Abstract
This paper presents a parameter estimation analysis of the seven binary black hole mergers—GW170104, GW170608, GW170729, GW170809, GW170814, GW170818, and GW170823—detected during the second observing run of the Advanced LIGO and Virgo observatories using the gravitationalwave open data. We describe the methodology for parameter estimation of compact binaries using gravitationalwave data, and we present the posterior distributions of the inferred astrophysical parameters. We release our samples of the posterior probability density function with tutorials on using and replicating our results presented in this paper.
Design Type(s)  data analysis objective • modeling and simulation objective 
Measurement Type(s)  parameter 
Technology Type(s)  Mathematical Model 
Factor Type(s)  
Sample Characteristic(s)  outer space 
Machineaccessible metadata file describing the reported data (ISATab format)
Background & Summary
During the second Advanced LIGO–Virgo observing run (O2), three binary black hole mergers were observed by the Advanced LIGO detectors^{1} on January 4, 2017—GW170104^{2}, June 8, 2017—GW170608^{3}, and August 23, 2017—GW170823^{4} and four binary black hole mergers observed by the Advanced LIGO detectors and the Advanced Virgo detector^{5} on July 29, 2017—GW170729^{4}, August 9, 2017—GW170809^{4}, August 14, 2017—GW170814^{6} and August 18, 2017—GW170818^{4}. Including the binary black hole mergers observed in Advanced LIGO’s first observing run^{7,8} (O1), to date, there have been ten binary black hole mergers reported to have been detected by the Advanced LIGO–Virgo observatories^{2,3,4,6,7,8}. The properties of these observed binary black hole sources (eg. masses and spins) are of interest to the astrophysics community to understand the formation, evolution, and populations of black holes. These properties are estimated using Bayesian inference^{9,10} which allow us to sample the posterior probability density function—the probability of the modeled parameter values given a model and set of detectors’ data. We perform a Bayesian inference analysis^{11,12} using the available gravitationalwave data^{13} for GW170104, GW170608, GW170729, GW170809, GW170814, GW170818, and GW170823—the seven binary black holes reported from O2, and we present their posterior probability density functions in this paper. In particular, we present estimates for the masses, spins, distances, inclination angle, and sky locations of the binaries.
Methods
Bayesian inference
We perform a Bayesian parameter estimation analysis^{12} to measure the source properties of the seven binary blackmergers from Advanced LIGO–Virgo’s second observing run, using the gravitationalwave data available at the GravitationalWave Open Science Center^{13}. We use the data available from the Advanced LIGO detectors for GW170104, GW170608, GW170823. For GW170729, GW170809, GW170814, and GW170818, we use the available Advanced LIGO and the Advanced Virgo data. The parameter estimation analysis was executed using the PyCBC Inference software^{11,14} and the paralleltempered emcee sampler^{15,16,17}, which employs ensemble Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques^{2,3,6,7,12,18,19,20,21,22,23} to sample the posterior probability density function \(p(\overrightarrow{\vartheta } \overrightarrow{d}(t),H)\). We calculate the posterior probability density function, \(p(\overrightarrow{\vartheta } \overrightarrow{d}(t),H)\), for the set of parameters \(\overrightarrow{\vartheta }\) for the gravitationalwaveform model, H, given the gravitationalwave data from the detectors \(\overrightarrow{d}(t)\)^{13}
where \(p(\overrightarrow{\vartheta } H)\) is the prior—the assumed knowledge of the distributions for the parameters \(\overrightarrow{\vartheta }\) describing the signal, before considering the data. \(p(\overrightarrow{d}(t) \overrightarrow{\vartheta },H)\) is the likelihood—the probability of obtaining the data \(\overrightarrow{d}(t)\) given the model H with parameters \(\overrightarrow{\vartheta }\). The likelihood in a network of N detectors is computed as^{11,23,24}
considering the noise in each detector to be stationary, Gaussian, and uncorrelated with the noise in the other detectors in the network. \({\widetilde{d}}_{i}(f)\), \({\widetilde{n}}_{i}(f)\), and \({\widetilde{s}}_{i}(f,\overrightarrow{\vartheta })\) are the frequencydomain representations of the data, noise, and the model waveforms respectively. The inner product \(\langle { {\tilde{a}} } \widetilde{b}\rangle \) is defined as
where \({S}_{n}^{(i)}(f)\) is the power spectral density (PSD) of the ith detector’s noise.
