REVIEW 1 cited by
Exploring gravitational-wave detection and parameter inference using Deep Learning methods
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
abstract
We explore machine learning methods to detect gravitational waves (GW) from binary black hole (BBH) mergers using deep learning (DL) algorithms. The DL networks are trained with gravitational waveforms obtained from BBH mergers with component masses randomly sampled in the range from 5 to 100 solar masses and luminosity distances from 100 Mpc to, at least, 2000 Mpc. The GW signal waveforms are injected in public data from the O2 run of the Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo detectors, in time windows that do not coincide with those of known detected signals. We demonstrate that DL algorithms, trained with GW signal waveforms at distances of 2000 Mpc, still show high accuracy when detecting closer signals, within the ranges considered in our analysis. Moreover, by combining the results of the three-detector network in a unique RGB image, the single detector performance is improved by as much as 70%. Furthermore, we train a regression network to perform parameter inference on BBH spectrogram data and apply this network to the events from the the GWTC-1 and GWTC-2 catalogs. Without significant optimization of our algorithms we obtain results that are mostly consistent with published results by the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration. In particular, our predictions for the chirp mass are compatible (up to 3$\sigma$) with the official values for 90% of events
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.