Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Enhancing the sensitivity of transient gravitational wave searches with Gaussian mixture models

V. Gayathri, Dixeena Lopez, Pranjal R. S., Ik Siong Heng, Archana Pai, and Chris Messenger
Phys. Rev. D 102, 104023 – Published 9 November 2020

Abstract

Identifying the presence of a gravitational wave transient buried in nonstationary, non-Gaussian noise, which can often contain spurious noise transients (glitches), is a very challenging task. For a given dataset, transient gravitational wave searches produce a corresponding list of triggers that indicate the possible presence of a gravitational wave signal. These triggers are often the result of glitches mimicking gravitational wave signal characteristics. To distinguish glitches from genuine gravitational wave signals, search algorithms estimate a range of trigger attributes, with thresholds applied to these trigger properties to separate signal from noise. Here, we present the use of Gaussian mixture models, a supervised machine learning approach, as a means of modeling the multidimensional trigger attribute space. We demonstrate this approach by applying it to triggers from the coherent Waveburst search for generic bursts in LIGO O1 data. By building Gaussian mixture models for the signal and background noise attribute spaces, we show that we can significantly improve the sensitivity of the coherent Waveburst search and strongly suppress the impact of glitches and background noise, without the use of multiple search bins as employed by the original O1 search. We show that the detection probability is enhanced by a factor of 10, leading enhanced statistical significance for gravitational wave signals such as GW150914.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Received 5 August 2020
  • Accepted 8 October 2020

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.104023

© 2020 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

  1. Research Areas
  1. Techniques
Gravitation, Cosmology & Astrophysics

Authors & Affiliations

V. Gayathri1,2, Dixeena Lopez1,3, Pranjal R. S.1, Ik Siong Heng4, Archana Pai1, and Chris Messenger4

  • 1Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai 400 076, India
  • 2Department of Physics, University of Florida, PO Box 118440, Gainesville, Florida 32611-8440, USA
  • 3Physik-Institut, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
  • 4SUPA, School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland G12 8QQ, United Kingdom

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 102, Iss. 10 — 15 November 2020

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×

Images

  • Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Plot of BIC value vs the number attributes for a given signal dataset. The specific choice of attributes for each set is defined in the legend.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 2
    Figure 2

    The T value distribution for O1 noise and three different signal morphology events with GMM models. The plot contains four curves, black curve for noise, a very light gray curve for GP, a light gray curve for SWG, and a gray curve for WNB. The inset plot shows the T distribution around zero.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 3
    Figure 3

    ROC curves: false alarm probability vs detection probability using the cWB plus GMM algorithm (dashed and dotted lines) compared to the standard cWB search (solid and dash-dotted lines) for the simulation waveforms detailed in Table 1. We present the ROC curves in four panels by dividing the simulation sets in different types. For the cWB plus GMM analysis, the detection probability is close to 0.9 or more for almost all simulated signals, even at false alarm probabilities of 106. The cWB plus GMM has very high detection probability compared to standard cWB. The cWB plus GMM curves are overlapping between 0.9 to 1.

    Reuse & Permissions
  • Figure 4
    Figure 4

    The network coherent SNR ηc vs the GMM detection statistic T, with color corresponding to cc0 for all ten cWB triggers. Large black hollow circles correspond to detected cWB plus GMM events (with T>2.5 equivalent to IFAR >15yr), and smaller red hollow circles correspond to the standard cWB events.

    Reuse & Permissions
×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review D

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×