Selected for a Viewpoint in Physics

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS

PRL 116, 061102 (2016)

week ending
12 FEBRUARY 2016

Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger
B. P. Abbott et al.*
(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration)
(Received 21 January 2016; published 11 February 2016)
On September 14, 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC the two detectors of the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observatory simultaneously observed a transient gravitational-wave signal. The signal sweeps upwards in
frequency from 35 to 250 Hz with a peak gravitational-wave strain of 1.0 × 10−21 . It matches the waveform
predicted by general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the
resulting single black hole. The signal was observed with a matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio of 24 and a
false alarm rate estimated to be less than 1 event per 203 000 years, equivalent to a significance greater
þ0.03
than 5.1σ. The source lies at a luminosity distance of 410þ160
−180 Mpc corresponding to a redshift z ¼ 0.09−0.04 .
þ5
þ4
In the source frame, the initial black hole masses are 36−4 M⊙ and 29−4 M ⊙ , and the final black hole mass is
þ0.5
2
62þ4
−4 M ⊙ , with 3.0−0.5 M ⊙ c radiated in gravitational waves. All uncertainties define 90% credible intervals.
These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. This is the first direct
detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

I. INTRODUCTION
In 1916, the year after the final formulation of the field
equations of general relativity, Albert Einstein predicted
the existence of gravitational waves. He found that
the linearized weak-field equations had wave solutions:
transverse waves of spatial strain that travel at the speed of
light, generated by time variations of the mass quadrupole
moment of the source [1,2]. Einstein understood that
gravitational-wave amplitudes would be remarkably
small; moreover, until the Chapel Hill conference in
1957 there was significant debate about the physical
reality of gravitational waves [3].
Also in 1916, Schwarzschild published a solution for the
field equations [4] that was later understood to describe a
black hole [5,6], and in 1963 Kerr generalized the solution
to rotating black holes [7]. Starting in the 1970s theoretical
work led to the understanding of black hole quasinormal
modes [8–10], and in the 1990s higher-order postNewtonian calculations [11] preceded extensive analytical
studies of relativistic two-body dynamics [12,13]. These
advances, together with numerical relativity breakthroughs
in the past decade [14–16], have enabled modeling of
binary black hole mergers and accurate predictions of
their gravitational waveforms. While numerous black hole
candidates have now been identified through electromagnetic observations [17–19], black hole mergers have not
previously been observed.
*

Full author list given at the end of the article.

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and
the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

0031-9007=16=116(6)=061102(16)

The discovery of the binary pulsar system PSR B1913þ16
by Hulse and Taylor [20] and subsequent observations of
its energy loss by Taylor and Weisberg [21] demonstrated
the existence of gravitational waves. This discovery,
along with emerging astrophysical understanding [22],
led to the recognition that direct observations of the
amplitude and phase of gravitational waves would enable
studies of additional relativistic systems and provide new
tests of general relativity, especially in the dynamic
strong-field regime.
Experiments to detect gravitational waves began with
Weber and his resonant mass detectors in the 1960s [23],
followed by an international network of cryogenic resonant detectors [24]. Interferometric detectors were first
suggested in the early 1960s [25] and the 1970s [26]. A
study of the noise and performance of such detectors [27],
and further concepts to improve them [28], led to
proposals for long-baseline broadband laser interferometers with the potential for significantly increased sensitivity [29–32]. By the early 2000s, a set of initial detectors
was completed, including TAMA 300 in Japan, GEO 600
in Germany, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave
Observatory (LIGO) in the United States, and Virgo in
Italy. Combinations of these detectors made joint observations from 2002 through 2011, setting upper limits on a
variety of gravitational-wave sources while evolving into
a global network. In 2015, Advanced LIGO became the
first of a significantly more sensitive network of advanced
detectors to begin observations [33–36].
A century after the fundamental predictions of Einstein
and Schwarzschild, we report the first direct detection of
gravitational waves and the first direct observation of a
binary black hole system merging to form a single black
hole. Our observations provide unique access to the

061102-1

Published by the American Physical Society

41]. Shaded areas show 90% credible regions for two independent waveform reconstructions. LA. right column panels) detectors. and band-reject filters to remove the strong instrumental spectral lines seen in the Fig. Second row: Gravitational-wave strain projected onto each detector in the 35–350 Hz band.5 GW150914 arrived first at L1 and 6. but instead calculates the strain signal as a linear combination of sine-Gaussian wavelets [40. One (dark gray) models the signal using binary black hole template waveforms [39]. Occurring within the 10-ms intersite FIG. high-velocity regime and confirm predictions of general relativity for the nonlinear dynamics of highly disturbed black holes. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS properties of space-time in the strong-field. left: H1 strain. Top row. The other (light gray) does not use an astrophysical model.9% by an independent calculation based on [15]. left column panels) and Livingston (L1. þ0. WA. right: L1 strain.4 ms later at H1. The initial detection was made by low-latency searches for generic gravitational-wave transients [41] and was reported within three minutes of data acquisition [43]. OBSERVATION On September 14. the H1 data are also shown. for a visual comparison. matched-filter analyses that use relativistic models of compact binary waveforms [44] recovered GW150914 as the most significant event from each detector for the observations reported here.38] confirmed to 99. Solid lines show a numerical relativity waveform for a system with parameters consistent with those recovered from GW150914 [37. showing the signal frequency increasing over time.PRL 116. Subsequently. Third row: Residuals after subtracting the filtered numerical relativity waveform from the filtered detector time series. For visualization. II. Bottom row:A time-frequency representation [42] of the strain data. 1. 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. Times are shown relative to September 14.9−0. 061102-2 . as shown in [39]. the LIGO Hanford. shifted in time by this amount and inverted (to account for the detectors’ relative orientations). 3 spectra. observatories detected week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 the coincident signal GW150914 shown in Fig. Top row. 1. 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. all time series are filtered with a 35–350 Hz bandpass filter to suppress large fluctuations outside the detectors’ most sensitive frequency band. The gravitational-wave event GW150914 observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1. and Livingston. These reconstructions have a 94% overlap.

