau, and M. Hewitson, arXiv:2108.01167.
  15. M. Colpi et al. (LISA Collaboration), arXiv:2402.07571.
  16. J. Healy and C. O. Lousto, Phys. Rev. D 102, 104018 (2020).
  17. D. Ferguson et al., arXiv:2309.00262.
  18. E. Hamilton et al., Phys. Rev. D 109, 044032 (2024).
  19. M. A. Scheel et al., arXiv:2505.13378.
  20. A. Nagar et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 104052 (2018).
  21. V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, D. Gerosa, L. C. Stein, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. Res. 1, 033015 (2019).
  22. G. Pratten, S. Husa, C. Garcia-Quiros, M. Colleoni, A. Ramos-Buades, H. Estelles, and R. Jaume, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064001 (2020).
  23. E. Hamilton, L. London, J. E. Thompson, E. Fauchon-Jones, M. Hannam, C. Kalaghatgi, S. Khan, F. Pannarale, and A. Vano-Vinuales, Phys. Rev. D 104, 124027 (2021).
  24. L. Pompili et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 124035 (2023).
  25. L. S. Finn, Phys. Rev. D 46, 5236 (1992).
  26. L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen, and D. A. Brown, Phys. Rev. D 78, 124020 (2008).
  27. S. T. McWilliams, B. J. Kelly, and J. G. Baker, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024014 (2010).
  28. M. Hannam, S. Husa, F. Ohme, and P. Ajith, Phys. Rev. D 82, 124052 (2010).
  29. E. Baird, S. Fairhurst, M. Hannam, and P. Murphy, Phys. Rev. D 87, 024035 (2013).
  30. K. Chatziioannou, A. Klein, N. Yunes, and N. Cornish, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104004 (2017).
  31. A. Toubiana and J. R. Gair, arXiv:2401.06845.
  32. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 104002 (2017).
  33. M. Pürrer and C.-J. Haster, Phys. Rev. Res. 2, 023151 (2020).
  34. C. Cutler and M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 76, 104018 (2007).
  35. Q. Hu and J. Veitch, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044042 (2022).
  36. D. Markovic, Phys. Rev. D 48, 4738 (1993).
  37. C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994).
  38. B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6749 (1996).
  39. E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4566 (1998).
  40. P. Ajith et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011).
  41. F. Ohme, Bridging the gap between post-Newtonian theory and numerical relativity in gravitational-wave data analysis, Ph.D. thesis, Potsdam University, 2012.
  42. A. J. K. Chua and C. J. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 106, 124046 (2022).
  43. J. Roulet, S. Olsen, J. Mushkin, T. Islam, T. Venumadhav, B. Zackay, and M. Zaldarriaga, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123015 (2022).
  44. B. Bruegmann, J. A. Gonzalez, M. Hannam, S. Husa, U. Sperhake, and W. Tichy, Phys. Rev. D 77, 024027 (2008).
  45. S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. Pürrer, F. Ohme, X. Jiménez Forteza, and A. Bohé, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016).
  46. S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. Pürrer, X. Jiménez Forteza, and A. Bohé, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044007 (2016).
  47. C. Kalaghatgi, M. Hannam, and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103004 (2020).
  48. V. Varma, S. E. Field, M. A. Scheel, J. Blackman, L. E. Kidder, and H. P. Pfeiffer, Phys. Rev. D 99, 064045 (2019).
  49. R. Balasubramanian, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and S. V. Dhurandhar, Phys. Rev. D 53, 3033 (1996); 54, 1860(E) (1996).
  50. P. Ajith et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 29, 124001 (2012); 30, 199401(E) (2013).
  51. J. A. Nelder and R. Mead, Computer Journal (UK) 7, 308 (1965).
  52. P. Virtanen et al. (scipy 1.0 Contributors), Nat. Methods 17, 261 (2020).
  53. J. Veitch and W. Del Pozzo, Analytic marginalisation of phase parameter, Tech. Report No. T1300326 (Nikhef, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013).
  54. W. M. Farr, Marginalization of the time and phase parameters in CBC parameter estimation, Tech. Report.No T1400460 (University of Birmingham, 2014).
