Arxiv:1606.03939V2 [Astro-Ph.HE] 20 Sep 2016 P0(X) and P1(X) for Its Detection Statistic X

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

†Deceased, May 2015. ‡Deceased, 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 inferred 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 distribution 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 described in Section1. while the latter is a rate density (per time-volume). The density p1 is independent of source parameters as described 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- { j j | } 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  dtdx j j − j dt j  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 { T } 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 astrophysical 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.√ 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. Because this uncertainty is much larger than h i Letter. the astrophysical count, changes in the astrophysical count do not force the terrestrial count to adjust in a meaningful If we ignore the trigger time, then the appropriate way and the variables are uncorrelated in the posterior. likelihood to use is a marginalization of Eq. (5) over the tj. Let

2016c). The procedure for estimating p0 used in the ¯ dt gstlal pipeline, however, does not naturally provide an L ≡  j L j estimate of Λ0; instead gstlal estimates Λ0 by ﬁtting Z Y   the observed number of triggers to a Poisson distribu- = [Λ p (x ) + Λ p (x )] exp [ Λ Λ ] , (7) 0 0 j 1 1 j − 0 − 1 tion. We have chosen to leave Λ0 as a free parameter j Y in our canonical analysis with a broad prior and infer where it from the observed data, rather than using the pycbc background estimate to constrain the prior, which would Λ0p0(x) = dt R0(t)p0 (x; t) , (8) Z result in a much narrower posterior on Λ0. This is equiv- and alent to the gstlal procedure for Λ0 estimation in the absence of signals; the presence of a small number of Λ1p1(x) = dt R1V (t)p1 (x; t) , (9) signals in our data here do not substantially change the Z with Λ0 estimate due to the overwhelming number of background triggers in the data set. dx p (x) = dx p (x) = 1. (10) 0 1 Using a broad prior on Λ is conservative in the sense Z Z 0 that it will broaden the posterior on Λ1 from which we If we assume that R1 is constant in (comoving) time, infer rates. However, because there are so many more and measure p1(x) by accumulating recovered injections throughout the run as we have done, then this expres- triggers in both searches of terrestrial origin than astro- sion reduces to the likelihood in Eq. (3) of the Letter. A physical there is little correlation between Λ0 and Λ1, similar argument with an additional population of trig- and so there is little diﬀerence between the posterior we gers produces Eq. (10) of the Letter. obtain on Λ1 and the posterior we would have obtained had we implemented the tight prior on Λ0. Figure2 2.1. The Expected Number of Background Triggers shows the two-dimensional posterior we obtain from Eq. (5) of the Letter on Λ and Λ . The procedure for estimating p (x) in the pycbc 0 1 0 We have checked that using a δ-function prior pipeline also provides an estimate of the mean number of background events per experiment Λ (Abbott et al. p (Λ ) = δ (Λ 270) (11) 0 0 0 − 4

0.6 verse comoving distance (Hogg 1999): R A (m1, m2,~a1,~a2,S(f), z) B (angles) 0.5 Rﬁxed ρ = , (13) h i DM where A is an amplitude factor that depends on the 0.4 intrinsic properties (source-frame masses and spins) of )

R the source, the detector sensitivity expressed as a noise ( 0.3

Rp power spectral density S(f) as a function of observer frequency and redshift z, and B is an angular factor 0.2 depending on the location of the source in the sky and the relative orientations of binary orbit and detector. 0.1 The redshift enters A only through shifting the source waveform to lower frequency at higher redshift, changing 0.0 A because the sensitivity varies with observer frequency 0 1 2 10 10 10 f. For the redshifts to which we are sensitive to BBH 3 1 R (Gpc− yr− ) in this observation period this eﬀect on A is small. If we assume that the distribution of source parame- Figure 3. The posterior on the population-based rate ob- ters is constant over the range of distances to which we tained from our canonical analysis (blue) and an analysis are sensitive, and ignore the small redshift-dependent where the expected background count, Λ0, is ﬁxed to the value measured by the pycbc pipeline, Λ0 = 270 (green). sensitivity correction mentioned above, then the distri- There is no meaningful change in the rate posterior between bution of SNR will be governed entirely by the distri- the two analyses. bution of distances of the sources, which, in the local universe is approximately

2 p (DM ) DM , (14) in the pycbc analysis that is the result of the pipeline Λ0 ∝ estimate from timeslides4 (Abbott et al. 2016c) and us- yielding the distribution of SNR given in Eq. (12). ing a looser prior that is the result of a gstlal estimate Both the pycbc and gstlal pipelines use goodness-of- on a single set of time-slid data produces no meaningful ﬁt statistics in addition to SNR and employ a more com- change in our results. Figure3 shows our canonical rate plicated system of thresholds than this simple model, posterior inferred with the pycbc Λ0 prior in Eq. (11) but the empirical distribution of detection statistics re- and our canonical broad prior. mains, to an approximation suitable for our purposes, independent of the source parameters. Figure4 shows 3. UNIVERSAL ASTROPHYSICAL TRIGGER the distribution of recovered detection statistics for the DISTRIBUTION various injection campaigns with varying source distri- Both the pycbc and gstlal pipelines rely on the SNR bution used to estimate sensitive time-volumes in the pycbc pipeline. In each injection campaign (1000) as part of their detection statistic, x. The SNR of an O astrophysical trigger is a function of the detector noise signals were recovered. For loud signals, the detec- at the time of detection and the parameters of the trig- tion statistic is proportional to SNR in this pipeline, ger. Schutz(2011) and Chen & Holz(2014) demonstrate and the distribution is not sensitive to the complicated that the distribution of the expected SNR ρ in a sim- thresholding in the pipeline, so we recover Eq. (12); for h i ple model of a detection pipeline that simply thresholds quiet signals the interaction of various single-detector on SNR, ρ ρ , with sources in the local universe is thresolds in the pipeline causes the distribution to de- ≥ th universal, that is, independent of the source properties. viate from this analytic approximation, but it remains It follows independent of the distribution of sources. Note that 3ρ3 the empirical distribution of detection statistics, not the p ( ρ ) = th . (12) h i ρ 4 analytic one, forms the basis for p1, the foreground dis- h i tribution used in this rate estimation work. This result follows from the fact that the expected value To quantify the deviations from universality, we have of the SNR in a matched-ﬁlter search for compact binary preformed two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) tests coalescence (CBC) signals scales inversely with trans- between all six pairings of the sets of detections statistics recovered in the injection campaigns described in Sec-

