LIGO Scientific CollaborationpersName, Virgo CollaborationpersName (2017date). “GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral.” Physical Review Letters / arXivtitle·j, PasadenaplaceName.
Object of study — Gravitational wavesterm·dom from the merger of two neutron starsterm·dom.
Research question — Can the inspiralterm·key of a binary neutron starterm·key system be detected in gravitational wavesterm·dom, and what does it reveal about dense matter and cosmology?
Contribution — Reports the first detection of gravitational wavesterm·dom from a binary neutron starterm·key merger, coincident with a gamma-ray burstterm·key, inaugurating multi-messenger astronomyterm·dom and constraining the speed of gravityterm, dense-matter physics, and the Hubble constantterm.
phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | binary neutron star inspiral — “On August 17, 2017, the LIGO-Virgo detector network observed a gravitational-wave signal from the inspiral of two low-mass compact objects consistent with a binary neutron star (BNS) merger.” | |
| claim-type | existence — “In this Letter we have presented the first detection of gravitational waves from the inspiral of a binary neutron star system.” | |
| method — evidence | — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms.” | |
| mechanism | an interferometer converts strain into a phase difference Passing gravitational waves induce spacetime strain, which the Fabry-Perot-Michelson interferometers register as a varying phase difference between laser light in perpendicular arms. — “This detector network currently includes three Fabry-Perot-Michelson interferometers that measure spacetime strain induced by passing gravitational waves as a varying phase difference between laser light propagating in perpendicular arms” | mechanisms[0] |
| extends | gravitational-wave detection (LIGO, binary black holes) — “made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | the environmental-veto procedures developed for prior gravitational-wave detections [29,78] — “Following the procedures developed for prior gravitational-wave detections [29,78], we conclude there is no environmental disturbance observed by LIGO environmental sensors [79] that could account for the GW170817 signal.” | claim_relations[1] |
| replicates | the BNS coalescence rate inferred from observations of galactic BNS systems [19,20,155,180] — “Our findings are consistent with the rate inferred from observations of galactic BNS systems [19,20,155,180].” | claim_relations[2] |
| extends | the long-held hypothesis that BNS mergers are linked to short gamma-ray bursts [196,197] — “The coincident observation of a gravitational-wave signal and a γ- ray burst appears to confirm the long-held hypothesis that BNS mergers are linked to short-γ-ray bursts [196,197].” | claim_relations[3] |
| sense | upper limit on Λ(1.4 M⊙) - UNDER THE LOW-SPIN PRIOR: 800, the value obtained when component spins are restricted to the range seen in known binary neutron stars — “which gives Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 1400 for the high-spin prior and Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 800 for the lowspin prior.” | senses[0] |
| sense | upper limit on Λ(1.4 M⊙) - UNDER THE HIGH-SPIN PRIOR: 1400, the value obtained when the spin range is left wide, which is the same measurement under a weaker assumption — “Assuming a uniform prior on ~Λ, we place a 90% upper limit of ~Λ ≤ 800 in the low-spin case and ~Λ ≤ 700 in the high-spin case.” | senses[1] |
| sense | direct evidence - in this paper, strain measured in an interferometer, defined against the INDIRECT evidence of 1974: orbital energy loss in PSR B1913+16 — “Observations of PSR B1913+16 found that its orbit was losing energy due to the emission of gravitational waves, providing the first indirect evidence of their existence” | senses[2] |
| sense | GW170817 detection - SNR 32.4, extremely low estimated false-alarm rate, 28-square-degree localization, and about 40 Mpc distance — “On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per 8.0 × 104 years. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M⊙, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range 1.17–1.60 M⊙, with the total mass of the system 2.74+0.04 −0.01 M⊙. The source was localized within a sky region of 28 deg2 (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of 40+8 −14 Mpc, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology” | senses[3] |
| sense | Binary inspiral - gravitational radiation removes orbital energy, shrinking and accelerating the orbit while luminosity rises — “Observations of PSR B1913+16 found that its orbit was losing energy due to the emission of gravitational waves, providing the first indirect evidence of their existence [2]. As the orbit of a the gravitational-wave luminosity BNS system shrinks, increases, accelerating the inspiral. This process has long been predicted to produce a gravitational-wave signal observable by ground-based detectors [3–6] in the final minutes before the stars collide” | senses[4] |
| sense | Low-latency identification - post-Newtonian template search first saw Hanford alone because Livingston saturated and Virgo transfer lagged — “GW170817 was initially identified as a single-detector event with the LIGO-Hanford detector by a low-latency binary-coalescence search [81–83] using template waveforms computed in post-Newtonian theory [11,13,36,84]. The two LIGO detectors and the Virgo detector were all taking data at the time; however, the saturation at the LIGO- Livingston detector prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors, and the lowlatency transfer of Virgo data was delayed” | senses[5] |
| sense | Detection statistic / background - candidate signal ranking against the frequency with which noise reaches the same score — “Events are assigned a detection-statistic value that ranks their probability of being a gravitational-wave signal. Each search uses a different method to compute this statistic and measure the search background—the rate at which detector noise produces events with a detection-statistic value equal to or higher than the candidate event” | senses[6] |
| sense | Chirp mass - component-mass combination dominating low-frequency chirp evolution — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | senses[7] |
| sense | Waveform phase - progressively influenced by mass ratio and spin couplings as the orbit shrinks — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | senses[8] |
| sense | Source-property inference - Bayesian matching of detector data to predicted waveforms with calibration uncertainty included — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms. We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGO detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgo at the time of the event)” | senses[9] |
| sense | Glitch-mitigation validation - recovered-parameter bias remains within uncertainty after subtraction — “After applying the glitch subtraction technique, we found that the bias in recovered parameters relative to their known values was well within their uncertainties. This can be understood by noting that a small time cut out of the coherent integration of the phase evolution has little impact on the recovered parameters” | senses[10] |
| sense | Three-detector localization - timing, phase, and amplitude jointly restrict the event to one small region — “The source was localized to a region of the sky 28 deg2 in area, and 380 Mpc3 in volume, near the southern end of the constellation Hydra, by using a combination of the timing, phase, and amplitude of the source as observed in the three detectors [138,139]. The third detector, Virgo, was essential in localizing the source to a single region of the sky, as shown in Fig. 3. The small sky area triggered a successful follow-up campaign that identified an electromagnetic counterpart” | senses[11] |
| sense | Distance / inclination degeneracy - independent host distance sharpens the source viewing angle — “The distance measurement is correlated with the inclination angle cos θJN ¼ ˆJ · ˆN, where ˆJ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system and ˆN is that from the source towards the observer [140]. We find that the data are consistent with an antialigned source: cos θJN ≤ −0.54, and the viewing angle Θ ≡ minðθJN; 180° − θJNÞ is Θ ≤ 56°. Since the luminosity distance of this source can be determined independently of the gravitational wave data alone, we can use the association with NGC 4993 to break the distance degeneracy with cos θJN” | senses[12] |
| sense | Mass / spin prior dependence - well-constrained chirp mass coexists with component masses sensitive to admissible spin — “While the chirp mass is well constrained, our estimates of the component masses are affected by the degeneracy between mass ratio q and the aligned spin components χ1z and χ2z [38,146–150]. Therefore, the estimates of q and the component masses depend on assumptions made about the admissible values of the spins” | senses[13] |
| sense | Equation-of-state constraint - recovered deformabilities disfavor less compact stars, while a shared-EOS assumption should improve bounds — “We find that our constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 disfavor equations of state that predict less compact stars, since the mass range we recover generates Λ values outside the 90% probability region. This is consistent with radius constraints from x-ray observations of neutron stars [162–166]. Analysis methods, in development, that a priori assume the same EOS governs both stars should improve our constraints” | senses[14] |
| sense | Tidal-deformability systematics - current post-Newtonian limits are treated as conservative pending improved models — “Therefore, based on our current understanding of the physics of neutron stars, we consider the post-Newtonian results presented in this Letter to be conservative upper limits on tidal deformability. Refinements should be possible as our knowledge and models improve” | senses[15] |
| sense | Postmerger remnant - neutron-star or black-hole outcomes whose high-frequency radiation is difficult to observe — “Binary neutron star mergers may result in a shortor longlived neutron star remnant that could emit gravitational waves following the merger [184–190]. The ringdown of a black hole formed after the coalescence could also produce gravitational waves, at frequencies around 6 kHz, but the reduced interferometer response at high frequencies makes their observation unfeasible” | senses[16] |
| sense | Multi-messenger gravity test - 1.7-second GW/GRB delay constrains propagation speed, Lorentz symmetry, and equivalence — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | senses[17] |
| sense | Standard-siren cosmology - gravitational-wave distance plus host redshift measures H0 without the cosmic distance ladder — “The gravitational-wave signal gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distance of the source, which, along with a redshift measurement, can be used to infer cosmological parameters independently of the cosmic distance ladder” | senses[18] |
| sense | GW170817 interpretation - joint gravitational and electromagnetic analyses inform compact binaries, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology — “Subsequent observations have determined the location of the source and followed its evolution through the electromagnetic spectrum [50]. Detailed analyses of the gravitational-wave data, together with observations of electromagnetic emissions, are providing new insights into the astrophysics of compact binary systems and γ-ray bursts, dense matter under extreme conditions, the nature of gravitation, and independent tests of cosmology. Less than two years after the debut of gravitational-wave astronomy, GW170817 marks the beginning of a new era of discovery” | senses[19] |
| control | a transient instrumental GLITCH in the LIGO-Livingston detector was subtracted from the data, along with independently observable noise sources — held — rules out that the gravitational-wave signal is contaminated by a detector artefact - the glitch saturated the digital-to-analog converter and overlapped the event — “In the LIGO data, independently observable noise sources and a glitch that occurred in the LIGO-Livingston detector have been subtracted, as described in the text.” | controls[0] |
| control | the glitch was characterised: a saturation of under 5 ms in the converter of the feedback signal controlling test-mass position — held — rules out that the subtraction removed real signal - knowing the artefact's duration and origin bounds what the subtraction can have taken out — “This transient noise, or glitch [71], produced a very brief (less than 5 ms) saturation in the digital-to-analog converter of the feedback signal controlling the position of the test masses.” | controls[1] |
| note | gravitational waves —operationalised-as→ spacetime strain — THE CHAIN FROM PHENOMENON TO NUMBER IS PRINTED IN ONE SENTENCE: gravitational waves induce spacetime strain, which is measured as a varying phase difference between laser light in perpendicular arms. Three levels of description, and the paper states the substitution rather than assuming it. — “This detector network currently includes three Fabry-Perot-Michelson interferometers that measure spacetime strain induced by passing gravitational waves as a varying phase difference between laser light propagating in perpendicular arms” | concept_edges[0] |
| weight | gravitational waves —operationalised-as→ spacetime strain — 0.9 — “This detector network currently includes three Fabry-Perot-Michelson interferometers that measure spacetime strain induced by passing gravitational waves as a varying phase difference between laser light propagating in perpendicular arms” | concept_edges[0] |
| audit | neutron star merger —causes→ γ-ray burst — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the GRB association 'corroborates the hypothesis' and gives evidence of a link; causes is loose. — “The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short” | concept_edges[1] |
| evidential status | neutron star merger —causes→ γ-ray burst — ASSOCIATIONAL, AND THE PAPER SAYS SO IN ITS OWN WORDS. The span reads 'THE ASSOCIATION with the gamma-ray burst ... CORROBORATES THE HYPOTHESIS of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a LINK'. Association, hypothesis, link - the paper is careful and the edge type is not. Kept as 'causes' because a merger producing a burst is what the link is a link between; marked because nothing here demonstrates it. — “The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short” — “provides the first direct evidence of a link” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | neutron star merger —causes→ γ-ray burst — The claim is explicitly about EVIDENCE FOR A LINK, not the link itself - 'provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short gamma-ray bursts' - and the coincidence it rests on is 1.7 s. — “The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short” | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | neutron star merger —causes→ γ-ray burst — 0.9 — “The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short” | concept_edges[1] |
| note | mass ratio —causes→ gravitational-wave phase — The paper states that the phase is increasingly influenced by effects related to mass ratio. — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | concept_edges[3] |
| note | spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings —causes→ gravitational-wave phase — The paper includes spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings among influences on phase. — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | concept_edges[4] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the detection statistics: saturation at LIGO-Livingston PREVENTED THE SEARCH FROM REGISTERING A SIMULTANEOUS EVENT IN BOTH LIGO DETECTORS — “prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the identification of the sources as neutron stars: THE RESULTS PRESENTED HERE DO NOT EXCLUDE OBJECTS MORE COMPACT THAN NEUTRON STARS SUCH AS QUARK STARS, BLACK HOLES, OR MORE EXOTIC OBJECTS — “Gravitational-wave observations alone are able to measure the masses of the two objects and set a lower limit on their compactness, but the results presented here do not exclude objects more compact than neutron stars such as quark stars, black holes, or more exotic objects [57–61].” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the fate of the remnant: UPPER LIMITS PLACED ON THE STRENGTH OF GRAVITATIONAL-WAVE EMISSION CANNOT DEFINITIVELY RULE OUT THE EXISTENCE OF A SHORT- OR LONG-LIVED POSTMERGER NEUTRON STAR — “However, upper limits placed on the strength of gravitational-wave emission cannot definitively rule out the existence of a shortor long-lived postmerger neutron star.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — the tighter tidal-deformability bounds: FURTHER ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE UNCERTAINTIES OF THESE TIGHTER BOUNDS, AND A DETAILED STUDY OF SYSTEMATICS IS A SUBJECT OF ONGOING WORK — “Further analysis is required to establish the uncertainties of these tighter bounds, and a detailed study of systematics is a subject of ongoing work.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the LIGO-Livingston data the analysis rests on, after the glitch was subtracted: THEIR CAUSE REMAINS UNKNOWN — “Their cause remains unknown.” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — any single quoted limit on the tidal deformability from this event: the paper gives 1400 under the high-spin prior and 800 under the low-spin prior, so the number depends on an assumed spin range — “which gives Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 1400 for the high-spin prior and Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 800 for the lowspin prior.” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — the LIGO-Livingston data for this event: a glitch 1.1 s before coalescence produced a saturation in the digital-to-analog converter and had to be subtracted, and similar glitches occur every few hours in each detector — “Additionally, a short instrumental noise transient appeared in the LIGO-Livingston detector 1.1 s before the coalescence time of GW170817 as shown in Fig. 2. This transient noise, or glitch [71], produced a very brief (less than 5 ms) saturation in the digital-to-analog converter of the feedback signal controlling the position of the test masses. Similar glitches are registered roughly once every few hours in each of the LIGO detectors” | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — the detection pipeline's behaviour on GW170817: the saturation prevented the search registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors, and Virgo's low-latency transfer was delayed — “the saturation at the LIGO- Livingston detector prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors, and the lowlatency transfer of Virgo data was delayed.” | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — the absence of a detected postmerger signal as evidence about the remnant: the upper limits are stated as unable to definitively rule out a short- or long-lived postmerger neutron star — “However, upper limits placed on the strength of gravitational-wave emission cannot definitively rule out the existence of a shortor long-lived postmerger neutron star.” | limitations[8] |