For computing the likelihood, we analyze the gravitationalwave dataset \(\overrightarrow{d}(t)\) from the Hanford and Livingston detectors, between GPS times (1167559926, 1167559942) for GW170104, (1180922444, 1180922500) for GW170608, and (1187529246, 1187529262) for GW170823. We analyze \(\overrightarrow{d}(t)\) from the Hanford, Livingston, and Virgo detectors between GPS times (1185389797, 1185389813) for GW170729, (1186302509, 1186302525) for GW170809, (1186741851, 1186741867) for GW170814, and (1187058317, 1187058333) for GW170818. Based on the estimates of the masses indicating the length of the signals from the search pipeline^{14,25,26,27,28} and from the results of the parameter estimation analyses reported in refs^{2,3,4,6}, GW170608 was found to have properties of a lower mass source and hence have larger number of cycles as compared to the other events. Therefore we extend the priors for GW170608 to much lower component masses than for the other two events, which is described below. This requires more data for the analysis of GW170608 such that the segment of the data being analyzed can encompass the longest duration (ie. smallest mass) template waveform drawn from the prior used for GW170608.
The dataset is decimated to a sample rate of 2048 Hz. The PSD used in the likelihood is constructed using the median PSD estimation method described in ref.^{29} with 8 s Hannwindowed segments (overlapped by 4 s) taken from GPS times (1167559424, 1167560448) for GW170104, (1180921982, 1180923006) for GW170608, (1185388936, 1185389960) for GW170729, (1186302007, 1186303031) for GW170809, (1186741349, 1186742373) for GW170814, (1187057815, 1187058839) for GW170818, and (1187528744, 1187529768) for GW170823. Prior to performing a Fourier transform of the data for PSD estimation, we remove the signal from the data used for PSD estimation by applying a gating window of width of the order of the signal length. This removes any bias introduced in the noise due to the presence of the signal. The PSD estimate is truncated to 4 s in the timedomain using the method described in ref.^{29}. For all seven events except GW170608, the likelihood is computed between a lowfrequency cutoff of 20 Hz and the Nyquist frequency of 1024 Hz for all the detectors in the network. For GW170608, we use the same procedure in ref.^{3} and compute the likelihood using a lowfrequency cutoff of 20 Hz and the Nyquist frequency of 1024 Hz for the Livingston detector, and using frequencies between 30 Hz and 1024 Hz for the Hanford detector. During the observation of GW170608, the Hanford detector was undergoing a routine instrumental procedure to minimize angular noise coupling to the strain measurement. This introduced excess noise in the strain data from the Hanford detector at frequencies around ~19–23 Hz, but the strain data was shown to be stable above 30 Hz in ref.^{3}.
The template waveforms \({\widetilde{s}}_{i}(f,\overrightarrow{\vartheta })\) used in the likelihood are generated using the IMRPhenomPv2^{30,31} waveform model implemented in the LIGO Algorithm Library (LAL)^{32}. The parameters \(\overrightarrow{\vartheta }\) measured in the ensemble MCMC for these seven events are: right ascension α, declination δ, polarization ψ, component masses in the detector frame \({m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) and \({m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\), luminosity distance d_{L}, inclination angle ι, coalescence time t_{c}, magnitudes for the spin vector a_{1} and a_{2}, azimuthal angles for the spin vectors \({\theta }_{1}^{{\rm{a}}}\) and \({\theta }_{2}^{{\rm{a}}}\), polar angles for the spin vectors \({\theta }_{1}^{{\rm{p}}}\) and \({\theta }_{2}^{{\rm{p}}}\). We analytically marginalize over the fiducial phase ϕ. For efficient sampling of the parameter space and faster convergence of the Markov chains, we apply a transformation from the mass parameters that define the prior (\({m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}}\), \({m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\)) to chirp mass and mass ratio \(({{\mathscr{M}}}^{{\rm{\det }}},q)\) coordinates. The chirp mass is defined as \({\mathscr{M}}={({m}_{1}{m}_{2})}^{3/5}/{({m}_{1}+{m}_{2})}^{1/5}\). While sampling, we allow the mass ratio q to be both greater and less than 1.