Furthermore. A passing gravitational wave effectively alters the arm lengths such that the measured difference is ΔLðtÞ ¼ δLx − δLy ¼ hðtÞL. the events have a combined signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) of 24 [45].PRL 116. implying that the total mass M ¼ m1 þ m2 is ≳70M ⊙ in the detector frame. Second. while compact. separated by Lx ¼ Ly ¼ L ¼ 4 km.e. to provide source sky localization. This leaves black holes as the only known objects compact enough to reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz without contact. 3) that measures gravitational-wave strain as a difference in length of its orthogonal arms. which is further increased to 100 kW circulating in each arm cavity. and GEO 600. This differential length variation alters the phase difference between the two light fields returning to the beam splitter. due to gravitational-wave emission.2 s. Only the LIGO detectors were observing at the time of GW150914. each arm contains a resonant optical cavity. Bottom: The Keplerian effective black hole separation in units of Schwarzschild radii (RS ¼ 2GM=c2 ) and the effective relative velocity given by the post-Newtonian parameter v=c ¼ ðGMπf=c3 Þ1=3. The inset images show numerical relativity models of the black hole horizons as the black holes coalesce. At the lower frequencies. The basic features of GW150914 point to it being produced by the coalescence of two black holes—i. f ðm1 þ m2 Þ1=5 G 96 where f and f_ are the observed frequency and its time derivative and G and c are the gravitational constant and speed of light. With only two detectors the source position is primarily determined by the relative arrival time and localized to an area of approximately 600 deg2 (90% credible region) [39. III. without the filtering used for Fig.50]: 20 W of laser input is increased to 700 W incident on the beam splitter. was operating but not in observational mode. Third. Top: Estimated gravitational-wave strain amplitude from GW150914 projected onto H1. To reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz (half the gravitational-wave frequency) the objects must have been very close and very compact. The most plausible explanation for this evolution is the inspiral of two orbiting masses. a partially transmissive signal-recycling mirror at the output optimizes 061102-3 . transmitting an optical signal proportional to the gravitational-wave strain to the output photodetector. the signal increases in frequency and amplitude in about 8 cycles from 35 to 150 Hz. acting as test masses. detector [33]. 2. equal Newtonian point masses orbiting at this frequency would be only ≃350 km apart. such evolution is characterized by the chirp mass [11] M¼
 ðm1 m2 Þ3=5 c3 5 −8=3 −11=3 _ 3=5 π ¼ f . a modified Michelson interferometer (see Fig. m1 and m2 . widely separated detectors to distinguish gravitational waves from local instrumental and environmental noise. This bounds the sum of the Schwarzschild radii of the binary components to 2GM=c2 ≳ 210 km. that multiplies the effect of a gravitational wave on the light phase by a factor of 300 [48]. Each arm is formed by two mirrors. formed by its two test mass mirrors. where h is the gravitational-wave strain amplitude projected onto the detector. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 propagation time. The LIGO sites each operate a single Advanced LIGO FIG. The Virgo detector was being upgraded. where f is the gravitational-wave frequency calculated with numerical relativity and M is the total mass (value from Table I). First. A pair of neutron stars. would not have the required mass. their orbital inspiral and merger. 2 shows the calculated waveform using the resulting source parameters. and would thus merge at much lower frequency. a partially transmissive power-recycling mirror at the input provides additional resonant buildup of the laser light in the interferometer as a whole [49. we obtain a chirp mass of M ≃ 30M⊙ .. To achieve sufficient sensitivity to measure gravitational waves. the detectors include several enhancements to the basic Michelson interferometer.46]. while a black hole neutron star binary with the deduced chirp mass would have a very large total mass. Over 0. This shows the full bandwidth of the waveforms. though not sufficiently sensitive to detect this event. Below. and subsequent final black hole ringdown. we present a general-relativistic analysis of GW150914. the decay of the waveform after it peaks is consistent with the damped oscillations of a black hole relaxing to a final stationary Kerr configuration. 1. 1. Fig. Estimating f and f_ from the data in Fig. and to measure wave polarizations. where the amplitude reaches a maximum. DETECTORS Gravitational-wave astronomy exploits multiple.

These systems collectively provide more than 10 orders of magnitude of isolation from ground motion for frequencies above 10 Hz. expressed in terms of equivalent gravitational-wave strain amplitude. supported by an active seismic isolation platform [57]. To minimize additional noise sources. Each test mass is suspended as the final stage of a quadruple-pendulum system [56]. frequency. it is still significant for most other angles of incidence or polarizations (gravitational waves propagate freely through the Earth). Servo controls are used to hold the arm cavities on resonance [61] and maintain proper alignment of the optical components [62]. The calibration is established to an uncertainty (1σ) of less than 10% in amplitude and 10 degrees in phase. this is an amplitude spectral density. Narrow-band features include calibration lines (33–38. Inset (b): The instrument noise for each detector near the time of the signal detection. all components other than the laser source are mounted on vibration isolation stages in ultrahigh vacuum. These interferometry techniques are designed to maximize the conversion of strain to optical signal. The sensitivity is limited by photon shot noise at frequencies above 150 Hz.59]. Simplified diagram of an Advanced LIGO detector (not to scale).PRL 116. High strain sensitivity also requires that the test masses have low displacement noise. 330. the pressure in the 1. WA (H1) and Livingston.52]. and is continuously monitored with calibration laser excitations at selected frequencies. Inset (a): Location and orientation of the LIGO detectors at Hanford. thereby minimizing the impact of photon shot noise (the principal noise at high frequencies). 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 (b) (a) FIG. these length changes are reversed during the other half-cycle. vibrational modes of suspension fibers (500 Hz and harmonics). and are suspended with fused silica fibers from the stage above [60]. Two alternative methods are used to validate the absolute calibration. Thermal noise is minimized by using low-mechanical-loss materials in the test masses and their suspensions: the test masses are 40-kg fused silica substrates with low-loss dielectric optical coatings [58. A gravitational wave propagating orthogonally to the detector plane and linearly polarized parallel to the 4-km optical cavities will have the effect of lengthening one 4-km arm and shortening the other during one half-cycle of the wave. one referenced to the main laser wavelength and the other to a radio-frequency oscillator 061102-4 . The interferometer is illuminated with a 1064-nm wavelength Nd:YAG laser.54]. The detector output is calibrated in strain by measuring its response to test mass motion induced by photon pressure from a modulated calibration laser beam [63]. The output photodetector records these differential cavity length variations. The gravitational-wave signal is extracted at the output port using a homodyne readout [55].2-m diameter tubes containing the armcavity beams is maintained below 1 μPa. stabilized in amplitude. 3. and 60 Hz electric power grid harmonics. and beam geometry [53. and 1080 Hz). LA (L1). the gravitational-wave signal extraction by broadening the bandwidth of the arm cavities [51. which is achieved by isolating them from seismic noise (low frequencies) and designing them to have low thermal noise (intermediate frequencies). While a detector’s directional response is maximal for this case. To reduce optical phase fluctuations caused by Rayleigh scattering. and by a superposition of other noise sources at lower frequencies [47].