| weight | same equation of state → constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 — 0.7 — “We find that our constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 disfavor equations of state that predict less compact stars, since the mass range we recover generates Λ values outside the 90% probability region. This is consistent with radius constraints from x-ray observations of neutron stars [162–166]. Analysis methods, in development, that a priori assume the same EOS governs both stars should improve our constraints” | unhoused_relations[3] |
| replication | replicated — “further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger” | |
| no type for this | properties of gravitational-wave sources → matching the data with predicted waveforms — Source properties are inferred by matching data with predicted waveforms; inferred-by is absent from the eight types, and the gate correctly refuses to treat inference as operationalisation without a measurement/definition cue. — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms. We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGO detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgo at the time of the event)” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| no type for this | distance measurement → inclination angle — Distance and inclination are correlated; correlated-with is absent, while none of the eight governed types expresses statistical dependence. — “The distance measurement is correlated with the inclination angle cos θJN ¼ ˆJ · ˆN, where ˆJ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system and ˆN is that from the source towards the observer [140]. We find that the data are consistent with an antialigned source: cos θJN ≤ −0.54, and the viewing angle Θ ≡ minðθJN; 180° − θJNÞ is Θ ≤ 56°. Since the luminosity distance of this source can be determined independently of the gravitational wave data alone, we can use the association with NGC 4993 to break the distance degeneracy with cos θJN” | unhoused_relations[1] |
| no type for this | degeneracy between mass ratio → admissible values of the spins — The component-mass estimates depend on the allowed spin range because of mass–spin degeneracy; depends-on is absent from the eight types. — “While the chirp mass is well constrained, our estimates of the component masses are affected by the degeneracy between mass ratio q and the aligned spin components χ1z and χ2z [38,146–150]. Therefore, the estimates of q and the component masses depend on assumptions made about the admissible values of the spins” | unhoused_relations[2] |
| no type for this | same equation of state → constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 — Assuming the same EOS for both stars should improve joint tidal-deformability constraints; assumption-enables is absent and is not an is-a or part-of relation. — “We find that our constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 disfavor equations of state that predict less compact stars, since the mass range we recover generates Λ values outside the 90% probability region. This is consistent with radius constraints from x-ray observations of neutron stars [162–166]. Analysis methods, in development, that a priori assume the same EOS governs both stars should improve our constraints” | unhoused_relations[3] |
| no type for this | reduced interferometer response at high frequencies → ringdown of a black hole — Reduced high-frequency detector response makes black-hole ringdown observation infeasible; hinders-observation-of is absent, and the relation is not containment, identity, contrast, definition, or direct physical causation between the named phenomena. — “Binary neutron star mergers may result in a shortor longlived neutron star remnant that could emit gravitational waves following the merger [184–190]. The ringdown of a black hole formed after the coalescence could also produce gravitational waves, at frequencies around 6 kHz, but the reduced interferometer response at high frequencies makes their observation unfeasible” | unhoused_relations[4] |
| no type for this | luminosity distance → redshift measurement — Luminosity distance is combined with redshift to infer cosmological parameters; combined-with is absent from all eight edge types. — “The gravitational-wave signal gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distance of the source, which, along with a redshift measurement, can be used to infer cosmological parameters independently of the cosmic distance ladder” | unhoused_relations[5] |
| limitation | saturation at LIGO-Livingston prevented a simultaneous two-detector registration — “prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | The gravitational-wave data alone cannot exclude more exotic compact objects as the source components. — “Gravitational-wave observations alone are able to measure the masses of the two objects and set a lower limit on their compactness, but the results presented here do not exclude objects more compact than neutron stars such as quark stars, black holes, or more exotic objects [57–61].” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | No postmerger signal was found, but its absence does not settle the fate of the remnant. — “However, upper limits placed on the strength of gravitational-wave emission cannot definitively rule out the existence of a shortor long-lived postmerger neutron star.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The tighter tidal-deformability bounds from the effective-one-body analysis are not yet established. — “Further analysis is required to establish the uncertainties of these tighter bounds, and a detailed study of systematics is a subject of ongoing work.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The origin of the instrumental glitch that had to be subtracted from the LIGO-Livingston data is not understood. — “Their cause remains unknown.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | The headline constraint on neutron-star matter has two values, differing by 75%, according to which spin prior is assumed — and both are published in the same sentence. — “which gives Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 1400 for the high-spin prior and Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 800 for the lowspin prior.” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | A detector glitch 1.1 s before the coalescence saturated the converter, and such glitches occur every few hours in each detector. — “Additionally, a short instrumental noise transient appeared in the LIGO-Livingston detector 1.1 s before the coalescence time of GW170817 as shown in Fig. 2. This transient noise, or glitch [71], produced a very brief (less than 5 ms) saturation in the digital-to-analog converter of the feedback signal controlling the position of the test masses. Similar glitches are registered roughly once every few hours in each of the LIGO detectors” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The automatic search did not register the event in both LIGO detectors, because of that saturation. — “the saturation at the LIGO- Livingston detector prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors, and the lowlatency transfer of Virgo data was delayed.” | limitations[7] |
| limitation | The upper limits on postmerger emission are stated not to settle what the merger left behind. — “However, upper limits placed on the strength of gravitational-wave emission cannot definitively rule out the existence of a shortor long-lived postmerger neutron star.” | limitations[8] |
| limitation | The low-spin bound is reported as only beginning to compete with an existing x-ray bound - 970 against 1000 at 95% - so on this quantity the new measurement does not clearly better the older method. — “A 95% upper bound inferred with the low-spin prior, Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 970, begins to compete with the 95% upper bound of 1000 derived from x-ray observations in [168]” | limitations[9] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral — “made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | first direct evidence linking neutron-star mergers to short gamma-ray bursts — “provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | the loudest gravitational-wave signal observed to date — “gravitational-wave signal is the loudest yet observed” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation informs astrophysics and cosmology — “This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| quantity | 32.4 SNR — combined signal-to-noise ratio of GW170817 — “a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4” | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 1 per 8.0e4 years — false-alarm-rate upper bound — “a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per 8.0 × 104” | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| evidence status note | quantity — FLATTENED EXPONENT IN THIS QUOTE - THE NUMBER IS WRONG BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE AS IT STANDS. The staged text reads '8.0 × 104', where the paper writes 10 to the power 4. The superscript was pushed onto the line by the PDF extractor. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired - repair means re-staging the body and re-anchoring the record. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 28 deg^2 — sky-localization area (90% probability) — “localized within a sky region of 28 deg” | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 40 Mpc — luminosity distance to the source — “had a luminosity distance of 40” | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 1.7 seconds — delay of the gamma-ray burst after coalescence — “detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the” | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 100 seconds — signal duration in the sensitive band from 24 Hz — “∼100 s (calculated starting from 24 Hz)” | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| variable | component masses (inferred binary masses) — “We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M” | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | chirp mass (best-measured mass combination) — “the masses is the chirp mass” | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (detection strength) — “combined signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 32.4” | content_tags.variables[2] |
| variable | sky localization (enabled electromagnetic follow-up) — “allowed a precise sky” | content_tags.variables[3] |
| definition | binary neutron star (BNS) merger — “two low-mass compact objects consistent with a binary neutron star (BNS) merger” | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | GW170817 — “The signal, GW170817, was detected” | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | matched filtering — “was identified by matched filtering” | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | chirp mass — “the masses is the chirp mass” | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| key-terms | gravitational waves, binary neutron star, inspiral, LIGO, Virgo, signal-to-noise ratio, chirp mass, gamma-ray burst, neutron star merger, luminosity distance, coalescence |
| concept | tidal deformability — “Therefore, based on our current understanding of the physics of neutron stars, we consider the post-Newtonian results presented in this Letter to be conservative upper limits on tidal deformability.” | concepts[5] |
| concept | glitch — “This transient noise, or glitch [71], produced a very brief (less than 5 ms) saturation in the digital-to-analog converter of the feedback signal controlling the position of the test masses.” | concepts[6] |
| concept | postmerger neutron star — “However, upper limits placed on the strength of gravitational-wave emission cannot definitively rule out the existence of a shortor long-lived postmerger neutron star.” | concepts[7] |
| concept | spacetime strain — “This detector network currently includes three Fabry-Perot-Michelson interferometers that measure spacetime strain induced by passing gravitational waves as a varying phase difference between laser light propagating in perpendicular arms” | concepts[8] |
| concept | neutron star merger — “The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short” | concepts[9] |
| concept | combined signal-to-noise ratio — not defined in this paper's own words; network detection-strength measure reported as 32.4 — “On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per 8.0 × 104 years. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M⊙, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range 1.17–1.60 M⊙, with the total mass of the system 2.74+0.04 −0.01 M⊙. The source was localized within a sky region of 28 deg2 (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of 40+8 −14 Mpc, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology” | concepts[10] |
| concept | false-alarm-rate estimate — not defined in this paper's own words; estimated accidental-event frequency used to quantify detection significance — “On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per 8.0 × 104 years. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M⊙, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range 1.17–1.60 M⊙, with the total mass of the system 2.74+0.04 −0.01 M⊙. The source was localized within a sky region of 28 deg2 (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of 40+8 −14 Mpc, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology” | concepts[11] |
| concept | luminosity distance — not defined in this paper's own words; gravitational-wave distance estimate used for localization and cosmology — “On August 17, 2017 at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron star inspiral. The signal, GW170817, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratio of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimate of less than one per 8.0 × 104 years. We infer the component masses of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M⊙, in agreement with masses of known neutron stars. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron stars, we find the component masses to be in the range 1.17–1.60 M⊙, with the total mass of the system 2.74+0.04 −0.01 M⊙. The source was localized within a sky region of 28 deg2 (90% probability) and had a luminosity distance of 40+8 −14 Mpc, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signal yet. The association with the γ-ray burst GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescence, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star merger and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray bursts. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star merger. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology” | concepts[12] |
| concept | gravitational-wave signal — not defined in this paper's own words; detector observation that directly supplies a luminosity-distance measurement — “The gravitational-wave signal gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distance of the source, which, along with a redshift measurement, can be used to infer cosmological parameters independently of the cosmic distance ladder” | concepts[13] |
| concept | electromagnetic counterpart — not defined in this paper's own words; non-gravitational transient localized to the same source region — “A rapid binary-coalescence reanalysis [86,87], with the time series around the glitch suppressed with a window function [73], as shown in Fig. 2, confirmed the presence of a significant coincident signal in the LIGO detectors. The source was rapidly localized to a region of 31 deg2, shown in Fig. 3, using data from all three detectors [88]. This sky map was issued to observing partners, allowing the identification of an electromagnetic counterpart” | concepts[14] |
| concept | losing energy due to the emission of gravitational waves — not defined in this paper's own words; binary orbital-energy loss through gravitational radiation — “Observations of PSR B1913+16 found that its orbit was losing energy due to the emission of gravitational waves, providing the first indirect evidence of their existence [2]. As the orbit of a the gravitational-wave luminosity BNS system shrinks, increases, accelerating the inspiral. This process has long been predicted to produce a gravitational-wave signal observable by ground-based detectors [3–6] in the final minutes before the stars collide” | concepts[15] |
| concept | gravitational-wave luminosity — not defined in this paper's own words; radiated power that increases as the binary orbit shrinks — “Observations of PSR B1913+16 found that its orbit was losing energy due to the emission of gravitational waves, providing the first indirect evidence of their existence [2]. As the orbit of a the gravitational-wave luminosity BNS system shrinks, increases, accelerating the inspiral. This process has long been predicted to produce a gravitational-wave signal observable by ground-based detectors [3–6] in the final minutes before the stars collide” | concepts[16] |