4 tions 2 and 3 of the Letter and featured in Figure4. The While the statistical uncertainty on the pipeline Λ0 estimate is 3 most extreme KS p-value occurred with the comparison not precisely zero, σΛ0 /Λ0 . 10− , it is so small that a δ-function prior is appropriate. between the injection set with BBH masses drawn ﬂat in 5

100 We impose a prior on the Λ parameters of: Analytic 1 1 GW150914 p (Λ1, Λ0) . (15) ∝ √Λ1 √Λ0 LVT151012 The posterior on expected counts is proportional to 1 Flat in Log 10− Power Law the product of the likelihood from Eq. (3) of the Letter and the prior from Eq. (15):

) All x ( p p (Λ , Λ x j = 1,...,M ) 1 0| { j| } 2 10− M [Λ p (x ) + Λ p (x )] ∝  1 1 j 0 0 j  j=1 Y  1  exp [ Λ1 Λ0]  . (16) 10 3 − × − − √Λ1Λ0 1 2 10 10 For estimation of the Poisson rate parameter in a simple x Poisson model, the Jeffreys prior is 1/√Λ. With this prior, the posterior mean on Λ is N +1/2 for N observed Figure 4. The distribution of detection statistics in the pycbc pipeline for the signals recovered in the injection cam- counts. With a prior proportional to 1/Λ the mean is N paigns used to estimate sensitive time-volumes for various for N > 0, but the posterior is improper when N = 0. BBH population assumptions (see Sections 2 and 3 of the For a flat prior, the mean is N+1. Though the behaviour Letter). The solid line gives the analytic approximation to of the mean is not identical with our mixture model the distribution from Eq. (12), which agrees well with the posterior, it is similar; because we find Λ 1/2, the recovered statistics for loud signals; for quieter signals the h 1i interaction of various thresholds in the pipeline causes the choice of prior among these three reasonable options has distribution to deviate from the analytic approximation, but little influence on our results here. it remains independent of the source distribution. For the pycbc data set we find the posterior me- +4.9 dian and 90% credible range Λ1 = 3.2 2.4 above our threshold. For the gstlal set we find the− posterior me- +7.9 dian and 90% credible range Λ1 = 4.8 3.8. Though log m and the one with masses drawn from a power law we have only one event (GW150914) at− exceptionally (both described in Section 3 of the Letter); this test gave high significance, and one other at marginal significance a p-value of 0.013. Given that we have performed six (LVT151012), the counting analysis shows these to be identical comparisons we cannot reject the null hypoth- consistent with the possible presence of several more esis that the empirical distributions used for rate esti- events of astrophysical origin at lower detection statistic mation from the pycbc pipeline are identical even at the in both pipelines. relatively weak significance α = 0.05. Certainly any dif- The thresholds applied to the pycbc and gstlal trig- ferences in detection statistic distribution attributable gers for this analysis are not equivalent to each other in to the BBH population are far too small to matter with terms of either SNR or false alarm rate; instead, both the few astrophysical signals in our data set (compared thresholds have been chosen so that the rate of trig- with (1000) recovered injections in each campaign). O gers of terrestrial origin (Λ0p0) dominates near thresh- Because the distribution of detection statistics is, to old. Since the threshold is set at different values for a very good approximation, universal, we cannot learn each pipeline, we do not expect the counts to be the anything about the source population from the detec- same between pipelines. tion statistic alone; we must instead resort to parameter The estimated astrophysical and terrestrial trigger estimation (PE) followup (Veitch et al. 2015; Abbott rate densities (Eq. (1) of the Letter) for pycbc are plot- et al. 2016e) of triggers to determine their parameters. ted in Figure5. We select triggers from a subset of The parameters of the waveform template that produced the search parameter space (i.e. our bank of template the trigger can be used to guess the parameters of the waveforms) that contains GW150914 as well as the mass source that generated that trigger, but the bias and un- range considered for possible alternative populations of certainty in this estimate are very large compared to BBH binaries in Section 3 of the Letter. There are the PE estimate. We therefore ignore the parameters of M 0 = 270 two-detector coincident triggers in this range the waveform template that generated the trigger in the in the pycbc search (Abbott et al. 2016c). Figure5 also assignment of triggers to BBH classes. shows an estimate of the density of triggers that com- prise our data set which agrees well with our inference 4. COUNT POSTERIOR of the trigger rate. 6

103

102

1 ) 10 0 x ( i p i Λ 100

1 10−

2 10− 8 9 10 20 30

Figure 5. The inferred number density of astrophysical (green), terrestrial (blue), and all (red) triggers as a function of x0 for the pycbc search (cf. Eq. (1) of the Letter), using the models for each population described in Section 2.1 of the Letter. The solid lines give the posterior median and the shaded regions give the symmetric 90% credible interval from the posterior in Eq. (5) of the Letter. We also show a binned estimate of the trigger number density from the search (black); bars indicate the 68% conﬁdence Poisson uncertainty on the number of triggers in the vertical-direction and bin width in the horizontal-direction.

100 100

1 10− ) 1 } 10−

10 2 − ,...,M ,...,M 2 = 1 10

= 1 − j | j | 0 j

j 3 10− x x | |{ 0 x x (

1 3

1 10− P 4 10− P

5 4 10− 10− 5 10 15 20 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0

x x0

Figure 6. The posterior probability that coincident triggers in our analysis come from an astrophysical source (see Eq. (7) of the Letter), taking into account the astrophysical and terrestrial expected counts estimated in Section 2.1 of the Letter. Left: the gstlal triggers with x > 5; right: pycbc triggers with x0 > 8. GW150914 is not shown in the plot because its probability of astrophysical origin is effectively 100%. The only two triggers with P1 & 50% are GW150914 and LVT151012. For GW150914, we find P1 = 1 to very high precision; for LVT151012, the gstlal pipeline finds P1 = 0.84 and the pycbc pipeline finds P1 = 0.91.

Based on the probability of astrophysical origin in- Carlo samplers (Foreman-Mackey et al. 2013; Stan De- ferred for LVT151012 from the two-component mixture velopment Team 2015b,a) to draw samples from the pos- model in Eq. (16) and shown in Figure6, we intro- terior in Eq. (5) of the Letter for the two pipelines. duce a third class of signals and use a three-component We have assessed the convergence and mixing of our mixture model with expected counts Λ0 (terrestrial), chains using empirical estimates of the autocorrelation Λ1 (GW150914-like), and Λ2 (LVT151012-like) to infer length in each parameter (Sokal 1996), the Gelman- rates in Sections 2.1 of the Letter and 2.2 of the Letter. Rubin R convergence statistic (Gelman & Rubin 1992), We use the Stan and emcee Markov-Chain Monte and through visual inspection of chain plots. By all mea- 7 sures, the chains appear well-converged to the posterior Table1 contains the full results on expected counts distribution. and associated sensitive time-volumes for both pipelines.