For GW170104, we assume uniform priors for detectorframe component masses \({m}_{1,2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) ∈ [5.5, 160) M_{⊙}. When generating the waveform in the MCMC, the masses are transformed to the detectorframe chirp mass \({{\mathscr{M}}}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) and q with a restriction \(12.3 < {{\mathscr{M}}}^{{\rm{\det }}}/{M}_{\odot } < 45.0\), and 1 < q < 8 where \(q={\rm{\max }}\{{m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}},{m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\}/{\rm{\min }}\{{m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}},{m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\}\). We assume uniform prior distributions \({m}_{1,2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) ∈ [3, 50) M_{⊙} for GW170608, \({m}_{1,2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) ∈ [10, 90) M_{⊙} for GW170729, \({m}_{1,2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) ∈ [10, 80) M_{⊙} for GW170814, and \({m}_{1,2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) ∈ [5, 80) M_{⊙} for GW170809, GW170818, and GW170823. For the luminosity distance, we assume a uniform in volume distribution such that \(p({d}_{L} H)\propto {d}_{L}^{2}\), with d_{L} ∈ [100, 2500) Mpc for GW170104, d_{L} ∈ [10, 1500) Mpc for GW170608, d_{L} ∈ [10, 5000) Mpc for GW170729, d_{L} ∈ [10, 2500) Mpc for GW170809, d_{L} ∈ [10, 1500) Mpc for GW170814, d_{L} ∈ [10, 3000) Mpc for GW170818, and d_{L} ∈ [10, 5000) Mpc for GW170823. The priors for the remaining parameters are the same for all the events. For spin magnitudes, we use uniform priors a_{1,2} ∈ [0.0, 0.99). We use a uniform solid angle prior for the spin angles, assuming a uniform distribution for the spin azimuthal angles \({\theta }_{1,2}^{{\rm{a}}}\in [0,2\pi )\) and a sineangle distribution for the spin polar angles \({\theta }_{1,2}^{{\rm{p}}}\). We use uniform priors for the arrival time t_{c} ∈ [t_{s} − 0.1 s, t_{s} + 0.1 s) where t_{s} is the trigger time of the event being analyzed, reported in^{2,3,4,6}. For the sky location parameters, we use a uniform distribution prior for α ∈ [0, 2π) and a cosineangle distribution prior for δ. We use a uniform prior for the polarization angle ψ ∈ [0, 2π) and a sineangle distribution for the inclination angle ι prior. The mass and spin priors for GW170104 are the same as those mentioned for the final analysis using the “effective precession” model in ref.^{2}.
The parameter estimation analyses of the events produce samples of the posterior probability density function in the form of Markov chains. Successive states of these chains are not independent, as Markov processes depend on the previous state^{33}. Independent samples are obtained from the full Markov chains by “thinning” or drawing samples from chains of the coldest temperature, with an interval of the autocorrelation length^{11,33}. These independent samples are used to calculate estimates for the model parameters from the analysis.
Posterior probability density functions
Independent samples from the ensemble MCMC chains from the analyses of all the seven events are available for download at the data release repository for this work^{34}. We encourage use of these data in derivative works. The repository also contains IPython notebooks^{35} demonstrating how to read the data from the files and manipulate them, and provide examples of reconstructing the figures presented in this paper.
Samples of the varied parameters in the MCMC can be combined to obtain posteriors for other derivable parameters. We map the values for the detectorframe masses (\({m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}}\), \({m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\)) and the luminosity distance d_{L} from the runs to sourceframe masses (\({m}_{1}^{{\rm{src}}}\), \({m}_{2}^{{\rm{src}}}\)) using the standard ΛCDM cosmology^{36,37}. While visualizing and quoting the detectorframe and sourceframe masses, we use \(q={m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}}/{m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}={m}_{1}^{{\rm{src}}}/{m}_{2}^{{\rm{src}}}\) where \({m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) and \({m}_{1}^{{\rm{src}}}\) refer to the more massive black hole, and \({m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}}\) and \({m}_{2}^{{\rm{src}}}\) refer to the less massive black hole in the binary; ie. we present our results with q ≥ 1. We also map the component masses to parameters such as the chirp mass \({\mathscr{M}}\) and the mass ratio q, and map the component masses and spins to the effective inspiral spin parameter χ_{eff} and the effective precession spin parameter χ_{p}^{30,31}. Our measurements show that all the events are in agreement with being binary black hole sources.