| concept | low-latency binary-coalescence search — not defined in this paper's own words; rapid matched-filter pipeline that first identified the event — “GW170817 was initially identified as a single-detector event with the LIGO-Hanford detector by a low-latency binary-coalescence search [81–83] using template waveforms computed in post-Newtonian theory [11,13,36,84]. The two LIGO detectors and the Virgo detector were all taking data at the time; however, the saturation at the LIGO- Livingston detector prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors, and the lowlatency transfer of Virgo data was delayed” | concepts[17] |
| concept | template waveforms — not defined in this paper's own words; post-Newtonian signal templates used by the detection search — “GW170817 was initially identified as a single-detector event with the LIGO-Hanford detector by a low-latency binary-coalescence search [81–83] using template waveforms computed in post-Newtonian theory [11,13,36,84]. The two LIGO detectors and the Virgo detector were all taking data at the time; however, the saturation at the LIGO- Livingston detector prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGO detectors, and the lowlatency transfer of Virgo data was delayed” | concepts[18] |
| concept | rapid binary-coalescence reanalysis — not defined in this paper's own words; coincident reanalysis after suppressing the Livingston glitch — “A rapid binary-coalescence reanalysis [86,87], with the time series around the glitch suppressed with a window function [73], as shown in Fig. 2, confirmed the presence of a significant coincident signal in the LIGO detectors. The source was rapidly localized to a region of 31 deg2, shown in Fig. 3, using data from all three detectors [88]. This sky map was issued to observing partners, allowing the identification of an electromagnetic counterpart” | concepts[19] |
| concept | window function — not defined in this paper's own words; operation suppressing time-series samples around the detector glitch — “A rapid binary-coalescence reanalysis [86,87], with the time series around the glitch suppressed with a window function [73], as shown in Fig. 2, confirmed the presence of a significant coincident signal in the LIGO detectors. The source was rapidly localized to a region of 31 deg2, shown in Fig. 3, using data from all three detectors [88]. This sky map was issued to observing partners, allowing the identification of an electromagnetic counterpart” | concepts[20] |
| concept | detection-statistic value — not defined in this paper's own words; ranking quantity for signal-versus-noise probability — “Events are assigned a detection-statistic value that ranks their probability of being a gravitational-wave signal. Each search uses a different method to compute this statistic and measure the search background—the rate at which detector noise produces events with a detection-statistic value equal to or higher than the candidate event” | concepts[21] |
| concept | search background — not defined in this paper's own words; rate at which noise attains a candidate's detection statistic — “Events are assigned a detection-statistic value that ranks their probability of being a gravitational-wave signal. Each search uses a different method to compute this statistic and measure the search background—the rate at which detector noise produces events with a detection-statistic value equal to or higher than the candidate event” | concepts[22] |
| concept | chirp mass — not defined in this paper's own words; component-mass combination governing early frequency evolution — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | concepts[23] |
| concept | gravitational-wave phase — not defined in this paper's own words; waveform phase increasingly shaped by mass ratio and spin couplings — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | concepts[24] |
| concept | mass ratio — not defined in this paper's own words; secondary-to-primary mass ratio entering relativistic phase evolution — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | concepts[25] |
| concept | spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings — not defined in this paper's own words; relativistic interactions influencing the inspiral phase — “At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component masses m1 and m2, the chirp mass M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phase is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratio q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplings” | concepts[26] |
| concept | properties of gravitational-wave sources — not defined in this paper's own words; astrophysical parameters inferred from waveform-data agreement — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms. We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGO detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgo at the time of the event)” | concepts[27] |
| concept | matching the data with predicted waveforms — not defined in this paper's own words; comparison of detector data with predicted gravitational waveforms — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms. We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGO detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgo at the time of the event)” | concepts[28] |
| concept | Bayesian analysis — not defined in this paper's own words; 30–2048 Hz parameter-inference procedure including calibration uncertainty — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms. We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGO detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgo at the time of the event)” | concepts[29] |
| concept | calibration uncertainties — not defined in this paper's own words; detector amplitude and phase uncertainties included in inference — “The properties of gravitational-wave sources are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveforms. We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGO detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgo at the time of the event)” | concepts[30] |
| concept | glitch subtraction technique — not defined in this paper's own words; subtraction procedure tested for parameter-estimation bias — “After applying the glitch subtraction technique, we found that the bias in recovered parameters relative to their known values was well within their uncertainties. This can be understood by noting that a small time cut out of the coherent integration of the phase evolution has little impact on the recovered parameters” | concepts[31] |
| concept | bias in recovered parameters — not defined in this paper's own words; difference between recovered and injected parameters after mitigation — “After applying the glitch subtraction technique, we found that the bias in recovered parameters relative to their known values was well within their uncertainties. This can be understood by noting that a small time cut out of the coherent integration of the phase evolution has little impact on the recovered parameters” | concepts[32] |
| concept | timing, phase, and amplitude of the source — not defined in this paper's own words; three-detector observables combined for sky localization — “The source was localized to a region of the sky 28 deg2 in area, and 380 Mpc3 in volume, near the southern end of the constellation Hydra, by using a combination of the timing, phase, and amplitude of the source as observed in the three detectors [138,139]. The third detector, Virgo, was essential in localizing the source to a single region of the sky, as shown in Fig. 3. The small sky area triggered a successful follow-up campaign that identified an electromagnetic counterpart” | concepts[33] |
| concept | distance measurement — not defined in this paper's own words; distance estimate statistically coupled to viewing geometry — “The distance measurement is correlated with the inclination angle cos θJN ¼ ˆJ · ˆN, where ˆJ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system and ˆN is that from the source towards the observer [140]. We find that the data are consistent with an antialigned source: cos θJN ≤ −0.54, and the viewing angle Θ ≡ minðθJN; 180° − θJNÞ is Θ ≤ 56°. Since the luminosity distance of this source can be determined independently of the gravitational wave data alone, we can use the association with NGC 4993 to break the distance degeneracy with cos θJN” | concepts[34] |
| concept | inclination angle — not defined in this paper's own words; source-orientation parameter correlated with inferred distance — “The distance measurement is correlated with the inclination angle cos θJN ¼ ˆJ · ˆN, where ˆJ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system and ˆN is that from the source towards the observer [140]. We find that the data are consistent with an antialigned source: cos θJN ≤ −0.54, and the viewing angle Θ ≡ minðθJN; 180° − θJNÞ is Θ ≤ 56°. Since the luminosity distance of this source can be determined independently of the gravitational wave data alone, we can use the association with NGC 4993 to break the distance degeneracy with cos θJN” | concepts[35] |
| concept | distance degeneracy — not defined in this paper's own words; distance–inclination ambiguity reduced with a host-galaxy distance — “The distance measurement is correlated with the inclination angle cos θJN ¼ ˆJ · ˆN, where ˆJ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system and ˆN is that from the source towards the observer [140]. We find that the data are consistent with an antialigned source: cos θJN ≤ −0.54, and the viewing angle Θ ≡ minðθJN; 180° − θJNÞ is Θ ≤ 56°. Since the luminosity distance of this source can be determined independently of the gravitational wave data alone, we can use the association with NGC 4993 to break the distance degeneracy with cos θJN” | concepts[36] |
| concept | degeneracy between mass ratio — not defined in this paper's own words; mass-ratio and aligned-spin tradeoff broadening component masses — “While the chirp mass is well constrained, our estimates of the component masses are affected by the degeneracy between mass ratio q and the aligned spin components χ1z and χ2z [38,146–150]. Therefore, the estimates of q and the component masses depend on assumptions made about the admissible values of the spins” | concepts[37] |
| concept | admissible values of the spins — not defined in this paper's own words; prior range controlling inferred mass ratio and component masses — “While the chirp mass is well constrained, our estimates of the component masses are affected by the degeneracy between mass ratio q and the aligned spin components χ1z and χ2z [38,146–150]. Therefore, the estimates of q and the component masses depend on assumptions made about the admissible values of the spins” | concepts[38] |
| concept | same equation of state — not defined in this paper's own words; shared neutron-star matter relation assumed for both components — “We find that our constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 disfavor equations of state that predict less compact stars, since the mass range we recover generates Λ values outside the 90% probability region. This is consistent with radius constraints from x-ray observations of neutron stars [162–166]. Analysis methods, in development, that a priori assume the same EOS governs both stars should improve our constraints” | concepts[39] |
| concept | constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 — not defined in this paper's own words; joint deformability restrictions disfavoring less compact equations of state — “We find that our constraints on Λ1 and Λ2 disfavor equations of state that predict less compact stars, since the mass range we recover generates Λ values outside the 90% probability region. This is consistent with radius constraints from x-ray observations of neutron stars [162–166]. Analysis methods, in development, that a priori assume the same EOS governs both stars should improve our constraints” | concepts[40] |
| concept | post-Newtonian results — not defined in this paper's own words; tidal-deformability bounds treated as conservative pending improved physics and models — “Therefore, based on our current understanding of the physics of neutron stars, we consider the post-Newtonian results presented in this Letter to be conservative upper limits on tidal deformability. Refinements should be possible as our knowledge and models improve” | concepts[41] |
| concept | local coalescence rate density — not defined in this paper's own words; inferred nearby binary-neutron-star merger-rate density — “Our analyses identified GW170817 as the only BNSmass signal detected in O2 with a false alarm rate below 1=100 yr. Using a method derived from [27,178,179], and assuming that the mass distribution of the components of BNS systems is flat between 1 and 2 M⊙ and their dimensionless spins are below 0.4, we are able to infer the local coalescence rate density R of BNS systems. Incorporating the upper limit of 12600 Gpc−3 yr−1 from O1 as a prior, R = 1540+3200 −1220 Gpc−3 yr−1. Our findings are consistent with the rate inferred from observations of galactic BNS systems” | concepts[42] |
| concept | neutron star remnant — not defined in this paper's own words; short- or long-lived object possibly left by the merger — “Binary neutron star mergers may result in a shortor longlived neutron star remnant that could emit gravitational waves following the merger [184–190]. The ringdown of a black hole formed after the coalescence could also produce gravitational waves, at frequencies around 6 kHz, but the reduced interferometer response at high frequencies makes their observation unfeasible” | concepts[43] |
| concept | ringdown of a black hole — not defined in this paper's own words; post-coalescence black-hole oscillation near 6 kHz — “Binary neutron star mergers may result in a shortor longlived neutron star remnant that could emit gravitational waves following the merger [184–190]. The ringdown of a black hole formed after the coalescence could also produce gravitational waves, at frequencies around 6 kHz, but the reduced interferometer response at high frequencies makes their observation unfeasible” | concepts[44] |
| concept | reduced interferometer response at high frequencies — not defined in this paper's own words; high-frequency detector limitation making ringdown observation infeasible — “Binary neutron star mergers may result in a shortor longlived neutron star remnant that could emit gravitational waves following the merger [184–190]. The ringdown of a black hole formed after the coalescence could also produce gravitational waves, at frequencies around 6 kHz, but the reduced interferometer response at high frequencies makes their observation unfeasible” | concepts[45] |
| concept | speed of gravity — not defined in this paper's own words; fundamental-gravity quantity constrained by GW/GRB timing — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | concepts[46] |
| concept | Lorentz invariance — not defined in this paper's own words; symmetry tested using the observed arrival-time relation — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | concepts[47] |
| concept | equivalence principle — not defined in this paper's own words; principle tested through differential Shapiro delay — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | concepts[48] |
| concept | Shapiro time delay — not defined in this paper's own words; propagation-delay test of the equivalence principle — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | concepts[49] |
| concept | parametrized waveform expansion — not defined in this paper's own words; general-relativity deviation test enabled by the long BNS signal — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | concepts[50] |
| concept | systematic uncertainties — not defined in this paper's own words; waveform-modeling and data-conditioning uncertainty required for gravity bounds — “GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distance, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravity, Lorentz invariance, and tests of the equivalence principle through the Shapiro time delay, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativity using a parametrized waveform expansion [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertainties resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations” | concepts[51] |
| concept | redshift measurement — not defined in this paper's own words; host-galaxy input combined with gravitational-wave distance — “The gravitational-wave signal gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distance of the source, which, along with a redshift measurement, can be used to infer cosmological parameters independently of the cosmic distance ladder” | concepts[52] |
| concept | cosmological parameters — not defined in this paper's own words; quantities inferred independently of the traditional distance ladder — “The gravitational-wave signal gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distance of the source, which, along with a redshift measurement, can be used to infer cosmological parameters independently of the cosmic distance ladder” | concepts[53] |
| concept | cosmic distance ladder — not defined in this paper's own words; conventional distance-calibration chain bypassed by the joint measurement — “The gravitational-wave signal gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distance of the source, which, along with a redshift measurement, can be used to infer cosmological parameters independently of the cosmic distance ladder” | concepts[54] |
| concept | Hubble constant — not defined in this paper's own words; cosmological expansion rate inferred from distance plus host redshift — “Using the association with the galaxy NGC 4993 and the luminosity distance directly measured from the gravitational-wave signal, the Hubble constant is inferred to be H0 = 70+12 −8 km s−1 Mpc−1 [141]” | concepts[55] |
