Paper detail

Assessing gravitational-wave binary black hole candidates with Bayesian odds

Gravitational waves from the coalescence of binary black holes can be distinguished from noise transients in a detector network through Bayesian model selection by exploiting the coherence of the signal across the network. We present a Bayesian framework for calculating the posterior probability that a signal is of astrophysical origin, agnostic to the specific search strategy, pipeline or search domain with which a candidate is identified. We apply this framework under \textit{identical} assumptions to all events reported in the LIGO-Virgo GWTC-1 catalog, GW190412 and numerous event candidates reported by independent search pipelines by other authors. With the exception of GW170818, we find that all GWTC-1 candidates, and GW190412, have odds overwhelmingly in favour of the astrophysical hypothesis, including GW170729, which was assigned significantly different astrophysical probabilities by the different search pipelines used in GWTC-1. GW170818 is de-facto a single detector trigger, and is therefore of no surprise that it is disfavoured as being produced by an astrophysical source in our framework. We find \textit{three} additional event candidates, GW170121, GW170425 and GW170727, that have significant support for the astrophysical hypothesis, with a probability that the signal is of astrophysical origin of 0.53, 0.74 and 0.64 respectively. We carry out a hierarchical population study which includes these three events in addition to those reported in GWTC-1, finding that the main astrophysical results are unaffected.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.