weather sensors. These searches use independent methods. uncorrelated. To monitor environmental disturbances and their influence on the detectors. These tests indicated that any external disturbance large enough to have caused the observed signal would have been clearly recorded by the array of environmental sensors. IV. Any instrumental transients that remain in the data are accounted for in the estimated detector backgrounds described below. the detector response to gravitational waves is tested by injecting simulated waveforms with the calibration laser. DETECTOR VALIDATION Both detectors were in steady state operation for several hours around GW150914. using optimal matched filtering with waveforms predicted by general relativity. strong signals from binary black hole mergers are expected to be detected by both searches. thereby contributing to the background estimate. No significant disturbances were found. were typical of the full analysis period [69. GW150914 is confidently detected by two different types of searches. with minimal assumptions about waveforms. microphones. each observatory site is equipped with an array of sensors: seismometers. in particular their average sensitivity and transient noise behavior. Because the detectors respond proportionally to gravitational-wave amplitude. In this process a gravitationalwave signal in one detector may coincide with time-shifted noise transients in the other detector. In their most sensitive band. accelerometers. and their response to detector noise consists of different. None of the environmental sensors recorded any disturbances that evolved in time and frequency like GW150914. V. with more than ten times better sensitivity below 60 Hz. visible in auxiliary data channels that are not sensitive to gravitational waves. Exhaustive investigations of instrumental and environmental disturbances were performed. acoustic. at low redshift the volume of space to which they are sensitive increases as the cube of strain sensitivity.PRL 116. Data collection is synchronized to Global Positioning System (GPS) time to better than 10 μs [66]. The specific procedure used to estimate the background is slightly different for the two searches. The significance of a candidate event is determined by the search background—the rate at which detector noise produces events with a detection-statistic value equal to or higher than the candidate event. The other search targets a broad range of generic transient signals. 100–300 Hz. and a new set of events is produced based on this time-shifted data set. Timing accuracy is verified with an atomic clock and a secondary GPS receiver at each observatory site. 2016. For binary black holes with masses similar to GW150914. 2015. Another ∼105 channels record the interferometer’s operating point and the state of the control systems. ac-power line monitors. and a cosmic-ray detector [65]. However. events. such instrumental transients are removed from our analyses [69]. One aims to recover signals from the coalescence of compact objects. magnetometers. giving no evidence to suggest that GW150914 could be an instrumental artifact [69]. The characteristics of non-Gaussian noise vary between different time-frequency regions. Events are assigned a detection-statistic value that ranks their likelihood of being a gravitational-wave signal. 061102 (2016) week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS [64]. To account for having searched 061102-5 . the space-time volume surveyed by the observations reported here surpasses previous observations by an order of magnitude [68]. Estimating this background is challenging for two reasons: the detector noise is nonstationary and non-Gaussian. All performance measures. The detectors’ susceptibility to environmental disturbances was quantified by measuring their response to specially generated magnetic. and vibration excitations. and it is not possible to shield the detector from gravitational waves to directly measure a signal-free background. Special care was taken to search for long-range correlated disturbances that might produce nearly simultaneous signals at the two sites. and all environmental fluctuations during the second that contained GW150914 were too small to account for more than 6% of its strain amplitude. the improvement is even greater. SEARCHES We present the analysis of 16 days of coincident observations between the two LIGO detectors from September 12 to October 20. at lower frequencies. Many have distinct signatures. This is a subset of the data from Advanced LIGO’s first observational period that ended on January 12. To maximize sensitivity and provide a better estimate of event significance. but both use a time-shift technique: the time stamps of one detector’s data are artificially shifted by an offset that is large compared to the intersite propagation time. so its properties must be empirically determined. The significance of a candidate event is measured against the background of its class. the searches sort both their background estimates and their event candidates into different classes according to their time-frequency morphology. This leads to an overestimate of the noise background and therefore to a more conservative assessment of the significance of candidate events. Additionally. radio-frequency. the current LIGO detectors are 3 to 5 times more sensitive to strain than initial LIGO [67]. Each search identifies candidate events that are detected at both observatories consistent with the intersite propagation time. There is no evidence for instrumental transients that are temporally correlated between the two detectors. For instrumental noise that is uncorrelated between detectors this is an effective way to estimate the background.70]. The detector strain data exhibit non-Gaussian noise transients that arise from a variety of instrumental mechanisms. radio receivers. This means that the search backgrounds are not uniform across the space of signals being searched.

The selection criteria that define the search class C3 reduce the background by introducing a constraint on the signal morphology.0. we use only two search classes: the C1 class and the union of C2 and C3 classes (C2 þ C3). equivalent to 4. GW150914 is the strongest event of the entire search. Based on their time-frequency morphology. The significance of GW150914 is greater than 5. In the background of this class there are four events with ηc ≥ 32. Generic transient search Designed to operate without a specific waveform model. this significance is decreased by a trials factor equal to the number of classes [71].PRL 116. 061102-6 . where Ec is the dimensionless coherent signal energy obtained by cross-correlating the two reconstructed waveforms. These histograms show the number of candidate events (orange markers) and the mean number of background events (black lines) in the search class where GW150914 was found as a function of the search detection statistic and with a bin width of 0. Consistent with its coalescence signal signature. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 Detected with ηc ¼ 20. The classes C2 and C3 are defined in the text. for signal frequencies up to 1 kHz and durations up to a few seconds. Left: Along with the primary search (C3) we also show the results (blue markers) and background (green curve) for an alternative search that treats events independently of their frequency evolution (C2 þ C3). and En is the dimensionless residual noise energy after the reconstructed signal is subtracted from the data. events with frequency that increases with time (class C3). In order to illustrate the significance of GW150914 against a background of events with arbitrary shapes. and all remaining events (class C2). Each event pisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ranked according to the detection statistic ffi ηc ¼ 2Ec =ð1 þ En =Ec Þ. Search results from the generic transient search (left) and the binary coalescence search (right).1σ and 4. as described in [41]: events with time-frequency morphology of known populations of noise transients (class C1). 4 shows the C2 þ C3 class results and background. which is used to assess the significance of the second strongest event. the events are divided into three mutually exclusive search classes. The scales on the top give the significance of an event in Gaussian standard deviations based on the corresponding noise background. its false alarm rate is lower than 1 in 22 500 years.6σ for the binary coalescence and the generic transient searches. we also show the results of a search that uses the same set of events as the one described above but without this constraint.6σ.) The purple curve is the background excluding those coincidences.2. respectively. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS multiple classes. (This type of event is practically absent in the generic transient search background because they do not pass the time-frequency consistency requirements used in that search. This corresponds to a false alarm probability of 5 × 10−6 equivalent to 4. FIG.72]. Right: The tail in the black-line background of the binary coalescence search is due to random coincidences of GW150914 in one detector with noise in the other detector. The statistic ηc thus quantifies the SNR of the event and the consistency of the data between the two detectors. In this two-class search the GW150914 event is found in the C2 þ C3 class.1. this search identifies coincident excess power in timefrequency representations of the detector strain data [43. A. This corresponds to a probability < 2 × 10−6 of observing one or more noise events as strong as GW150914 during the analysis time. it is found in the search class C3 of events with increasing time-frequency evolution. Specifically. 4 shows the C3 class results and background. The left panel of Fig.4σ. yielding a false alarm rate for GW150914 of 1 in 8 400 years. Measured on a background equivalent to over 67 400 years of data and including a trials factor of 3 to account for the search classes. The search reconstructs signal waveforms consistent with a common gravitational-wave signal in both detectors using a multidetector maximum likelihood method. 4. The left panel of Fig.