| Bayesian | — “We perform a Bayesian analysis in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertainties on the received signal” | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| correlation r | as written: correlations — “The individual masses are in the broad range of 0.86 to 2.26 M⊙, due to correlations between their uncertainties.” | content_tags.statistics[1] |
Full text — tagged
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) Selected for a Viewpoint in Physics P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date GW170817term·def: Observation of Gravitational Wavesterm·dom from a Binary Neutron Starterm·key Inspiralterm·key B. P. Abbott et al.* (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName) (Received 26 September 2017date; revised manuscript received 2 October 2017date; published 16 October 2017date) On August 17, 2017date at 12∶41:04 UTC the Advanced LIGOterm·key and Advanced Virgoterm·key gravitational-wave detectors made their first observation of a binary neutron starterm·key inspiralterm·key. The signal, GW170817term·def, was detected with a combined signal-to-noise ratioterm of 32.4 and a false-alarm-rate estimateterm of less than one per 8.0 × 104 years. We infer the component massesterm·var of the binary to be between 0.86 and 2.26 M⊙, in agreement with masses of known neutron starsterm·dom. Restricting the component spins to the range inferred in binary neutron starsterm·key, we find the component massesterm·var to be in the range 1.17–1.60 M⊙, with the total mass of the system 2.74+0.04 −0.01 M⊙. The source was localized within a sky region of 28 deg2 (90% probability) and had a luminosity distanceterm of 40+8 −14 Mpc, the closest and most precisely localized gravitational-wave signalterm yet. The association with the γ-ray burstterm·dom GRB 170817A, detected by Fermi-GBM 1.7 s after the coalescenceterm·key, corroborates the hypothesis of a neutron star mergerterm and provides the first direct evidence of a link between these mergers and short γ-ray burststerm·dom. Subsequent identification of transient counterparts across the electromagnetic spectrum in the same location further supports the interpretation of this event as a neutron star mergerterm. This unprecedented joint gravitational and electromagnetic observation provides insight into astrophysics, dense matter, gravitation, and cosmology. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 I. INTRODUCTION On August 17, 2017date, the LIGO-Virgo detector network observed a gravitational-wave signalterm from the inspiralterm·key of two low-mass compact objects consistent with a binary neutron star (BNS) mergerterm·def. This discovery comes four decades after Hulse and Taylor discovered the first neutron starterm·dom binary, PSR B1913+16 [1]. Observations of PSR B1913+16 found that its orbit was losing energy due to the emission of gravitational wavesterm, providing the first indirect evidence of their existence [2]. As the orbit of a the gravitational-wave luminosityterm BNS system shrinks, increases, accelerating the inspiralterm·key. This process has long been predicted to produce a gravitational-wave signalterm observable by ground-based detectors [3–6] in the final minutes before the stars collide [7]. Since the Hulse-Taylor discovery, radio pulsar surveys have found several more BNS systems in our galaxy [8]. Understanding the orbital dynamics of these systems inspired detailed theoretical predictions for gravitationalwave signals from compact binaries [9–13]. Models of the population of compact binaries, informed by the known binary pulsars, predicted that the network of advanced gravitational-wave detectors operating at design sensitivity *Full author list given at the end of the Letter. Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of license. the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. will observe between one BNS merger every few years to hundreds per year [14–21]. This detector network currently includes three Fabry-Perot-Michelson interferometers that measure spacetime strainterm induced by passing gravitational wavesterm·dom as a varying phase difference between laser light propagating in perpendicular arms: the two Advanced LIGOterm·key detectors (Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA) [22] and the Advanced Virgoterm·key detector (Cascina, Italy) [23]. Advanced LIGOterm·key’s first observing run (O1), from September 12, 2015, to January 19, 2016, obtained 49 days of simultaneous observation time in two detectors. While two confirmed binary black hole (BBH) mergers were discovered [24–26], no detections or significant candidates had component massesterm·var lower than 5M⊙, placing a 90% credible upper limit of 12 600 Gpc−3 yr−1 on the rate of BNS mergers [27] (credible intervals throughout this Letter contain 90% of the posterior probability unless noted otherwise). This measurement did not impinge on the range of astrophysical predictions, which allow rates as high as ∼10 000 Gpc−3 yr−1 [19]. The second observing run (O2) of Advanced LIGOterm·key, from November 30, 2016 to August 25, 2017date, collected 117 days of simultaneous LIGO-detector observing time. Advanced Virgoterm·key joined the O2 run on August 1, 2017date. At the time of this publication, two BBH detections have been announced [28,29] from the O2 run, and analysis is still in progress. Toward the end of the O2 run a BNS signal, GW170817term·def, was identified by matched filteringterm·def [7,30–33] the data against post-Newtonian waveform models [34–37]. This gravitational-wave signalterm is the loudest yet observed, with a combined signal-to-noise ratioterm (SNR) of 32.4 [38]. After 0031-9007=17=119(16)=161101(18) 161101-1 Published by the American Physical Society PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date ∼100 s (calculated starting from 24 Hz) in the detectors’ sensitive band, the inspiralterm·key signal ended at 12∶41:04.4 UTC. In addition, a γ-ray burstterm·dom was observed 1.7 s after the coalescenceterm·key time [39–45]. The combination of data from the LIGOterm·key and Virgoterm·key detectors allowed a precise sky position localization to an area of 28 deg2. This measurement enabled an electromagnetic follow-up campaign that identified a counterpart near the galaxy NGC 4993, consistent with the localization and distance inferred from gravitational-wave data [46–50]. From the gravitational-wave signalterm, the best measured the masses is the chirp massterm [51] combination of M = 1.188+0.004 −0.002 M⊙. From the union of 90% credible intervals obtained using different waveform models (see Sec. IV for details), the total mass of the system is between 2.73 and 3.29 M⊙. The individual masses are in the broad range of 0.86 to 2.26 M⊙, due to correlations between their uncertainties. This suggests a BNS as the source of the gravitational-wave signalterm, as the total masses of known BNS systems are between 2.57 and 2.88 M⊙ with components between 1.17 and ∼1.6 M⊙ [52]. Neutron starsterm·dom in general have precisely measured masses as large as 2.01 (cid:2) 0.04 M⊙ [53], whereas stellar-mass black holes found in binaries in our galaxy have masses substantially greater than the components of GW170817term·def [54–56]. Gravitational-wave observations alone are able to measure the masses of the two objects and set a lower limit on their compactness, but the results presented here do not exclude objects more compact than neutron starsterm·dom such as quark stars, black holes, or more exotic objects [57–61]. The detection of GRB 170817A and subsequent electromagnetic emission demonstrates the presence of matter. Moreover, although a neutron starterm·dom–black hole system is not ruled out, the consistency of the mass estimates with the dynamically measured masses of known neutron starsterm·dom in binaries, and their inconsistency with the masses of known black holes in galactic binary systems, suggests the source was composed of two neutron starsterm·dom. II. DATA FIG. 1. Time-frequency representations [65] of data containing the gravitational-wave event GW170817term·def, observed by the LIGO- Hanford (top), LIGO-Livingston (middle), and Virgoterm·key (bottom) detectors. Times are shown relative to August 17, 2017date 12∶41:04 UTC. The amplitude scale in each detector is normalized to that detector’s noise amplitude spectral density. In the LIGOterm·key data, independently observable noise sources and a glitchterm·dom that occurred in the LIGO-Livingston detector have been subtracted, as described in the text. This noise mitigation is the same as that used for the results presented in Sec. IV. At the time of GW170817term·def, the Advanced LIGOterm·key detectors and the Advanced Virgoterm·key detector were in observing mode. The maximum distances at which the LIGO- Livingston and LIGO-Hanford detectors could detect a BNS system (SNR = 8), known as the detector horizon [32,62,63], were 218 Mpc and 107 Mpc, while for Virgoterm·key the horizon was 58 Mpc. The GEO600 detector [64] was also operating at the time, but its sensitivity was insufficient to contribute to the analysis of the inspiralterm·key. The configuration of the detectors at the time of GW170817term·def is summarized in [29]. A time-frequency representation [65] of the data from all three detectors around the time of the signal is shown in Fig 1. The signal is clearly visible in the LIGO-Hanford is not visible and LIGO-Livingston data. The signal in the Virgoterm·key data due to the lower BNS horizon and the direction of the source with respect to the detector’s antenna pattern. Figure 1 illustrates the data as they were analyzed to determine astrophysical source properties. After data collection, several independently measured terrestrial contributions to the detector noise were subtracted from the LIGOterm·key data using Wiener filtering [66], as described in [67–70]. This subtraction removed calibration lines and 60 Hz ac power mains harmonics from both LIGOterm·key data streams. The sensitivity of the LIGO-Hanford detector was particularly improved by the subtraction of laser pointing noise; several broad peaks in the 150–800 Hz region were effectively removed, increasing the BNS horizon of that detector by 26%. 161101-2 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date Additionally, a short instrumental noise transient appeared in the LIGO-Livingston detector 1.1 s before the coalescenceterm·key time of GW170817term·def as shown in Fig. 2. This transient noise, or glitchterm·dom [71], produced a very brief (less than 5 ms) saturation in the digital-to-analog converter of the feedback signal controlling the position of the test masses. Similar glitchesterm·dom are registered roughly once every few hours in each of the LIGOterm·key detectors with no temporal correlation between the LIGOterm·key sites. Their cause remains unknown. To mitigate the effect on the results presented in Sec. III, the search analyses applied a window functionterm to zero out the data around the glitchterm·dom [72,73], following the treatment of other high-amplitude glitchesterm·dom used in the O1 analysis [74]. To accurately determine the properties of GW170817term·def (as reported in Sec. IV) in addition to the noise subtraction described above, the glitchterm·dom was modeled with a time-frequency wavelet reconstruction [75] and subtracted from the data, as shown in Fig. 2. Following the procedures developed for prior gravitational-wave detections [29,78], we conclude there is no environmental disturbance observed by LIGOterm·key environmental sensors [79] that could account for the GW170817term·def signal. The Virgoterm·key data, used for sky localizationterm·var and an estimation of the source properties, are shown in the bottom panel of Fig. 1. The Virgoterm·key data are nonstationary above 150 Hz due to scattered light from the output optics modulated by alignment fluctuations and below 30 Hz due to seismic noise from anthropogenic activity. Occasional noise excess around the European power mains frequency of 50 Hz is also present. No noise subtraction was applied to the Virgoterm·key data prior to this analysis. The low signal amplitude observed in Virgoterm·key significantly constrained the sky position, but meant the Virgoterm·key data did not that contribute significantly to other parameters. As a result, the estimation of the source’s parameters reported in Sec. IV is not impacted by the nonstationarity of Virgoterm·key data at the time of the event. Moreover, no unusual disturbance was observed by Virgoterm·key environmental sensors. Data used in this study can be found in [80]. III. DETECTION GW170817term·def was initially identified as a single-detector event with the LIGO-Hanford detector by a low-latency binary-coalescence searchterm [81–83] using template waveformsterm computed in post-Newtonian theory [11,13,36,84]. The two LIGOterm·key detectors and the Virgoterm·key detector were all taking data at the time; however, the saturation at the LIGO- Livingston detector prevented the search from registering a simultaneous event in both LIGOterm·key detectors, and the lowlatency transfer of Virgoterm·key data was delayed. Visual inspection of the LIGO-Hanford and LIGO- Livingston detector data showed the presence of a clear, long-duration chirp signal in time-frequency representations of the detector strain data. As a result, an initial alert was FIG. 2. Mitigation of the glitchterm·dom in LIGO-Livingston data. Times are shown relative to August 17, 2017date 12∶41:04 UTC. Top panel: A time-frequency representation [65] of the raw LIGO-Livingston data used in the initial identification of GW170817term·def [76]. The coalescenceterm·key time reported by the search is at time 0.4 s in this figure and the glitchterm·dom occurs 1.1 s before this time. The timefrequency track of GW170817term·def is clearly visible despite the presence of the glitchterm·dom. Bottom panel: The raw LIGO-Livingston strain data (orange curve) showing the glitchterm·dom in the time domain. To mitigate the glitchterm·dom in the rapid reanalysis that produced the sky map shown in Fig. 3 [77], the raw detector data were multiplied by an inverse Tukey window (gray curve, right axis) that zeroed out the data around the glitchterm·dom [73]. To mitigate the glitchterm·dom in the measurement of the source’s properties, a model of the glitchterm·dom based on a wavelet reconstruction [75] (blue curve) was subtracted from the data. The time-series data visualized in this figure have been bandpassed between 30 Hz and 2 kHz so that the detector’s sensitive band is emphasized. The gravitational-wave strain amplitude of GW170817term·def is of the order of 10−22 and so is not visible in the bottom panel. generated reporting a highly significant detection of a binary neutron starterm·key signal [85] in coincidence with the independently observed γ-ray burstterm·dom GRB 170817A [39–41]. A rapid binary-coalescence reanalysisterm [86,87], with the time series around the glitchterm·dom suppressed with a window functionterm [73], as shown in Fig. 2, confirmed the presence of a significant coincident signal in the LIGOterm·key detectors. The source was rapidly localized to a region of 31 deg2, shown in Fig. 3, using data from all three detectors [88]. This sky map was issued to observing partners, allowing the identification of an electromagnetic counterpartterm [46,48,50,77]. The combined SNR of GW170817term·def is estimated to be 32.4, with values 18.8, 26.4, and 2.0 in the LIGO-Hanford, 161101-3 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date 30° 5° N E 15h 12h 0° 18h -30° 9h -30° 0 25 50 75 Mpc FIG. 3. Sky location reconstructed for GW170817term·def by a rapid localization algorithm from a Hanford-Livingston (190 deg2, light blue contours) and Hanford-Livingston-Virgo (31 deg2, dark blue contours) analysis. A higher latency Hanford-Livingston-Virgo analysis improved the localization (28 deg2, green contours). In the top-right inset panel, the reticle marks the position of the apparent host galaxy NGC 4993. The bottom-right panel shows the a posteriori luminosity distanceterm distribution from the three gravitational-wave localization analyses. The distance of NGC 4993, assuming the redshift from the NASA/ IPAC Extragalactic Database [89] and standard cosmological parametersterm [90], is shown with a vertical line. searches binary-coalescence LIGO-Livingston, and Virgoterm·key data respectively, making it the loudest gravitational-wave signalterm so far detected. Two matched-filter targeting sources with total mass between 2 and 500 M⊙ in the detector frame were used to estimate the significance of this [9,12,30,32,73,81–83,86,87,91–97]. The searches event analyzed 5.9 days of LIGOterm·key data between August 13, 2017date 02∶00 UTC and August 21, 2017date 01∶05 UTC. Events are assigned a detection-statistic valueterm that ranks their probability of being a gravitational-wave signalterm. Each search uses a different method to compute this statistic and measure the search backgroundterm—the rate at which detector noise produces events with a detection-statistic valueterm equal to or higher than the candidate event. GW170817term·def was identified as the most significant event in the 5.9 days of data, with an estimated false alarm rate of one in 1.1 × 106 years with one search [81,83], and a consistent bound of less than one in 8.0 × 104 years for the other [73,86,87]. The second most significant signal in this analysis of 5.9 days of data is GW170814, which has a combined SNR of 18.3 [29]. Virgoterm·key data were not used in these significance estimates, but were used in the sky localizationterm·var of the source and inference of the source properties. IV. SOURCE PROPERTIES General relativityterm·dom makes detailed predictions for the inspiralterm·key and coalescenceterm·key of two compact objects, which may be neutron starsterm·dom or black holes. At early times, for low orbital and gravitational-wave frequencies, the chirplike time evolution of the frequency is determined