In order to obtain an estimate for a particular parameter, the other parameters that were varied in the ensemble MCMC can be marginalized over in the posterior probability density function. Recorded in Table 1, is a summary of the median and 90% credible interval values of the main parameters of interests obtained from the analyses of all seven O2 binary black hole events. The marginalized distributions for \({m}_{1}^{{\rm{src}}}{m}_{2}^{{\rm{src}}}\), q − χ_{eff}, and d_{L} − ι for the seven events are shown in Figs 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The twodimensional plots in these figures show 90% credible regions for the respective parameters.
Our results show that GW170729 is the largest mass binary black hole signal and GW170608 is the smallest mass binary black hole signal from the detections during O1 and O2. Parameter estimates of the binary black holes observed during O1 were presented in refs^{7,11}. GW170814 seems to have lesser support for asymmetric mass ratios than the other events. All the events have low effective spin values. GW170814 has more support for faceon systems, whereas GW170809 and GW170818 has a preference for faceoff systems. For GW170608, there is preference for both faceon (ι = 0) and faceoff (ι = 180). GW170104, GW170729, and GW170823 has support for faceon (ι = 0), faceoff (ι = 180) and edgeon (ι = 90). Faceon systems are those for which the inclination angle ι = 0; ie. the line of sight is parallel to the binary’s orbital angular momentum. Faceoff systems are those for which ι = π (the line of sight is antiparallel to the binary’s orbital angular momentum). We also computed χ_{p} for each of the events and found no significant measurements of precession. GW170608 seems to be observed at the closest luminosity distance and GW170729 the farthest among the O2 binary black holes.
Figure 4 shows the 90% credible regions for the sky location posterior distributions of all the seven binary black hole events in a Mollweide projection and celestial coordinates. GW170818 and GW170814 have substantially small sky localization areas as they were detected by the H1L1V1 threedetector network, with a significant signaltonoise ratio (SNR) contribution from all the detectors. The GW170729 and GW170809 parameter estimation analyses use data from all three detectors in the network. However, the SNR in Virgo is not significant, causing the sky localization area to be broader than in the cases of GW170814 and GW170818. The sky localization area of GW170809 is smaller as compared to GW170729, as the former has a higher network SNR than the latter; the sky localization area varies inversely as the square of the SNR. The events observed by the H1L1 twodetector network—GW170104, GW170608, GW170823 have poor sky localization, with GW170823 having the lowest network SNR and broadest sky localization area, and GW170608 having the highest network SNR and smallest sky localization area.
Estimates of the parameters for these events were previously published in the LIGO–Virgo Collaboration (LVC) detection papers for these events^{2,3,4,6}. The results from our analyses are overall in agreement with the estimates published by the LVC within the statistical errors of measurement of the parameters. Any small discrepancies in the measurement of the parameters would be due to the differences in the analysis methods. One of the differences is the method of the PSD estimation. Another such difference is that we do not marginalize over calibration uncertainties of the measured strain^{38}, whereas the LVC analyses use a spline model to fit the calibration uncertainties. The true impact of calibration errors on the parameter estimates should be evaluated using a physical model of the calibration, which does not exist currently in any analysis. This will be revisited in a future work.
Data Records
The data products from the parameter estimation analyses for the seven events are stored in seven HDF^{39} files, available within the Zenodo data release repository^{34} for this work. The location of these HDF files within the repository are listed in Table 2. In this section, we describe the contents of these seven HDF files.
The toplevel of each HDF file contains attributes named ifos, variable_args, posterior_only, and lognl. variable_args is a list of the inferred model parameters. For these seven analyses this includes: the coalescence time (tc), distance (distance), inclination angle (inclination), polarization angle (polarization), right ascension (ra), declination (dec), detectorframe component masses (mass1 and mass2), azimuthal angles of the spin vector (spin1_azimuthal and spin2_azimuthal), polar angles of the spin vector (spin1_polar and spin2_polar), and magnitudes of the spin vector (spin1_a and spin2_a). mass1, spin1_a, spin1_polar, spin1_azimuthal in the files refer to the primary black hole in the binary. mass2, spin2_a, spin2_polar, spin2_azimuthal refer to the secondary black hole in the binary.
ifos stores the list of the names of interferometers from which data has been analyzed in each run. The attribute posterior_only is a Boolean where a True value indicates that the posterior samples and likelihood statistics are stored as flattened arrays in the files. lognl stores the value of the noise likelihood, which is described below.