6 is larger than any background event. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS For robustness and validation.7 (90% credible interval) indicating it is not maximally spinning. but the resulting templates can. and systematic errors from averaging the results of different waveform models. we provide estimates of the mass and spin of the final black hole. ρðtÞ is reweighted as ρˆ ¼ ρ=f½1 þ ðχ 2r Þ3 =2g1=6 [83.86]. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 TABLE I. The 15-ms window is determined by the 10-ms intersite propagation time plus 5 ms for uncertainty in arrival time of weak signals.3 years and corresponding Poissonian false alarm probability of 0. If χ 2r is greater than unity. Waveform analysis of this event indicates that if it is astrophysical in origin it is also a binary black hole merger [44]. 4. The system reached a 56 peak gravitational-wave luminosity of 3.78.03 0. but it provides only approximate estimates of the source parameters. Several analyses have been performed to determine whether or not GW150914 is consistent with a binary 061102-7 . The parameter uncertainties include statistical errors and systematic errors from averaging the results of different waveform models. the total energy radiated in gravitational waves. SOURCE DISCUSSION The matched-filter search is optimized for detecting signals. To account for the search background noise varying across the target signal space. Values of χ 2r near unity indicate that the signal is consistent with a coalescence. We report median values with 90% credible intervals that include statistical errors. VI. we also use other generic transient search algorithms [41]. and for each model perform a coherent Bayesian analysis to derive posterior distributions of the source parameters [89].PRL 116. Source parameters for GW150914. We rank coincident events based on the quadrature sum ρˆ c of the ρˆ from both detectors [45].76] with results from black hole perturbation theory and numerical relativity.05 0. B.0þ0. Using the fits to numerical simulations of binary black hole mergers in [92. some of which include spin precession. as for GW150914. and redshift of the source are shown in Table I.02.07 410þ160 −180 Mpc þ0. so only an upper bound can be placed on its false alarm rate. To produce background data for this search the SNR maxima of one detector are time shifted and a new set of coincident events is computed. This is the background distribution shown as a purple line in the right panel of Fig. distance. Across the three search classes this bound is 1 in 203 000 years. and dimensionless spins up to 0.4 × 10 þ30 2 equivalent to 200−20 M ⊙ c =s. 4 shows the background for the search class of GW150914. and the peak gravitational-wave luminosity [39].5 −0. −0. Approximately 250 000 template waveforms are used to cover this parameter space. final spin.04 When an event is confidently identified as a real gravitational-wave signal. to convert to the detector frame multiply by (1 þ z) [90]. This translates to a false alarm probability < 2 × 10−7 . The source redshift assumes standard cosmology [91]. Primary black hole mass 36þ5 −4 M ⊙ Secondary black hole mass 29þ4 −4 M ⊙ Final black hole mass 62þ4 −4 M ⊙ Final black hole spin Luminosity distance Source redshift z þ0. To model systems with total mass larger than 4M ⊙ .78] assumes that the spins of the merging objects are aligned with the orbital angular momentum. candidate and background events are divided into three search classes based on template length. effectively recover systems with misaligned spins in the parameter region of GW150914 [44]. The waveform model [77. The right panel of Fig.93]. The final step enforces coincidence between detectors by selecting event pairs that occur within a 15-ms window and come from the same template.87. corresponding to 5. These source parameters are discussed in detail in [39]. total mass less than 100M ⊙ .88]. Binary coalescence search This search targets gravitational-wave emission from binary systems with individual masses from 1 to 99M⊙ . The GW150914 detectionstatistic value of ρˆ c ¼ 23. while the spin of the secondary is only weakly constrained. Based on this. we use the effective-one-body formalism [75]. The estimated total energy radiated in 2 gravitational waves is 3.5 M ⊙ c . A second. independent matched-filter analysis that uses a different method for estimating the significance of its events [85. which combines results from the post-Newtonian approach [11. the second most significant event has a false alarm rate of 1 per 2. The search calculates the matched-filter signal-to-noise ratio ρðtÞ for each template in each detector and identifies maxima of ρðtÞ with respect to the time of arrival of the signal [79–81].6þ0. also detected GW150914 with identical signal parameters and consistent significance. For each maximum we calculate a chi-squared statistic χ 2r to test whether the data in several different frequency bands are consistent with the matching template [82]. A different search [73] and a parameter estimation follow-up [74] detected GW150914 with consistent significance and signal parameters. Repeating this procedure ∼107 times produces a noise background analysis time equivalent to 608 000 years.84].5 erg=s.1σ. the background used to determine the significance of other events is reestimated without the contribution of this event.09−0. The initial and final masses.67−0. Masses are given in the source frame. To refine them we use general relativity-based models [77. nonetheless. The spin of the primary black hole is constrained to be < 0.99 [44].

