Sensitivity of the Advanced LIGO detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy

Мартынов, Д. В.; Hall, E. D.; Abbott, B. P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T. D.; Adams, C.; Adhikari, R. X.; Anderson, R. A.; Anderson, S. B.; Arai, K.; Arain, M. A.; Aston, S. M.; Austin, Larry; Ballmer, S. W.; Barbet, M.; Barker, D.; Barr, B.; Barsotti, L.; Bartlett, J.; Barton, M. A.; Bartos, I.; Batch, J. C.; Bell, A. S.; Belopolski, Ilya; Bergman, J.; Betzwieser, J.; Billingsley, G.; Birch, J.; Biscans, S.; Biwer, C.; Black, E.; Blair, C. D.; Bogan, C.; Bork, R.; Bridges, D. O.; Brooks, A. F.; Celerier, C.; Ciani, G.; Clara, F.; Cook, D.; Countryman, S. T.; Cowart, M. J.; Coyne, D. C.; Cumming, A.; Cunningham, L.; Damjanic, M.; Dannenberg, R.; Danzmann, K.; Costa, C. F. Da Silva; Daw, E. J.; DeBra, D.; DeRosa, R. T.; DeSalvo, R.; Dooley, K. L.; Doravari, S.; Driggers, J. C.; Dwyer, S. E.; Effler, A.; Etzel, T.; Evans, M.; Evans, T. M.; Factourovich, M.; Fair, H.; Feldbaum, D.; Fisher, R. P.; Foley, S.; Frede, M.; Fritschel, P.; Frolov, V. V.; Fulda, P.; Fyffe, M.; Galdi, Vincenzo; Giaime, J. A.; Giardina, K. D.; Gleason, J.; Goetz, E.; Gras, S.; Gray, C.; Greenhalgh, R. J. S.; Grote, H.; Guido, C.; Gushwa, K. E.; Gustafson, E. K.; Gustafson, R.; Hammond, G.; Hanks, J.; Hanson, J.; Hardwick, T.; Harry, G. M.; Heefner, J.; Heintze, M. C.; Heptonstall, A. W.; Hoak, D.; Hough, J.; Ivanov, A.; Izumi, K.; Jacobson, M.; James, E.; Jones, R.; Kandhasamy, S.; Karki, S.; Kasprzack, M.; Kaufer, S.; Kawabe, K.; Kells, W.; Kijbunchoo, N.; King, E. J.; King, Peter; Kinzel, D. L.; Kissel, J. S.; Kokeyama, K.; Korth, W. Z.; Kuehn, G.; Kwee, P.; Landry, M.; Lantz, B.; Roux, A. Le; Levine, B. M.; Lewis, Jeffrey B.; Lhuillier, Vincent; Lockerbie, N. A.; Lormand, M.; Łubiński, M.; Lundgren, A. P.; MacDonald, T.; MacInnis, M.; Macleod, D. M.; Mageswaran, M.; Mailand, K.; Márka, S.; Márka, Z.; Markosyan, A. S.; Maros, E.; Martin, I. W.; Martin, R. M.; Marx, J. N.; Mason, K.; Massinger, T. J.; Matichard, F.; Mavalvala, N.; McCarthy, R.; McClelland, D. E.; McCormick, S.; McIntyre, G.; McIver, J.; Merilh, E. L.; Meyer, M.; Meyers, P. M.; Miller, John M.; Mittleman, R.; Moreno, G.; Mueller, C. L.; Mueller, G.; Mullavey, A.; Münch, J.; Nuttall, L. K.; Oberling, J.; O’Dell, J.; Oppermann, P.; Oram, Richard J.; O’Reilly, B.; Osthelder, C.; Ottaway, D. J.; Overmier, H.; Palamos, J. R.; Paris, H. R.; Parker, W.; Patrick, Z.; Pele, A.; Penn, S.; Phelps, M.; Pickenpack, M.; Pierro, V.; Pinto, I. M.; Poeld, J.; Principe, M.; Prokhorov, L.; Puncken, O.; Quetschke, V.; Quintero, E. A.; Raab, F. J.; Radkins, H.; Raffai, P.; Ramet, C.; Reed, C. M.; Reid, S.; Reitze, D. H.; Robertson, N. A.; Rollins, J. G.; Roma, V. J.; Romie, J. H.; Rowan, S.; Ryan, K.; Sadecki, T.; Sanchez, E. J.; Sandberg, V.; Sannibale, V.; Savage, R. L.; Schofield, R. M. S.; Schultz, Brad; Schwinberg, P.; Sellers, D.; Sêvigny, A.; Shaddock, D. A.; Shao, Z.; Shapiro, B.; Shawhan, P.; Shoemaker, D. H.; Sigg, D.; Slagmolen, B. J. J.; Smith, J. R.; Smith, M. R.; Smith-Lefebvre, N. D.; Sorazu, B.; Staley, A.; Stein, A. J.; Stochino, A.; Strain, K. A.; Taylor, Robert W.; Thomas, M.; Thomas, P.; Thorne, K. A.; Thrane, E.; Torrie, C. I.; Traylor, G.; Vajente, G.; Valdes, G.; Veggel, A. A. van; Vargas, M.; Vecchio, A.; Veitch, J.; Venkateswara, K.; Vo, T.; Vorvick, C.; Waldman, S. J.; Walker, M.; Ward, R. L.; Warner, J.; Weaver, B.; Weiss, R.; Welborn, T.; Weßels, P.; Wilkinson, C.; Willems, P. A.; Williams, L.; Willke, B.; Winkelmann, L.; Wipf, C. C.; Worden, J.; Wu, G.; Yamamoto, H.; Yancey, C. C.; Yu, Hang; Zhang, L.; Zucker, M. E.; Zweizig, J.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.112004

