Paper detail

The astrophysical odds of GW151216

The gravitational-wave candidate GW151216 is a proposed binary black hole event from the first observing run of the Advanced LIGO detectors. Not identified as a bona fide signal by the LIGO--Virgo collaboration, there is disagreement as to its authenticity, which is quantified by $p_\text{astro}$, the probability that the event is astrophysical in origin. Previous estimates of $p_\text{astro}$ from different groups range from 0.18 to 0.71, making it unclear whether this event should be included in population analyses, which typically require $p_\text{astro}>0.5$. Whether GW151216 is an astrophysical signal or not has implications for the population properties of stellar-mass black holes and hence the evolution of massive stars. Using the astrophysical odds, a Bayesian method which uses the signal coherence between detectors and a parameterised model of non-astrophysical detector noise, we find that $p_\text{astro}=0.03$, suggesting that GW151216 is unlikely to be a genuine signal. We also analyse GW150914 (the first gravitational-wave detection) and GW151012 (initially considered to be an ambiguous detection) and find $p_\text{astro}$ values of 1 and 0.997 respectively. We argue that the astrophysical odds presented here improve upon traditional methods for distinguishing signals from noise.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access2 authors2 topics

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 map preview

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.