primarily by a specific combination of the component massesterm·var m1 and m2, the chirp massterm M ¼ ðm1m2Þ3=5ðm1 þ m2Þ−1=5. As the orbit shrinks and the gravitational-wave frequency grows rapidly, the gravitational-wave phaseterm is increasingly influenced by relativistic effects related to the mass ratioterm q ¼ m2=m1, where m1 ≥ m2, as well as spin-orbit and spin-spin couplingsterm [98]. field of the tidal The details of the objects’ internal structure become important as the orbital separation approaches the size of the bodies. For neutron starsterm·dom, the companion induces a mass-quadrupole moment [99,100] and accelerates the coalescenceterm·key [101]. The ratio of the induced quadrupole moment to the external tidal field is proportional to the tidal deformabilityterm·dom (or polarizability) Λ ¼ ð2=3Þk2½ðc2=GÞðR=mÞ(cid:3)5, where k2 is the second Love number and R is the stellar radius. Both R and k2 are fixed for a given stellar mass m by the equation of state (EOS) for neutron-star matter, with k2 ≃ 0.05–0.15 for realistic neutron starsterm·dom [102–104]. Black holes are expected to have k2 = 0 [99,105–109], so this effect would be absent. As the gravitational-wave frequency increases, tidal effects in binary neutron starsterm·key increasingly affect the phase and become significant above f ≃ 600 Hz, so they are potentially observable [103,110–116]. Tidal deformabilities correlate with masses and spins, and our measurements are sensitive to the accuracy with which we describe the point-mass, spin, and tidal dynamics [113,117–119]. The point-mass dynamics has been calculated within the post-Newtonian framework [34,36,37], effective-one-body formalism [10,120–125], and with a phenomenological approach [126–131]. Results presented here are obtained using a frequency domain post-Newtonian waveform includes dynamical effects from tidal model [30] that interactions spin-spin interactions [34,37,133,134], and couplings between the orbital angular momentum and the orbit-aligned dimensionless spin components of the stars χz [92]. [132], point-mass GW The properties of gravitational-wave sourcesterm are inferred by matching the data with predicted waveformsterm. We perform a Bayesian analysisterm in the frequency range 30–2048 Hz that includes the effects of the 1σ calibration uncertaintiesterm on the received signal [135,136] (< 7% in amplitude and 3° in phase for the LIGOterm·key detectors [137] and 10% and 10° for Virgoterm·key at the time of the event). Unless specified, bounds on the properties of otherwise GW170817term·def presented in the text and in Table I are 90% posterior probability intervals that enclose systematic differences from currently available waveform models. To ensure that the applied glitchterm·dom mitigation procedure previously discussed in Sec. II (see Fig. 2) did not bias the estimated parameters, we added simulated signals with known parameters to data that contained glitchesterm·dom analogous 161101-4 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date TABLE I. Source properties for GW170817term·def: we give ranges encompassing the 90% credible intervals for different assumptions of the waveform model to bound systematic uncertainty. The mass values are quoted in the frame of the source, accounting for uncertainty in the source redshift. Primary mass m1 Secondary mass m2 Chirp massterm M Mass ratioterm m2=m1 Total mass m Radiated energy Erad Luminosity distanceterm D Viewing angle Θ Using NGC 4993 location Combined dimensionless tidal deformabilityterm·dom ~Λ Dimensionless tidal deformabilityterm·dom Λð1.4M⊙Þ tot L Low-spin priors ðjχj ≤ 0.05Þ 1.36–1.60 M⊙ 1.17–1.36 M⊙ 1.188+0.004 −0.002 M⊙ 0.7–1.0 2.74+0.04 −0.01 M⊙ > 0.025M⊙c2 −14 Mpc ≤ 55° ≤ 28° ≤ 800 ≤ 800 40+8 High-spin priors ðjχj ≤ 0.89Þ 1.36–2.26 M⊙ 0.86–1.36 M⊙ 1.188+0.004 −0.002 M⊙ 0.4–1.0 2.82+0.47 −0.09 M⊙ > 0.025M⊙c2 −14 Mpc ≤ 56° ≤ 28° ≤ 700 ≤ 1400 40+8 to the one observed at the LIGO-Livingston detector during GW170817term·def. After applying the glitch subtraction techniqueterm, we found that the bias in recovered parametersterm relative to their known values was well within their uncertainties. This can be understood by noting that a small time cut out of the coherent integration of the phase evolution has little impact on the recovered parameters. To corroborate these results, the test was also repeated with a window functionterm applied, as shown in Fig. 2 [73]. The source was localized to a region of the sky 28 deg2 in area, and 380 Mpc3 in volume, near the southern end of the constellation Hydra, by using a combination of the timing, phase, and amplitude of the sourceterm as observed in the three detectors [138,139]. The third detector, Virgoterm·key, was essential in localizing the source to a single region of the sky, as shown in Fig. 3. The small sky area triggered a successful follow-up campaign that identified an electromagnetic counterpartterm [50]. The luminosity distanceterm to the source is 40+8 −14 Mpc, the closest ever observed gravitational-wave source and, by association, the closest short γ-ray burstterm·dom with a distance measurementterm [45]. The distance measurementterm is correlated with the inclination angleterm cos θJN ¼ ˆJ · ˆN, where ˆJ is the unit vector in the direction of the total angular momentum of the system and ˆN is that from the source towards the observer [140]. We find that the data are consistent with an antialigned source: cos θJN ≤ −0.54, and the viewing angle Θ ≡ minðθJN; 180° − θJNÞ is Θ ≤ 56°. Since the luminosity distanceterm of this source can be determined independently of the gravitational waveterm·dom data alone, we can use the association with NGC 4993 to break the distance degeneracyterm with cos θJN. The estimated Hubble flow velocity near NGC 4993 of 3017 (cid:2) 166 km s−1 [141] provides a redshift, which in a flat cosmology with H0 = 67.90 (cid:2) 0.55 km s−1 Mpc−1 [90], constrains cos θJN < −0.88 and Θ < 28°. The constraint varies with the assumptions made about H0 [141]. From the gravitational-wave phaseterm and the ∼3000 cycles in the frequency range considered, we constrain the chirp massterm in the detector frame to be Mdet = 1.1977+0.0008 −0.0003 M⊙ [51]. The mass parameters in the detector frame are related to the rest-frame masses of the source by its redshift z as mdet ¼ mð1 þ zÞ [142]. Assuming the above cosmology [90], and correcting for the motion of the Solar System Barycenter with respect to the Cosmic Microwave Background [143], the gravitational-wave distance measredshift of a urement 0.008+0.002 −0.003 , which is consistent with that of NGC 4993 [50,141,144,145]. Without the host galaxy, the uncertainty in the source’s chirp massterm M is dominated by the uncertainty in its luminosity distanceterm. Independent of the waveform model or the choice of priors, described below, the source-frame chirp massterm is M = 1.188+0.004 cosmological implies alone −0.002 M⊙. While the chirp massterm is well constrained, our estimates of the component massesterm·var are affected by the degeneracy between mass ratioterm q and the aligned spin components χ1z and χ2z [38,146–150]. Therefore, the estimates of q and the component massesterm·var depend on assumptions made about the admissible values of the spinsterm. While χ < 1 for black holes, and quark stars allow even larger spin values, realistic NS equations of state typically imply more stringent limits. For the set of EOS studied in [151] χ < 0.7, although other EOS can exceed this bound. We began by assuming jχj ≤ 0.89, a limit imposed by available rapid waveform models, with an isotropic prior on the spin direction. With these priors we recover q ∈ ð0.4; 1.0Þ and a constraint on the effective aligned spin of the system [127,152] of χ ∈ ð−0.01; 0.17Þ. The aligned spin components are consistent with zero, with stricter bounds than in previous BBH observations [26,28,29]. Analysis using the effective precessing phenomenological waveforms of [128], which do not contain tidal effects, demonstrates that spin components in the orbital plane are not constrained. eff 161101-5 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date low-spin priors. As a comparison, we show predictions coming from a set of candidate equations of state for neutron-star matter [156–160], generated using fits from [161]. All EOS support masses of 2.01 (cid:2) 0.04M⊙. Assuming that both components are neutron starsterm·dom described by the same equation of stateterm, a single function ΛðmÞ is computed from the static l = 2 perturbation of a Tolman- Oppenheimer-Volkoff solution [103]. The shaded regions in Fig. 5 represent the values of the tidal deformabilities Λ1 and Λ2 generated using an equation of state from the 90% most probable fraction of the values of m1 and m2, consistent with the posterior shown in Fig. 4. We find that our constraints on Λ1 and Λ2term disfavor equations of state that predict less compact stars, since the mass range we recover generates Λ values outside the 90% probability region. This is consistent with radius constraints from x-ray observations of neutron starsterm·dom [162–166]. Analysis methods, in development, that a priori assume the same EOS governs both stars should improve our constraints [167]. To leading order in Λ1 and Λ2, the gravitational-wave phaseterm is determined by the parameter ~Λ ¼ 16 13 ðm1 þ 12m2Þm4 1Λ1 þ ðm2 þ 12m1Þm4 ðm1 þ m2Þ5 2Λ2 ð1Þ [101,117]. Assuming a uniform prior on ~Λ, we place a 90% upper limit of ~Λ ≤ 800 in the low-spin case and ~Λ ≤ 700 in the high-spin case. We can also constrain the function ΛðmÞ more directly by expanding ΛðmÞ linearly about m = 1.4M⊙ (as in [112,115]), which gives Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 1400 for the high-spin prior and Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 800 for the lowspin prior. A 95% upper bound inferred with the low-spin prior, Λð1.4M⊙Þ ≤ 970, begins to compete with the 95% upper bound of 1000 derived from x-ray observations in [168]. Since the energy emitted in gravitational wavesterm·dom depends critically on the EOS of neutron-star matter, with a wide range consistent with constraints above, we are only able to place a lower bound on the energy emitted before the onset > 0.025M⊙c2. of strong tidal effects at f ∼600Hz as E GW This is consistent with E rad obtained from numerical simulations and fits for BNS systems consistent with GW170817term·def [114,169–171]. rad We estimate systematic errors from waveform modeling by comparing the post-Newtonian resultsterm with parameters recovered using an effective-one-body model [124] augmented with tidal effects extracted from numerical relativity with hydrodynamics [172]. This does not change the 90% credible intervals for component massesterm·var and effective spin under low-spin priors, but in the case of high-spin priors, we obtain the more restrictive m1 ∈ ð1.36; 1.93ÞM⊙, m2 ∈ ð0.99; 1.36ÞM⊙, and χ ∈ ð0.0; 0.09Þ. Recovered tidal deformabilities indicate shifts in the posterior distributions ~Λ and towards smaller values, with upper bounds for Λð1.4M⊙Þ reduced by a factor of roughly (0.8, 0.8) in the eff FIG. 4. Two-dimensional posterior distribution for the component massesterm·var m1 and m2 in the rest frame of the source for the lowspin scenario (jχj < 0.05, blue) and the high-spin scenario (jχj < 0.89, red). The colored contours enclose 90% of the probability from the joint posterior probability density function for m1 and m2. The shape of the two dimensional posterior is determined by a line of constant M and its width is determined by the uncertainty in M. The widths of the marginal distributions (shown on axes, dashed lines enclose 90% probability away from equal mass of 1.36M⊙) is strongly affected by the choice of spin priors. The result using the low-spin prior (blue) is consistent with the masses of all known binary neutron starterm·key systems. From M and q, we obtain a measure of the component massesterm·var m1 ∈ ð1.36; 2.26ÞM⊙ and m2 ∈ ð0.86; 1.36ÞM⊙, shown in Fig. 4. As discussed in Sec. I, these values are within the range of known neutron-star masses and below those of known black holes. In combination with electromagnetic observations, we regard this as evidence of the BNS nature of GW170817term·def. The fastest-spinning known neutron starterm·dom has a dimensionless spin ≲0.4 [153], and the possible BNS J1807-2500B has spin ≲0.2 [154], after allowing for a broad range of equations of state. However, among BNS that will merge within a Hubble time, PSR J0737-3039A [155] has the most extreme spin, less than ∼0.04 after spin-down is extrapolated to merger. If we restrict the spin magnitude in our analysis to jχj ≤ 0.05, consistent with the observed population, we recover the mass ratioterm q ∈ ð0.7; 1.0Þ and component massesterm·var m1 ∈ ð1.36; 1.60ÞM⊙ and m2 ∈ ð1.17; 1.36ÞM⊙ (see Fig. 4). We also recover χ ∈ ð−0.01; 0.02Þ, where the upper limit eff is consistent with the low-spin prior. Our first analysis allows the tidal deformabilities of the high-mass and low-mass component, Λ1 and Λ2, to vary independently. Figure 5 shows the resulting 90% and 50% contours on the posterior distribution with the post-Newtonian waveform model for the high-spin and 161101-6 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date FIG. 5. Probability density for the tidal deformabilityterm·dom parameters of the high and low mass components inferred from the detected signals using the post-Newtonian model. Contours enclosing 90% and 50% of the probability density are overlaid (dashed lines). The diagonal dashed line indicates the Λ1 ¼ Λ2 boundary. The Λ1 and Λ2 parameters characterize the size of the tidally induced mass deformations of each star and are proportional to k2ðR=mÞ5. Constraints are shown for the high-spin scenario jχj ≤ 0.89 (left panel) and for the low-spin jχj ≤ 0.05 (right panel). As a comparison, we plot predictions for tidal deformabilityterm·dom given by a set of representative equations of state [156–160] (shaded filled regions), with labels following [161], all of which support stars of 2.01M⊙. Under the assumption that both components are neutron starsterm·dom, we apply the function ΛðmÞ prescribed by that equation of state to the 90% most probable region of the component massterm·var posterior distributions shown in Fig. 4. EOS that produce less compact stars, such as MS1 and MS1b, predict Λ values outside our 90% contour. low-spin case and (1.0, 0.7) in the high-spin case. Further analysis is required to establish the uncertainties of these tighter bounds, and a detailed study of systematics is a subject of ongoing work. also suggest [171,173–177] Preliminary comparisons with waveform models under development the post- Newtonian model used will systematically overestimate the value of the tidal deformabilities. Therefore, based on our current understanding of the physics of neutron starsterm·dom, we consider the post-Newtonian resultsterm presented in this Letter to be conservative upper limits on tidal deformabilityterm·dom. Refinements should be possible as our knowledge and models improve. V. IMPLICATIONS A. Astrophysical rate Our analyses identified GW170817term·def as the only BNSmass signal detected in O2 with a false alarm rate below 1=100 yr. Using a method derived from [27,178,179], and assuming that the mass distribution of the components of BNS systems is flat between 1 and 2 M⊙ and their dimensionless spins are below 0.4, we are able to infer the local coalescence rate densityterm R of BNS systems. Incorporating the upper limit of 12600 Gpc−3 yr−1 from O1 as a prior, R = 1540+3200 −1220 Gpc−3 yr−1. Our findings are consistent with the rate inferred from observations of galactic BNS systems [19,20,155,180]. From this inferred rate, the stochastic background of gravitational waveterm·dom s produced by unresolved BNS mergers throughout the history of the Universe should be comparable in magnitude to the stochastic background produced by BBH mergers [181,182]. As the advanced detector network improves in sensitivity in the coming years, the total stochastic background from BNS and BBH mergers should be detectable [183]. B. Remnant Binary neutron starterm·key mergers may result in a shortor longlived neutron star remnantterm that could emit gravitational wavesterm·dom following the merger [184–190]. The ringdown of a black holeterm formed after the coalescenceterm·key could also produce gravitational wavesterm·dom, at frequencies around 6 kHz, but the reduced interferometer response at high frequenciesterm makes their observation unfeasible. Consequently, searches have been made for short (tens of ms) and intermediate duration (≤ 500 s) gravitational-wave signalsterm from a neutron star remnantterm at frequencies up to 4 kHz [75,191,192]. For the latter, the data examined start at the time of the coalescenceterm·key and extend to the end of the observing run on August 25, 2017date. With the time scales and methods considered so far there is no evidence of a postmerger signal of [193], 161101-7 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date astrophysical origin. However, upper limits placed on the strength of gravitational-wave emission cannot definitively rule out the existence of a shortor long-lived postmerger neutron starterm·dom. The implications of various postmerger scenarios are explored in [45,193]. C. Tests of gravity GRB 170817A was observed 1.7 s after GW170817term·def. Combining this delay with the knowledge of the source luminosity distanceterm, strong constraints are placed on the fundamental physics of gravity. The observed arrival times are used to investigate the speed of gravityterm, Lorentz invarianceterm, and tests of the equivalence principleterm through the Shapiro time delayterm, as reported in [45]. We also expect the much longer duration of the BNS signal compared to previous BBH gravitational-wave sources to yield significantly improved constraints when testing for waveform deviations from general relativityterm·dom using a parametrized waveform expansionterm [194], especially at low post-Newtonian orders. Placing these bounds requires a deep understanding of the systematic uncertaintiesterm resulting from waveform modeling and data conditioning, and is the subject of ongoing investigations. D. Cosmology The gravitational-wave signalterm gives a direct measurement of the luminosity distanceterm of the source, which, along with a redshift measurementterm, can be used to infer cosmological parametersterm independently of the cosmic distance ladderterm [141,195]. Using the association with the galaxy NGC 4993 and the luminosity distanceterm directly measured from the gravitational-wave signalterm, the Hubble constantterm is inferred to be H0 = 70+12 −8 km s−1 Mpc−1 [141] (most probable value and minimum 68.3% probability range, which can be compared to the value from Planck H0 = 67.90 (cid:2) 0.55 km s−1 Mpc−1 [90]). Alternatively, we may assume the cosmology is known and use the association with NGC 4993 to constrain the luminosity distanceterm of the source, in which case the gravitational-wave measurement of the inclination angleterm of the source is significantly improved, with consequences for the γ-ray burstterm·dom opening angle and related physics [45]. VI. CONCLUSIONS In this Letter we have presented the first detection of gravitational wavesterm·dom from the inspiralterm·key of a binary neutron starterm·key system. Gravitational-wave event GW170817term·def, observed and localized by the two Advanced LIGOterm·key detectors and the Advanced Virgoterm·key detector, is the loudest gravitational-wave signalterm detected to date. This coalescenceterm·key event was followed by a short burst of γ rays observed with the Fermi Gamma- Ray Burstterm·key Monitor [39–42] and INTEGRAL [43,44]. The coincident observation of a gravitational-wave signalterm and a γ- ray burstterm·dom appears to confirm the long-held hypothesis that BNS mergers are linked to short-γ-ray bursts [196,197]. Subsequent observations have determined the location of the source and followed its evolution through the electromagnetic spectrum [50]. Detailed analyses of the gravitational-wave data, together with observations of electromagnetic emissions, are providing new insights into the astrophysics of compact binary systems and γ-ray burststerm·dom, dense matter under extreme conditions, the nature of gravitation, and independent tests of cosmology. Less than two years after the debut of gravitational-wave astronomy, GW170817term·def marks the beginning of a new era of discovery. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) for the construction and operation of the LIGOterm·key Laboratory and Advanced LIGOterm·key as well as the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom, the Max- Planck-Society (MPS), and the State of Niedersachsen, Germany for support of the construction of Advanced LIGOterm·key and construction and operation of the GEO600 detector. Additional support for Advanced LIGOterm·key was provided by the Australian Research Council. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN), the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), and the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, for the construction and operation of the Virgoterm·key detector and the creation and support of the EGO consortium. The authors also gratefully acknowledge research support from these agencies as well as by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India, the Department of Science and Technology, the Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), India, the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the Spanish Agencia India, Estatal de Investigación, the Vicepresidència i Conselleria d’Innovació, Recerca i Turisme and the Conselleria d’Educació i Universitat del Govern de les Illes Balears, the Conselleria d’Educació, Investigació, Cultura i Esport de la Generalitat Valenciana, the National Science Centre of Poland, the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, the Russian Science Foundation, the European the European Commission, Regional Development Funds (ERDF), the Royal Society, the Scottish Funding Council, the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance, the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA), the Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO), the National Research, Development and Innovation Office Hungary (NKFI), the National Research Foundation of Korea, Industry Canada and the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation, the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada, the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, the Brazilian India, 161101-8 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date Innovations, the Research Corporation, Ministry of Science, Technology, and Communications, the International Center for Theoretical Physics South American Institute for Fundamental Research (ICTP-SAIFR), the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong, the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the Leverhulme Trust, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan and the Kavli Foundation. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the NSF, STFC, MPS, INFN, CNRS and the State of Niedersachsen, Germany for provision of computathe tional NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. resources. This research has made use of [1] R. A. Hulse and J. H. Taylor, Astrophys. J. 195, L51 (1975). [2] J. H. Taylor and J. M. Weisberg, Astrophys. J. 253, 908 (1982). [3] R. Weiss, MIT Technical Report No. LIGO-P720002, 1972. [4] R. W. P. Drever, in Gravitational Radiation, edited by N. Deruelle and T. Piran (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1983), p. 321. [5] A. Brillet et al. (Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Technical Report No. VIR-0517A-15, 1989 [https://tds.virgo-gw.eu/?content= 3&r=12122]. [6] J. Hough et al., MPQ Technical Report No. 147, 1989 [GWD/137/JH(89)]. [7] K. Thorne, Three Hundred Years of Gravitation, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1987), pp. 330–458. [8] R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, Astron. J. 129, 1993 (2005). [9] L. Blanchet, Thibault Damour, Bala R. Iyer, Clifford M. Will, and Alan G. Wiseman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 3515 (1995). [10] A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 59, 084006 (1999). [11] T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schäfer, Phys. Lett. B 513, 147 (2001). [12] L. Blanchet, T. Damour, G. Esposito-Farese, and B. R. Iyer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 091101 (2004). [13] W. D. Goldberger and I. Z. Rothstein, Phys. Rev. D 73, 104029 (2006). [14] B. P. Flannery and E. P. J. van den Heuvel, Astron. Astrophys. 39, 61 (1975). [15] A. G. Massevitch, A. V. Tutukov, and L. R. Yungelson, Astrophys. Space Sci. 40, 115 (1976). [16] J. P. A. Clark, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, and W. Sutantyo, Astron. Astrophys. 72, 120 (1979). [17] E. S. Phinney, Astrophys. J. Lett. 380, L17 (1991). [18] V. Kalogera et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 601, L179 (2004). V. Kalogera et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 614, L137(E) (2004). [19] J. Abadie et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 173001 (2010). [20] C. Kim, B. B. P. Perera, and M. A. McLaughlin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 448, 928 (2015). [21] B. P. Abbott et al. (KAGRA CollaborationpersName, LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName, Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Living Rev. Relativity 19, 1 (2016). [22] J. Aasi et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName), Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 074001 (2015). [23] F. Acernese et al. (Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 024001 (2015). [24] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016). [25] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241103 (2016). [26] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016). [27] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Astrophys. J. Lett. 832, L21 (2016). [28] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017date). [29] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017date). [30] B. S. Sathyaprakash and S. V. Dhurandhar, Phys. Rev. D 44, 3819 (1991). [31] C. Cutler et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2984 (1993). [32] B. Allen, W. G. Anderson, P. R. Brady, D. A. Brown, and J. D. E. Creighton, Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012). [33] D. A. Brown, P. Kumar, and A. H. Nitz, Phys. Rev. D 87, 082004 (2013). [34] K. G. Arun, A. Buonanno, G. Faye, and E. Ochsner, Phys. Rev. D 79, 104023 (2009); 84, 049901(E) (2011). [35] A. Buonanno, B. R. Iyer, E. Ochsner, Y. Pan, and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084043 (2009). [36] L. Blanchet, Living Rev. Relativity 17, 2 (2014). [37] C. K. Mishra, A. Kela, K. G. Arun, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084054 (2016). [38] C. Cutler and E. E. Flanagan, Phys. Rev. D 49, 2658 (1994). [39] A. G. A. von Kienlin, C. Meegan, and the Fermi GBM Team, GCN 21520, 1 (2017date). [40] V. Connaughton et al., GCN 21506, 1 (2017date). [41] A. Goldstein et al., GCN 21528, 1 (2017date). [42] A. Goldstein et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L14 (2017date). [43] V. Savchenko et al., GCN 21507, 1 (2017date). [44] V. Savchenko et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L15 (2017date). [45] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017date); [46] D. A. Coulter et al., GCN 21529, 1 (2017date). [47] R. J. Foley et al., GCN 21536, 1 (2017date). [48] D. A. Coulter et al., Science, 10.1126/science.aap9811. in press (2017date), DOI: [49] Y.-C. Pan et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L30 (2017date). [50] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017date). [51] P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev. 131, 435 (1963). [52] T. M. Tauris et al., Astrophys. J. 846, 170 (2017date). [53] J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 1233232 (2013). 161101-9 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date [54] F. Özel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, and J. E. McClintock, Astrophys. J. 725, 1918 (2010). [55] L. Kreidberg, C. D. Bailyn, W. M. Farr, and V. Kalogera, Astrophys. J. 757, 36 (2012). [56] R. Narayan and J. E. McClintock, in General Relativityterm·dom and Gravitation: A Centennial Perspective, edited by A. Ashtekar, B. K. Berger, J. Isenberg, and M. MacCallum (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 2015), Chap. 3.3, pp. 133–147. [57] D. J. Kaup, Phys. Rev. 172, 1331 (1968). [58] P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 101, 9545 (2004). [59] N. Itoh, Prog. Theor. Phys. 44, 291 (1970). [60] V. Cardoso, S. Hopper, C. F. B. Macedo, C. Palenzuela, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084031 (2016). [61] V. Cardoso, E. Franzin, A. Maselli, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D 95, 084014 (2017date); 95, 089901 (2017date). [62] L. S. Finn and D. F. Chernoff, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2198 (1993). [63] H.-Y. Chen, D. E. Holz, J. Miller, M. Evans, S. Vitale, and J. Creighton, arXiv:1709.08079. [64] K. L. Dooley et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 075009 (2016). [65] S. Chatterji, L Blackburn, G Martin, and E Katsavounidis, Classical Quantum Gravity 21, S1809 (2004). [66] R. G. Brown and P. Y. C. Hwang, Introduction to Random Signals and Applied Kalman Filtering with Matlab Exercises (Wiley, New York, 2012). [67] J. C. Driggers et al., Technical Report No. LIGO- P1700260, 2017date. [68] J. C. Driggers, M. Evans, K. Pepper, and R. Adhikari, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 83, 024501 (2012). [69] G. D. Meadors, K. Kawabe, and K. Riles, Classical Quantum Gravity 31, 105014 (2014). [70] V. Tiwari et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 165014 (2015). [81] K. Cannon et al., Astrophys. J. 748, 136 (2012). [82] S. Privitera, S. R. P. Mohapatra, P. Ajith, K. Cannon, N. Fotopoulos, M. A. Frei, C. Hanna, A. J. Weinstein, and J. T. Whelan, Phys. Rev. D 89, 024003 (2014). [83] C. Messick et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 042001 (2017date). [84] A. Einstein, L. Infeld, and B. Hoffmann, Ann. Math. 39, 65 (1938). [85] LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName, GCN 21505, 1 (2017date). [86] A. H. Nitz, T. Dent, T. Dal Canton, S. Fairhurst, and D. A. Brown, arXiv:1705.01513. [87] A. Nitz et al., ligo-cbc/pycbc: O2 production release 20, 2017date. [88] L. P. Singer and L. R. Price, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024013 (2016). [89] NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database. [90] P. A. R. Ade et al. (Planck CollaborationpersName), Astron. Astrophys. 594, A13 (2016). [91] L. Blanchet, A. Buonanno, and G. Faye, Phys. Rev. D 74, 104034 (2006); 75, 049903(E) (2007); 81, 089901(E) (2010). [92] A. Bohé, S. Marsat, and L. Blanchet, Classical Quantum Gravity 30, 135009 (2013). [93] B. J. Owen and B. S. Sathyaprakash, Phys. Rev. D 60, 022002 (1999). [94] D. A. Brown, I. Harry, A. Lundgren, and A. H. Nitz, Phys. Rev. D 86, 084017 (2012). [95] T. Dal Canton and I. W. Harry, arXiv:1705.01845. [96] B. Allen, Phys. Rev. D 71, 062001 (2005). [97] A. H. Nitz, arXiv:1709.08974. [98] C. Cutler, T. A. Apostolatos, L. Bildsten, L. S. Finn, E. E. Flanagan, D. Kennefick, D. M. Markovic, A. Ori, E. Poisson, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. Thorne, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2984 (1993). [99] T. Damour, Lect. Notes Phys., 124, 59 (1983). [100] T. Damour, M. Soffel, and C.-m. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 45, [71] L. Nuttall et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 245005 1017 (1992). (2015). [72] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. D 93, 122003 (2016). [73] S. A. Usman et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 215004 (2016). [74] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Technical Report No. LIGO- P1600110, 2017date. [75] N. J. Cornish and T. B. Littenberg, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 135012 (2015). [101] E. E. Flanagan and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 77, 021502 (2008). [102] T. Hinderer, Astrophys. J. 677, 1216 (2008). [103] T. Hinderer, B. D. Lackey, R. N. Lang, and J. S. Read, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123016 (2010). [104] S. Postnikov, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, Phys. Rev. D 82, 024016 (2010). [105] T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084035 (2009). [106] T. Binnington and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084018 (2009). [76] LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName, [107] B. Kol and M. Smolkin, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2012) GCN 21509, 1 (2017date). 010. [77] LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName, [108] P. Pani, L. Gualtieri, A. Maselli, and V. Ferrari, Phys. Rev. GCN 21513, 1 (2017date). [78] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 134001 (2016). [79] A. Effler, R M S Schofield, V V Frolov, G González, K Kawabe, J R Smith, J Birch, and R McCarthy, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 035017 (2015). [80] LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName, LIGOterm·key Open Science Center (LOSC), 2017date [https://doi.org/ 10.7935/K5B8566F]. D 92, 024010 (2015). [109] P. Landry and E. Poisson, Phys. Rev. D 91, 104018 (2015). [110] J. S. Read, C. Markakis, M. Shibata, K. Uryu, J. D. E. Creighton, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124033 (2009). [111] T. Damour, A. Nagar, and L. Villain, Phys. Rev. D 85, 123007 (2012). [112] W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Agathos, C. Van Den Broeck, and S. Vitale, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 071101 (2013). 161101-10 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date [113] L. Wade, J. D. E. Creighton, E. Ochsner, B. D. Lackey, B. F. Farr, T. B. Littenberg, and V. Raymond, Phys. Rev. D 89, 103012 (2014). [114] S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, S. Balmelli, T. Dietrich, and M. Ujevic, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 201101 (2014). [115] M. Agathos, J. Meidam, W. Del Pozzo, T. G. F. Li, M. Tompitak, J. Veitch, S. Vitale, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D 92, 023012 (2015). [116] K. Hotokezaka, K. Kyutoku, Y.-i. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064082 (2016). [117] M. Favata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 101101 (2014). [118] K. Yagi and N. Yunes, Phys. Rev. D 89, 021303 (2014). I. Harry, J. Read, and E. Flynn, arXiv: [119] T. Cullen, 1708.04359. [120] A. Buonanno and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. D 62, 064015 (2000). Nature nature24471. (London), in press (2017date), DOI: 10.1038/ [142] A. Krolak and B. F. Schutz, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 19, 1163 (1987). [143] D. J. Fixsen, Astrophys. J. 707, 916 (2009). [144] A. C. Crook, J. P. Huchra, N. Martimbeau, K. L. Masters, T. Jarrett, and L. M. Macri, Astrophys. J. 655, 790 (2007). [145] A. C. Crook, J. P. Huchra, N. Martimbeau, K. L. Masters, T. Jarrett, and L. M. Macri, Astrophys. J. 685, 1320 (2008). [146] M. Hannam, D. A. Brown, S. Fairhurst, C. L. Fryer, and I. W. Harry, Astrophys. J. Lett. 766, L14 (2013). [147] F. Ohme, A. B. Nielsen, D. Keppel, and A. Lundgren, Phys. Rev. D 88, 042002 (2013). [148] C. P. L. Berry et al., Astrophys. J. 804, 114 (2015). [149] M. Pürrer, M. Hannam, and F. Ohme, Phys. Rev. D 93, [121] T. Damour, P. Jaranowski, and G. Schäfer, Phys. Rev. D 084042 (2016). 