Arxiv:1606.03939V2 [Astro-Ph.HE] 20 Sep 2016 P0(X) and P1(X) for Its Detection Statistic X
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Draft version September 21, 2016 Preprint typeset using LATEX style AASTeX6 v. 1.0 SUPPLEMENT: THE RATE OF BINARY BLACK HOLE MERGERS INFERRED FROM ADVANCED LIGO OBSERVATIONS SURROUNDING GW150914 B. P. Abbott,1 yDeceased, May 2015. zDeceased, March 2015. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) (and The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 1LIGO, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA ABSTRACT Supplemental information for a Letter reporting the rate of binary black hole (BBH) coalescences in- ferred from 16 days of coincident Advanced LIGO observations surrounding the transient gravitational wave (GW) signal GW150914. In that work we reported various rate estimates whose 90% credible 3 1 intervals (CIs) fell in the range 2{600 Gpc− yr− . Here we give details of our method and com- putations, including information about our search pipelines, a derivation of our likelihood function for the analysis, a description of the astrophysical search trigger distribution expected from merging BBHs, details on our computational methods, a description of the effects and our model for calibration uncertainty, and an analytic method of estimating our detector sensitivity that is calibrated to our measurements. The first detection of a gravitational wave (GW) sig- a coincident counterpart in the other detector to form a nal from a merging binary black hole (BBH) system is multiple-detector likelihood ratio. described in Abbott et al.(2016d). Abbott et al.(2016g) Both pipelines rely on an empirical estimate of the reports on inference of the local BBH merger rate from search background, making the assumption that trig- surrounding Advanced LIGO observations. This Sup- gers of terrestrial origin occur independently in the two plement provides supporting material and methodolog- detectors. The background estimate is built from ob- ical details for Abbott et al.(2016g), hereafter referred servations of single-detector triggers over a long time to as the Letter. (gstlal) or through searching over a data stream with one detector's output shifted in time relative to the 1. SEARCH PIPELINES other's by an interval that is longer than the light travel time between detectors, ensuring that no coincident as- Both the pycbc and gstlal pipelines are based on trophysical signals remain in the data (pycbc). For both matched filtering against a bank of template waveforms. pipelines it is not possible to produce an instantaneous See Abbott et al.(2016c) for a detailed description of the background estimate at a particular time; this drives our pipelines in operation around the time of GW150914; choice of likelihood function as described in Section2. here we provide an abbreviated description. The gstlal pipeline natively determines the functions In the pycbc pipeline, the single-detector signal-to- arXiv:1606.03939v2 [astro-ph.HE] 20 Sep 2016 p0(x) and p1(x) for its detection statistic x. For this noise ratio (SNR) is re-weighted by a chi-squared fac- analysis a threshold of xmin = 5 was applied, which tor (Allen 2005) to account for template-data mismatch is sufficiently low that the trigger density is dominated (Babak et al. 2013); the re-weighted single-detector by terrestrial triggers near threshold. There were M = SNRs are combined in quadrature to produce a detec- 15 848 triggers observed above this threshold in the 17 tion statistic for search triggers. days of observation time analyzed by gstlal. The gstlal pipeline's detection statistic, however, is For pycbc, the quantity x0 is the re-weighted SNR de- based on a likelihood ratio (Cannon et al. 2013, 2015) 1 tection statistic. We set a threshold x0 = 8, above constructed from the single-detector SNRs and a signal- min consistency statistic. An analytic estimate of the distri- bution of astrophysical signals in multiple-detector SNR 1 When quoting pipeline-specific values we distinguish pycbc and signal consistency statistic space is compared to a quantities with a prime. measured distribution of single-detector triggers without 2 101 and astrophysical rates: dN (t; x) = R (t)p (x; t) + R (t)V (t)p (x; t); (2) dtdx 0 0 1 1 100 where R0(t) is the instantaneous rate (number per unit time) of terrestrial triggers, R1(t) is the instantaneous ) 0 1 x rate density (number per unit time per unit comoving 10− ( p volume) of astrophysical triggers, p0 is the instantaneous density in detection statistic of terrestrial triggers, p1 is 2 the instantaneous density in detection statistic of astro- 10− physical triggers, and V (t) is the instantaneous sensitive p 0 comoving redshifted volume (Abbott et al. 2016a, see p1 3 also Eq. (15) of the Letter) of the detectors to the as- 10− sumed source population. The astrophysical rate R1 is 