The independent samples of the model parameters are stored in a toplevel HDF group, named [‘samples’]. For each parameter listed in the variable_args attribute, the [‘samples’] HDF group contains an HDF dataset that is a onedimensional array indexed by the independent samples. Therefore, the set of parameters for the ith independent sample is the ith element of each array. For example, [‘samples/mass1’]^{32} and [‘samples/mass2’]^{32} are the masses for the 32nd independent sample. Samples in the mass1 and mass2 data sets are in solar mass units, those in distance are in Mpc units, those in tc are in seconds, and those in spin1_a and spin2_a are dimensionless. Samples in the spin1_polar, spin2_polar, spin1_azimuthal, spin2_azimuthal, inclination, ra, dec, and polarization are in radians.
The second toplevel HDF group is [‘prior_samples’], which stores prior samples in a similar format as the [‘samples’] group described above. For each of the parameters listed in the variable_args attribute, the [‘prior_samples’] HDF group contains an HDF dataset that is a onedimensional array of samples of that parameter drawn from the prior distribution.
The third toplevel HDF group, named [‘likelihood_stats’], contains quantities to obtain the prior \(p(\overrightarrow{\vartheta } H)\) and likelihood \(p(\overrightarrow{d}(t) \overrightarrow{\vartheta },H)\) from Eq. 1 for each independent sample. In order to obtain the prior for each independent sample, the [‘likelihood_stats’] HDF group contains a dataset of the natural logarithm of the prior probabilities called [‘likelihood_stats/prior’]. The datasets in the [‘likelihood_stats’] HDF group are onedimensional arrays indexed by the independent sample (eg. the ith element corresponds to the prior probability of the ith independent sample) as well. In order to obtain the likelihood for each independent sample, there is a dataset containing the natural logarithm of the likelihood ratio Λ called [‘likelihood_stats/loglr’]. The likelihood ratio Λ is defined as^{11}
where \({\rm{log}}\,p(\overrightarrow{d}(t) \overrightarrow{n})\) is the natural logarithm of the noise likelihood defined as^{11}
The natural logarithm of the noise likelihood is a constant for each analysis. Therefore from Eq. 4, in order to compute the natural logarithm of the likelihood, \({\rm{log}}\,p(\overrightarrow{d}(t) \overrightarrow{\vartheta },H)\), the user adds lognl to each element of [‘likelihood_stats/loglr’].
The fourth toplevel HDF group is [‘psds’]. For each interferometer from which data has been used in the analysis, the [‘psds’] HDF group contains a dataset storing a frequency series of the PSD multiplied by the square of the dynamic range factor. The dynamic range factor is a large constant to reduce the dynamic range of the strain; here, we use 2^{69} rounded to 17 significant figures (precisely 5.9029581035870565 × 10^{20}). The first entry in each PSD frequency series corresponds to frequency f = 0 Hz, and the last entry corresponds to f = 1024 Hz. Attached as attributes to each interferometer’s PSD frequency series dataset object are the frequency resolution—delta_f and the low frequency cutoff used for that interferometer in the PSD estimation and likelihood computation—low_frequency_cutoff.
Technical Validation
The analyses in this paper were performed using the PyCBC Inference software^{11} with the paralleltempered emcee sampler^{15,16} (https://github.com/dfm/emcee/tree/v2.2.1), hereafter referred to as emcee_pt, as the sampling algorithm. A validation study of PyCBC Inference with the emcee_pt sampler was presented in Sec. 4 of ref.^{11}. The validation study in ref.^{11} used the same version of the PyCBC code, waveform model, sampler settings, data conditioning settings, and burnin test as used in our analyses in this paper, and therefore demonstrates the credibility of the results presented in this paper. In this section, we summarize the validation study.
