An improved analysis of GW150914 using a fully spin-precessing waveform model

TL;DR

This paper refines the parameter estimation of GW150914 using an advanced 15-dimensional precessing-spin waveform model, resulting in more precise black hole mass and spin measurements and reduced systematic errors.

Contribution

It introduces a new fully spin-precessing waveform model within the EOB formalism for improved gravitational wave analysis.

Findings

Updated component mass estimates: 35+5-3 and 30+3-4 solar masses.

Tighter constraints on black hole spins: primary 0.65, secondary 0.75.

Reduced systematic errors due to better waveform model agreement.

Abstract

This paper presents updated estimates of source parameters for GW150914, a binary black-hole coalescence event detected by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) on September 14, 2015 [1]. Reference presented parameter estimation [2] of the source using a 13-dimensional, phenomenological precessing-spin model (precessing IMRPhenom) and a 11-dimensional nonprecessing effective-one-body (EOB) model calibrated to numerical-relativity simulations, which forces spin alignment (nonprecessing EOBNR). Here we present new results that include a 15-dimensional precessing-spin waveform model (precessing EOBNR) developed within the EOB formalism. We find good agreement with the parameters estimated previously [2], and we quote updated component masses of $35^{+5}_{-3}\mathrm{M}_\odot$ and $30^{+3}_{-4}\mathrm{M}_\odot$ (where errors correspond to 90% symmetric credible intervals). We also present slightly tighter constraints on the dimensionless spin magnitudes of the two black holes, with a primary spin estimate $0.65$ and a secondary spin estimate $0.75$ at 90% probability. Reference [2] estimated the systematic parameter-extraction errors due to waveform-model uncertainty by combining the posterior probability densities of precessing IMRPhenom and nonprecessing EOBNR. Here we find that the two precessing-spin models are in closer agreement, suggesting that these systematic errors are smaller than previously quoted.