4.7 Article

A Search for Gravitational Waves from Binary Mergers with a Single Observatory

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 897, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab96c7

关键词

-

资金

  1. Max Planck Gesellschaft
  2. Atlas cluster computing team at AEI Hannover
  3. Maria de Maeztu Unit of Excellence [MDM-2016-0692]
  4. Xunta de Galicia
  5. U.S. National Science Foundation
  6. French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)
  7. Italian Istituto Nazionale della Fisica Nucleare (INFN)
  8. Dutch Nikhef
  9. STFC [ST/T000333/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present a search for merging compact binary gravitational-wave sources that produce a signal appearing solely or primarily in a single detector. Past analyses have heavily relied on coincidence between multiple detectors to reduce nonastrophysical background. However, for similar to 40% of the total time of the 2015-2017 LIGO-Virgo observing runs only a single detector was operating. We discuss the difficulties in assigning significance and calculating the probability of astrophysical origin for candidates observed primarily by a single detector and suggest a straightforward resolution using a noise model designed to provide a conservative assessment given the observed data. We also describe a procedure to assess candidates observed in a single detector when multiple detectors are observing. We apply these methods to search for binary black hole (BBH) and binary neutron star (BNS) mergers in the open LIGO data spanning 2015-2017. The most promising candidate from our search is 170817+03:02:46UTC (probability of astrophysical origin p(astro) similar to 0.4): if astrophysical, this is consistent with a BBH merger with primary mass 67(-15)(+21) M-circle dot, suggestive of a hierarchical merger origin. We also apply our method to the analysis of GW190425 and find p(astro) similar to 0.5, though this value is highly dependent on assumptions about the noise and signal models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据