These include further commissioning of the Advanced LIGO detectors to reach design sensitivity. The formation of such massive black holes from stellar evolution requires weak massive-star winds. This is consistent with a broad range of rate predictions as reviewed in [114]. with only the lowest event rates being excluded. and for the creation and support of the EGO consortium.PRL 116. the end product of a black hole binary coalescence is a Kerr black hole. A first consistency check involves the mass and spin of the final black hole. we obtain rate estimates ranging from 2–400 Gpc−3 yr−1 in the comoving frame [111–113]. with no evidence for disagreement from general relativity. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger. it would provide information about the evolution of such binary systems over the history of the universe.109]. respectively. The authors also gratefully acknowledge research support from these agencies as well as by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India. Using fitting formulas calibrated to numerical relativity simulations [92]. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. and the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. These observational results constrain the rate of stellarmass binary black hole mergers in the local universe.2 × 10−22 eV=c2 . The detected waveform matches the predictions of general relativity for the inspiral and merger of a pair of black holes and the ringdown of the resulting single black hole. In general relativity. the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). GW150914 demonstrates the existence of stellar-mass black holes more massive than ≃25M⊙ . KAGRA. Finally. Binary black holes have been predicted to form both in isolated binaries [102–104] and in dense environments by dynamical interactions [105–107]. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) for the construction and operation of the LIGO Laboratory and Advanced LIGO as well as the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) of the United Kingdom. CONCLUSION The LIGO detectors have observed gravitational waves from the merger of two stellar-mass black holes. but does not improve on the modeldependent bounds derived from the dynamics of Galaxy clusters [100] and weak lensing observations [101]. the Max-Planck Society (MPS). OUTLOOK Further details about these results and associated data releases are available at [116]. Predictions for such a week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 background are presented in [115]. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS black hole system in general relativity [94]. VIII. assuming a modified dispersion relation for gravitational waves [97]. Using several different models of the underlying binary black hole mass distribution.99] by factors of a few and a thousand. Additional support for Advanced LIGO was provided by the Australian Research Council. The coefficients of this expansion can be computed in general relativity. which are possible in stellar environments with metallicity lower than ≃1=2 the solar value [108. If the signal from such a population were detected. we verified that the remnant mass and spin deduced from the early stage of the coalescence and those inferred independently from the late stage are consistent with each other. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN). Further astrophysical implications of this binary black hole discovery are discussed in [110]. and seeing if the resulting waveform is consistent with the data. This improves on Solar System and binary pulsar bounds [98. which is fully described by its mass and spin. finding no evidence for violations of general relativity. which will allow detection of binaries like GW150914 with 3 times higher SNR. Department of Science and 061102-8 . Efforts are under way to enhance significantly the global gravitational-wave detector network [117]. for the construction and operation of the Virgo detector. Thus. the phase of the gravitational waveform during the inspiral can be expressed as a power series in f 1=3 . Within the post-Newtonian formalism. which could be interpreted as a bound on the graviton mass mg < 1. Germany. In summary. and the State of Niedersachsen. Advanced Virgo. for support of the construction of Advanced LIGO and construction and operation of the GEO 600 detector. our observations constrain the Compton wavelength of the graviton to be λg > 1013 km. we can test for consistency with general relativity [95. For quasicircular inspirals. In this second check [94] we place constraints on these deviations. these are predicted uniquely by Einstein’s equations as a function of the masses and spins of the two progenitor black holes. VII.96] by allowing the coefficients to deviate from the nominal values. Binary black hole systems at larger distances contribute to a stochastic background of gravitational waves from the superposition of unresolved systems. and a possible third LIGO detector in India [118] will extend the network and significantly improve the position reconstruction and parameter estimation of sources. and establishes that binary black holes can form in nature and merge within a Hubble time. Analysis results for the entire first observational period will be reported in future publications. Additionally. all three tests are consistent with the predictions of general relativity in the strong-field regime of gravity.

