HAL Id: in2p3-01078464
http://hal.in2p3.fr/in2p3-01078464
Submitted on 29 Oct 2014
HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- entific research documents, whether they are pub- lished or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.
L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.
sixth science run
J. Aasi, M.-A. Bizouard, V. Brisson, F. Cavalier, M. Davier, S. Franco, P.
Hello, N. Leroy, F. Robinet, T. Accadia, et al.
To cite this version:
J. Aasi, M.-A. Bizouard, V. Brisson, F. Cavalier, M. Davier, et al.. Characterization of the LIGO
detectors during their sixth science run. Classical and Quantum Gravity, IOP Publishing, 2015, 32
(11), pp.115012. �10.1088/0264-9381/32/11/115012�. �in2p3-01078464�
sixth science run
J Aasi
1, J Abadie
1, B P Abbott
1, R Abbott
1, T Abbott
2, M R Abernathy
1, T Accadia
3, F Acernese
4,5, C Adams
6, T Adams
7, R X Adhikari
1, C Affeldt
8, M Agathos
9, N Aggarwal
10, O D Aguiar
11, P Ajith
1, B Allen
8,12,13, A Allocca
14,15, E Amador Ceron
12, D Amariutei
16,
R A Anderson
1, S B Anderson
1, W G Anderson
12, K Arai
1, M C Araya
1, C Arceneaux
17, J Areeda
18, S Ast
13,
S M Aston
6, P Astone
19, P Aufmuth
13, C Aulbert
8, L Austin
1, B E Aylott
20, S Babak
21, P T Baker
22,
G Ballardin
23, S W Ballmer
24, J C Barayoga
1, D Barker
25, S H Barnum
10, F Barone
4,5, B Barr
26, L Barsotti
10,
M Barsuglia
27, M A Barton
25, I Bartos
28, R Bassiri
29,26, A Basti
14,30, J Batch
25, J Bauchrowitz
8, Th S Bauer
9, M Bebronne
3, B Behnke
21, M Bejger
31, M.G Beker
9, A S Bell
26, C Bell
26, I Belopolski
28, G Bergmann
8, J M Berliner
25, A Bertolini
9, D Bessis
32, J Betzwieser
6, P T Beyersdorf
33, T Bhadbhade
29, I A Bilenko
34, G Billingsley
1, J Birch
6, M Bitossi
14, M A Bizouard
35, E Black
1, J K Blackburn
1, L Blackburn
36, D Blair
37, M Blom
9, O Bock
8, T P Bodiya
10, M Boer
38, C Bogan
8, C Bond
20, F Bondu
39, L Bonelli
14,30, R Bonnand
40, R Bork
1, M Born
8, S Bose
41, L Bosi
42, J Bowers
2, C Bradaschia
14, P R Brady
12, V B Braginsky
34, M Branchesi
43,44,
C A Brannen
41, J E Brau
45, J Breyer
8, T Briant
46, D O Bridges
6, A Brillet
38, M Brinkmann
8, V Brisson
35, M Britzger
8, A F Brooks
1, D A Brown
24, D D Brown
20, F Br¨ uckner
20, T Bulik
47, H J Bulten
9,48, A Buonanno
49, D Buskulic
3, C Buy
27, R L Byer
29, L Cadonati
50,
G Cagnoli
40, J Calder´ on Bustillo
51, E Calloni
4,52, J B Camp
36, P Campsie
26, K C Cannon
53, B Canuel
23, J Cao
54, C D Capano
49, F Carbognani
23, L Carbone
20, S Caride
55, A Castiglia
56, S Caudill
12, M Cavagli` a
17, F Cavalier
35, R Cavalieri
23, G Cella
14, C Cepeda
1, E Cesarini
57, R Chakraborty
1, T Chalermsongsak
1,
S Chao
58, P Charlton
59, E Chassande-Mottin
27, X Chen
37, Y Chen
60, A Chincarini
61, A Chiummo
23, H S Cho
62, J Chow
63, N Christensen
64, Q Chu
37, S S Y Chua
63,
S Chung
37, G Ciani
16, F Clara
25, D E Clark
29, J A Clark
50, F Cleva
38, E Coccia
57,65, P.-F Cohadon
46, A Colla
19,66, M Colombini
42, M Constancio, Jr.
