REVIEW 1 cited by
Deep Learning Ensemble for Real-time Gravitational Wave Detection of Spinning Binary Black Hole Mergers
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We introduce the use of deep learning ensembles for real-time, gravitational wave detection of spinning binary black hole mergers. This analysis consists of training independent neural networks that simultaneously process strain data from multiple detectors. The output of these networks is then combined and processed to identify significant noise triggers. We have applied this methodology in O2 and O3 data finding that deep learning ensembles clearly identify binary black hole mergers in open source data available at the Gravitational-Wave Open Science Center. We have also benchmarked the performance of this new methodology by processing 200 hours of open source, advanced LIGO noise from August 2017. Our findings indicate that our approach identifies real gravitational wave sources in advanced LIGO data with a false positive rate of 1 misclassification for every 2.7 days of searched data. A follow up of these misclassifications identified them as glitches. Our deep learning ensemble represents the first class of neural network classifiers that are trained with millions of modeled waveforms that describe quasi-circular, spinning, non-precessing, binary black hole mergers. Once fully trained, our deep learning ensemble processes advanced LIGO strain data faster than real-time using 4 NVIDIA V100 GPUs.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Robustness of Sensitivity Evaluations for Gravitational Wave Detection Algorithms
AresGW model 1's injection detection count at a false-alarm rate of 1/month varies with noise dataset by up to 39% coefficient of variation, while sensitive distance varies by only a few percent.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.