043007 (2013). [23] J. Rev. arXiv:1602. Taiwan. https://dcc. Annu.03838.. D. Rev. Weisberg. Phys. Y. arXiv:1602..03840. C. and Innovation.. This article has been assigned the document numbers LIGO-P150914 and VIR-0015A-16. Blair (Cambridge University Press. Detweiler. Pustovoit. the Research Corporation. Yamamoto. Acernese et al. 1972. STFC. Abbott et al. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS Technology. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the NSF. Lett. Lett. Gravit. and the Kavli Foundation.. Einstein. Sekiguchi. Sitzungsber. arXiv:1508. the Leverhulme Trust. Klimenko et al. 1991). Katsavounidis.. India. P. Affeldt et al. R. Phys. and Y. Quarterly Report of the Research Laboratory for Electronics. 253.. [9] W. arXiv:1602. Murdin. 117. Astrophys. J. 306 (1960). D 88. Industry Canada and the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation. 321. and R. Finkelstein. Schwarzschild. 2495 (1971). 335 (1972). [10] S. Rev. [13] A.03843.. the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) Technical Report. M. Phys. the Brazilian Ministry of Science. 195. 042004 (2016).. Kruskal.. Choi. 237 (1963). G. Vishveshwara. edited by P. [43] S. Virgo Project Technical Report No. Science 256. pp. I. 936 (1970). D 93. Akad. 10. Vogt. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Classical Quantum Gravity 31. R. Rev. Akad. [15] M. Lett. 074001 (2015). 688 (1916). Sitzungsber. Somiya. Casares and P. K. Astone et al. 224002 (2014). Rev. Rev. O. L51 (1975). Miyakawa. [48] R. and A. Nature (London) 235. 965 (1958). [1] A.. p. Tatsumi. Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB). Damour. 061102-9 . [25] M. [28] R. Raab. Wiss. JETP 16. Lousto. M. [3] P. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). the European Commission. [7] R.black‑holes. [47] B. R. Relativity 17. [41] B. in Quantum Optics. 11. edited by N. Aasi et al. Cambridge. and Measurement Theory. 1. G. Abbott et al. and H. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. England. 74. [45] S. Lett. 111101 (2006). P. 1989. Nature (London) 227. [27] R. Michimura. 1983). [38] A. R. T. E. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 [21] J. H. O. 96. Meystre and M. 908 (1982). NATO ASI. J.org/LIGO‑P1500227/ public/main. the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA). Blanchet. [33] J. Iyer. D. Rev. [8] C. Jonker. Phys. [19] J. Phys. 084006 (1999). [20] R. Appl. MPQ Technical Report 147. Space Sci. Drever. http://eprints . V. L. Martin. 121101 (2005). K. Koppitz. 111102 (2006). Zlochower. GWD/137/JH(89). 3515 (1995). 37 (1972). Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears.. Abbott et al. Astrophys. Marronetti. 1989. [44] B.org/waveforms. E. [32] J. the National Research Foundation of Korea. B. Gertsenshtein and V.gla. Miller. India. 441 (1975). [39] B. 124 (1972). [24] P. New York. S.. Press. the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance. D 59. [26] G. Webster and P. Preuss. Akad. W. 1983). G. Mroué et al. Opt. Thorne. 170. K. arXiv:1602. Wiss. the Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO). R. Thorne. Rev. VIR-0517A-15.ac. J. Lett. L. P. Press and K. 3289 (2011). T. 135012 (2015). https://tds. [4] K. Deruelle and T. [17] B. for provision of computational resources. Astrophys. [31] A. 503–514. Weber. B. Saulson. 110. Experimental Gravity. Weiss. [35] C. Preuss. Rev. and R. Sitzungsber.org/ LIGO‑M890001/public/main.02357.03839. Lett. L105 (1971). 433 (1962). Rev. [14] F. Germany. the Royal Society. Taylor and J. [34] F.org/LIGO‑P720002/public/main. Wiss. Preuss. the National Science Centre of Poland. the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Will. 223 (2014). Vol.. Blackburn. 189 (1916). Classical Quantum Gravity 32. [18] C. the Scottish Funding Council. No. 022003 (2010). Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. Scully. INFN. Phys. MPS. Chandrasekhar and S. Damour. D 82. J. M. Forward. Proc.uk/114852. Phys.ligo. Astrophys. O. [11] L. [42] S. CNRS and the State of Niedersachsen. H. Electromagnetically coupled broadband gravitational antenna. C. W. 10. L. available for download at http://www. Phys. https:// dcc. 1989. 024001 (2015). Buonanno and T. Phys. Brillet. Phys.it/ql/? c=11247.. Pretorius. Rev. Hulse and J. Campanelli. Gen. https://dcc. Drever. B. L. Soc. edited by D. 154 (1918). M. [29] R. Phys. Cornish and T. Littenberg. Bolton. [36] Y. 1. F. D. Piran (North-Holland. G. 241104 (2013). Phys. P. Nature (London) 240. [22] W. A. H. S1809 (2004). Chatterji.-I.. 94 (Plenum Press. Proposal for a joint German-British interferometric gravitational wave detector. Rev. Baker. Russian Foundation for Basic Research. 43. [40] N. Abramovici et al. H. Phys.ligo. [46] B. 95. Abbott et al. Abbott et al. J. [30] A. [5] D. W.PRL 116. and J. Drever et al. Classical Quantum Gravity 21. Blanchet. 325 (1992). J. 183. Amsterdam. 119.ego‑gw. 1. Wiseman. The Detection of Gravitational Waves. A. India. [2] A. K. Phys. 111. Aso. Giazotto et al. and E. Technology. K. in Gravitational Radiation. Rev. MIT Report No. Kerr. Rev. Moss. A. L. 96. [16] J. G. Usman et al. Centrella. Living Rev. Astron. the Conselleria d’Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d’Educació. [37] The waveform shown is SXS:BBH:0305. Drever. Relativ.. A 344. [6] M. [12] L. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. Rev.ligo. T. W. P. Ser. van Meter. 105. Taylor. Einstein. Weiss. [49] R. P. Sov. Hough et al. 1743 (1960). Ando. 2 (2014).