11, A Conte
19,66,
arXiv:1410.7764v1 [gr-qc] 28 Oct 2014
R Conte
67, D Cook
25, T R Corbitt
2, M Cordier
33, N Cornish
22, A Corsi
68, C A Costa
11, M W Coughlin
69, J.-P Coulon
38, S Countryman
28, P Couvares
24,
D M Coward
37, M Cowart
6, D C Coyne
1, K Craig
26, J D E Creighton
12, T D Creighton
32, S G Crowder
70, A Cumming
26, L Cunningham
26, E Cuoco
23, K Dahl
8, T Dal Canton
8, M Damjanic
8, S L Danilishin
37,
S D’Antonio
57, K Danzmann
8,13, V Dattilo
23, B Daudert
1, H Daveloza
32, M Davier
35, G S Davies
26, E J Daw
71, R Day
23, T Dayanga
41, G Debreczeni
72, J Degallaix
40, E Deleeuw
16, S Del´ eglise
46, W Del Pozzo
9, T Denker
8, T Dent
8, H Dereli
38, V Dergachev
1, R De Rosa
4,52, R T DeRosa
2, R DeSalvo
67, S Dhurandhar
73, M D´ ıaz
32, A Dietz
17, L Di Fiore
4, A Di Lieto
14,30, I Di Palma
8, A Di Virgilio
14, K Dmitry
34, F Donovan
10, K L Dooley
8, S Doravari
6, M Drago
74,75, R W P Drever
76, J C Driggers
1, Z Du
54, J -C Dumas
37, S Dwyer
25, T Eberle
8, M Edwards
7, A Effler
2, P Ehrens
1, J Eichholz
16, S S Eikenberry
16, G Endr˝ oczi
72, R Essick
10, T Etzel
1, K Evans
26, M Evans
10, T Evans
6, M Factourovich
28, V Fafone
57,65, S Fairhurst
7, Q Fang
37, B Farr
77, W Farr
77, M Favata
78, D Fazi
77, H Fehrmann
8, D Feldbaum
16,6, I Ferrante
14,30, F Ferrini
23, F Fidecaro
14,30, L S Finn
79, I Fiori
23, R Fisher
24,
R Flaminio
40, E Foley
18, S Foley
10, E Forsi
6, L A Forte
4, N Fotopoulos
1, J.-D Fournier
38, S Franco
35, S Frasca
19,66, F Frasconi
14, M Frede
8, M Frei
56, Z Frei
80, A Freise
20, R Frey
45, T T Fricke
8, P Fritschel
10, V V Frolov
6, M.-K Fujimoto
81, P Fulda
16, M Fyffe
6, J Gair
69,
L Gammaitoni
42,82, J Garcia
25, F Garufi
4,52, N Gehrels
36, G Gemme
61, E Genin
23, A Gennai
14, L Gergely
80,
S Ghosh
41, J A Giaime
2,6, S Giampanis
12, K D Giardina
6, A Giazotto
14, S Gil-Casanova
51, C Gill
26, J Gleason
16, E Goetz
8, R Goetz
16, L Gondan
80, G Gonz´ alez
2,
N Gordon
26, M L Gorodetsky
34, S Gossan
60, S Goßler
8, R Gouaty
3, C Graef
8, P B Graff
36, M Granata
40, A Grant
26, S Gras
10, C Gray
25, R J S Greenhalgh
83, A M Gretarsson
84, C Griffo
18, H Grote
8, K Grover
20, S Grunewald
21,
G M Guidi
43,44, C Guido
6, K E Gushwa
1, E K Gustafson
1, R Gustafson
55, B Hall
41, E Hall
1, D Hammer
12,
G Hammond
26, M Hanke
8, J Hanks
25, C Hanna
85, J Hanson
6, J Harms
1, G M Harry
86, I W Harry
24, E D Harstad
45, M T Hartman
16, K Haughian
26,
K Hayama
81, J Heefner
†,1, A Heidmann
46, M Heintze
16,6,
H Heitmann
38, P Hello
35, G Hemming
23, M Hendry
26,
I S Heng
26, A W Heptonstall
1, M Heurs
8, S Hild
26,
D Hoak
50, K A Hodge
1, K Holt
6, T Hong
60, S Hooper
37,
T Horrom
87, D J Hosken
88, J Hough
26, E J Howell
37,
Y Hu
26, Z Hua
54, V Huang
58, E A Huerta
24, B Hughey
84,
S Husa
51, S H Huttner
26, M Huynh
12, T Huynh-Dinh
6,
J Iafrate
2, D R Ingram
25, R Inta
63, T Isogai
10, A Ivanov
1, B R Iyer
89, K Izumi
25, M Jacobson
1, E James
1, H Jang
90, Y J Jang
77, P Jaranowski
91, F Jim´ enez-Forteza
51,
W W Johnson
2, D Jones
25, D I Jones
92, R Jones
26, R.J.G Jonker
9, L Ju
37, Haris K
93, P Kalmus
1,
V Kalogera
77, S Kandhasamy
70, G Kang
90, J B Kanner
36, M Kasprzack
23,35, R Kasturi
94, E Katsavounidis
10,
W Katzman
6, H Kaufer
13, K Kaufman
60, K Kawabe
25, S Kawamura
81, F Kawazoe
8, F K´ ef´ elian
38, D Keitel
8, D B Kelley
24, W Kells
1, D G Keppel
8, A Khalaidovski
8, F Y Khalili
34, E A Khazanov
95, B K Kim
90, C Kim
96,90, K Kim
97, N Kim
29, W Kim
88, Y.-M Kim
62, E J King
88, P J King
1, D L Kinzel
6, J S Kissel
10, S Klimenko
16,
J Kline
12, S Koehlenbeck
8, K Kokeyama
2, V Kondrashov
1, S Koranda
12, W Z Korth
1, I Kowalska
47, D Kozak
1,
A Kremin
70, V Kringel
8, B Krishnan
8, A Kr´ olak
98,99, C Kucharczyk
29, S Kudla
2, G Kuehn
8, A Kumar
100, D Nanda Kumar
16, P Kumar
24, R Kumar
26,
R Kurdyumov
29, P Kwee
10, M Landry
25, B Lantz
29, S Larson
101, P D Lasky
102, C Lawrie
26, A Lazzarini
1, P Leaci
21, E O Lebigot
54, C.-H Lee
62, H K Lee
97,
H M Lee
96, J Lee
10, J Lee
18, M Leonardi
74,75, J R Leong
8, A Le Roux
6, N Leroy
35, N Letendre
3, B Levine
25,
J B Lewis
1, V Lhuillier
25, T G F Li
9, A C Lin
29,
T B Littenberg
77, V Litvine
1, F Liu
103, H Liu
7, Y Liu
54, Z Liu
16, D Lloyd
1, N A Lockerbie
104, V Lockett
18, D Lodhia
20, K Loew
84, J Logue
26, A L Lombardi
50, M Lorenzini
57, V Loriette
105, M Lormand
6, G Losurdo
43, J Lough
24, J Luan
60, M J Lubinski
25, H L¨ uck
8,13,
A P Lundgren
8, J Macarthur
26, E Macdonald
7, B Machenschalk
8, M MacInnis
10, D M Macleod
7, F Magana-Sandoval
18, M Mageswaran
1, K Mailand
1, E Majorana
19, I Maksimovic
105, V Malvezzi
57, N Man
38, G M Manca
8, I Mandel
20, V Mandic
70, V Mangano
19,66, M Mantovani
14, F Marchesoni
42,106, F Marion
3, S M´ arka
28, Z M´ arka
28, A Markosyan
29, E Maros
1, J Marque
23,
F Martelli
43,44, L Martellini
38, I W Martin
26,
R M Martin
16, D Martynov
1, J N Marx
1, K Mason
10, A Masserot