We have tested the performance of this setup (ie. code version, waveform model, sampler settings, etc.) using analytic likelihood functions such as the multivariate normal, Rosenbrock, eggbox, and volcano functions. The emcee_pt sampler successfully sampled the underlying analytical distributions. The recovery of parameters of a fourdimensional normal distribution using the emcee_pt sampler is shown in Fig. 2 of ref.^{11}.
Reference^{11} also describes a test performed using simulated binary black hole signals to validate the reliability of parameter estimates generated by PyCBC Inference with the emcee_pt sampler. The test is carried out by generating 100 realizations of stationary Gaussian noise colored by the power spectral densities of the Advanced LIGO detectors around the time of observation of GW150914^{40}. A unique simulated binary black hole signal, whose parameters were sampled from the prior probability density function, is injected into each simulated noise realization. For the population of 100 simulated binary black hole signals, the network signaltonoise ratios range from 5 to 160, and are predominantly spaced between 10 to 40. PyCBC Inference, using the emcee_pt sampler, was then run on each simulated binary black hole signal to produce samples of the posterior probability density function and compute credible intervals that estimate the modeled parameter values. For each parameter, we then calculate the percentage of the runs (x%) in which the true value of the parameter was recovered within a certain credible interval (y%). In the ideal case, there should be a 1to1 relation between these percentiles, ie. x should equal y for any value of the percentile y. The percentilepercentile curves obtained for each parameter in the test is plotted in Fig. 3 of ref.^{11}. To evaluate the deviation between the percentilepercentile curve for each parameter from a 1to1 relation, a KolmogorovSmirnov (KS) test is performed. Using the set of pvalues obtained for all the parameters, another KS test is performed expecting the pvalues to adhere to a uniform distribution. The pvalue obtained from this calculation is 0.7, which is sufficiently high to infer that PyCBC Inference, with it’s implementation of the emcee_pt sampler, provides unbiased estimates of the binary black hole modeled parameters.
In addition to the aforementioned tests using analytical distributions and simulated signals, the 90% credible interval measurements of the binary black hole parameters from our analyses presented in this paper are in agreement with the LIGO–Virgo Collaboration estimates^{2,3,4,6} which used a different inference code. This further validates the results presented here.
Usage Notes
When citing the data associated with this paper and released in the data release repository^{34}, please cite this paper for describing the data and the analyses that generated them. Please also cite ref.^{11} which describes and validates the PyCBC Inference parameter estimation toolkit that was used for generating the data. The samples of the posterior probability density function for each analysis presented in this paper are stored in separate HDF files, and the location of each HDF file is listed in Table 2. We direct users to the tools available in PyCBC Inference to read these files and visualize the data. Figures 1, 2 and 3 in this paper were generated using these tools from the PyCBC version 1.12.3 release. The data release repository also includes scripts to execute pycbc_inference and reproduce the analysis and resulting samples.
The data release repository for this work^{34} includes two IPython notebooks named data_release_o2_bbh_pe.ipynb and o2_bbh_pe_skymaps.ipynb. data_release_o2_bbh_pe.ipynb presents tutorials for using PyCBC to handle the data. This notebook contains examples to load the HDF datasets, convert the parameters in the HDF files to other coordinates (eg. \(({m}_{1}^{{\rm{\det }}},{m}_{2}^{{\rm{\det }}})\to ({{\mathscr{M}}}^{{\rm{\det }}},q)\)), and visualize the samples of the posterior probability density function. The samples’ credible intervals are visualized as marginalized onedimensional histograms and twodimensional credible contour regions. We include commands in this notebook to reproduce Figs 1, 2 and 3 in this paper. PyCBC Inference also includes an executable called pycbc_inference_plot_posterior to render these visualizations. The IPython notebook o2_bbh_pe_skymaps.ipynb demonstrates a method of visualizing the sky location posterior distributions, as presented in Fig. 4 in this paper. We use tools from the open source ligo.skymap package (https://pypi.org/project/ligo.skymap/) for writing the sky location posterior samples from our analyses into FITS files, reading them, and generating probability density contours on a Mollweide projection.
The released data are freely available under the Creative Commons License: CC BY.