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 to any reasonable approximation constant over our ob- x 0 servations so we will drop the time dependence of this 2 term from here on. Note that R0 and R1 have different Figure 1. Inferred terrestrial (p ; blue) and astrophysical 0 units in this expression; the former is a rate (per time), (p1; green) trigger densities for the pycbc pipeline as de- scribed in Section1. while the latter is a rate density (per time-volume). The density p1 is independent of source parameters as de- scribed in Section3. Let which M = 270 triggers remain in the search. We use a 0 dN dN histogram of triggers collected from time-shifted data to dx = R (t) + R V (t): (3) dt ≡ dtdx 0 1 estimate the terrestrial trigger density, p0 (x0), and a his- Z togram of the recovered triggers from the injection sets If the search intervals δi are sufficiently short, they described in Section 2.2 of the Letter to estimate the as- will contain at most one trigger and the time-dependent trophysical trigger density, p1 (x0). These estimates are terms in Eq. (2) will be approximately constant. Then shown in Figure1. The uncertainty in the distribution of the likelihood for a set of times and detection statistics triggers from this estimation procedure is much smaller of triggers, (t ; x ) j = 1;:::;M , is a product over in- f j j j g than the uncertainty in overall rate from the finite num- tervals containing a trigger (indexed by j) and intervals ber statistics (see, for example, Figure5). The empirical that do not contain a trigger (indexed by k) of the cor- estimate is necessary to properly account for the inter- responding Poisson likelihoods action of the various single- and double-interferometer thresholds in the pycbc search (Abbott et al. 2016c). M dN dN At high SNR, where these thresholds are irrelevant, the = (t ; x ) exp δ (t ) L 8 dtdx j j − j dt j 9 astrophysical triggers follow an approximately flat-space j=1 <Y = volumetric density (see Section3) of NT M : − dN ; 3x 3 exp δk (tk) (4) min0 × ( − dt ) p1(x0) 4 ; (1) k=1 ' x0 Y but they deviate from this at smaller SNR due to thresh- (cf. Farr et al.(2015, Eq. (21)) or Loredo & Wasserman old effects in the search. (1995, Eq. (2.8))).3 Now let the width of the observation For the pycbc pipeline, a detection statistic x0 10:1 intervals δi go to zero uniformly as the number of inter- ≥ corresponds to an estimated search false alarm rate vals goes to infinity. Then the products of exponentials (FAR) of one per century. in Eq. (4) become an exponential of an integral, and we have 2. M DERIVATION OF POISSON MIXTURE MODEL dN LIKELIHOOD = (tj; xj) exp [ N] ; (5) L dtdx − j=1 In this section we derive the likelihood function in Y Eq. (3) of the Letter. Consider first a search of the 2 The astrophysical rate can, in principle, also depend on red- type described in Section1 over NT intervals of time shift, but in this paper we assume that the BBH coalescence rate of width δ , i = 1;:::;N . Triggers above some fixed is constant in the comoving frame. i f T g threshold occur with an instantaneous rate in time and 3 There is a typo in Eq. (2.8) of Loredo & Wasserman(1995). detection statistic x given by the sum of the terrestrial The second term in the final bracket is missing a factor of δt. 3 where 12 dN N = dt (6) dt Z 10 is the expected number of triggers of both types in the total observation time T . 8 As discussed in Section1, in our search we observe that R0 remains approximately constant and that p0 re- 1 6 tains its shape over the observation time discussed here; Λ this assumption is used in our search background esti- 4 mation procedure (Abbott et al. 2016c). The astrophys- ical distribution of triggers is universal (Section3) and 2 also time-independent. Finally, the detector sensitivity is observed to be stable over our 16 days of coincident 0 observations, so V (t) const (Abbott et al. 2016b). We ' 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 therefore choose to simply ignore the time dimension in Λ our trigger set. This generates an estimate of the rate 0 that is sub-optimal (i.e. has larger uncertainty) but con- Figure 2. The two-dimensional posterior on terrestrial and sistent with using the full data set to the extent that the astrophysical trigger expected counts (Λ0 and Λ1 in Eq. (5) detector sensitivity varies in time; since this variation is of the Letter) for the pycbc search. Contours are drawn at small, the loss of information about the rate will be cor- the 10%, 20%, . , 90%, and 99% credible levels. There is respondingly small. We do capture any variation in the no meaningful correlation between the two variables.p The Poisson uncertainty in the terrestrial count is ∼ 270, or sensitivity with time in our Monte-Carlo procedure for 16, which is also very nearly the Poisson uncertainty in the estimating VT that is described in Section 2.2 of the total count.