3, T J Massinger
24, F Matichard
10, L Matone
28, R A Matzner
107, N Mavalvala
10, G May
2, N Mazumder
93, G Mazzolo
8, R McCarthy
25, D E McClelland
63,
S C McGuire
108, G McIntyre
1, J McIver
50, D Meacher
38, G D Meadors
55, M Mehmet
8, J Meidam
9, T Meier
13, A Melatos
102, G Mendell
25, R A Mercer
12, S Meshkov
1, C Messenger
26, M S Meyer
6, H Miao
60, C Michel
40, E E Mikhailov
87, L Milano
4,52, J Miller
63, Y Minenkov
57, C M F Mingarelli
20, S Mitra
73, V P Mitrofanov
34,
G Mitselmakher
16, R Mittleman
10, B Moe
12, M Mohan
23,
S R P Mohapatra
24,56, F Mokler
8, D Moraru
25,
G Moreno
25, N Morgado
40, T Mori
81, S R Morriss
32, K Mossavi
8, B Mours
3, C M Mow-Lowry
8, C L Mueller
16, G Mueller
16, S Mukherjee
32, A Mullavey
2, J Munch
88, D Murphy
28, P G Murray
26, A Mytidis
16, M F Nagy
72, I Nardecchia
19,66, T Nash
1, L Naticchioni
19,66, R Nayak
109, V Necula
16, I Neri
42,82, G Newton
26, T Nguyen
63,
E Nishida
81, A Nishizawa
81, A Nitz
24, F Nocera
23,
D Nolting
6, M E Normandin
32, L K Nuttall
7, E Ochsner
12, J O’Dell
83, E Oelker
10, G H Ogin
1, J J Oh
110, S H Oh
110, F Ohme
7, P Oppermann
8, B O’Reilly
6,
W Ortega Larcher
32, R O’Shaughnessy
12, C Osthelder
1, C D Ott
60, D J Ottaway
88, R S Ottens
16, J Ou
58, H Overmier
6, B J Owen
79, C Padilla
18, A Pai
93, C Palomba
19, Y Pan
49, C Pankow
12, F Paoletti
14,23, R Paoletti
14,15, M A Papa
21,12, H Paris
25, A Pasqualetti
23, R Passaquieti
14,30, D Passuello
14, M Pedraza
1, P Peiris
56, S Penn
94, A Perreca
24, M Phelps
1, M Pichot
38,
M Pickenpack
8, F Piergiovanni
43,44, V Pierro
67, L Pinard
40, B Pindor
102, I M Pinto
67, M Pitkin
26, J Poeld
8,
R Poggiani
14,30, V Poole
41, C Poux
1, V Predoi
7,
T Prestegard
70, L R Price
1, M Prijatelj
8, M Principe
67, S Privitera
1, G A Prodi
74,75, L Prokhorov
34, O Puncken
32, M Punturo
42, P Puppo
19, V Quetschke
32, E Quintero
1, R Quitzow-James
45, F J Raab
25, D S Rabeling
9,48, I R´ acz
72, H Radkins
25, P Raffai
28,80, S Raja
111, G Rajalakshmi
112, M Rakhmanov
32, C Ramet
6, P Rapagnani
19,66,
V Raymond
1, V Re
57,65, C M Reed
25, T Reed
113, T Regimbau
38, S Reid
114, D H Reitze
1,16, F Ricci
19,66, R Riesen
6, K Riles
55, N A Robertson
1,26, F Robinet
35, A Rocchi
57, S Roddy
6, C Rodriguez
77, M Rodruck
25, C Roever
8, L Rolland
3, J G Rollins
1, R Romano
4,5, G Romanov
87, J H Romie
6, D Rosi´ nska
31,115, S Rowan
26, A R¨ udiger
8, P Ruggi
23, K Ryan
25, F Salemi
8, L Sammut
102, V Sandberg
25, J Sanders
55, V Sannibale
1,
I Santiago-Prieto
26, E Saracco
40, B Sassolas
40, B S Sathyaprakash
7, P R Saulson
24, R Savage
25, R Schilling
8, R Schnabel
8,13, R M S Schofield
45, E Schreiber
8, D Schuette
8, B Schulz
8, B F Schutz
21,7, P Schwinberg
25, J Scott
26, S M Scott
63, F Seifert
1, D Sellers
6, A S Sengupta
116, D Sentenac
23, A Sergeev
95, D Shaddock
63, S Shah
117,9, M S Shahriar
77, M Shaltev
8, B Shapiro
29, P Shawhan
49, D H Shoemaker
10, T L Sidery
20, K Siellez
38, X Siemens
12, D Sigg
25, D Simakov
8, A Singer
1, L Singer
1, A M Sintes
51, G R Skelton
12, B J J Slagmolen
63, J Slutsky
8, J R Smith
18, M R Smith
1, R J E Smith
20, N D Smith-Lefebvre
1, K Soden
12, E J Son
110, B Sorazu
26, T Souradeep
73, L Sperandio
57,65, A Staley
28, E Steinert
25, J Steinlechner
8, S Steinlechner
8, S Steplewski
41,
D Stevens
77, A Stochino
63, R Stone
32, K A Strain
26,
S Strigin
34, A S Stroeer
32, R Sturani
43,44, A L Stuver
6, T Z Summerscales
118, S Susmithan
37, P J Sutton
7, B Swinkels
23, G Szeifert
80, M Tacca
27, D Talukder
45, L Tang
32, D B Tanner
16, S P Tarabrin
8, R Taylor
1, A P M ter Braack
9, M P Thirugnanasambandam
1, M Thomas
6, P Thomas
25, K A Thorne
6, K S Thorne
60, E Thrane
1, V Tiwari
16, K V Tokmakov
104, C Tomlinson
71, A Toncelli
14,30, M Tonelli
14,30, O Torre
14,15, C V Torres
32, C I Torrie
1,26, F Travasso
42,82, G Traylor
6, M Tse
28, D Ugolini
119, C S Unnikrishnan
112, H Vahlbruch
13, G Vajente
14,30, M Vallisneri
60, J F J van den Brand
9,48, C Van Den Broeck
9, S van der Putten
9,
M V van der Sluys
77, J van Heijningen
9, A A van Veggel
26, S Vass
1, M Vas´ uth
72, R Vaulin
10, A Vecchio
20,
G Vedovato
120, J Veitch
9, P J Veitch
88, K Venkateswara
121, D Verkindt
3, S Verma
37, F Vetrano
43,44, A Vicer´ e
43,44, R Vincent-Finley
108, J.-Y Vinet
38, S Vitale
10,9, B Vlcek
12, T Vo
25, H Vocca
42,82, C Vorvick
25, W D Vousden
20, D Vrinceanu
32, S P Vyachanin
34, A Wade
63, L Wade
12, M Wade
12, S J Waldman
10, M Walker
2, L Wallace
1, Y Wan
54, J Wang
58, M Wang
20, X Wang
54, A Wanner
8, R L Ward
63, M Was
8, B Weaver
25, L.-W Wei
38,
M Weinert
8, A J Weinstein
1, R Weiss
10, T Welborn
6, L Wen
37, P Wessels
8, M West
24, T Westphal
8, K Wette
8, J T Whelan
56, S E Whitcomb
1,37, D J White
71,
B F Whiting
16, S Wibowo
12, K Wiesner
8, C Wilkinson
25, L Williams
16, R Williams
1, T Williams
122, J L Willis
123, B Willke
8,13, M Wimmer
8, L Winkelmann
8, W Winkler
8, C C Wipf