Code Availability
The posterior probability density functions presented in this paper were sampled using the PyCBC Inference software. The PyCBC Inference toolkit uses the Bayesian inference methodology described in this paper; a more detailed description of the toolkit is presented in ref.^{11}. The source code and documentation of PyCBC Inference is available as part of the PyCBC software package at http://pycbc.org. The results in this paper were generated with the PyCBC version 1.12.3 release. In the data release repository for this work^{34} we provide scripts and configuration files for replicating our analysis. The scripts document our command line calls to the pycbc_inference executable which performs the ensemble MCMC analyses. The command line call to pycbc_inference contains options for: the ensemble MCMC configuration, data conditioning, and locations of the configuration file and gravitationalwave detector data files. The configuration files included in the repository, and used as an input to pycbc_inference, specify the prior probability density functions used in the analyses, including sections for: initializing the distribution of Markovchain positions in the ensemble MCMC, declaring transformations between the parameters that define the prior and the parameters that the ensemble MCMC samples (eg. \(({m}_{1},{m}_{2})\to ({\mathscr{M}},q)\)), and defining additional constraints to the prior probability density function^{11}.
References
Aasi, J. et al. Advanced LIGO. Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 074001 (2015).
Abbott, B. P. et al. GW170104: Observation of a 50SolarMass Binary Black Hole Coalescence at Redshift 0.2. Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 221101 (2017).
Abbott, B. P. et al. GW170608: Observation of a 19solarmass Binary Black Hole Coalescence. Astrophys. J. 851, L35 (2017).
Abbott, B. P. et al. GWTC1: A GravitationalWave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs. Preprint at, https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.12907 (2018).
Acernese, F. et al. Advanced Virgo: a secondgeneration interferometric gravitational wave detector. Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 024001 (2015).
Abbott, B. P. et al. GW170814: A ThreeDetector Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Coalescence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 141101 (2017).
Abbott, B. P. et al. Binary Black Hole Mergers in the first Advanced LIGO Observing Run. Phys. Rev. X 6, 041015 (2016).
Nitz, A. H. et al. 1OGC: The First Open Gravitationalwave Catalog of Binary Mergers from Analysis of Public Advanced LIGO. Data. American Astronomical Society 872, 195 (2017).
Bayes, M. & Price, M. An Essay towards Solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 53, 370–418 (1763).
Jaynes, E. T. Probability Theory: The Logic Of Science. (CUP, 2003).
Biwer, C. M. et al. PyCBC Inference: A Pythonbased parameter estimation toolkit for compact binary coalescence signals. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 131, 024503 (2019).
Christensen, N. & Meyer, R., Using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for estimating parameters with gravitational radiation data. Phys. Rev. D 64, 022001 (2001).
Vallisneri, M., Kanner, J., Williams, R., Weinstein, A. & Stephens, B. The LIGO Open Science Center. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 610, 012021 (2015).
Nitz, A. et al. gwastro/pycbc: 1.12.3 Release. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1410598 (2018).
ForemanMackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013).
Weare, J. & Goodman, J. Commun. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci 5, 65–80 (2010).
Vousden, W. D., Farr, W. M. & Mandel, I. Dynamic temperature selection for parallel tempering in markov chain monte carlo simulations. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 455, 1919–1937 (2016).
Christensen, N., Libson, A. & Meyer, R. A MetropolisHastings routine for estimating parameters from compact binary inspiral events with laser interferometric gravitational radiation data. Class. Quant. Grav. 21, 317–330 (2004).
Gelman, A., Robert, C., Chopin, N. & Rousseau, J. Bayes, Jeffreys, Prior Distributions and the Philosophy of Statistics. Statist. Sci. 24, 176–178 (2009).
Geman, S. & Geman, D. Stochastic relaxation, gibbs distributions, and the bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence PAMI6, 721–741 (1984).
Metropolis, N., Rosenbluth, A. W., Rosenbluth, M. N., Teller, A. H. & Teller, E. Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines. J. Chem. Phys. 21, 1087–1092 (1953).
Rover, C., Meyer, R. & Christensen, N. Bayesian inference on compact binary inspiral gravitational radiation signals in interferometric data. Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 4895–4906 (2006).
Rover, C., Meyer, R. & Christensen, N. Coherent Bayesian inference on compact binary inspirals using a network of interferometric gravitational wave detectors. Phys. Rev. D 75, 062004 (2007).
Wainstein, L. A. & Zubakov, V. D. Extraction Of Signals From Noise. (PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1962).