PRL 116. D. M. M. 714. Will. Rüdiger. Rev. V. arXiv:1602. A. E. Mon. Bohé. M.. M. Rev. Danzmann. D 85. 065005 (2012). Rev. Schofield.. S. Astron. D 71. K. Damour. Lousto. Goldhaber and M. Barsotti. Phys. Schilling. W. 082002 (2012). S. A. M. and Y.. Abadie et al. Creighton. Ade et al. M. J. M. D 85. 051101 (2015).. A. F. R. M. Rev. R. 084026 (2010). [80] B. J. D 87. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Z. Classical Quantum Gravity 24. Schwinberg. [103] V. Rev. 4086 (2015). S. [101] S. Healy. R.. Rev. Nuttall et al. S. D 91. [57] F. 035003 (2012). K. A. Nature (London) 364. 084025 (2010). D 38. Pattabiraman. S. Brown. [100] A. 288. M. Spera. P. S. Rev. M. [60] A. 122006 (2012). J. Stat.-J. Factourovich. J. Prokhorov. Fricke et al. Gen. 022002 (2016).. Aston et al. Ohme.. Mercer. New York. S. Classical Quantum Gravity 29. J. P. 064015 (2000). Husa.. Katsavounidis. Phys. Privitera. A. 115012 (2015). [95] C.. Nauchnye Informatsii 27. Kwee et al. Sutton. R. [66] I. Belczynski.. [53] P. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. 235004 (2012). Classical Quantum Gravity 29. 93. G. N. Appl. O. Classical Quantum Gravity 29. Astrophys. T. Harry et al. Cannon et al. Aasi et al. M. Rev. Valsecchi. Rev. Phys. Dominik. Mitselmakher. Schutz. L. X. Chatterjee. Fryer. W. Rev. M. Soc. Instrum. A. A. M. A. K.. J. D 93. Lipunov. 87. Phys. and B. Phys. K. Rev. Phys. and J. Frolov. Grover. D 82. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. Blanchet. R. Goetz et al. [78] M. D 87. 748. Fryer. Phys. Rev.. 61.01589. 115. C. Rev.. [70] L.03841. and B. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS [50] R. Kanner. G. Klimenko. Hurley. [104] K. M. [96] T. [92] J. 185003 (2015). Brady. Phys. Phys. 887 (2008).. L. [91] P. Birch. B. Mapelli. Nieto. Rodriguez. 062001 (2005). Bohé. Mueller et al. Phys. Belczynski. 451. Standish. J. and A. [109] M. D 9. Vitale. [63] B. 10617 (2012). G. Babak et al. [99] L. [64] E. R. Nelson. Mohapatra. T. Iyer. Allen. 1217 (2010). S. 035017 (2015). P. Classical Quantum Gravity 32.04615 [Astrophys. Classical Quantum Gravity 31. Jiménez Forteza. Not. arXiv:1502. [107] C. Berthias. F. [79] B. Classical Quantum Gravity 25. M. Savage Jr. and F. D 89. G. 064010 (2010). [75] A. A. 061502 (2014). Rev. Allen. and S. F. V. and J. J. and A. 245 (1997). 113. McMillan. [90] A. Pürrer. L. L. Schmidt. J. Sigg. Owen and B.. Rev.. Classical Quantum Gravity 31. Berti. 084024 (2010). Haegel. and M. C. N. [111] B. Ruiter. and K. L. Lett. R. Mizuno. Schilling (unpublished). Khan. P. 022002 (2013). Zlochower. M. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Eur. F.03842. P. [59] M. [98] C. K. D 60. R. Rev. Whelan. Hannam. Express 20. [82] B. Abbott et al. arXiv:1602. J. 1163 (1987). Rev. 2061 (1998). Repetto. 70 (1973). [77] A.. Hanna. Astrophys. Winkler. and E. 091101 (2004). Haster. Cumming et al. [102] A. L. C. G. 042003 (2015). Staley et al. Phys. [88] S. D 65. Evans. I. 044022 (2002). [105] S. J. Márka. 024033 (2013). Hannam. 114029 (2008). M. Soc. Sathyaprakash. Rasio. A. Vedovato. S.. Li. Bressan. Esposito-Farèse..03844. [93] S. 061102-10 . [110] B. Pürrer. Rev. T. 1159 (1988). Z. O’Shaughnessy. J. Aasi et al. [108] K. D 85.. G. Rev. Rev. Lett. Bork..05955. 245005 (2015). Amaldi. Holz. Phys. Pürrer. Lett. Yakushin. Rev. Not. Astrophys. L17 (2000). E.. Vink. W. M. Arun. 082003 (2012). Classical Quantum Gravity 32. D. Pürrer. Phys. Del Pozzo. Ohme. McCarthy. [83] J. C 74. Iyer. Agathos. [61] A. Abbott et al. S. 423 (1993). [67] J. R. [73] R. E.. Yungelson. B. Cannon. Phys. Talmadge. 2009. [86] S. [68] J. [89] J. Phys. [76] L. Abbott et al. 044006 (2016). Abbott et al. Phys. Weinstein. [87] M. Salemi. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Vecchio. Granata et al. W. Strain. Rev. T. Damour. Kawabe. González.03845. 012007 (2016). [84] S. Relativ. Vitale. arXiv:1510. arXiv:1511. A 175. Hannam. (to be published)]. D 89. F. Millhouse. [69] B. Rev.. Phys. Meers. [62] L. Sidery. Ajith. A. Smith. and M. R. and A. D 93. M. S. Hernquist. Sigurdsson and L. 136 (2012). Matichard et al. Buonanno and T. Rev. [94] B. Husa. Bulik. Pratten. Phys. J. T. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 [81] B. Fotopoulos. Bartos. Goetz and R. 19. M. [72] S. Hellings. Van Den Broeck. Jiménez Forteza. Astrophys. 245010 (2014). J. Lett. Effler. and P. C. Cornish. 528. Phys. Littenberg. Veitch et al. [71] L. D 62. W. Rev. S. Phys. P. Lett. and A. Sturani. D 90. F. E. Robinet. [51] B. Postnov. Essick. and G. Phys. Mon. Lett. E. Xhakaj. 2317 (1988). R. Sathyaprakash. Husa. R. M. Phys. B. Chen. Klimenko. in Gravitational Waves: Proceedings. Drago. G. F. [56] S. 2. [74] J. Rev. 3819 (1991). [52] J. Tutukov and L. 014502 (2016). Anderson. Portegies Zwart and S. D 57. V. SenGupta. R. 195010 (2014). Krolak and B. [55] T. [106] S. Lynch. and J. Veitch. Phys. Sci. Morscher. Abbott et al. Phys. 1119 (1974). and F. [85] K. K.. C. Phys. S. C. Dhurandhar. J. E. and D. Lyons. Bohé. D. Mishra. S. arXiv:1602. P. Fritschel. Opt. 405 (2007). D 44. Frei. [54] C. L22 (2016). Márka. D 93. 024003 (2014). T. R. Rev. Ohme. G. R. [97] C. Finn and P. J. V. and R. 022002 (1999). arXiv:1602. Phys. S. Gravit. [58] G. 151101 (2014). 818. K. 3159 (2014). Sathyaprakash and S. Bulik. Phys. X. [65] A. Phys. T. Astron. Ann. 044007 (2016). 273 (1993). D 93. of the 8th Edoardo Amaldi Conference. Khan. F. Taracchini et al. Heefner. Raics. S. J. R. 104004 (2014). Choudhury and S.