10, H Wittel
8, G Woan
26, J Worden
25, J Yablon
77, I Yakushin
6, H Yamamoto
1, C C Yancey
49, H Yang
60, D Yeaton-Massey
1, S Yoshida
122, H Yum
77, M Yvert
3, A Zadro ˙zny
99, M Zanolin
84, J.-P Zendri
120, F Zhang
10, L Zhang
1, C Zhao
37, H Zhu
79, X J Zhu
37, N Zotov
‡,113, M E Zucker
10, and J. Zweizig
11LIGO - California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
2Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
3Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), Universit´e de Savoie, CNRS/IN2P3, F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux, France
4INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
5Universit`a di Salerno, Fisciano, I-84084 Salerno, Italy
6LIGO - Livingston Observatory, Livingston, LA 70754, USA
7Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF24 3AA, United Kingdom
8Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Gravitationsphysik, D-30167 Hannover, Germany
9Nikhef, Science Park, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
10LIGO - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
11Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 12227-010 - S˜ao Jos´e dos Campos, SP, Brazil
12University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
13Leibniz Universit¨at Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany
14INFN, Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
15Universit`a di Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy
16University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
17The University of Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA
18California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA
19INFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy
20University of Birmingham, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom
21Albert-Einstein-Institut, Max-Planck-Institut f¨ur Gravitationsphysik, D-14476 Golm, Germany
22Montana State University, Bozeman, MT 59717, USA
23European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), I-56021 Cascina, Pisa, Italy
24Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY 13244, USA
25LIGO - Hanford Observatory, Richland, WA 99352, USA
26SUPA, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 8QQ, United Kingdom
27APC, AstroParticule et Cosmologie, Universit´e Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/Irfu, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cit´e, 10, rue Alice Domon et L´eonie Duquet, F-75205 Paris Cedex 13, France
28Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA
29Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
30Universit`a di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy
31CAMK-PAN, 00-716 Warsaw, Poland
32The University of Texas at Brownsville, Brownsville, TX 78520, USA
33San Jose State University, San Jose, CA 95192, USA
34Moscow State University, Moscow, 119992, Russia
35LAL, Universit´e Paris-Sud, IN2P3/CNRS, F-91898 Orsay, France
36NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
37University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
38ARTEMIS, Universit´e Nice-Sophia-Antipolis, CNRS and Observatoire de la Cˆote d’Azur, F-06304 Nice, France
39Institut de Physique de Rennes, CNRS, Universit´e de Rennes 1, F-35042 Rennes, France
40Laboratoire des Mat´eriaux Avanc´es (LMA), IN2P3/CNRS, Universit´e de Lyon, F-69622 Villeurbanne, Lyon, France
41Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA
42INFN, Sezione di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy
43INFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy
44Universit`a degli Studi di Urbino ’Carlo Bo’, I-61029 Urbino, Italy
45University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA
46Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, ENS, CNRS, UPMC, Universit´e Pierre et Marie Curie, F-75005 Paris, France
47Astronomical Observatory Warsaw University, 00-478 Warsaw, Poland
48VU University Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
49University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
50University of Massachusetts - Amherst, Amherst, MA 01003, USA
51Universitat de les Illes Balears, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain
52Universit`a di Napoli ’Federico II’, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy
53Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 3H8, Canada
54Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
55University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA
56Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY 14623, USA
57INFN, Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy
58National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu Taiwan 300
59Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, NSW 2678, Australia
60Caltech-CaRT, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
61INFN, Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy
62Pusan National University, Busan 609-735, Korea
63Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia
64Carleton College, Northfield, MN 55057, USA
65Universit`a di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy
66Universit`a di Roma ’La Sapienza’, I-00185 Roma, Italy
67University of Sannio at Benevento, I-82100 Benevento, Italy and INFN (Sezione di Napoli), Italy
68The George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052, USA
69University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1TN, United Kingdom
70University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
71The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom
72Wigner RCP, RMKI, H-1121 Budapest, Konkoly Thege Mikl´os ´ut 29-33, Hungary
73Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune - 411007, India
74INFN, Gruppo Collegato di Trento, I-38050 Povo, Trento, Italy
75Universit`a di Trento, I-38050 Povo, Trento, Italy
76California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
77Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
78Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043, USA
79The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
80MTA-Eotvos University, ‘Lendulet’A. R. G., Budapest 1117, Hungary
81National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan
82Universit`a di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy
83Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, HSIC, Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, United Kingdom
84Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, AZ 86301, USA
85Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Ontario, N2L 2Y5, Canada
86American University, Washington, DC 20016, USA
87College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA
88University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia
89Raman Research Institute, Bangalore, Karnataka 560080, India
90Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon 305-806, Korea
91Bia lystok University, 15-424 Bia lystok, Poland
92University of Southampton, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom
93IISER-TVM, CET Campus, Trivandrum Kerala 695016, India
94Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, NY 14456, USA
95Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia
96Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, Korea
97Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Korea
98IM-PAN, 00-956 Warsaw, Poland
99NCBJ, 05-400 ´Swierk-Otwock, Poland
100Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, Gandhinagar 382428, India
101Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
102The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia
103University of Brussels, Brussels 1050 Belgium
104SUPA, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, United Kingdom
105ESPCI, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France
106Universit`a di Camerino, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-62032 Camerino, Italy
107The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA
108Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, LA 70813, USA
109IISER-Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal 741252, India
110National Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Daejeon 305-390, Korea
111RRCAT, Indore MP 452013, India
112Tata Institute for Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India
113Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA 71272, USA
114SUPA, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, PA1 2BE, United Kingdom
115Institute of Astronomy, 65-265 Zielona G´ora, Poland
116Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar Ahmedabad Gujarat 382424, India
117Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O.
Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
118Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, USA
119Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA
120INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy
121University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA
122Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA 70402, USA
123Abilene Christian University, Abilene, TX 79699, USA
†Deceased, April 2012.
‡Deceased, May 2012.
Abstract. In 2009-2010, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observa- tory (LIGO) operated together with international partners Virgo and GEO600 as a network to search for gravitational waves of astrophysical origin. The sensitiv- ity of these detectors was limited by a combination of noise sources inherent to the instrumental design and its environment, often localized in time or frequency, that couple into the gravitational-wave readout. Here we review the performance of the LIGO instruments during this epoch, the work done to characterize the de- tectors and their data, and the effect that transient and continuous noise artefacts have on the sensitivity of LIGO to a variety of astrophysical sources.
