Characterization of systematic error in Advanced LIGO calibration

By Ling Sun, E. Goetz, J. Kissel, J. Betzwieser, S. Karki, A. Viets, M. Wade, D. Bhattacharjee, V. Bossilkov, P. Covas and 16 more. Classical and quantum gravity, 2020

149 citations recorded by the source corpus.

The raw outputs of the detectors within the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory need to be calibrated in order to produce the estimate of the dimensionless strain used for astrophysical analyses. The two detectors have been upgraded since the second observing run and finished the year-long third observing run. Understanding, accounting, and/or compensating for the complex-valued response of each part of the upgraded detectors improves the overall accuracy of the estimated detector response to gravitational waves. We describe improved understanding and methods used to quantify the response of each detector, with a dedicated effort to define all places where systematic error plays a role. We use the detectors as they stand in the first half (six months) of the third observing run to demonstrate how each identified systematic error impacts the estimated strain and constrain the statistical uncertainty therein. For this time period, we estimate the upper limit on systematic error and associated uncertainty to be <7% in magnitude and <4 deg in phase (68% confidence interval) in the most sensitive frequency band 20–2000 Hz. The systematic error alone is estimated at levels of <2% in magnitude and <2 deg in phase.

Subfields: Astronomy and Astrophysics, Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics, Oceanography

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/1c7e1bee9eb212343e0277b01a61de393201a205

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Astronomy and Astrophysics

In Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics

In Oceanography

Citations in the corpus

Open Data from the Third Observing Run of LIGO, Virgo, KAGRA, and GEO (2023, methodology): “The calibration procedure and the corresponding characterization of the systematic and statistical uncertainties are described in Viets et al. ( 2018 ) and Sun et al. ( 2020, 2021 ) for Advanced LIGO and Acernese et al. ( 2022b ) for Advanced Virgo.”
GWTC-2.1: Deep extended catalog of compact binary coalescences observed by LIGO and Virgo during the first half of the third observing run (2021, unknown): “A full quantitative analysis of such uncertainties would require accounting for possible frequency-and time-dependent amplitude systematic errors [77]; these are typically ∼ 3% or less, corresponding to a ≲ 10% sensitive volume uncertainty which remains subdominant to the Poisson uncertainty in the…”
GW231123: A Binary Black Hole Merger with Total Mass 190–265 M⊙ (2025, unknown): “The calibration process subtracts linear spectral features from known instrumental sources, identified through auxiliary witness sensors, and intention-4 ally injected calibration lines used to measure the in-struments’ response at various frequencies (Viets et al. 2018a; Sun et al. 2020, 2021).”
GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During the First Half of the Third Observing Run (2020, background): “Once an observing period with a stable detector configuration is completed, estimates of the probability distribution of systematic error for all observation time are created [74].”