Table 1. Expected counts and sensitive time-volumes to BBH mergers estimated under various assumptions. See Sections 2.1 of the Letter, 2.2 of the Letter, 3 of the Letter and4.

Λ hVT i /Gpc3 yr pycbc gstlal pycbc gstlal

+4.1 +6.9 +0.084 +0.14 GW150914 2.1 1.7 3.6 2.9 0.130 0.051 0.21 0.08 − − − − +4.0 +6.8 +0.020 +0.031 LVT151012 2.0 1.7 3.0 2.7 0.032 0.012 0.048 0.019 − − − − +5.5 +9.2 Both 4.5 3.1 7.4 5.1 ······ − −

Astrophysical

+0.032 +0.051 Flat in log mass +4.9 +7.9 0.050 0.019 0.080 0.031 3.2 2.4 4.8 3.8 − − − − +0.0098 +0.015 Power Law (-2.35) 0.0154 0.0060 0.024 0.009 − −

5. CALIBRATION UNCERTAINTY analysis, and imposing a log-normal prior: The LIGO detectors are subject to uncertainty in their σ p (log VT ) N log µ, , (17) calibration, in both the measured amplitude and phase h i ∝ µ of the gravitational-wave strain. Abbott et al.(2016b) where µ is the Monte-Carlo estimate of sensitive time- discusses the methods used to calibrate the strain output volume produced from the injection campaigns de- of the detector during the 16 days of coincident obser- scribed in Section 2.2 of the Letter and vations discussed here. Abbott et al.(2016b) estimates that the reported strain is accurate to within 10% in 2 2 2 σ = σcal + σstat, (18) amplitude and 10 degrees in phase between 20 Hz and 1 kHz throughout the observations. with σcal = 0.3µ and σstat is the estimate of the Monte- The SNRs reported by our searches are quadratically Carlo uncertainty from the finite number of recovered injections reported above. In all cases σ σ . sensitive to calibration errors because they are maxi- cal stat mized over arrival time, waveform phase, and a template Since the likelihood in Eqs. (3) of the Letter or (10) of the Letter does not constrain VT independently of bank of waveforms (Allen 1996; Brown & LIGO Scien- h i R, sampling over VT at the same time as Λ and R tific Collaboration 2004). Abbott et al.(2016c) demon- h i strates that the other search pipeline outputs are also has the effect of convolving the log-normal distribution of VT with the posterior on Λ in the inference of R. not affected to a significant degree by the calibration un- h i In spite of the 30% relative uncertainty in VT from certainty present during our observing run. Therefore, h i we ignore effects of calibration on the pipeline detection calibration uncertainty, the counting uncertainty on R from the small number of detected events dominates the statistics x and x0 we use here to estimate rates from the pycbc and gstlal pipelines. width of the posterior on R. The amplitude calibration uncertainty in the detector 6. results at leading order in a corresponding uncertainty ANALYTIC SENSITIVITY ESTIMATE between the luminosity distances of sources measured As a rough check on our VT estimates and the in- h i from real detector outputs (Abbott et al. 2016e) and the tegrand d VT /dz, we find that the following approxi- h i luminosity distances used to produce injected waveforms mate, analytic procedure also produces a good approxi- used to estimate sensitive time-volumes in this work. A mation to the pycbc Monte-Carlo estimate in Table1. 10% uncertainty in dL at these redshifts corresponds to an approximately 30% uncertainty in volume. We model 1. Generate inspiral–merger–ringdown waveforms in this uncertainty by treating VT as a parameter in our a single detector at various redshifts from the h i source distribution s(θ) with random orientations and sky positions. 8

0.7 The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the GW150914 United States National Science Foundation (NSF) for 0.6 LVT151012 the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory 10–10 and Advanced LIGO as well as the Science and Tech- ) 0.5 20–20

yr nology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United King- 3 40–40 dom, the Max-Planck-Society (MPS), and the State of 0.4 Gpc

( Niedersachsen/Germany for support of the construc- z

d tion of Advanced LIGO and construction and opera- / 0.3 i tion of the GEO600 detector. Additional support for VT h 0.2

d Advanced LIGO was provided by the Australian Re- search Council. The authors gratefully acknowledge the 0.1 Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique 0.0 (CNRS) and the Foundation for Fundamental Research 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 on Matter supported by the Netherlands Organisation z for Scientific Research, for the construction and operation of the Virgo detector and the creation and sup- Figure 7. The rate at which sensitive time-volume accumu- port of the EGO consortium. The authors also grate- lates with redshift. Curves labeled by component masses in M are computed using the approximate prescription de- fully acknowledge research support from these agencies scribed in Section6, assuming sources with fixed masses in as well as by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Re- the comoving frame and without spin; the GW150914 and search of India, Department of Science and Technology, LVT151012 curves are determined from the Monte-Carlo injection campaign described in Section 2.2 of the Letter. India, Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, In- dia, the Spanish Ministerio de Econom´ıay Competitivi- dad, the Conselleria d’Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d’Educació, Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears, the National Science Centre 2. Using the high-sensitivity early Advanced LIGO of Poland, the European Commission, the Royal Soci- noise power spectral density from Abbott et al. ety, the Scottish Funding Council, the Scottish Universi- (2016f), compute the SNR in a single detector. ties Physics Alliance, the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA), the Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO), 3. Consider a signal found if the SNR is greater than the National Research Foundation of Korea, Industry 8. Canada and the Province of Ontario through the Min- istry of Economic Development and Innovation, the Nat- Employed with the source distributions described ural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada, above, this approximate procedure yields VT h i1 ' Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Brazil- 0.107 Gpc3 yr and VT 0.0225 Gpc3 yr for the sensi- h i2 ' ian Ministry of Science, Technology, and Innovation, tivity to the two classes of merging BBH system. Figure Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Leverhulme 7 shows the sensitive time-volume integrand, Trust, the Research Corporation, Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan and the Kavli Foun- d VT 1 dVc h i T dθ s(θ)f(z, θ) (19) dation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support dz ≡ 1 + z dz Z of the NSF, STFC, MPS, INFN, CNRS and the State of estimated from this procedure for systems with various Niedersachsen/Germany for provision of computational parameters superimposed on the Monte-Carlo estimates resources. This article has been assigned the document from the injection campaign described above. number LIGO-P1500217.