Abbott, B. P. et al. GW150914: First results from the search for binary black hole coalescence with Advanced LIGO. Phys. Rev. D 93, 122003 (2016).
Canton, T. D. et al. Implementing a search for alignedspin neutron starblack hole systems with advanced ground based gravitational wave detectors. Phys. Rev. D 90, 082004 (2014).
Nitz, A. H., Dent, T., Canton, T. D., Fairhurst, S. & Brown, D. A. Detecting binary compactobject mergers with gravitational waves: Understanding and Improving the sensitivity of the PyCBC search. Astrophys. J. 849, 118 (2017).
Usman, S. A. et al. The PyCBC search for gravitational waves from compact binary coalescence. Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 215004 (2016).
Allen, B., Anderson, W. G., Brady, P. R., Brown, D. A. & Creighton, J. D. E. FINDCHIRP: An Algorithm for detection of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries. Phys. Rev. D 85, 122006 (2012).
Hannam, M. et al. Simple Model of Complete Precessing BlackHoleBinary Gravitational Waveforms. Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 151101 (2014).
Schmidt, P., Ohme, F. & Hannam, M. Towards models of gravitational waveforms from generic binaries II: Modelling precession effects with a single effective precession parameter. Phys. Rev. D 91, 024043 (2015).
Ligo algorithm library, ligo scientific collaboration, https://git.ligo.org/lscsoft/lalsuite (2018).
Christensen, N., Dupuis, R. J., Woan, G. & Meyer, R. A MetropolisHastings algorithm for extracting periodic gravitational wave signals from laser interferometric detector data. Phys. Rev. D 70, 022001 (2004).
De, S., Biwer, C. M., Capano, C. D., Nitz, A. H. & Brown, D. A. gwastro/o2bbhpe: v2.2 data release of O2 Binary Black Hole posterior samples. Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2652488 (2019).
Pérez, F. & Granger, B. E. IPython: a system for interactive scientific computing. Computing in Science and Engineering 9, 21–29 (2007).
Finn, L. S. & Chernoff, D. F. Observing binary inspiral in gravitational radiation: One interferometer. Phys. Rev. D 47, 2198–2219 (1993).
Schutz, B. F. Determining the Hubble Constant from Gravitational Wave Observations. Nature 323, 310–311 (1986).
Cahillane, C. et al. Calibration uncertainty for advanced ligo’s first and second observing runs. Phys. Rev. D 96, 102001 (2017).
Collette, A. et al. h5py/h5py 2.8.0 Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1246321 (2018).
Abbott, B. P. et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016).
Acknowledgements
This research has made use of data obtained from the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center (https://www.gwopenscience.org), a service of LIGO Laboratory, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration. LIGO is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Virgo is funded by the French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Italian Istituto Nazionale della Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and the Dutch Nikhef, with contributions by Polish and Hungarian institutes. Computations were performed in the Syracuse University SUGWG cluster. This work was supported by NSF awards PHY1707954 (D.A.B., S.D.), and PHY1607169 (S.D.). S.D. was also supported by the Inaugural Kathy ‘73 and Stan 72’ Walters Endowed Fund for Science Research Graduate Fellowship at Syracuse University. Computations were supported by Syracuse University and NSF award OAC1541396.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: D.A.B. Methodology: S.D., C.M.B., C.D.C., A.H.N. Software: C.M.B., C.D.C., S.D., A.H.N., D.A.B. Validation: C.D.C., C.M.B., A.H.N. Formal Analysis: S.D. Investigation: S.D., C.M.B., C.D.C., A.H.N. Resources: D.A.B. Data Curation: D.A.B., C.D.C., C.M.B., A.H.N., S.D. Writing: S.D., C.M.B., C.D.C., D.A.B., A.H.N. Visualization: S.D., C.M.B., C.D.C., A.H.N. Supervision: D.A.B. Project Administration: D.A.B. Funding Acquisition: D.A.B.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
ISATab metadata file
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ applies to the metadata files associated with this article.
About this article
Cite this article
De, S., Biwer, C.M., Capano, C.D. et al. Posterior samples of the parameters of binary black holes from Advanced LIGO, Virgo’s second observing run. Sci Data 6, 81 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159701900866
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159701900866
This article is cited by

A templatefree approach for waveform extraction of gravitational wave events
Scientific Reports (2021)