PACS numbers: 04.80.Nn.
1. Introduction
Between July 2009 and October 2010, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) [1] operated two 4-kilometre laser interferometers as part of a global network aiming to detect and study gravitational waves (GWs) of astrophysical origin. These detectors, at LIGO Hanford Observatory, WA (LHO), and LIGO Livingston Observatory, LA (LLO) – dubbed ‘H1’ and ‘L1’, and operating beyond their initial design with greater sensitivity – took data during Science Run 6 (S6) in collaboration with GEO600 [2] and Virgo [3].
The data from each of these detectors have been searched for GW signals from a number of sources, including compact binary coalescences (CBCs) [4,
5,6], genericshort-duration GW bursts [5,
7], non-axisymmetric spinning neutron stars [8], and astochastic GW background (SGWB) [9]. The performance of each of these analyses is measured by the searched volume of the universe multiplied by the searched time duration; however, long and short duration artefacts in real data, such as narrow- bondwidth noise lines and glitches, further restrict the sensitivity of GW searches.
Searches for transient GW signals including CBCs and GW bursts are sensitive to many short-duration noise events (glitches), coming from a number of environmental, mechanical, and electronic mechanisms that are not fully understood. Each search pipeline employs signal-based methods to distinguish a GW event from noise based on knowledge of the expected waveform [10,
11, 12, 13], but also relies on carefulstudies of the detector behaviour to provide information that leads to improved data quality through ‘vetoes’ that remove data likely to contain noise artefacts. Searches for long-duration continuous waves (CWs) and a SGWB are sensitive to disturbances from spectral lines and other sustained noise artefacts. These effects cause elevated noise at a given frequency and so impair any search over these data.
This paper describes the work done to characterize the LIGO detectors and their data during S6, and estimates the increase in sensitivity for analyses resulting from detector improvements and data quality vetoes. This work follows from previous studies of LIGO data quality during Science Run 5 (S5) [14,
15] and S6 [16, 17].Similar studies have also been performed for the Virgo detector relating to data taking
during Virgo Science Runs (VSRs) 2, 3 and 4 [18,
19].Laser Modulator
Input Mode Cleaner
Output Mode Cleaner (Enhanced LIGO Only) Power
Recycling Mirror
Y-End Test Mass
X-End Test Mass Input Test
Masses
Photodiode Interferometer Readout
Beamsplitter 4km
Figure 1: Optical layout of the LIGO interferometers during S6 [21]. The layout differs from that used in S5 with the addition of the output mode cleaner.
Section
2details the configuration of the LIGO detectors during S6, and section
3details their performance over this period, outlining some of the problems observed and improvements seen. Section
4describes examples of important noise sources that were identified at each site and steps taken to mitigate them. In section
5, we presentthe performance of data-quality vetoes when applied to each of two astrophysical data searches: the ihope CBC pipeline [13] and the Coherent WaveBurst (cWB) burst pipeline [10]. A short conclusion is given in section
6, along with plans forcharacterization of the next-generation Advanced LIGO detectors, currently under construction.
2. Configuration of the LIGO detectors during the sixth science run The first-generation LIGO instruments were versions of a Michelson interferometer [20]
with Fabry-Perot arm cavities, with which GW amplitude is measured as a strain of the 4-kilometre arm length, as shown in fig.
1[21]. In this layout, a diode-pumped, power-amplified Nd:YAG laser generated a carrier beam in a single longitudinal mode at 1064 nm [22]. This beam passed through an electro-optic modulator which added a pair of radio-frequency (RF) sidebands used for sensing and control of the test mass positions, before the modulated beam entered a triangular optical cavity. This cavity (the ‘input mode cleaner’) was configured to filter out residual higher-order spatial modes from the main beam before it entered the main interferometer.
The conceptual Michelson design was enhanced with the addition of input test
masses at the beginning of each arm to form Fabry-Perot optical cavities. These cavities increase the storage time of light in the arms, effectively increasing the arm length. Additionally, a power-recycling mirror was added to reflect back light returned towards the input, equivalent to increasing the input laser power. During S5, the relative lengths of each arm were controlled to ensure that the light exiting each arm cavity interfered destructively at the output photodiode, and all power was returned towards the input. In such ‘dark fringe’ operation, the phase modulation sidebands induced in the arms by interaction with GWs would interfere constructively at the output, recording a GW strain in the demodulated signal. In this configuration, the LIGO instruments achieved their design sensitivity goal over the 2-year S5 run. A thorough description of the initial design is given in [1].
For S6 a number of new systems were implemented to improve sensitivity and to prototype upgrades for the second-generation Advanced LIGO (aLIGO) detectors [21,
23]. The initial input laser system was upgraded from a 10 W outputto a maximum of 35 W, with the installation of new master ring oscillator and power amplifier systems [24]. The higher input laser power from this system improved the sensitivity of the detectors at high frequencies (> 150 Hz) and allowed prototyping of several key components for the aLIGO laser system [25]. Additionally, an improved CO
2-laser thermal-compensation system was installed [26,
27] to counteract thermallensing caused by expansion of the test mass coating substrate due to heat from absorption of the main beam.
