Systematic Biases in Estimating the Properties of Black Holes Due to Inaccurate Gravitational-Wave Models

Le résumé fourni par la source

Gravitational-wave (GW) observations of binary black-hole (BBH) coalescences are expected to address outstanding questions in astrophysics, cosmology, and fundamental physics. Realizing the full discovery potential of upcoming LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA (LVK) observing runs and new ground-based facilities hinges on accurate waveform models. Using linear-signal approximation methods and Bayesian analysis, we start to assess our readiness for what lies ahead using two state-of-the-art quasi-circular, spin-precessing models: \texttt{SEOBNRv5PHM} and \texttt{IMRPhenomXPHM}. We ascertain that current waveforms can accurately recover the distribution of masses in the LVK astrophysical population, but not spins. We find that systematic biases increase with detector-frame total mass, binary asymmetry, and spin-precession, with most such binaries incurring parameter biases, extending up to redshifts $\sim3$ in future detectors. Furthermore, we examine three ``golden'' events characterized by large mass ratios, significant spin magnitudes, and high precession, evaluating how systematic biases may affect their scientific outcomes. Our findings reveal that current waveforms fail to enable the unbiased measurement of the Hubble-Lemaître parameter from loud signals, even for current detectors. Moreover, highly asymmetric systems within the lower BH mass-gap exhibit biased measurements of the secondary-companion mass, which impacts the physics of both neutron stars and formation channels. Similarly, we deduce that the primary mass of massive binaries ($ > 60 M_\odot$) will also be biased, affecting supernova physics. Future progress in analytical calculations and numerical-relativity simulations, crucial for calibrating the models, must target regions of the parameter space with significant biases to develop more accurate models. Only then can precision GW astronomy fulfill the promise it holds.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.