78, 024009 (2008). [122] T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 79, 081503 (2009). [123] E. Barausse and A. Buonanno, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084024 (2010). [124] A. Bohé et al., Phys. Rev. D 95, 044028 (2017date). [125] A. Nagar, G. Riemenschneider, and G. Pratten, arXiv:1703.06814 [Phys. Rev. D (to be published)]. [126] P. Ajith et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 24, S689 (2007). [127] P. Ajith et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 241101 (2011). [128] M. Hannam, Patricia Schmidt, Alejandro Bohé, Leïla Haegel, Sascha Husa, Frank Ohme, Geraint Pratten, and Michael Pürrer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151101 (2014). [129] S. Husa, S. Khan, M. Hannam, M. Purrer, F. Ohme, X. J. Forteza, and A. Bohe, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044006 (2016). [130] S. Khan, S. Husa, M. Hannam, F. Ohme, M. Purrer, X. J. Forteza, and A. Bohe, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044007 (2016). [131] R. Smith, S. E. Field, K. Blackburn, C.-J. Haster, M. Pürrer, V. Raymond, and P. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. D 94, 044031 (2016). [132] J. Vines, E. E. Flanagan, and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 83, 084051 (2011). [150] B. Farr et al., Astrophys. J. 825, 116 (2016). [151] K.-W. Lo and L.-M. Lin, Astrophys. J. 728, 12 (2011). [152] E. Racine, Phys. Rev. D 78, 044021 (2008). [153] J. W. T. Hessels, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, V. M. Kaspi, and F. Camilo, Science 311, 1901 (2006). [154] R. S. Lynch, P. C. C. Freire, S. M. Ransom, and B. A. Jacoby, Astrophys. J. 745, 109 (2012). [155] M. Burgay et al., Nature (London) 426, 531 (2003). [156] H. Müther, M. Prakash, and T. L. Ainsworth, Phys. Lett. B 199, 469 (1987). [157] H. Mueller and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A A606, 508 (1996). [158] F. Douchin and P. Haensel, Astron. Astrophys. 380, 151 (2001). [159] A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande, and D. G. Ravenhall, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1804 (1998). [160] B. D. Lackey, M. Nayyar, and B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. D 73, 024021 (2006). [161] J. S. Read, B. D. Lackey, B. J. Owen, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D 79, 124032 (2009). [162] J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. 621, 127 [133] B. Mikoczi, M. Vasuth, and L. A. Gergely, Phys. Rev. D (2016). 71, 124043 (2005). [163] F. Ozel and P. Freire, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, [134] A. Bohé, G. Faye, S. Marsat, and E. K. Porter, Classical 401 (2016). Quantum Gravity 32, 195010 (2015). [135] J. Veitch et al., Phys. Rev. D 91, 042003 (2015). [136] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 241102 (2016). [137] C. Cahillane et al., arXiv:1708.03023. [138] L. P. Singer, H.-Y. Chen, D. E. Holz, W. M. Farr, L. R. Price, V. Raymond, S. B. Cenko, N. Gehrels, J. Cannizzo, M. M. Kasliwal, S. Nissanke, M. Coughlin, B. Farr, A. L. Urban, S. Vitale, J. Veitch, P. Graff, C. P. L. Berry, S. Mohapatra, and I. Mandel, Astrophys. J. Lett. 829, L15 (2016). [139] H.-Y. Chen and D. E. Holz, arXiv:1612.01471. [140] T. A. Apostolatos, C. Cutler, G. J. Sussman, and K. S. [164] A. L. Watts et al., Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 021001 (2016). [165] A. W. Steiner, C. O. Heinke, S. Bogdanov, C. Li, W. C. G. Ho, A. Bahramian, and S. Han, arXiv:1709.05013. [166] J. Nättilä, M. C. Miller, A. W. Steiner, J. J. E. Kajava, V. F. Suleimanov, and J. Poutanen, arXiv:1709.09120. [167] B. D. Lackey and L. Wade, Phys. Rev. D 91, 043002 (2015). [168] A. W. Steiner, S. Gandolfi, F. J. Fattoyev, and W. G. Newton, Phys. Rev. C 91, 015804 (2015). [169] R. De Pietri, A. Feo, F. Maione, and F. Löffler, Phys. Rev. D 93, 064047 (2016). [170] T. Dietrich, M. Ujevic, W. Tichy, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Brügmann, Phys. Rev. D 95, 024029 (2017date). Thorne, Phys. Rev. D 49, 6274 (1994). [171] T. Dietrich and T. Hinderer, Phys. Rev. D 95, 124006 [141] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName, Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName, IM2H CollaborationpersName, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM CollaborationpersName, DES CollaborationpersName, DLT40 CollaborationpersName, Las Cumbres Observatory CollaborationpersName, VINROUGE CollaborationpersName, and MASTER CollaborationpersName), (2017date). [172] T. Dietrich, S. Bernuzzi, and W. Tichy, arXiv:1706.02969. [173] T. Damour and A. Nagar, Phys. Rev. D 81, 084016 (2010). [174] B. D. Lackey, S. Bernuzzi, C. R. Galley, J. Meidam, and C. Van Den Broeck, Phys. Rev. D 95, 104036 (2017date). 161101-11 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date [175] S. Bernuzzi, A. Nagar, T. Dietrich, and T. Damour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 161103 (2015). [176] T. Hinderer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 181101 (2016). [177] J. Steinhoff, T. Hinderer, A. Buonanno, and A. Taracchini, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104028 (2016). [178] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Astrophys. J. Lett. 833, L1 (2016). [179] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 227, 14 (2016). [180] C. Kim, V. Kalogera, and D. R. Lorimer, Astrophys. J. 584, 985 (2003). [181] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 121101 (2017date). [182] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 131102 (2016). [183] LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName, Technical Report No. LIGO-P170272, 2017date. [184] N. Andersson, Classical Quantum Gravity 20, R105 (2003). [185] A. L. Piro, B. Giacomazzo, and R. Perna, Astrophys. J. 844, L19 (2017date). [186] J. A. Clark, A. Bauswein, N. Stergioulas, and D. Shoemaker, Classical Quantum Gravity 33, 085003 (2016). [187] P. D. Lasky and K. Glampedakis, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 458, 1660 (2016). [188] S. Bose, K. Chakravarti, L. Rezzolla, B. S. Sathyaprakash, and K. Takami, arXiv:1705.10850. [189] M. Shibata and K. Uryū, Phys. Rev. D 61, 064001 (2000). [190] L. Baiotti and L. Rezzolla, Rep. Prog. Phys. 80, 096901 (2017date). [191] S. Klimenko et al., Phys. Rev. D 93, 042004 (2016). [192] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. D 93, 042005 (2016). [193] LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName et al., Technical Report No. LIGO-P1700318, 2017date. [194] B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016). [195] B. F. Schutz, Nature (London) 323, 310 (1986). [196] D. Eichler, M. Livio, T. Piran, and D. N. Schramm, Nature (London) 340, 126 (1989). [197] P. D’Avanzo, J. High Energy Astrophys. 7, 73 (2015). 5 1 B. P. Abbott,1 R. Abbott,1 T. D. Abbott,2 F. Acernese,3,4 K. Ackley,5,6 C. Adams,7 T. Adams,8 P. Addesso,9 R. X. Adhikari,1 V. B. Adya,10 C. Affeldt,10 M. Afrough,11 B. Agarwal,12 M. Agathos,13 K. Agatsuma,14 N. Aggarwal,15 O. D. Aguiar,16 L. Aiello,17,18 A. Ain,19 P. Ajith,20 B. Allen,10,21,22 G. Allen,12 A. Allocca,23,24 P. A. Altin,25 A. Amato,26 A. Ananyeva,1 S. B. Anderson,1 W. G. Anderson,21 S. V. Angelova,27 S. Antier,28 S. Appert,1 K. Arai,1 M. C. Araya,1 J. S. Areeda,29 N. Arnaud,28,30 K. G. Arun,31 S. Ascenzi,32,33 G. Ashton,10 M. Ast,34 S. M. Aston,7 P. Astone,35 D. V. Atallah,36 P. Aufmuth,22 C. Aulbert,10 K. AultONeal,37 C. Austin,2 A. Avila-Alvarez,29 S. Babak,38 P. Bacon,39 M. K. M. Bader,14 S. Bae,40 M. Bailes,41 P. T. Baker,42 F. Baldaccini,43,44 G. Ballardin,30 S. W. Ballmer,45 S. Banagiri,46 J. C. Barayoga,1 S. E. Barclay,47 B. C. Barish,1 D. Barker,48 K. Barkett,49 F. Barone,3,4 B. Barr,47 L. Barsotti,15 M. Barsuglia,39 D. Barta,50 S. D. Barthelmy,51 J. Bartlett,48 I. Bartos,52,5 R. Bassiri,53 A. Basti,23,24 J. C. Batch,48 M. Bawaj,54,44 J. C. Bayley,47 M. Bazzan,55,56 B. Bécsy,57 C. Beer,10 M. Bejger,58 I. Belahcene,28 A. S. Bell,47 B. K. Berger,1 G. Bergmann,10 S. Bernuzzi,59,60 J. J. Bero,61 C. P. L. Berry,62 D. Bersanetti,63 A. Bertolini,14 J. Betzwieser,7 S. Bhagwat,45 R. Bhandare,64 I. A. Bilenko,65 G. Billingsley, C. R. Billman, J. Birch, 66 O. Birnholtz,10 S. Biscans,1,15 S. Biscoveanu,67,6 7 A. Bisht,22 M. Bitossi,30,24 C. Biwer,45 M. A. Bizouard,28 J. K. Blackburn,1 J. Blackman,49 C. D. Blair,1,68 D. G. Blair,68 R. M. Blair,48 S. Bloemen,69 O. Bock,10 N. Bode,10 M. Boer,70 G. Bogaert,70 A. Bohe,38 F. Bondu,71 E. Bonilla,53 R. Bonnand,8 B. A. Boom,14 R. Bork,1 V. Boschi,30,24 S. Bose,72,19 K. Bossie,7 Y. Bouffanais,39 A. Bozzi,30 C. Bradaschia,24 P. R. Brady,21 M. Branchesi,17,18 J. E. Brau,73 T. Briant,74 A. Brillet,70 M. Brinkmann,10 V. Brisson,28 P. Brockill,21 J. E. Broida,75 A. F. Brooks,1 D. A. Brown,45 D. D. Brown,76 S. Brunett,1 C. C. Buchanan,2 A. Buikema,15 T. Bulik,77 H. J. Bulten,78,14 A. Buonanno,38,79 D. Buskulic,8 C. Buy,39 R. L. Byer,53 M. Cabero,10 L. Cadonati,80 G. Cagnoli,26,81 C. Cahillane,1 J. Calderón Bustillo,80 T. A. Callister,1 E. Calloni,82,4 J. B. Camp,51 M. Canepa,83,63 P. Canizares,69 K. C. Cannon,84 H. Cao,76 J. Cao,85 C. D. Capano,10 E. Capocasa,39 F. Carbognani,30 S. Caride,86 M. F. Carney,87 G. Carullo,23,24 J. Casanueva Diaz,28 C. Casentini,32,33 S. Caudill,21,14 M. Cavaglià,11 F. Cavalier,28 R. Cavalieri,30 G. Cella,24 C. B. Cepeda,1 P. Cerdá-Durán,88 G. Cerretani,23,24 E. Cesarini,89,33 S. J. Chamberlin,67 M. Chan,47 S. Chao,90 P. Charlton,91 E. Chase,92 E. Chassande-Mottin,39 D. Chatterjee,21 K. Chatziioannou,93 B. D. Cheeseboro,42 H. Y. Chen,94 X. Chen,68 Y. Chen,49 H.-P. Cheng,5 H. Chia,5 A. Chincarini,63 A. Chiummo,30 T. Chmiel,87 H. S. Cho,95 M. Cho,79 J. H. Chow,25 N. Christensen,75,70 Q. Chu,68 A. J. K. Chua,13 S. Chua,74 A. K. W. Chung,96 S. Chung,68 G. Ciani,5,55,56 R. Ciolfi,97,98 C. E. Cirelli,53 A. Cirone,83,63 F. Clara,48 J. A. Clark,80 P. Clearwater,99 F. Cleva,70 C. Cocchieri,11 E. Coccia,17,18 P.-F. Cohadon,74 D. Cohen,28 A. Colla,100,35 C. G. Collette,101 L. R. Cominsky,102 M. Constancio Jr.,16 L. Conti,56 S. J. Cooper,62 P. Corban,7 T. R. Corbitt,2 I. Cordero-Carrión,103 K. R. Corley,52 N. Cornish,104 A. Corsi,86 S. Cortese,30 I. A. Birney, 161101-12 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date C. A. Costa,16 M. W. Coughlin,75,1 S. B. Coughlin,92 J.-P. Coulon,70 S. T. Countryman,52 P. Couvares,1 P. B. Covas,105 E. E. Cowan,80 D. M. Coward,68 M. J. Cowart,7 D. C. Coyne,1 R. Coyne,86 J. D. E. Creighton,21 T. D. Creighton,106 J. Cripe,2 S. G. Crowder,107 T. J. Cullen,29,2 A. Cumming,47 L. Cunningham,47 E. Cuoco,30 T. Dal Canton,51 G. Dálya,57 S. L. Danilishin,22,10 S. D’Antonio,33 K. Danzmann,22,10 A. Dasgupta,108 C. F. Da Silva Costa,5 V. Dattilo,30 I. Dave,64 M. Davier,28 D. Davis,45 E. J. Daw,109 B. Day,80 S. De,45 D. DeBra,53 J. Degallaix,26 M. De Laurentis,17,4 S. Deléglise,74 W. Del Pozzo,62,23,24 N. Demos,15 T. Denker,10 T. Dent,10 R. De Pietri,59,60 V. Dergachev,38 R. De Rosa,82,4 R. T. DeRosa,7 C. De Rossi,26,30 R. DeSalvo,110 O. de Varona,10 J. Devenson,27 S. Dhurandhar,19 M. C. Díaz,106 T. Dietrich,38 L. Di Fiore,4 M. Di Giovanni,111,98 T. Di Girolamo,52,82,4 A. Di Lieto,23,24 S. Di Pace,100,35 I. Di Palma,100,35 F. Di Renzo,23,24 Z. Doctor,94 V. Dolique,26 F. Donovan,15 K. L. Dooley,11 S. Doravari,10 I. Dorrington,36 R. Douglas,47 M. Dovale Álvarez,62 T. P. Downes,21 M. Drago,10 C. Dreissigacker,10 J. C. Driggers,48 Z. Du,85 M. Ducrot,8 R. Dudi,36 P. Dupej,47 S. E. Dwyer,48 T. B. Edo,109 M. C. Edwards,75 A. Effler,7 H.-B. Eggenstein,38,10 P. Ehrens,1 J. Eichholz,1 S. S. Eikenberry,5 R. A. Eisenstein,15 R. C. Essick,15 D. Estevez,8 Z. B. Etienne,42 T. Etzel,1 M. Evans,15 T. M. Evans,7 M. Factourovich,52 V. Fafone,32,33,17 H. Fair,45 S. Fairhurst,36 X. Fan,85 S. Farinon,63 B. Farr,94 W. M. Farr,62 E. J. Fauchon-Jones,36 M. Favata,112 M. Fays,36 C. Fee,87 H. Fehrmann,10 J. Feicht,1 M. M. Fejer,53 A. Fernandez-Galiana,15 I. Ferrante,23,24 E. C. Ferreira,16 F. Ferrini,30 F. Fidecaro,23,24 D. Finstad,45 I. Fiori,30 D. Fiorucci,39 M. Fishbach,94 R. P. Fisher,45 M. Fitz-Axen,46 R. Flaminio,26,113 M. Fletcher,47 H. Fong,93 J. A. Font,88,114 P. W. F. Forsyth,25 S. S. Forsyth,80 J.-D. Fournier,70 S. Frasca,100,35 F. Frasconi,24 Z. Frei,57 A. Freise,62 R. Frey,73 V. Frey,28 E. M. Fries,1 P. Fritschel,15 V. V. Frolov,7 P. Fulda,5 M. Fyffe,7 H. Gabbard,47 B. U. Gadre,19 S. M. Gaebel,62 J. R. Gair,115 L. Gammaitoni,43 M. R. Ganija,76 S. G. Gaonkar,19 C. Garcia-Quiros,105 F. Garufi,82,4 B. Gateley,48 S. Gaudio,37 G. Gaur,116 V. Gayathri,117 N. Gehrels,51,† G. Gemme,63 E. Genin,30 A. Gennai,24 D. George,12 J. George,64 L. Gergely,118 V. Germain,8 S. Ghonge,80 Abhirup Ghosh,20 Archisman Ghosh,20,14 S. Ghosh,69,14,21 J. A. Giaime,2,7 K. D. Giardina,7 A. Giazotto,24 K. Gill,37 L. Glover,110 E. Goetz,119 R. Goetz,5 S. Gomes,36 B. Goncharov,6 G. González,2 J. M. Gonzalez Castro,23,24 A. Gopakumar,120 M. L. Gorodetsky,65 S. E. Gossan,1 M. Gosselin,30 R. Gouaty,8 A. Grado,121,4 C. Graef,47 M. Granata,26 A. Grant,47 S. Gras,15 C. Gray,48 G. Greco,122,123 A. C. Green,62 E. M. Gretarsson,37 P. Groot,69 H. Grote,10 S. Grunewald,38 P. Gruning,28 G. M. Guidi,122,123 X. Guo,85 A. Gupta,67 M. K. Gupta,108 K. E. Gushwa,1 E. K. Gustafson,1 R. Gustafson,119 O. Halim,18,17 B. R. Hall,72 E. D. Hall,15 E. Z. Hamilton,36 G. Hammond,47 M. Haney,124 M. M. Hanke,10 J. Hanks,48 C. Hanna,67 M. D. Hannam,36 O. A. Hannuksela,96 J. Hanson,7 T. Hardwick,2 J. Harms,17,18 G. M. Harry,125 I. W. Harry,38 M. J. Hart,47 C.-J. Haster,93 K. Haughian,47 J. Healy,61 A. Heidmann,74 M. C. Heintze,7 H. Heitmann,70 P. Hello,28 G. Hemming,30 M. Hendry,47 I. S. Heng,47 J. Hennig,47 A. W. Heptonstall,1 M. Heurs,10,22 S. Hild,47 T. Hinderer,69 W. C. G. Ho,126 D. Hoak,30 D. Hofman,26 K. Holt,7 D. E. Holz,94 P. Hopkins,36 C. Horst,21 J. Hough,47 E. A. Houston,47 E. J. Howell,68 A. Hreibi,70 Y. M. Hu,10 E. A. Huerta,12 D. Huet,28 B. Hughey,37 S. Husa,105 S. H. Huttner,47 T. Huynh-Dinh,7 N. Indik,10 R. Inta,86 G. Intini,100,35 H. N. Isa,47 J.-M. Isac,74 M. Isi,1 B. R. Iyer,20 K. Izumi,48 T. Jacqmin,74 K. Jani,80 P. Jaranowski,127 S. Jawahar,66 F. Jiménez-Forteza,105 W. W. Johnson,2 N. K. Johnson-McDaniel,13 D. I. Jones,126 R. Jones,47 R. J. G. Jonker,14 L. Ju,68 J. Junker,10 C. V. Kalaghatgi,36 V. Kalogera,92 B. Kamai,1 S. Kandhasamy,7 G. Kang,40 J. B. Kanner,1 S. J. Kapadia,21 S. Karki,73 K. S. Karvinen,10 M. Kasprzack,2 W. Kastaun,10 M. Katolik,12 E. Katsavounidis,15 W. Katzman,7 S. Kaufer,22 K. Kawabe,48 F. Kéfélian,70 D. Keitel,47 A. J. Kemball,12 R. Kennedy,109 C. Kent,36 J. S. Key,128 F. Y. Khalili,65 I. Khan,17,33 S. Khan,10 Z. Khan,108 E. A. Khazanov,129 N. Kijbunchoo,25 Chunglee Kim,130 J. C. Kim,131 K. Kim,96 W. Kim,76 W. S. Kim,132 Y.-M. Kim,95 S. J. Kimbrell,80 E. J. King,76 P. J. King,48 M. Kinley-Hanlon,125 R. Kirchhoff,10 J. S. Kissel,48 L. Kleybolte,34 S. Klimenko,5 T. D. Knowles,42 P. Koch,10 S. M. Koehlenbeck,10 S. Koley,14 V. Kondrashov,1 A. Kontos,15 M. Korobko,34 W. Z. Korth,1 I. Kowalska,77 D. B. Kozak,1 C. Krämer,10 V. Kringel,10 B. Krishnan,10 A. Królak,133,134 G. Kuehn,10 P. Kumar,93 R. Kumar,108 S. Kumar,20 L. Kuo,90 A. Kutynia,133 S. Kwang,21 B. D. Lackey,38 K. H. Lai,96 M. Landry,48 R. N. Lang,135 J. Lange,61 B. Lantz,53 R. K. Lanza,15 S. L. Larson,92 A. Lartaux-Vollard,28 P. D. Lasky,6 M. Laxen,7 A. Lazzarini,1 C. Lazzaro,56 P. Leaci,100,35 S. Leavey,47 C. H. Lee,95 H. K. Lee,136 H. M. Lee,137 H. W. Lee,131 K. Lee,47 J. Lehmann,10 A. Lenon,42 E. Leon,29 M. Leonardi,111,98 N. Leroy,28 N. Letendre,8 Y. Levin,6 T. G. F. Li,96 S. D. Linker,110 T. B. Littenberg,138 J. Liu,68 X. Liu,21 R. K. L. Lo,96 N. A. Lockerbie,66 L. T. London,36 J. E. Lord,45 M. Lorenzini,17,18 V. Loriette,139 M. Lormand,7 G. Losurdo,24 J. D. Lough,10 C. O. Lousto,61 G. Lovelace,29 H. Lück,22,10 D. Lumaca,32,33 A. P. Lundgren,10 R. Lynch,15 Y. Ma,49 R. Macas,36 S. Macfoy,27 B. Machenschalk,10 M. MacInnis,15 D. M. Macleod,36 I. Magaña Hernandez,21 F. Magaña-Sandoval,45 L. Magaña Zertuche,45 R. M. Magee,67 E. Majorana,35 I. Maksimovic,139 N. Man,70 V. Mandic,46 V. Mangano,47 161101-13 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date G. L. Mansell,25 M. Manske,21,25 M. Mantovani,30 F. Marchesoni,54,44 F. Marion,8 S. Márka,52 Z. Márka,52 C. Markakis,12 A. S. Markosyan,53 A. Markowitz,1 E. Maros,1 A. Marquina,103 P. Marsh,128 F. Martelli,122,123 L. Martellini,70 I. W. Martin,47 R. M. Martin,112 D. V. Martynov,15 J. N. Marx,1 K. Mason,15 E. Massera,109 A. Masserot,8 T. J. Massinger,1 M. Masso-Reid,47 S. Mastrogiovanni,100,35 A. Matas,46 F. Matichard,1,15 L. Matone,52 N. Mavalvala,15 N. Mazumder,72 R. McCarthy,48 D. E. McClelland,25 S. McCormick,7 L. McCuller,15 S. C. McGuire,140 G. McIntyre,1 J. McIver,1 D. J. McManus,25 L. McNeill,6 T. McRae,25 S. T. McWilliams,42 D. Meacher,67 G. D. Meadors,38,10 M. Mehmet,10 J. Meidam,14 E. Mejuto-Villa,9 A. Melatos,99 G. Mendell,48 R. A. Mercer,21 E. L. Merilh,48 M. Merzougui,70 S. Meshkov,1 C. Messenger,47 C. Messick,67 R. Metzdorff,74 P. M. Meyers,46 H. Miao,62 C. Michel,26 H. Middleton,62 E. E. Mikhailov,141 L. Milano,82,4 A. L. Miller,5,100,35 B. B. Miller,92 J. Miller,15 M. Millhouse,104 M. C. Milovich-Goff,110 O. Minazzoli,70,142 Y. Minenkov,33 J. Ming,38 C. Mishra,143 S. Mitra,19 V. P. Mitrofanov,65 G. Mitselmakher,5 R. Mittleman,15 D. Moffa,87 A. Moggi,24 K. Mogushi,11 M. Mohan,30 S. R. P. Mohapatra,15 I. Molina,29 M. Montani,122,123 C. J. Moore,13 D. Moraru,48 G. Moreno,48 S. Morisaki,84 S. R. Morriss,106 B. Mours,8 C. M. Mow-Lowry,62 G. Mueller,5 A. W. Muir,36 Arunava Mukherjee,10 D. Mukherjee,21 S. Mukherjee,106 N. Mukund,19 A. Mullavey,7 J. Munch,76 E. A. Muñiz,45 M. Muratore,37 P. G. Murray,47 A. Nagar,89,144,145 K. Napier,80 I. Nardecchia,32,33 L. Naticchioni,100,35 R. K. Nayak,146 J. Neilson,110 G. Nelemans,69,14 T. J. N. Nelson,7 M. Nery,10 A. Neunzert,119 L. Nevin,1 J. M. Newport,125 G. Newton,47,‡ K. K. Y. Ng,96 P. Nguyen,73 T. T. Nguyen,25 D. Nichols,69 A. B. Nielsen,10 S. Nissanke,69,14 A. Nitz,10 A. Noack,10 F. Nocera,30 D. Nolting,7 C. North,36 L. K. Nuttall,36 J. Oberling,48 G. D. O’Dea,110 G. H. Ogin,147 J. J. Oh,132 S. H. Oh,132 F. Ohme,10 M. A. Okada,16 M. Oliver,105 P. Oppermann,10 Richard J. Oram,7 B. O’Reilly,7 R. Ormiston,46 L. F. Ortega,5 R. O’Shaughnessy,61 S. Ossokine,38 D. J. Ottaway,76 H. Overmier,7 B. J. Owen,86 A. E. Pace,67 J. Page,138 M. A. Page,68 A. Pai,117,148 S. A. Pai,64 J. R. Palamos,73 O. Palashov,129 C. Palomba,35 A. Pal-Singh,34 Howard Pan,90 Huang-Wei Pan,90 B. Pang,49 P. T. H. Pang,96 C. Pankow,92 F. Pannarale,36 B. C. Pant,64 F. Paoletti,24 A. Paoli,30 M. A. Papa,38,21,10 