
2
up the overlap integral. These include reduced-order mod-
els (ROMs) [
9
–
11
], machine-learning aided ROMs [
12
],
Gaussian process regression based interpolation [
13
] and
relative binning [
3
,
14
,
15
] algorithms. Our approach takes
inspiration from the grid-based likelihood interpolation
method [
16
] based on orthonormal Chebyshev polynomi-
als. The grid-based techniques have a drawback in that
the number of interpolation nodes grows exponentially
with the dimensionality of the parameter space.
In this work, we propose a new and alternative
approach to grid-based likelihood interpolation method
[
16
], a computationally efficient method for evaluating the
likelihood function (a key ingredient in Bayesian inference)
using meshfree interpolation methods with dimension
reduction techniques. We directly interpolate the
likelihood function over the parameter space, bypassing
the generation of templates and brute-force computation
of the overlap integral altogether. Our scheme can
quickly approximate the log-likelihood function with
high accuracy and produce statistically indistinguishable
posteriors over source parameters. Further, both the
GstLAL
search framework [
17
] and the meshfree method
use the idea of dimension reduction using SVD [
18
], it
may be prudent to incorporate this method with the
low-latency
GstLAL
search pipeline for rapid, automated
follow-ups of the detected events.
II. BAYESIAN INFERENCE
Given data
d=h(⃗
Λtrue) + n
recorded at a detector
containing an astrophysical GW signal
h
(
⃗
Λtrue
)embedded
in additive Gaussian noise
n
, one is interested in solving
the inverse problem to estimate the source parameters.
Bayesian inference is a stochastic inversion method where
the posterior probability density
p
(
⃗
Λ|d
)over the source
parameters is related to the likelihood function
L(d|⃗
Λ)
of observing the data through the Bayes’ theorem:
p(⃗
Λ|d) = L(d|⃗
Λ) p(⃗
Λ)
p(d),(1)
where
p
(
⃗
Λ
)is the prior distribution over the model
parameters
⃗
Λ≡ {⃗
λext,⃗
λ}
. In our notation,
⃗
λ
denotes
the intrinsic parameters such as component masses and
spins. The set of extrinsic parameters is denoted by
⃗
λext
.
We are particularly interested in estimating the extrinsic
parameter
tc
denoting the fiducial time of coalescence of
the two masses.
tc
will be mentioned explicitly wherever
required, as it is treated in a special way in our analysis.
The forward generative frequency-domain restricted
waveform model for non-precessing compact binaries can
be expressed as
h(⃗
Λ) = Ah+(fk;⃗
λ)
, where the complex
amplitude
A
depends only on the extrinsic parameters
and
h+
(
fk
;
⃗
λ
)is the ‘+’ polarization of the signal that
depends only on the intrinsic parameters [
19
]. Here
{fk}Ns/2
k=0
defines positive Fourier frequencies, and
Ns1
is the number of sample points. A GW signal, observed
by an interferometric detector, can be considered as a
linear combination of the two polarizations weighted by
the antenna pattern function. The
h+
(
fk
;
⃗
λ
)polarization
is related to the
h×
(
fk
;
⃗
λ
)polarization for non-precessing
GW signal as:
h+(fk;⃗
λ)∝ih×(fk;⃗
λ)
[
20
]. This allows
us to write the detector response in terms of any one
of the polarizations alone (we have chosen the
h+
(
fk
;
⃗
λ
)
polarization). Using this model, the posterior
p(⃗
Λ|d)
can
be directly evaluated at every point in
⃗
Λ
using Eq. (1).
However, in view of the high-dimensionality of
⃗
Λ
, it is
more efficient to sample the posterior using stochastic
sampling algorithms such as Nested-Sampling [
21
], or
Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) [
19
]. From Eq. (1),
it is evident that for a quick estimation of the posterior
distribution, it is imperative to rapidly evaluate the
likelihood function.
We work with the phase-marginalized log-likelihood
function [22]:
ln L(⃗
Λ, tc) = ln I0h|A| z(⃗
λ, tc)i−1
2∥h(⃗
Λ)∥2
2(2)
where
I0
(
·
)is the 0-th order modified Bessel function
of the first kind, and
z
(
⃗
λ, tc
)is the frequency-domain
overlap-integral:
z(⃗
λ, tc) = 4 ∆f
Ns/2
X
k=0
d∗(fk)h+(fk,⃗
λ)
Sh(fk)e−2πifktc
,(3)
inversely by
Sh
(
fk
), the detector’s one-sided noise power
spectral density (PSD). The data and template vectors
are sampled at discrete frequencies {fk}Ns/2
k=0 .
The complexity of evaluating the overlap integral scales
directly with the number of data samples, which in
turn, scales with the seismic cut-off frequency (approx-
imately) as
Ns∼f−8/3
low
. As we progress from the O4
observational run (
flow = 20 Hz
) to O5 at design sensi-
tivity (
flow = 10 Hz
), evaluating
p(⃗
Λ|d)
is likely to take
at least
×
6
.
3longer. In addition, additional costs will
be incurred in constructing longer templates at the pro-
posal points. Therefore, the likelihood calculation can
be expensive. However, our method is immune to this
issue as our scheme directly approximates the likelihoods
1Ns=signal duration ×sampling frequency