Comparison of post-Newtonian templates for extreme mass ratio inspirals

TL;DR

This study evaluates the accuracy of various high-order post-Newtonian waveform templates for EMRIs against numerical waveforms, finding that TaylorT1 and T2 are highly accurate for LISA parameter estimation, while T3, T4, and Et are less reliable near the last stable orbit.

Contribution

The paper provides a detailed comparison of 22PN order post-Newtonian templates with numerical waveforms for EMRIs, highlighting the superior performance of TaylorT1 and T2 templates.

Findings

TaylorT1 and T2 have dephases around 10^{-9} radians, suitable for LISA.

T3, T4, and Et templates perform poorly near the last stable orbit.

High-order 22PN templates can match numerical waveforms for EMRIs.

Abstract

Extreme mass ratio inspirals (EMRIs), the inspirals of compact objects into supermassive black holes, are important gravitational wave sources for the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA). We study the performance of various post-Newtonian (PN) template families relative to the high precision numerical waveforms in the context of EMRI parameter estimation with LISA. Expressions for the time domain waveforms TaylorT1, TaylorT2, TaylorT3, TaylorT4 and TaylorEt are derived up to 22PN order, i.e $\mathcal{O}(v^{44})$ ($v$ is the characteristic velocity of the binary) beyond the Newtonian term, for a test particle in a circular orbit around a Schwarzschild black hole. The phase difference between the above 22PN waveform families and numerical waveforms are evaluated during two-year inspirals for two prototypical EMRI systems with mass ratios $10^{-4}$ and $10^{-5}$. We find that the dephases (in radians) for TaylorT1 and TaylorT2, respectively, are about $10^{-9}$ ($10^{-2}$) and $10^{-9}$ ($10^{-3}$) for mass ratio $10^{-4}$ ($10^{-5}$). This suggests that using 22PN TaylorT1 or TaylorT2 waveforms for parameter estimation of EMRIs will result in accuracies comparable to numerical waveform accuracy for most of the LISA parameter space. On the other hand, from the dephase results, we find that TaylorT3, TaylorT4 and TaylorEt fare relatively poorly as one approaches the last stable orbit. This implies that, as for comparable mass binaries using the 3.5PN phase of waveforms, the 22PN TaylorT3 and TaylorEt approximants do not perform well enough for the EMRIs. The reason underlying the poor performance of TaylorT3, TaylorT4 and TaylorEt relative to TaylorT1 and TaylorT2 is finally examined.