REFERENCES Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2016a, Abbott, B. P., et al. 2016f, Living Rev. Relat., 19, 1 Astrophys. J. Lett., 818, L22 —. 2016g, ApJL, TBD, TBD —. 2016b, arXiv:1602.03845, Allen, B. 1996, LIGO Calibration Accuracy, Tech. Rep. https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-P1500248/public/main LIGO-T960189-00-E, LIGO —. 2016c, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 122003 —. 2005, Phys. Rev., D71, 062001 —. 2016d, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 061102 Babak, S., Biswas, R., Brady, P., et al. 2013, Phys.Rev., D87, —. 2016e, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 241102 024033 9

Brown, D. A., & LIGO Scientiﬁc Collaboration. 2004, Classical Schutz, B. F. 2011, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 28, 125023 and Quantum Gravity, 21, S797 Sokal, A. D. 1996, Monte Carlo Methods in Statistical Cannon, K., Hanna, C., & Keppel, D. 2013, PhRvD, 88, 024025 Mechanics: Foundations and New Algorithms, Lecture Notes Cannon, K., Hanna, C., & Peoples, J. 2015, ArXiv e-prints, from the Carg´eseSummer School on “Functional Integration: arXiv:1504.04632 Basics and Applications”, , , Chen, H.-Y., & Holz, D. E. 2014, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1409.0522 http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/Sokal.pdf Farr, W. M., Gair, J. R., Mandel, I., & Cutler, C. 2015, PhRvD, Stan Development Team. 2015a, PyStan: the Python interface to 91, 023005 Stan, Version 2.7.0, , Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. —. 2015b, Stan: A C++ Library for Probability and Sampling, 2013, PASP, 125, 306 Version 2.8.0, , Gelman, A., & Rubin, D. B. 1992, Statist. Sci., 7, 457 Veitch, J., Raymond, V., Farr, B., et al. 2015, PhRvD, 91, 042003 Hogg, D. W. 1999, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/9905116 Loredo, T. J., & Wasserman, I. M. 1995, ApJS, 96, 261

ALL AUTHORS AND AFFILIATIONS B. P. Abbott,1, And R. Abbott,1 T. D. Abbott,2 M. R. Abernathy,1 F. Acernese,3,4 K. Ackley,5 C. Adams,6 T. Adams,7 P. Addesso,3 R. X. Adhikari,1 V. B. Adya,8 C. Affeldt,8 M. Agathos,9 K. Agatsuma,9 N. Aggarwal,10 O. D. Aguiar,11 L. Aiello,12,13 A. Ain,14 P. Ajith,15 B. Allen,8,16,17 A. Allocca,18,19 P. A. Altin,20 S. B. Anderson,1 W. G. Anderson,16 K. Arai,1 M. C. Araya,1 C. C. Arceneaux,21 J. S. Areeda,22 N. Arnaud,23 K. G. Arun,24 S. Ascenzi,25,13 G. Ashton,26 M. Ast,27 S. M. Aston,6 P. Astone,28 P. Aufmuth,8 C. Aulbert,8 S. Babak,29 P. Bacon,30 M. K. M. Bader,9 P. T. Baker,31 F. Baldaccini,32,33 G. Ballardin,34 S. W. Ballmer,35 J. C. Barayoga,1 S. E. Barclay,36 B. C. Barish,1 D. Barker,37 F. Barone,3,4 B. Barr,36 L. Barsotti,10 M. Barsuglia,30 D. Barta,38 J. Bartlett,37 I. Bartos,39 R. Bassiri,40 A. Basti,18,19 J. C. Batch,37 C. Baune,8 V. Bavigadda,34 M. Bazzan,41,42 B. Behnke,29 M. Bejger,43 A. S. Bell,36 C. J. Bell,36 B. K. Berger,1 J. Bergman,37 G. Bergmann,8 C. P. L. Berry,44 D. Bersanetti,45,46 A. Bertolini,9 J. Betzwieser,6 S. Bhagwat,35 R. Bhandare,47 I. A. Bilenko,48 G. Billingsley,1 J. Birch,6 R. Birney,49 S. Biscans,10 A. Bisht,8,17 M. Bitossi,34 C. Biwer,35 M. A. Bizouard,23 J. K. Blackburn,1 C. D. Blair,50 D. G. Blair,50 R. M. Blair,37 S. Bloemen,51 O. Bock,8 T. P. Bodiya,10 M. Boer,52 G. Bogaert,52 C. Bogan,8 A. Bohe,29 P. Bojtos,53 C. Bond,44 F. Bondu,54 R. Bonnand,7 B. A. Boom,9 R. Bork,1 V. Boschi,18,19 S. Bose,55,14 Y. Bouffanais,30 A. Bozzi,34 C. Bradaschia,19 P. R. Brady,16 V. B. Braginsky,48 M. Branchesi,56,57 J. E. Brau,58 T. Briant,59 A. Brillet,52 M. Brinkmann,8 V. Brisson,23 P. Brockill,16 A. F. Brooks,1 D. A. Brown,35 D. D. Brown,44 N. M. Brown,10 C. C. Buchanan,2 A. Buikema,10 T. Bulik,60 H. J. Bulten,61,9 A. Buonanno,29,62 D. Buskulic,7 C. Buy,30 R. L. Byer,40 L. Cadonati,63 G. Cagnoli,64,65 C. Cahillane,1 J. Calderon´ Bustillo,66,63 T. Callister,1 E. Calloni,67,4 J. B. Camp,68 K. C. Cannon,69 J. Cao,70 C. D. Capano,8 E. Capocasa,30 F. Carbognani,34 S. Caride,71 J. Casanueva Diaz,23 C. Casentini,25,13 S. Caudill,16 M. Cavaglia,` 21 F. Cavalier,23 R. Cavalieri,34 G. Cella,19 C. B. Cepeda,1 L. Cerboni Baiardi,56,57 G. Cerretani,18,19 E. Cesarini,25,13 R. Chakraborty,1 T. Chalermsongsak,1 S. J. Chamberlin,72 M. Chan,36 S. Chao,73 P. Charlton,74 E. Chassande-Mottin,30 H. Y. Chen,75 Y. Chen,76 C. Cheng,73 A. Chincarini,46 A. Chiummo,34 H. S. Cho,77 M. Cho,62 J. H. Chow,20 N. Christensen,78 Q. Chu,50 S. Chua,59 S. Chung,50 G. Ciani,5 F. Clara,37 J. A. Clark,63 F. Cleva,52 E. Coccia,25,12,13 P.-F. Cohadon,59 A. Colla,79,28 C. G. Collette,80 L. Cominsky,81 M. Constancio Jr.,11 A. Conte,79,28 L. Conti,42 D. Cook,37 T. R. Corbitt,2 N. Cornish,31 A. Corsi,71 S. Cortese,34 C. A. Costa,11 M. W. Coughlin,78 S. B. Coughlin,82 J.-P. Coulon,52 S. T. Countryman,39 P. Couvares,1 E. E. Cowan,63 D. M. Coward,50 M. J. Cowart,6 D. C. Coyne,1 R. Coyne,71 K. Craig,36 J. D. E. Creighton,16 J. Cripe,2 S. G. Crowder,83 A. Cumming,36 L. Cunningham,36 E. Cuoco,34 T. Dal Canton,8 S. L. Danilishin,36 S. D’Antonio,13 K. Danzmann,17,8 N. S. Darman,84 V. Dattilo,34 I. Dave,47 H. P. Daveloza,85 M. Davier,23 G. S. Davies,36 E. J. Daw,86 R. Day,34 S. De,35 D. DeBra,40 G. Debreczeni,38 J. Degallaix,65 M. De Laurentis,67,4 S. Deleglise,´ 59 W. Del Pozzo,44 T. Denker,8,17 T. Dent,8 H. Dereli,52 V. Dergachev,1 R. De Rosa,67,4 R. T. DeRosa,6 R. DeSalvo,87 S. Dhurandhar,14 M. C. D´ıaz,85 L. Di Fiore,4 M. Di Giovanni,79,28 A. Di Lieto,18,19 S. Di Pace,79,28 I. Di Palma,29,8 A. Di Virgilio,19 G. Dojcinoski,88 V. Dolique,65 F. Donovan,10 K. L. Dooley,21 S. Doravari,6,8 R. Douglas,36 T. P. Downes,16 M. Drago,8,89,90 R. W. P. Drever,1 J. C. Driggers,37 10