An alternative GW detection system was installed, replacing the initial heterodyne readout scheme [28]. A special form of homodyne detection, known as DC readout, was implemented, whereby the interferometer is operated slightly away from the dark fringe. In this system, GW-induced phase modulations would interfere with the main beam to produce power variations on the output photodiode, without the need for demodulating the output signal. In order to improve the quality of the light incident on the output photodiode in this new readout system, an output mode cleaner (OMC) cavity was installed to filter out the higher-order mode content of the output beam [29], including the RF sidebands. The OMC was required to be in-vacuum, but also highly stable, and so a single-stage prototype of the new aLIGO two-stage seismic isolation system was installed for the output optical platform [30], from which the OMC was suspended.
Futhermore, controls for seismic feed-forward to a hydraulic actuation system were improved at LLO to combat the higher level of seismic noise at that site [31].
This system used signals from seismometers at the Michelson vertex, and at ends of each of the arms, to suppress the effect of low-frequency (
.10 Hz) seismic motion on the instrument.
3. Detector sensitivity during S6
The maximum sensitivity of any GW search, such as those cited in section
1,is determined by the amount of coincident multi-detector operation time and astrophysical reach of each detector. In searches for transient signals these factors determine the number of sources that could be detected during a science run, while in those for continuous signals they determine the accumulated signal power over that run.
The S6 run took place between July 7th 2009 and October 20th 2010, with each
detector recording over seven months of data in that period. The data-taking was
1 10 100 10
310
410
5Length of science segment [seconds]
0 20 40 60 80 100
Num b er of segmen ts
H1 L1
Figure 2: A histogram of the duration of each science segment for the LIGO detectors during S6. The distribution is centred around∼1 hour.
split into four epochs, A–D, identifying distinct analysis periods set by changes in detector performance or the detector network itself. Epochs A and B ran alongside the second Virgo Science Run (VSR2) before that detector was taken off-line for a major upgrade [19]. S6A ran for
∼2 months before a month-long instrumental commissioning break, and S6B ran to the end of 2009 before another commissioning break. The final 2 epochs, C and D, spanned a continuous period of detector operation, over nine months in all, with the distinction marking the start of VSR3 and the return of a three-detector network.
Instrumental stability over these epochs was measured by the detector duty factor – the fraction of the total run time during which science-quality data was recorded.
Each continuous period of operation is known as a science segment, defined as time when the interferometer is operating in a nominal state and the spectral sensitivity is deemed acceptable by the operator and scientists on duty. A science segment is typically ended by a critically large noise level in the instrument at which time interferometer control cannot be maintained by the electronic control system (known as lock-loss ). However, a small number of segments are ended manually during clean data in order to perform scheduled maintenance, such as a calibration measurement.
Figure
2shows a histogram of science segment duration over the run. The majority of segments span several hours, but there are a significant number of shorter segments, symptomatic of interferometer instability. In particular, for L1 the number of shorter segments is higher than that for H1, a result of poor detector stability during the early part of the run, especially during S6B.
Table
1summarises the science segments for each site over the four run epochs.
Both sites saw an increase in duty factor, that of H1 increasing by
∼15 percentage points, and L1 by nearly 20 between epochs A and D. Additionally, the median duration of a single science-quality data segment more than doubled at both sites between the opening epochs (S6A and S6B) and the end of the run. These increases in stability highlight the developments in understanding of the critical noise couplings [1]
and how they affect operation of the instruments (see section
4for some examples),
Epoch Median duration (mins)
Longest duration (hours)
Total live time (days)
Duty factor (%)
S6A 54.0 13.4 27.5 49.1
S6B 75.2 19.0 59.2 54.3
S6C 82.0 17.0 82.8 51.4
S6D 123.4 35.2 74.7 63.9
(a) H1 (LIGO Hanford Observatory)
S6A 39.3 11.8 25.6 45.7
S6B 17.3 21.3 40.0 38.0
S6C 67.5 21.4 82.3 51.1
S6D 58.2 32.6 75.2 64.3
(b) L1 (LIGO Livingston Observatory)
Table 1: Science segment statistics for the LIGO detectors over the four epochs of S6.
100 1000
Frequency [Hz]
10
−2310
−2210
−2110
−2010
−19Strain sp ectral densit y [1/ √ Hz]
DesignH1 L1
Figure 3: Typical strain amplitude sensitivity of the LIGO detectors during S6.
as well as improvements in the control system used to maintain cavity resonance.
The sensitivity to GWs of a single detector is typically measured as a strain amplitude spectral density of the calibrated detector output. This is determined by a combination of noise components, some fundamental to the design of the instruments, and some from additional noise coupling from instrumental and environmental sources.
Figure
3shows the typical amplitude spectral densities of the LIGO detectors during S6. The dominant contribution below 40 Hz is noise from seismically-driven motion of the key interferometer optics, and from the servos used to control their alignment. The reduced level of the seismic wall at L1 relative to H1 can be, in part, attributed to the prototype hydraulic isolation installed at that observatory [31].
