de.mpg.escidoc.pubman.appbase.FacesBean
English
 
Help Guide Disclaimer Contact us Login
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Paper

Analysis of the first IPTA Mock Data Challenge by the EPTA timing data analysis working group

MPS-Authors
http://pubman.mpdl.mpg.de/cone/persons/resource/persons86728

van Haasteren,  Rutger
Observational Relativity and Cosmology, AEI-Hannover, MPI for Gravitational Physics, Max Planck Society;

Locator
There are no locators available
Fulltext (public)

1301.6673
(Preprint), 142KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

van Haasteren, R., Mingarelli, C. M. F., Vecchio, A., & Lassus, A. (in preparation). Analysis of the first IPTA Mock Data Challenge by the EPTA timing data analysis working group.


Cite as: http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-000E-FCFB-8
Abstract
This is a summary of the methods we used to analyse the first IPTA Mock Data Challenge (MDC), and the obtained results. We have used a Bayesian analysis in the time domain, accelerated using the recently developed ABC-method which consists of a form of lossy linear data compression. The TOAs were first processed with Tempo2, where the design matrix was extracted for use in a subsequent Bayesian analysis. We used different noise models to analyse the datasets: no red noise, red noise the same for all pulsars, and individual red noise per pulsar. We sampled from the likelihood with four different samplers: "emcee", "t-walk", "Metropolis-Hastings", and "pyMultiNest". All but emcee agreed on the final result, with emcee failing due to artefacts of the high-dimensionality of the problem. An interesting issue we ran into was that the prior of all the 36 (red) noise amplitudes strongly affects the results. A flat prior in the noise amplitude biases the inferred GWB amplitude, whereas a flat prior in log-amplitude seems to work well. This issue is only apparent when using a noise model with individually modelled red noise for all pulsars. Our results for the blind challenges are in good agreement with the injected values. For the GWB amplitudes we found h_c = 1.03 +/- 0.11 [10^{-14}], h_c = 5.70 +/- 0.35 [10^{-14}], and h_c = 6.91 +/- 1.72 [10^{-15}], and for the GWB spectral index we found gamma = 4.28 +/- 0.20, gamma = 4.35 +/- 0.09, and gamma = 3.75 +/- 0.40. We note that for closed challenge 3 there was quite some covariance between the signal and the red noise: if we constrain the GWB spectral index to the usual choice of gamma = 13/3, we obtain the estimates: h_c = 10.0 +/- 0.64 [10^{-15}], h_c = 56.3 +/- 2.42 [10^{-15}], and h_c = 4.83 +/- 0.50 [10^{-15}], with one-sided 2 sigma upper-limits of: h_c <= 10.98 [10^{-15}], h_c <= 60.29 [10^{-15}], and h_c <= 5.65 [10^{-15}].