Z. Du,70 M. Ducrot,7 S. E. Dwyer,37 T. B. Edo,86 M. C. Edwards,78 A. Effler,6 H.-B. Eggenstein,8 P. Ehrens,1 J. Eichholz,5 S. S. Eikenberry,5 W. Engels,76 R. C. Essick,10 T. Etzel,1 M. Evans,10 T. M. Evans,6 R. Everett,72 M. Factourovich,39 V. Fafone,25,13,12 H. Fair,35 S. Fairhurst,91 X. Fan,70 Q. Fang,50 S. Farinon,46 B. Farr,75 W. M. Farr,44 M. Favata,88 M. Fays,91 H. Fehrmann,8 M. M. Fejer,40 I. Ferrante,18,19 E. C. Ferreira,11 F. Ferrini,34 F. Fidecaro,18,19 I. Fiori,34 D. Fiorucci,30 R. P. Fisher,35 R. Flaminio,65,92 M. Fletcher,36 H. Fong,69 J.-D. Fournier,52 S. Franco,23 S. Frasca,79,28 F. Frasconi,19 Z. Frei,53 A. Freise,44 R. Frey,58 V. Frey,23 T. T. Fricke,8 P. Fritschel,10 V. V. Frolov,6 P. Fulda,5 M. Fyffe,6 H. A. G. Gabbard,21 J. R. Gair,93 L. Gammaitoni,32,33 S. G. Gaonkar,14 F. Garufi,67,4 A. Gatto,30 G. Gaur,94,95 N. Gehrels,68 G. Gemme,46 B. Gendre,52 E. Genin,34 A. Gennai,19 J. George,47 L. Gergely,96 V. Germain,7 Archisman Ghosh,15 S. Ghosh,51,9 J. A. Giaime,2,6 K. D. Giardina,6 A. Giazotto,19 K. Gill,97 A. Glaefke,36 E. Goetz,98 R. Goetz,5 L. Gondan,53 G. Gonzalez,´ 2 J. M. Gonzalez Castro,18,19 A. Gopakumar,99 N. A. Gordon,36 M. L. Gorodetsky,48 S. E. Gossan,1 M. Gosselin,34 R. Gouaty,7 C. Graef,36 P. B. Graff,62 M. Granata,65 A. Grant,36 S. Gras,10 C. Gray,37 G. Greco,56,57 A. C. Green,44 P. Groot,51 H. Grote,8 S. Grunewald,29 G. M. Guidi,56,57 X. Guo,70 A. Gupta,14 M. K. Gupta,95 K. E. Gushwa,1 E. K. Gustafson,1 R. Gustafson,98 J. J. Hacker,22 B. R. Hall,55 E. D. Hall,1 G. Hammond,36 M. Haney,99 M. M. Hanke,8 J. Hanks,37 C. Hanna,72 M. D. Hannam,91 J. Hanson,6 T. Hardwick,2 J. Harms,56,57 G. M. Harry,100 I. W. Harry,29 M. J. Hart,36 M. T. Hartman,5 C.-J. Haster,44 K. Haughian,36 A. Heidmann,59 M. C. Heintze,5,6 H. Heitmann,52 P. Hello,23 G. Hemming,34 M. Hendry,36 I. S. Heng,36 J. Hennig,36 A. W. Heptonstall,1 M. Heurs,8,17 S. Hild,36 D. Hoak,101 K. A. Hodge,1 D. Hofman,65 S. E. Hollitt,102 K. Holt,6 D. E. Holz,75 P. Hopkins,91 D. J. Hosken,102 J. Hough,36 E. A. Houston,36 E. J. Howell,50 Y. M. Hu,36 S. Huang,73 E. A. Huerta,103,82 D. Huet,23 B. Hughey,97 S. Husa,66 S. H. Huttner,36 T. Huynh-Dinh,6 A. Idrisy,72 N. Indik,8 D. R. Ingram,37 R. Inta,71 H. N. Isa,36 J.-M. Isac,59 M. Isi,1 G. Islas,22 T. Isogai,10 B. R. Iyer,15 K. Izumi,37 T. Jacqmin,59 H. Jang,77 K. Jani,63 P. Jaranowski,104 S. Jawahar,105 F. Jimenez-Forteza,´ 66 W. W. Johnson,2 D. I. Jones,26 R. Jones,36 R. J. G. Jonker,9 L. Ju,50 Haris K,106 C. V. Kalaghatgi,24,91 V. Kalogera,82 S. Kandhasamy,21 G. Kang,77 J. B. Kanner,1 S. Karki,58 M. Kasprzack,2,23,34 E. Katsavounidis,10 W. Katzman,6 S. Kaufer,17 T. Kaur,50 K. Kawabe,37 F. Kawazoe,8,17 F. Kef´ elian,´ 52 M. S. Kehl,69 D. Keitel,8,66 D. B. Kelley,35 W. Kells,1 R. Kennedy,86 J. S. Key,85 A. Khalaidovski,8 F. Y. Khalili,48 I. Khan,12 S. Khan,91 Z. Khan,95 E. A. Khazanov,107 N. Kijbunchoo,37 C. Kim,77 J. Kim,108 K. Kim,109 Nam-Gyu Kim,77 Namjun Kim,40 Y.-M. Kim,108 E. J. King,102 P. J. King,37 D. L. Kinzel,6 J. S. Kissel,37 L. Kleybolte,27 S. Klimenko,5 S. M. Koehlenbeck,8 K. Kokeyama,2 S. Koley,9 V. Kondrashov,1 A. Kontos,10 M. Korobko,27 W. Z. Korth,1 I. Kowalska,60 D. B. Kozak,1 V. Kringel,8 B. Krishnan,8 A. Krolak,´ 110,111 C. Krueger,17 G. Kuehn,8 P. Kumar,69 L. Kuo,73 A. Kutynia,110 B. D. Lackey,35 M. Landry,37 J. Lange,112 B. Lantz,40 P. D. Lasky,113 A. Lazzarini,1 C. Lazzaro,63,42 P. Leaci,29,79,28 S. Leavey,36 E. O. Lebigot,30,70 C. H. Lee,108 H. K. Lee,109 H. M. Lee,114 K. Lee,36 A. Lenon,35 M. Leonardi,89,90 J. R. Leong,8 N. Leroy,23 N. Letendre,7 Y. Levin,113 B. M. Levine,37 T. G. F. Li,1 A. Libson,10 T. B. Littenberg,115 N. A. Lockerbie,105 J. Logue,36 A. L. Lombardi,101 J. E. Lord,35 M. Lorenzini,12,13 V. Loriette,116 M. Lormand,6 G. Losurdo,57 J. D. Lough,8,17 H. Luck,¨ 17,8 A. P. Lundgren,8 J. Luo,78 R. Lynch,10 Y. Ma,50 T. MacDonald,40 B. Machenschalk,8 M. MacInnis,10 D. M. Macleod,2 F. Magana-Sandoval,˜ 35 R. M. Magee,55 M. Mageswaran,1 E. Majorana,28 I. Maksimovic,116 V. Malvezzi,25,13 N. Man,52 I. Mandel,44 V. Mandic,83 V. Mangano,36 G. L. Mansell,20 M. Manske,16 M. Mantovani,34 F. Marchesoni,117,33 F. Marion,7 S. Marka,´ 39 Z. Marka,´ 39 A. S. Markosyan,40 E. Maros,1 F. Martelli,56,57 L. Martellini,52 I. W. Martin,36 R. M. Martin,5 D. V. Martynov,1 J. N. Marx,1 K. Mason,10 A. Masserot,7 T. J. Massinger,35 M. Masso-Reid,36 F. Matichard,10 L. Matone,39 N. Mavalvala,10 N. Mazumder,55 G. Mazzolo,8 R. McCarthy,37 D. E. McClelland,20 S. McCormick,6 S. C. McGuire,118 G. McIntyre,1 J. McIver,1 D. J. McManus,20 S. T. McWilliams,103 D. Meacher,72 G. D. Meadors,29,8 J. Meidam,9 A. Melatos,84 G. Mendell,37 D. Mendoza-Gandara,8 R. A. Mercer,16 E. Merilh,37 M. Merzougui,52 S. Meshkov,1 C. Messenger,36 C. Messick,72 P. M. Meyers,83 F. Mezzani,28,79 H. Miao,44 C. Michel,65 H. Middleton,44 E. E. Mikhailov,119 L. Milano,67,4 J. Miller,10 M. Millhouse,31 Y. Minenkov,13 J. Ming,29,8 S. Mirshekari,120 C. Mishra,15 S. Mitra,14 V. P. Mitrofanov,48 G. Mitselmakher,5 R. Mittleman,10 A. Moggi,19 M. Mohan,34 S. R. P. Mohapatra,10 M. Montani,56,57 B. C. Moore,88 C. J. Moore,121 D. Moraru,37 G. Moreno,37 11

S. R. Morriss,85 K. Mossavi,8 B. Mours,7 C. M. Mow-Lowry,44 C. L. Mueller,5 G. Mueller,5 A. W. Muir,91 Arunava Mukherjee,15 D. Mukherjee,16 S. Mukherjee,85 N. Mukund,14 A. Mullavey,6 J. Munch,102 D. J. Murphy,39 P. G. Murray,36 A. Mytidis,5 I. Nardecchia,25,13 L. Naticchioni,79,28 R. K. Nayak,122 V. Necula,5 K. Nedkova,101 G. Nelemans,51,9 M. Neri,45,46 A. Neunzert,98 G. Newton,36 T. T. Nguyen,20 A. B. Nielsen,8 S. Nissanke,51,9 A. Nitz,8 F. Nocera,34 D. Nolting,6 M. E. Normandin,85 L. K. Nuttall,35 J. Oberling,37 E. Ochsner,16 J. O’Dell,123 E. Oelker,10 G. H. Ogin,124 J. J. Oh,125 S. H. Oh,125 F. Ohme,91 M. Oliver,66 P. Oppermann,8 Richard J. Oram,6 B. O’Reilly,6 R. O’Shaughnessy,112 D. J. Ottaway,102 R. S. Ottens,5 H. Overmier,6 B. J. Owen,71 A. Pai,106 S. A. Pai,47 J. R. Palamos,58 O. Palashov,107 C. Palomba,28 A. Pal-Singh,27 H. Pan,73 C. Pankow,82 F. Pannarale,91 B. C. Pant,47 F. Paoletti,34,19 A. Paoli,34 M. A. Papa,29,16,8 H. R. Paris,40 W. Parker,6 D. Pascucci,36 A. Pasqualetti,34 R. Passaquieti,18,19 D. Passuello,19 B. Patricelli,18,19 Z. Patrick,40 B. L. Pearlstone,36 M. Pedraza,1 R. Pedurand,65 L. Pekowsky,35 A. Pele,6 S. Penn,126 A. Perreca,1 M. Phelps,36 O. Piccinni,79,28 M. Pichot,52 F. Piergiovanni,56,57 V. Pierro,87 G. Pillant,34 L. Pinard,65 I. M. Pinto,87 M. Pitkin,36 R. Poggiani,18,19 P. Popolizio,34 E. K. Porter,30 A. Post,8 J. Powell,36 J. Prasad,14 V. Predoi,91 S. S. Premachandra,113 T. Prestegard,83 L. R. Price,1 M. Prijatelj,34 M. Principe,87 S. Privitera,29 G. A. Prodi,89,90 L. Prokhorov,48 O. Puncken,8 M. Punturo,33 P. Puppo,28 M. Purrer,¨ 29 H. Qi,16 J. Qin,50 V. Quetschke,85 E. A. Quintero,1 R. Quitzow-James,58 F. J. Raab,37 D. S. Rabeling,20 H. Radkins,37 P. Raffai,53 S. Raja,47 M. Rakhmanov,85 P. Rapagnani,79,28 V. Raymond,29 M. Razzano,18,19 V. Re,25 J. Read,22 C. M. Reed,37 T. Regimbau,52 L. Rei,46 S. Reid,49 D. H. Reitze,1,5 H. Rew,119 S. D. Reyes,35 F. Ricci,79,28 K. Riles,98 N. A. Robertson,1,36 R. Robie,36 F. Robinet,23 A. Rocchi,13 L. Rolland,7 J. G. Rollins,1 V. J. Roma,58 R. Romano,3,4 G. Romanov,119 J. H. Romie,6 D. Rosinska,´ 127,43 S. Rowan,36 A. Rudiger,¨ 8 P. Ruggi,34 K. Ryan,37 S. Sachdev,1 T. Sadecki,37 L. Sadeghian,16 L. Salconi,34 M. Saleem,106 F. Salemi,8 A. Samajdar,122 L. Sammut,84,113 L. Sampson,82 E. J. Sanchez,1 V. Sandberg,37 B. Sandeen,82 J. R. Sanders,98,35 B. Sassolas,65 B. S. Sathyaprakash,91 35 98 37 17 58 8 8 P. R. Saulson, O. Sauter, R. L. Savage, A. Sawadsky, P. Schale, R. Schilling†, J. Schmidt, P. Schmidt,1,76 R. Schnabel,27 R. M. S. Schofield,58 A. Schonbeck,¨ 27 E. Schreiber,8 D. Schuette,8,17 B. F. Schutz,91,29 J. Scott,36 S. M. Scott,20 D. Sellers,6 A. S. Sengupta,94 D. Sentenac,34 V. Sequino,25,13 A. Sergeev,107 G. Serna,22 Y. Setyawati,51,9 A. Sevigny,37 D. A. Shaddock,20 S. Shah,51,9 M. S. Shahriar,82 M. Shaltev,8 Z. Shao,1 B. Shapiro,40 P. Shawhan,62 A. Sheperd,16 D. H. Shoemaker,10 D. M. Shoemaker,63 K. Siellez,52,63 X. Siemens,16 D. Sigg,37 A. D. Silva,11 D. Simakov,8 A. Singer,1 L. P. Singer,68 A. Singh,29,8 R. Singh,2 A. Singhal,12 A. M. Sintes,66 B. J. J. Slagmolen,20 J. R. Smith,22 N. D. Smith,1 R. J. E. Smith,1 E. J. Son,125 B. Sorazu,36 F. Sorrentino,46 T. Souradeep,14 A. K. Srivastava,95 A. Staley,39 M. Steinke,8 J. Steinlechner,36 S. Steinlechner,36 D. Steinmeyer,8,17 B. C. Stephens,16 S. Stevenson,44 R. Stone,85 K. A. Strain,36 N. Straniero,65 G. Stratta,56,57 N. A. Strauss,78 S. Strigin,48 R. Sturani,120 A. L. Stuver,6 T. Z. Summerscales,128 L. Sun,84 P. J. Sutton,91 B. L. Swinkels,34 M. J. Szczepanczyk,´ 97 M. Tacca,30 D. Talukder,58 D. B. Tanner,5 M. Tapai,´ 96 S. P. Tarabrin,8 A. Taracchini,29 R. Taylor,1 T. Theeg,8 M. P. Thirugnanasambandam,1 E. G. Thomas,44 M. Thomas,6 P. Thomas,37 K. A. Thorne,6 K. S. Thorne,76 E. Thrane,113 S. Tiwari,12 V. Tiwari,91 K. V. Tokmakov,105 C. Tomlinson,86 18,19 85 1 44 32,33 6 M. Tonelli, C. V. Torres‡, C. I. Torrie, D. Toyr¨ a,¨ F. Travasso, G. Traylor, D. Trifiro,` 21 M. C. Tringali,89,90 L. Trozzo,129,19 M. Tse,10 M. Turconi,52 D. Tuyenbayev,85 D. Ugolini,130 C. S. Unnikrishnan,99 A. L. Urban,16 S. A. Usman,35 H. Vahlbruch,17 G. Vajente,1 G. Valdes,85 M. Vallisneri,76 N. van Bakel,9 M. van Beuzekom,9 J. F. J. van den Brand,61,9 C. Van Den Broeck,9 D. C. Vander-Hyde,35,22 L. van der Schaaf,9 J. V. van Heijningen,9 A. A. van Veggel,36 M. Vardaro,41,42 S. Vass,1 M. Vasuth,´ 38 R. Vaulin,10 A. Vecchio,44 G. Vedovato,42 J. Veitch,44 P. J. Veitch,102 K. Venkateswara,131 D. Verkindt,7 F. Vetrano,56,57 A. Vicere,´ 56,57 S. Vinciguerra,44 D. J. Vine,49 J.-Y. Vinet,52 S. Vitale,10 T. Vo,35 H. Vocca,32,33 C. Vorvick,37 D. Voss,5 W. D. Vousden,44 S. P. Vyatchanin,48 A. R. Wade,20 L. E. Wade,132 M. Wade,132 M. Walker,2 L. Wallace,1 S. Walsh,16,8,29 G. Wang,12 H. Wang,44 M. Wang,44 X. Wang,70 Y. Wang,50 R. L. Ward,20 J. Warner,37 M. Was,7 B. Weaver,37 L.-W. Wei,52 M. Weinert,8 A. J. Weinstein,1 R. Weiss,10 T. Welborn,6 L. Wen,50 P. Weßels,8 T. Westphal,8 K. Wette,8 J. T. Whelan,112,8 D. J. White,86 B. F. Whiting,5 R. D. Williams,1 A. R. Williamson,91 J. L. Willis,133 B. Willke,17,8 M. H. Wimmer,8,17 W. Winkler,8 C. C. Wipf,1 H. Wittel,8,17 G. Woan,36 J. Worden,37 J. L. Wright,36 12

G. Wu,6 J. Yablon,82 W. Yam,10 H. Yamamoto,1 C. C. Yancey,62 M. J. Yap,20 H. Yu,10 M. Yvert,7 A. Zadrozny,˙ 110 L. Zangrando,42 M. Zanolin,97 J.-P. Zendri,42 M. Zevin,82 F. Zhang,10 L. Zhang,1 M. Zhang,119 Y. Zhang,112 C. Zhao,50 M. Zhou,82 Z. Zhou,82 X. J. Zhu,50 M. E. Zucker,1,10 S. E. Zuraw,101 and J. Zweizig1.

1LIGO, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA , 2Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA , 3Universitàdi Salerno, Fisciano, I-84084 Salerno, Italy , 4INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy , 5University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA , 6LIGO Livingston Observatory, Livingston, LA 70754, USA , 7Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), UniversitéSavoie Mont Blanc, CNRS/IN2P3, F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux, France , 8Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut fürGravitationsphysik, D-30167 Hannover, Germany , 9Nikhef, Science Park, 1098 XG Amsterdam, Netherlands , 10LIGO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA , 11Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 12227-010 SãoJosédos Campos, SãoPaulo, Brazil , 12INFN, Gran Sasso Science Institute, I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy , 13INFN, Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy , 14Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune 411007, India , 15International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bangalore 560012, India , 16University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA , 17Leibniz UniversitätHannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany , 18Universitàdi Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy , 19INFN, Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy , 20Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia , 21The University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA , 22California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA , 23LAL, UniversitéParis-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, UniversitéParis-Saclay, 91400 Orsay, France , 24Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai 603103, India , 25Universitàdi Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy , 26University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom , 27UniversitätHamburg, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany , 28INFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy , 29Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut fürGravitationsphysik, D-14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany , 30APC, AstroParticule et Cosmologie, UniversitéParis Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/Irfu, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, F-75205 Paris Cedex 13, France , 31Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA , 32Universitàdi Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy , 33INFN, Sezione di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy , 34European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), I-56021 Cascina, Pisa, Italy , 35Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA , 36SUPA, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom , 37LIGO Hanford Observatory, Richland, WA 99352, USA , 38Wigner RCP, RMKI, H-1121 Budapest, Konkoly Thege Miklósút29-33, Hungary , 39Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA , 40Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA , 41Universitàdi Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, I-35131 Padova, Italy , 42INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy , 43CAMK-PAN, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland , 44University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom , 13

45Universitàdegli Studi di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy , 46INFN, Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy , 47RRCAT, Indore MP 452013, India , 48Faculty of Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia , 49SUPA, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, United Kingdom , 50University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia , 51Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands , 52Artemis, UniversitéCôted’Azur, CNRS, Observatoire Côted’Azur, CS 34229, Nice cedex 4, France , 53MTA EötvösUniversity, “Lendulet” Astrophysics Research Group, Budapest 1117, Hungary , 54Institut de Physique de Rennes, CNRS, Universitéde Rennes 1, F-35042 Rennes, France , 55Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA , 56Universitàdegli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo,” I-61029 Urbino, Italy , 57INFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy , 58University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA , 59Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, UPMC-Sorbonne Universités,CNRS, ENS-PSL Research University, Collègede France, F-75005 Paris, France , 60Astronomical Observatory Warsaw University, 00-478 Warsaw, Poland , 61VU University Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands , 62University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA , 63Center for Relativistic Astrophysics and School of Physics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, USA , 64Institut LumièreMatière,Universitéde Lyon, UniversitéClaude Bernard Lyon 1, UMR CNRS 5306, 69622 Villeurbanne, France , 65Laboratoire des MatériauxAvancés(LMA), IN2P3/CNRS, Universitéde Lyon, F-69622 Villeurbanne, Lyon, France , 66Universitat de les Illes Balears, IAC3—IEEC, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain , 67Universitàdi Napoli “Federico II,” Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy , 68NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA , 69Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H8, Canada , 70Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China , 71Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA , 72The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA , 73National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu City, 30013 Taiwan, Republic of China , 74Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2678, Australia , 75University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA , 76Caltech CaRT, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA , 77Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon 305-806, Korea , 78Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA , 79Universitàdi Roma “La Sapienza,” I-00185 Roma, Italy , 80University of Brussels, Brussels 1050, Belgium , 81Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, CA 94928, USA , 82Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA , 83University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA , 84The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia , 85The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, TX 78520, USA , 86The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom , 87University of Sannio at Benevento, I-82100 Benevento, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Napoli, I-80100 Napoli, Italy , 88Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA , 89Universitàdi Trento, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy , 90INFN, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy , 91Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom , 92National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan , 93School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom , 94Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar Ahmedabad Gujarat 382424, India , 14

95Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, Gandhinagar 382428, India , 96University of Szeged, Dómtér9, Szeged 6720, Hungary , 97Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, AZ 86301, USA , 98University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA , 99Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India , 100American University, Washington, D.C. 20016, USA , 101University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA , 102University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia , 103West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506, USA , 104University of Bia lystok,15-424 Bia lystok,Poland , 105SUPA, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, United Kingdom , 106IISER-TVM, CET Campus, Trivandrum Kerala 695016, India , 107Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia , 108Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea , 109Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea , 110NCBJ, 05-400 Swierk-Otwock,´ Poland , 111IM-PAN, 00-956 Warsaw, Poland , 112Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA , 113Monash University, Victoria 3800, Australia , 114Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea , 115University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL 35899, USA , 116ESPCI, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France , 117Universitàdi Camerino, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-62032 Camerino, Italy , 118Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA , 119College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA , 120Instituto de F´ısicaTeórica,University Estadual Paulista/ICTP South American Institute for Fundamental Research, SãoPaulo SP 01140-070, Brazil , 121University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom , 122IISER-Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal 741252, India , 123Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, HSIC, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon OX11 0QX, United Kingdom , 124Whitman College, 345 Boyer Avenue, Walla Walla, WA 99362 USA , 125National Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Daejeon 305-390, Korea , 126Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA , 127Janusz Gil Institute of Astronomy, University of Zielona Góra, 65-265 Zielona Góra,Poland , 128Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, USA , 129Universitàdi Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy , 130Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA , 131University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA , 132Kenyon College, Gambier, OH 43022, USA , 133Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 79699, USA