Parameter Estimation with a spinning multi-mode waveform model: IMRPhenomHM

TL;DR

This paper evaluates the impact of including higher-order modes in gravitational wave parameter estimation, demonstrating that multi-mode models improve accuracy and reduce biases compared to quadrupole-only models.

Contribution

It introduces and tests the IMRPhenomHM multi-mode waveform model, quantifying its advantages over the quadrupole-only IMRPhenomD in parameter estimation accuracy.

Findings

Multi-mode templates yield more precise parameter estimates at non-zero inclinations.

IMRPhenomD recovers biased parameters for multi-mode signals at non-zero inclinations.

IMRPhenomHM reduces biases and provides accurate parameter recovery in most cases.

Abstract

Gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence sources can be decomposed into spherical-harmonic multipoles, the dominant being the quadrupole ($\ell=2, m=\pm2$) modes. The contribution of sub-dominant modes towards total signal power increases with increasing binary mass ratio and source inclination to the detector. It is well-known that in these cases neglecting higher modes could lead to measurement biases, but these have not yet been quantified with a higher-mode model that includes spin effects. In this study, we use the multi-mode aligned-spin phenomenological waveform model IMRPhenomHM to investigate the effects of including multi-mode content in estimating source parameters and contrast the results with using a quadrupole-only model (IMRPhenomD). We use as sources IMRPhenomHM and hybrid EOB-NR waveforms over a range of mass-ratio and inclination combinations, and recover the parameters with IMRPhenomHM and IMRPhenomD. These allow us to quantify the accuracy of parameter measurements using a multi-mode model, the biases incurred when using a quadrupole-only model to recover full (multi-mode) signals, and the systematic errors in the IMRPhenomHM model. We see that the parameters recovered by multi-mode templates are more precise for all non-zero inclinations as compared to quadrupole templates. For multi-mode injections, IMRPhenomD recovers biased parameters for non-zero inclinations with lower likelihood while IMRPhenomHM recovered parameters are accurate for most cases, and if a bias exists, it can be explained as a combined effect of observational priors and (in the case of hybrid-NR signals) waveform inaccuracies. For cases where IMRPhenomHM recovers biased parameters, the bias is always smaller than the corresponding IMRPhenomD recovery, and we conclude that IMRPhenomHM will be sufficiently accurate to allow unbiased measurements for most GW observations.