  55. L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024013 (2016).
  56. L. P. Singer et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 829, L15 (2016).
  57. E. Thrane and C. Talbot, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 36, e010 (2019); 37, e036(E) (2020).
  58. N. Metropolis and S. Ulam, J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 44, 335 (1949).
  59. J. Skilling, in AIP Conference Proceedings (AIP, 2004).
  60. J. Skilling, Bayesian Anal. 1, 833 (2006).
  61. J. Veitch et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015).
  62. J. Lange, R. O’Shaughnessy, and M. Rizzo, arXiv:1805.10457.
  63. G. Ashton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 27 (2019).
  64. C. M. Biwer, C. D. Capano, S. De, M. Cabero, D. A. Brown, A. H. Nitz, and V. Raymond, Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019).
  65. R. J. E. Smith, G. Ashton, A. Vajpeyi, and C. Talbot, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 498, 4492 (2020).
  66. G. Ashton and C. Talbot, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 507, 2037 (2021).
  67. M. Dax, S. R. Green, J. Gair, J. H. Macke, A. Buonanno, and B. Schölkopf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 241103 (2021).
  68. V. Tiwari, C. Hoy, S. Fairhurst, and D. MacLeod, Phys. Rev. D 108, 023001 (2023).
  69. J. S. Speagle, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, 3132 (2020).
  70. M. Branchesi et al., J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2023) 068.
  71. N. Henze and B. Zirkler, Commun. Stat.-Theory Methods 19, 3595 (1990).
  72. R. Vallat, J. Open Source Softwaare 3, 1026 (2018).
  73. J. Lin, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 37, 145 (1991).
  74. Z. W. Birnbaum and P. L. Meyer, On the Effect of Truncation in Some or All Coordinates of a Multinormal Population (University of Washington, 1951).
  75. G. M. Tallis, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 23, 223 (1961).
  76. D. Ferguson, K. Jani, P. Laguna, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044037 (2021).
  77. A. Jan, D. Ferguson, J. Lange, D. Shoemaker, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024023 (2024).
  78. J. E. Thompson, E. Hamilton, L. London, S. Ghosh, P. Kolitsidou, C. Hoy, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 109, 063012 (2024).
  79. A. Ramos-Buades, A. Buonanno, H. Estellés, M. Khalil, D. P. Mihaylov, S. Ossokine, L. Pompili, and M. Shiferaw, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124037 (2023).
  80. A. J. K. Chua, N. Korsakova, C. J. Moore, J. R. Gair, and S. Babak, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044027 (2020).
  81. M. Liu, X.-D. Li, and A. J. K. Chua, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103027 (2023).
  82. N. Afshordi et al. (LISA Consortium Waveform Working Group), arXiv:2311.01300.
  83. M. Hannam et al., Nature (London) 610, 652 (2022).
  84. C. Capano, Y. Pan, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 89, 102003 (2014).
  85. P. Schmidt, F. Ohme, and M. Hannam, Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015).
  86. I. Harry, S. Privitera, A. Bohé, and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 94, 024012 (2016).
  87. LIGO Scientific Collaboration, Virgo Collaboration, and KAGRA Collaboration, LVK Algorithm Library—lalsuite, Free software (GPL) (2018).
  88. A. Nitz et al., gwastro/pycbc: v2.3.3 release of pycbc (2024).
  89. C. Hoy and V. Raymond, SoftwareX 15, 100765 (2021).
  90. J. D. Hunter, Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90 (2007).
  91. C. R. Harris et al., Nature (London) 585, 357 (2020).
  92. J. L. Synge, ed., Relativity: The General Theory (Elsevier Science Publishing, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1960).
  93. P. Mahalanobis, Sankhya A 80, 1 (2018).
  94. A. Dhani, S. Völkel, A. Buonanno, H. Estelles, J. Gair, H. P. Pfeiffer, L. Pompili, and A. Toubiana, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031036 (2025).
  95. M. Vallisneri, Phys. Rev. D 77, 042001 (2008).
  96. R. D. Neidinger, SIAM Rev. 52, 545 (2010).
  97. T. D. P. Edwards, K. W. K. Wong, K. K. H. Lam, A. Coogan, D. Foreman-Mackey, M. Isi, and A. Zimmerman, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064028 (2024).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 112, 064011– Published 5 September, 2025
  • Received 15 June 2025
  • Accepted 15 August 2025
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation