Abstract

We report on gravitational wave discoveries from compact binary coalescences detected by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo in the first half of the third observing run (O3a) between 1 April 2019 15:00 UTC and 1 October 2019 15:00. By imposing a false-alarm-rate threshold of two per year in each of the four search pipelines that constitute our search, we present 39 candidate gravitational wave events. At this threshold, we expect a contamination fraction of less than 10%. Of these, 26 candidate events were reported previously in near real-time through GCN Notices and Circulars; 13 are reported here for the first time. The catalog contains events whose sources are black hole binary mergers up to a redshift of ~0.8, as well as events whose components could not be unambiguously identified as black holes or neutron stars. For the latter group, we are unable to determine the nature based on estimates of the component masses and spins from gravitational wave data alone. The range of candidate events which are unambiguously identified as binary black holes (both objects $\geq 3~M_\odot$) is increased compared to GWTC-1, with total masses from $\sim 14~M_\odot$ for GW190924_021846 to $\sim 150~M_\odot$ for GW190521. For the first time, this catalog includes binary systems with significantly asymmetric mass ratios, which had not been observed in data taken before April 2019. We also find that 11 of the 39 events detected since April 2019 have positive effective inspiral spins under our default prior (at 90% credibility), while none exhibit negative effective inspiral spin. Given the increased sensitivity of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo, the detection of 39 candidate events in ~26 weeks of data (~1.5 per week) is consistent with GWTC-1.

Highlights

  • Since the discovery of gravitational waves from a binary black hole (BBH) coalescence in 2015 [1], the Advanced LIGO [2] and Advanced Virgo [3] gravitational-wave detectors have opened a new window on our Universe [4,5,6,7,8]

  • The mass of the secondary component is consistent with masses of reported neutron stars [10,271,272,274], but the data are uninformative about potential tidal effects, showing essentially no difference between the prior and posterior on Λ2 obtained from neutron star–black hole binaries (NSBHs) waveforms SEOBNRv4_ROM_NRTidalv2_NSBH or IMRPhenomNSBH which we use for our fiducial results

  • We have presented the results from a search for compact binary coalescence signals in the first part of the third observing run of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo

Read more

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Since the discovery of gravitational waves from a binary black hole (BBH) coalescence in 2015 [1], the Advanced LIGO [2] and Advanced Virgo [3] gravitational-wave detectors have opened a new window on our Universe [4,5,6,7,8]. Four gravitational-wave candidate events from O3a are already published separately due to their interesting properties: GW190425 [32] is the second gravitational-wave event consistent with a BNS coalescence; GW190412 [32] is the first BBH observation with definitively asymmetric component masses, which produced detectable gravitational radiation beyond the leading quadrupolar order; GW190814 [33] is an even more asymmetric system having an approximately 23 M⊙ object merging with an approximately 2.6 M⊙ object, making the latter either the lightest black hole or heaviest neutron star known to be in a double compact object system; GW190521 [34,35] is a BBH with total mass of approximately 150 M⊙ having a primary mass above 65 M⊙ at 99% credibility. We will analyze the second half of Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo’s third observing run (O3b) in future publications

INSTRUMENTS
Calibration and noise subtraction
Data quality
Event validation
Glitch subtraction
CANDIDATE IDENTIFICATION
GstLAL and PyCBC searches for modeled sources
Estimation of modeled search sensitivity
Estimation of signal probability
ESTIMATION OF SOURCE PARAMETERS
Waveform models
Sampling methods
Priors
CANDIDATE EVENT LIST
SOURCE PROPERTIES
Three-dimensional localization
VIII. WAVEFORM RECONSTRUCTIONS
CONCLUSION
Choice of waveform models for each event
Waveform comparison—Model systematics
Findings
Waveform comparison—Effect of higher-order multipole moments modes
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call