A. Parida,19 W. Parker,7 D. Pascucci,47 A. Pasqualetti,30 R. Passaquieti,23,24 D. Passuello,24 M. Patil,134 B. Patricelli,149,24 B. L. Pearlstone,47 M. Pedraza,1 R. Pedurand,26,150 L. Pekowsky,45 A. Pele,7 S. Penn,151 C. J. Perez,48 A. Perreca,1,111,98 L. M. Perri,92 H. P. Pfeiffer,93,38 M. Phelps,47 O. J. Piccinni,100,35 M. Pichot,70 F. Piergiovanni,122,123 V. Pierro,9 G. Pillant,30 L. Pinard,26 I. M. Pinto,9 M. Pirello,48 M. Pitkin,47 M. Poe,21 R. Poggiani,23,24 P. Popolizio,30 E. K. Porter,39 A. Post,10 J. Powell,47,41 J. Prasad,19 J. W. W. Pratt,37 G. Pratten,105 V. Predoi,36 T. Prestegard,21 M. Prijatelj,10 M. Principe,9 S. Privitera,38 R. Prix,10 G. A. Prodi,111,98 L. G. Prokhorov,65 O. Puncken,10 M. Punturo,44 P. Puppo,35 M. Pürrer,38 H. Qi,21 V. Quetschke,106 E. A. Quintero,1 R. Quitzow-James,73 F. J. Raab,48 D. S. Rabeling,25 H. Radkins,48 P. Raffai,57 S. Raja,64 C. Rajan,64 B. Rajbhandari,86 M. Rakhmanov,106 K. E. Ramirez,106 A. Ramos-Buades,105 P. Rapagnani,100,35 V. Raymond,38 M. Razzano,23,24 J. Read,29 T. Regimbau,70 L. Rei,63 S. Reid,66 D. H. Reitze,1,5 W. Ren,12 S. D. Reyes,45 F. Ricci,100,35 P. M. Ricker,12 S. Rieger,10 K. Riles,119 M. Rizzo,61 N. A. Robertson,1,47 R. Robie,47 F. Robinet,28 A. Rocchi,33 L. Rolland,8 J. G. Rollins,1 V. J. Roma,73 J. D. Romano,106 R. Romano,3,4 C. L. Romel,48 J. H. Romie,7 D. Rosińska,152,58 M. P. Ross,153 S. Rowan,47 A. Rüdiger,10 P. Ruggi,30 G. Rutins,27 K. Ryan,48 S. Sachdev,1 T. Sadecki,48 L. Sadeghian,21 M. Sakellariadou,154 L. Salconi,30 M. Saleem,117 F. Salemi,10 A. Samajdar,146 L. Sammut,6 L. M. Sampson,92 E. J. Sanchez,1 L. E. Sanchez,1 N. Sanchis-Gual,88 V. Sandberg,48 J. R. Sanders,45 B. Sassolas,26 B. S. Sathyaprakash,67,36 P. R. Saulson,45 O. Sauter,119 R. L. Savage,48 A. Sawadsky,34 P. Schale,73 M. Scheel,49 J. Scheuer,92 J. Schmidt,10 P. Schmidt,1,69 R. Schnabel,34 R. M. S. Schofield,73 A. Schönbeck,34 E. Schreiber,10 D. Schuette,10,22 B. W. Schulte,10 B. F. Schutz,36,10 S. G. Schwalbe,37 J. Scott,47 S. M. Scott,25 E. Seidel,12 D. Sellers,7 A. S. Sengupta,155 D. Sentenac,30 V. Sequino,32,33,17 A. Sergeev,129 D. A. Shaddock,25 T. J. Shaffer,48 A. A. Shah,138 M. S. Shahriar,92 M. B. Shaner,110 L. Shao,38 B. Shapiro,53 P. Shawhan,79 A. Sheperd,21 D. H. Shoemaker,15 D. M. Shoemaker,80 K. Siellez,80 X. Siemens,21 M. Sieniawska,58 D. Sigg,48 A. D. Silva,16 L. P. Singer,51 A. Singh,38,10,22 A. Singhal,17,35 A. M. Sintes,105 B. J. J. Slagmolen,25 B. Smith,7 J. R. Smith,29 R. J. E. Smith,1,6 S. Somala,156 E. J. Son,132 J. A. Sonnenberg,21 B. Sorazu,47 F. Sorrentino,63 T. Souradeep,19 A. P. Spencer,47 A. K. Srivastava,108 K. Staats,37 A. Staley,52 M. Steinke,10 J. Steinlechner,34,47 S. Steinlechner,34 D. Steinmeyer,10 S. P. Stevenson,62,41 R. Stone,106 D. J. Stops,62 K. A. Strain,47 G. Stratta,122,123 S. E. Strigin,65 A. Strunk,48 R. Sturani,157 A. L. Stuver,7 T. Z. Summerscales,158 L. Sun,99 S. Sunil,108 J. Suresh,19 P. J. Sutton,36 B. L. Swinkels,30 M. J. Szczepańczyk,37 M. Tacca,14 S. C. Tait,47 C. Talbot,6 D. Talukder,73 D. B. Tanner,5 M. Tápai,118 A. Taracchini,38 J. D. Tasson,75 J. A. Taylor,138 R. Taylor,1 S. V. Tewari,151 T. Theeg,10 F. Thies,10 E. G. Thomas,62 M. Thomas,7 P. Thomas,48 K. A. Thorne,7 K. S. Thorne,49 E. Thrane,6 S. Tiwari,17,98 V. Tiwari,36 K. V. Tokmakov,66 K. Toland,47 M. Tonelli,23,24 Z. Tornasi,47 A. Torres-Forné,88 C. I. Torrie,1 D. Töyrä,62 F. Travasso,30,44 G. Traylor,7 J. Trinastic,5 M. C. Tringali,111,98 161101-14 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date L. Trozzo,159,24 K. W. Tsang,14 M. Tse,15 R. Tso,1 L. Tsukada,84 D. Tsuna,84 D. Tuyenbayev,106 K. Ueno,21 D. Ugolini,160 C. S. Unnikrishnan,120 A. L. Urban,1 S. A. Usman,36 H. Vahlbruch,22 G. Vajente,1 G. Valdes,2 M. Vallisneri,49 N. van Bakel,14 M. van Beuzekom,14 J. F. J. van den Brand,78,14 C. Van Den Broeck,14 D. C. Vander-Hyde,45 L. van der Schaaf,14 J. V. van Heijningen,14 A. A. van Veggel,47 M. Vardaro,55,56 V. Varma,49 S. Vass,1 M. Vasúth,50 A. Vecchio,62 G. Vedovato,56 J. Veitch,47 P. J. Veitch,76 K. Venkateswara,153 G. Venugopalan,1 D. Verkindt,8 F. Vetrano,122,123 A. Viceré,122,123 A. D. Viets,21 S. Vinciguerra,62 D. J. Vine,27 J.-Y. Vinet,70 S. Vitale,15 T. Vo,45 H. Vocca,43,44 C. Vorvick,48 S. P. Vyatchanin,65 A. R. Wade,1 L. E. Wade,87 M. Wade,87 R. Walet,14 M. Walker,29 L. Wallace,1 S. Walsh,38,10,21 G. Wang,17,123 H. Wang,62 J. Z. Wang,67 W. H. Wang,106 Y. F. Wang,96 R. L. Ward,25 J. Warner,48 M. Was,8 J. Watchi,101 B. Weaver,48 L.-W. Wei,10,22 M. Weinert,10 A. J. Weinstein,1 R. Weiss,15 L. Wen,68 E. K. Wessel,12 P. Weßels,10 J. Westerweck,10 T. Westphal,10 K. Wette,25 J. T. Whelan,61 S. E. Whitcomb,1 B. F. Whiting,5 C. Whittle,6 D. Wilken,10 D. Williams,47 R. D. Williams,1 A. R. Williamson,69 J. L. Willis,1,161 B. Willke,22,10 M. H. Wimmer,10 W. Winkler,10 C. C. Wipf,1 H. Wittel,10,22 G. Woan,47 J. Woehler,10 J. Wofford,61 K. W. K. Wong,96 J. Worden,48 J. L. Wright,47 D. S. Wu,10 D. M. Wysocki,61 S. Xiao,1 H. Yamamoto,1 C. C. Yancey,79 L. Yang,162 M. J. Yap,25 M. Yazback,5 Hang Yu,15 Haocun Yu,15 M. Yvert,8 A. Zadrożny,133 M. Zanolin,37 T. Zelenova,30 J.-P. Zendri,56 M. Zevin,92 L. Zhang,1 M. Zhang,141 T. Zhang,47 Y.-H. Zhang,61 C. Zhao,68 M. Zhou,92 Z. Zhou,92 S. J. Zhu,38,10 X. J. Zhu,6 A. B. Zimmerman,93 M. E. Zucker,1,15 and J. Zweizig1 (LIGOterm·key Scientific CollaborationpersName and Virgoterm·key CollaborationpersName) 1LIGO, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA 2Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803, USA 3Università di Salerno, Fisciano, I-84084 Salerno, Italy 4INFN, Sezione di Napoli, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy 5University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA 6OzGrav, School of Physics & Astronomy, Monash University, Clayton 3800, Victoria, Australia 7LIGO Livingston Observatory, Livingston, Louisiana 70754, USA 8Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP), Université Savoie Mont Blanc, CNRS/IN2P3, F-74941 Annecy, France 9University of Sannio at Benevento, I-82100 Benevento, Italy and INFN, Sezione di Napoli, I-80100 Napoli, Italy 10Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (Albert Einstein Institute), D-30167 Hannover, Germany 11The University of Mississippi, University, Mississippi 38677, USA 12NCSA, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA 13University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1TN, United Kingdom 14Nikhef, Science Park, 1098 XG Amsterdam, Netherlands 15LIGO, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA 16Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais, 12227-010 São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil 17Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), I-67100 L’Aquila, Italy 18INFN, Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, I-67100 Assergi, Italy 19Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pune 411007, India 20International Centre for Theoretical Sciences, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru 560089, India 21University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA 22Leibniz Universität Hannover, D-30167 Hannover, Germany 23Università di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy 24INFN, Sezione di Pisa, I-56127 Pisa, Italy 25OzGrav, Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia 26Laboratoire des Matériaux Avancés (LMA), CNRS/IN2P3, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France 27SUPA, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley PA1 2BE, United Kingdom 28LAL, Univ. Paris-Sud, CNRS/IN2P3, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91898 Orsay, France 29California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, California 92831, USA 30European Gravitational Observatory (EGO), I-56021 Cascina, Pisa, Italy 31Chennai Mathematical Institute, Chennai 603103, India 32Università di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy 33INFN, Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata, I-00133 Roma, Italy 34Universität Hamburg, D-22761 Hamburg, Germany 35INFN, Sezione di Roma, I-00185 Roma, Italy 161101-15 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date 36Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom 37Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott, Arizona 86301, USA 38Max Planck Institute for Gravitationalphysik (Albert Einstein Institute), D-14476 Potsdam-Golm, Germany 39APC, AstroParticule et Cosmologie, Université Paris Diderot, CNRS/IN2P3, CEA/Irfu, Observatoire de Paris, Sorbonne Paris Cité, F-75205 Paris Cedex 13, France 40Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information, Daejeon 34141, Korea 41OzGrav, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn VIC 3122, Australia 42West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia 26506, USA 43Università di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy 44INFN, Sezione di Perugia, I-06123 Perugia, Italy 45Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York 13244, USA 46University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, USA 47SUPA, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, United Kingdom 48LIGO Hanford Observatory, Richland, Washington 99352, USA 49Caltech CaRT, Pasadena, California 91125, USA 50Wigner RCP, RMKI, H-1121 Budapest, Konkoly Thege Miklós út 29-33, Hungary 51NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 20771, USA 52Columbia University, New York, New York 10027, USA 53Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, USA 54Università di Camerino, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-62032 Camerino, Italy 55Università di Padova, Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia, I-35131 Padova, Italy 56INFN, Sezione di Padova, I-35131 Padova, Italy 57Institute of Physics, Eötvös University, Pázmány P. s. 1/A, Budapest 1117, Hungary 58Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center, Polish Academy of Sciences, 00-716, Warsaw, Poland 59Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche, Fisiche e Informatiche, Università di Parma, I-43124 Parma, Italy 60INFN, Sezione di Milano Bicocca, Gruppo Collegato di Parma, I-43124 Parma, Italy 61Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York 14623, USA 62University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom 63INFN, Sezione di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy 64RRCAT, Indore MP 452013, India 65Faculty of Physics, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119991, Russia 66SUPA, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow G1 1XQ, United Kingdom 67The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA 68OzGrav, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia 69Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, Netherlands 70Artemis, Université Côte d’Azur, Observatoire Côte d’Azur, CNRS, CS 34229, F-06304 Nice Cedex 4, France 71Institut FOTON, CNRS, Université de Rennes 1, F-35042 Rennes, France 72Washington State University, Pullman, Washington 99164, USA 73University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon 97403, USA 74Laboratoire Kastler Brossel, UPMC-Sorbonne Universités, CNRS, ENS-PSL Research University, Collège de France, F-75005 Paris, France 75Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota 55057, USA 76OzGrav, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia 77Astronomical Observatory Warsaw University, 00-478 Warsaw, Poland 78VU University Amsterdam, 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands 79University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742, USA 80Center for Relativistic Astrophysics, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA 81Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, F-69622 Villeurbanne, France 82Università di Napoli “Federico II”, Complesso Universitario di Monte S.Angelo, I-80126 Napoli, Italy 83Dipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Genova, I-16146 Genova, Italy 84RESCEU, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, 113-0033, Japan 85Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China 86Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, USA 87Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio 43022, USA 88Departamento de Astronomía y Astrofísica, Universitat de València, E-46100 Burjassot, València, Spain 89Museo Storico della Fisica e Centro Studi e Ricerche Enrico Fermi, I-00184 Roma, Italy 90National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu City, 30013 Taiwan, Republic of China 91Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales 2678, Australia 92Center for Interdisciplinary Exploration & Research in Astrophysics (CIERA), Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA 161101-16 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date 93Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3H8, Canada 94University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA 95Pusan National University, Busan 46241, Korea 96The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong 97INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova, I-35122 Padova, Italy 98INFN, Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy 99OzGrav, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia 100Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, I-00185 Roma, Italy 101Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels 1050, Belgium 102Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California 94928, USA 103Departamento de Matemáticas, Universitat de València, E-46100 Burjassot, València, Spain 104Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, USA 105Universitat de les Illes Balears, IAC3—IEEC, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain 106The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Brownsville, Texas 78520, USA 107Bellevue College, Bellevue, Washington 98007, USA 108Institute for Plasma Research, Bhat, Gandhinagar 382428, India 109The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, United Kingdom 110California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, California 90032, USA 111Università di Trento, Dipartimento di Fisica, I-38123 Povo, Trento, Italy 112Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey 07043, USA 113National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan 114Observatori Astronòmic, Universitat de València, E-46980 Paterna, València, Spain 115School of Mathematics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH9 3FD, United Kingdom 116University and Institute of Advanced Research, Koba Institutional Area, Gandhinagar Gujarat 382007, India 117IISER-TVM, CET Campus, Trivandrum Kerala 695016, India 118University of Szeged, Dóm tér 9, Szeged 6720, Hungary 119University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109, USA 120Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India 121INAF, Osservatorio Astronomico di Capodimonte, I-80131, Napoli, Italy 122Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo” I-61029 Urbino, Italy 123INFN, Sezione di Firenze, I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Firenze, Italy 124Physik-Institut, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland 125American University, Washington, DC 20016, USA 126University of Southampton, Southampton SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom 127University of Biał ystok, 15-424 Biał ystok, Poland 128University of Washington Bothell, 18115 Campus Way NE, Bothell, Washington 98011, USA 129Institute of Applied Physics, Nizhny Novgorod, 603950, Russia 130Korea Astronomy and Space Science Institute, Daejeon 34055, Korea 131Inje University Gimhae, South Gyeongsang 50834, Korea 132National Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Daejeon 34047, Korea 133NCBJ, 05-400 Świerk-Otwock, Poland 134Institute of Mathematics, Polish Academy of Sciences, 00656 Warsaw, Poland 135Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, Michigan 49242, USA 136Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea 137Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea 138NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama 35811, USA 139ESPCI, CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France 140Southern University and A&M College, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70813, USA 141College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23187, USA 142Centre Scientifique de Monaco, 8 quai Antoine Ier, MC-98000, Monaco 143Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai 600036, India 144INFN Sezione di Torino, I-10125 Torino, Italy 145Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifiques, F-91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France 146IISER-Kolkata, Mohanpur, West Bengal 741252, India 147Whitman College, 345 Boyer Avenue, Walla Walla, Washington 99362 USA 148Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Powai, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400076, India 149Scuola Normale Superiore, Piazza dei Cavalieri 7, I-56126 Pisa, Italy 150Université de Lyon, F-69361 Lyon, France 151Hobart and William Smith Colleges, Geneva, New York 14456, USA 152Janusz Gil Institute of Astronomy, University of Zielona Góra, 65-265 Zielona Góra, Poland 161101-17 PRL 119, 161101 (2017date) P H Y S I C A L R E V I E W L E T T E R S week ending 20 OCTOBER 2017date 153University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA 154King’s College London, University of London, London WC2R 2LS, United Kingdom 155Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar Ahmedabad Gujarat 382424, India 156Indian Institute of Technology Hyderabad, Sangareddy, Khandi, Telangana 502285, India 157International Institute of Physics, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Natal RN 59078-970, Brazil 158Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Michigan 49104, USA 159Università di Siena, I-53100 Siena, Italy 160Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas 78212, USA 161Abilene Christian University, Abilene, Texas 79699, USA 162Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado 80523, USA † ‡ Deceased, February 2017date. Deceased, December 2016. 161101-18