Cited by 366 publications

(277 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

271

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A BNS coalescence could have been detected by LIGO during O1 at a distance of ∼70 Mpc, averaged over sky position and orientations (Martynov et al 2016). A short GRB afterglow similar to those that have been observed by Swift XRT would have been detectable at that distance.…”

Section: Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 76%

Localization and Broadband Follow-Up of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Gw150914

Abbott¹,

Abbott²,

Abbott³

et al. 2016

ApJL

Self Cite

248

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A gravitational-wave (GW) transient was identified in data recorded by the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) detectors on 2015 September 14. The event, initially designated G184098 and later given the name GW150914, is described in detail elsewhere. By prior arrangement, preliminary estimates of the time, significance, and sky location of the event were shared with 63 teams of observers covering radio, optical, near-infrared, X-ray, and gamma-ray wavelengths with ground-and space-based facilities. In this Letter we describe the low-latency analysis of the GW data and present the sky localization of the first observed compact binary merger. We summarize the follow-up observations reported by 25 teams via private Gamma-ray Coordinates Network circulars, giving an overview of the participating facilities, the GW sky localization coverage, the timeline, and depth of the observations. As this event turned out to be a binary black hole merger, there is little expectation of a detectable electromagnetic (EM) signature. Nevertheless, this first broadband campaign to search for a counterpart of an Advanced LIGO source represents a milestone and highlights the broad capabilities of the transient astronomy community and the observing strategies that have been developed to pursue neutron star binary merger events. Detailed investigations of the EM data and results of the EM follow-up campaign are being disseminated in papers by the individual teams.

show abstract

Section: Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 76%

Localization and Broadband Follow-Up of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Gw150914

Abbott¹,

Abbott²,

Abbott³

et al. 2016

ApJL

Self Cite

248

148

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…III our numerical experiment will be to (i) generate a specific list of candidate signals, (ii) prepare mock data for the expected LIGO response, and finally (iii) apply the traditional ILE and ILEMC procedures to these synthetic datasets. We assume both instruments operate at the LIGO O1 sensitivity [37]. We analyze data segments of 32s in duration sampled at a rate of 16, 384Hz.…”

Section: Two Methods To Infer Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

An architecture for efficient gravitational wave parameter estimation with multimodal linear surrogate models

O’Shaughnessy

Blackman

Field

2017

Class. Quantum Grav.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent direct observation of gravitational waves has further emphasized the desire for fast, low-cost, and accurate methods to infer the parameters of gravitational wave sources. Due to expense in waveform generation and data handling, the cost of evaluating the likelihood function limits the computational performance of these calculations. Building on recently developed surrogate models and a novel parameter estimation pipeline, we show how to quickly generate the likelihood function as an analytic, closed-form expression. Using a straightforward variant of a production-scale parameter estimation code, we demonstrate our method using surrogate models of effective-one-body and numerical relativity waveforms. Our study is the first time these models have been used for parameter estimation and one of the first ever parameter estimation calculations with multi-modal numerical relativity waveforms, which include all ≤ 4 modes. Our grid-free method enables rapid parameter estimation for any waveform with a suitable reduced-order model. The methods described in this paper may also find use in other data analysis studies, such as vetting coincident events or the computation of the coalescing-compact-binary detection statistic.

show abstract

“…1. 9 The peak sensitivity of about 3 × 10 −20 m/ √ Hz was achieved for differential length variations at frequencies near 200 Hz. To achieve this level of displacement-equivalent background noise, isolation of the arm cavity mirrors (serving as test masses for gravitational waves) from ground motion requires sophisticated vibration isolation systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Advanced LIGO photon calibrators

Karki

Tuyenbayev

Kandhasamy

et al. 2016

Review of Scientific Instruments

Self Cite

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The two interferometers of the Laser Interferometry Gravitaional-wave Observatory (LIGO) recently detected gravitational waves from the mergers of binary black hole systems. Accurate calibration of the output of these detectors was crucial for the observation of these events, and the extraction of parameters of the sources. The principal tools used to calibrate the responses of the second-generation (Advanced) LIGO detectors to gravitational waves are systems based on radiation pressure and referred to as Photon Calibrators. These systems, which were completely redesigned for Advanced LIGO, include several significant upgrades that enable them to meet the calibration requirements of second-generation gravitational wave detectors in the new era of gravitational-wave astronomy. We report on the design, implementation, and operation of these Advanced LIGO Photon Calibrators that are currently providing fiducial displacements on the order of 10 −18 m/ √ Hz with accuracy and precision of better than 1 %.

show abstract

Sensitivity of the Advanced LIGO detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy

Cited by 366 publications

References 67 publications

Localization and Broadband Follow-Up of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Gw150914

Localization and Broadband Follow-Up of the Gravitational-Wave Transient Gw150914

An architecture for efficient gravitational wave parameter estimation with multimodal linear surrogate models

The Advanced LIGO photon calibrators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About