Intermediate frequencies, 50-150 Hz, have significant contributions from Brownian
motion – mechanical excitations of the test masses and their suspensions due to
thermal energy [32,
33] – however, some of the observed limiting noise in this band wasnever understood. Above 150 Hz, shot noise due to variation in incident photon flux
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Time [days] since the start of S6
0 4 8 12 16 20
Inspiral detection range [Mp c]
S6D
S6B S6C
S6A
H1 L1
Figure 4: The inspiral detection range of the LIGO detectors throughout S6 to a binary neutron star merger, averaged over sky location and orientation. The rapid improvements between epochs can be attributed to hardware and control changes implemented during commissioning periods.
at the output port is the dominant fundamental noise source [34]. The sensitivity is also limited at many frequencies by narrow-band line structures, described in detail in section
4.7. The spectral sensitivity gives a time-averaged view of detectorperformance, and so is sensitive to the long-duration noise sources and signals, but rather insensitive to transient events.
A standard measure of a detector’s astrophysical reach is the distance to which that instrument could detect GW emission from the inspiral of a binary neutron star system with a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 8 [35,
36], averaged over source skylocations and orientations. Figure
4shows the evolution of this metric over the science run, with each data point representing an average over 2048 s of data. Over the course of the run, the detection range of H1 increased from
∼16 to
∼20 Mpc, and of L1 from
∼
14 to
∼20 Mpc. The instability of S6B at L1 can be seen between days 80–190, with a lower duty factor (also seen in table
1) and low detection range; this period includedextensive commissioning of the seismic feed-forward system at LLO [31].
The combination of increased amplitude sensitivity and improved duty factor over the course of S6 meant that the searchable volume of the universe for an astrophysical analysis was greatly increased.
4. Data-quality problems in S6
While the previous section described the performance of the LIGO detectors over the full span of the S6 science run, there were a number of isolated problems that had detrimental effects on the performance of each of the observatories at some time. Each of these problems, some of which are detailed below, introduced excess noise at specific times or frequencies that hindered astrophysical searches over the data.
Under ideal conditions, all excess noise sources can be quickly identified in the
experimental set-up and corrected, either with a hardware change, or a modification of
the control system. However, not all such fixes can be implemented immediately, or at all, and so noisy periods in auxiliary data (other data streams not directly associated with gravitational-wave readout) must be noted and recorded as likely to adversely affect the GW data. During S6, these data quality (DQ) flags and their associated time segments were used by analysis groups to inform decisions on which data to analyse, or which detection candidates to reject as likely noise artefacts, the impact of which will be discussed in section
5.The remainder of this section details a representative set of specific issues that were present for some time during S6 at LHO or LLO, some of which were fixed at the source, some which were identified but could not be fixed, and one which was never identified.
4.1. Seismic noise
Throughout the first-generation LIGO experiment, the impact of seismic noise was a fundamental limit to the sensitivity to GWs below 40 Hz. However, throughout S6 (and earlier science runs), seismic noise was also observed to be strongly correlated with transient noise glitches in the detector output, not only at low frequencies, but also at much higher frequencies (
∼100-200 Hz).
The top panels of fig.
5show the seismic ground motion at LHO, both in specific frequency bands (left) and as seen by the Ω-pipeline transient search algorithm [37]
(right) - this panel shows localised seismic noise events in time and frequency coloured by their SNR. The lower left and right panels show transient events in the gravitational-wave strain data as recorded by single-interferomter burst and CBC inspiral searches respectively. Critically, during periods of high seismic noise, the inspiral analysis ‘daily ihope’ [13] produced candidate event triggers across the full range of signal templates, severely limiting the sensitivity of that search.
While great efforts were made to reduce the coupling of seismic noise into the interferometer [31], additional efforts were required to improve the identification of loud transient seismic events that were likely to couple into the GW readout [38].
Such times were recorded and used by astrophysical search groups to veto candidate events from analyses, proving highly effective in reducing the noise background of such searches.
4.2. Seismically-driven length-sensing glitches
While transient seismic noise was a problem throughout the science run, during late 2009 the presence of such noise proved critically disruptive at LLO. During S6B, the majority of glitches in L1 were correlated with noise in the length control signals of two short length degrees of freedom: the power recycling cavity length (PRCL), and the short Michelson formed by the beam-splitter and the input test masses (MICH).
Both of these length controls were glitching simultaneously, and these glitches were correlated with more than 70% of the glitches in the GW data.
It was discovered that high microseismic noise was driving large instabilities in the power recycling cavity that caused significant drops in the circulating power, resulting in large glitches in both the MICH and PRC length controls. These actuation signals, applied to the main interferometer optics, then coupled into the detector output.
This issue was eliminated via commissioning of a seismic feed-forward system [31]
that decreased the PRC optic motion by a factor of three. The glitchy data before the
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 0.01
0.1 1 10
F requency [Hz]
0.5 11 5 10 10
Normalized ground motion
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
100 10
3F requency [Hz]
5 10 10 50
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
5 10 15 20 25
Binary total mass [M ]
5 10 10 50
Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR)
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Hour of August 19 2010 (UTC)
Science mode
Figure 5: Seismic motion of the laboratory floor at LHO (normalized, top) and its correlation into GW burst (middle) and inspiral (bottom) analyses.