and C.1 T. D. L. Gair. Gemme.5 W. Frasconi. M. Calloni. Cannon. Bulik. Gatto. Bersanetti. Danilishin.33 G. H. Chu.60 A. Bejger. Chan.10 T. G. Cohadon.23 K. Bloemen. Capano.37 I.53 E. George.38 J.8 C.9 K.70 Q.87 S. Coyne. Cuoco. Acernese. E.47 A. Finn. Danzmann.9 R.8 C. R. M. Bojtos. Buchanan. M.75 Y.29.18.34 D.70 M.74 E. M.-P.1 J. C.45 N. Astone.65 M. Abbott et al. Briant. Cruise. L. Cowart.67. Ascenzi.6 D. Phys. M. Garufi. Bavigadda. Douglas.32. A.34 S. C.3 R. C.67. C.96 V. Di Palma.8 M. Kalogera.38 J. Day. Aguiar. Fan.73 P.19 P.73 A.8 E.35 R. Gabbard.30 D.36 E.7 C. Biwer.60 S. P. Clark.23 G. Bartos.29.37 C. Fays.1 T.25. Daveloza. S. Barker.3. Mandel. Callister.34 S. Deléglise. C. Barta.36 L.4 S. Adams.40 D.23 T. Allen. Brooks. Doravari. K. S.88 M. Barsotti.30 F.37 T.16 A. Cepeda.89. DeRosa. Boom.6 R. T.83 M. Darman.10 O.35 D.-B. Chalermsongsak. Brown. Coccia. Abbott et al.53 M. Everett.92 M.21 J.21 S. Bhandare. Corbitt.55 R. Abbott. Aggarwal.6 P. Blackburn. S.47 B.69 J.19 J. Cominsky. Barish.10 T.39 R. P.95 N.34 C. P.18.28 C. Cook. Du.19 E. W. Blair. Cavaglià. Caudill.57.13 R. Cripe. W. P. B.34 C.20 S.13 P. Coughlin. Cumming.25. Abadie et al. K.1 M. Frey.7 P. Bogan. B.47 A.4 R.18. A. B.48 H. and D. Barone.66. D.53 G.03847.71 J. Coughlin. Factourovich. Conte. Evans. B. Cahillane. Relativity 19. Feldbaum. Bock. De Rosa. S.1 E.19 S. Ehrens..79.53 C.28 I. Dal Canton.83 L. Bazzan.7 Abhirup Ghosh. Fournier. Chen. https://dcc. Buikema. Bork. Creighton.1 J. Essick. A. R. G. B. S. Gennai. arXiv:1602. Boschi. Downes. Betzwieser.16 M.54 C.36 T.17 T.59 V. Fafone. Barayoga. Y.14 M. Coward.17.23 J. A. Cao.org/LIGO‑M1100296/ public/main.45 M.1 S. Dolique.10 T.12. Belczynski. M. Di Giovanni.25.79. Ciani. Fairhurst. Gammaitoni. Ballardin.58 G.7 B. Ferrante.7 S. C.22 N.11 M. Casentini. Fang. Areeda. 2011.29 M.65 C. Casanueva Diaz.53 V.34 F. Farr.18.35 D.ligo.78 Q.34 M.34 A. Barsuglia. Bohe. G. Díaz.40 A. Frei. Farr. Gaur. Billingsley. D’Antonio.23 C.34 H. E.9 N.34 C.13.68 K. Eichholz.36 H. Chassande-Mottin. B. Dent. Buy. M. Collette.79. Living Rev. Di Fiore.14 F. Di Lieto. Davier. De Laurentis.35 J. Denker.29 P. Dwyer. Debreczeni. S.6 H.17 A. Brinkmann. G. Caride.41. T. Cesarini. 1 (2016). Cagnoli. [113] W.4 B. D.76 R. Gair. Dooley. A. Bradaschia. Cho. Brady. Araya. Effler. Coulon.13 S.67. Farr.51 M. Gergely. Di Pace. Birnholtz. J. Chiummo. Brown. Gehrels. P. Aufmuth. Edwards. J. [114] J.1 R. Chamberlin.19 E. Drago.8. LIGOM1100296. Adams.26 M.1 F.37 F.8 A. A. Da Silva Costa.90 R.28 A. Di Virgilio. Bartlett. V. J.16 K.19 J.10 M.19 C. Gendre. Chao. Chow. Bisht. Couvares.-F. Del Pozzo. Anderson. DeBra. C. Blair.27 S.31 F. Abernathy.18. P.21 J.4 A.62 D. M. Germain. Basti.9 J. Degallaix.37 S.46.93 L. Ashton. Ain. Chakraborty. G. Barton. Cunningham.org/ events/GW150914/.63 T. Chung. Fejer. Kim. D.71 S. Edo.6 P. Cadonati.29 P.28 L.8 V. Bassiri. J.40 M. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS [112] C.13 K.60 W. Cutler. Blair.76 C. Cleva. Abbott. J.70 C. Fletcher. Cavalier. Branchesi. Brown.48 L.13 G.1 J.14 Y.ligo.37 G. Arnaud. Camp.45 F.11 F. Baune. Bulten. Cho.86 R. Fritschel. Dereli.6 H.1 C.80 L.58 J. Agatsuma. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Ferreira. 023005 (2015). G.65. Fong. J. Ballmer.47 B. Freise. Cowan.4 K.30 R.8 S. Barr. Eggenstein.8 S. Eikenberry. Lorimer. Behnke. T. Buonanno. Constancio Jr. Fehrmann. Boer.30 R. Brau. Bozzi. Braginsky. Christensen. Conti. Brockill.6 T.10 C. Engels.61.6 R.17 M. [118] B.36 J.8 T.8 C.19 S. J.25.19 G.34 I.79. Dattilo. L. Bergman. Cavalieri.67.14 P.39 P.24 S.21 F.5 C.16. Bacon. Dhurandhar. Bitossi. Calderón Bustillo.37 T.91 H. Farinon.78 A. Daw.57. Cerretani.44 H.13 A. Charlton.8 R.1 C.16 V.52 O. DeSalvo.82 J.11 A.72 M.12. Fiori. Cella. Costa. Brisson.6 S.5 M. Iyer et al. V.63 F.60 A.8 P. Bhagwat..5 F.30 G. Brillet. Bertolini.36 E. A. Bizouard. Arai. T. Franco. R.20 N. M.72 M. C. Carbognani.1 V. A.8 A.1 J.16 M. https://losc.75 W.9 A.56. Affeldt.40 G.43 C.72 I.2 A. Fair.84 A. E.12 H.-D. Adya. Etzel.2 N.5 M.86 M. Birch. Barclay.53 S.1 J.49 M.31 A. Allocca.69 J.8 L.45 T. Chua. Astrophys. Bondu.68 G.8 H.65 F.53 S. Fyffe. C.34 S. S.8 P. F.18.59 T. Favata.45 R.51 R.85 C. Creighton. LIGO-India Technical Report No. Altin.5 I. B. 985 (2003). B. M.33 S.35 S. Drever.23 S.45 A. Aiello. Corsi. Davies. [115] B.1 V.34 T. Colla. Berger. D 91. Birney.8.88 V.1 D. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 [116] LIGO Open Science Center (LOSC).1 L. C. Driggers.8 Z.2 S. Coyne. Gaonkar. Ast.49 G. D. Fricke. Bouffanais.81 M. R.63 D.30 A. Genin.44 A. De.8 M.36 L. [117] B.36 S.1 R. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration).19 M.8 V.62 J. Batch.79.50 O. Dergachev.51 S. Frede. R. G.94. Bonnand. Countryman. F.10 A. Fidecaro. K.64. R. Biscans.39 V.37 M.37 Z.36 B. Cerboni Baiardi.45 D. E.1 R.6 R. Byer. Chincarini. X.42 D. Rev. Bodiya.8 N. Capocasa. Frey.91 X.4 M. Bergmann. C.5 V. Cortese. Bogaert. Clara.1 S.4 J. Bell. D.78 S.1 E.1 W.25. Ajith.10 K.8. Cabero. Aston.. Ferrini.8. Bader. Cheng.. Bell.23 P. Fisher.16 T. Bilenko. P.36 B.23 R.11 L. Ackley.63 G. C.15 061102-11 . Baldaccini. I. A.71 K. Bose. Frolov. Berry. P.6. Fiorucci.51 S.42 B. L.19 L. Aulbert.3. Chen.28 P.8 S. Baker. Evans. Dave.PRL 116. 173001 (2010).2 M. Buskulic. Ducrot.10 V. Agathos. Fulda.5 S.28 F.30 H.51 G. Donovan.36 C. Adhikari.37 J.53 E. Arun.51 D.30 M.1 D.34 G. E. W. Bond. Arceneaux.35 R. C. Abbott.10 M.83 J.54 A. Addesso. Crowder. Frasca.18. Flaminio. Arain. 584. Dojcinoski.19 P.35 M. Anderson.9 P.32.1 M. Babak. A.15 B.77 M. Craig.48 I. D. Cornish.36 S.

37 D.12. Giaime. A.5 C. Kelley. B.a A.52. A. Guidi. MacInnis.79. M. McClelland. Heurs. Jiménez-Forteza.73 Y.36 A. Poggiani. Gupta.40 W. Pedraza.102 C.37 S. Klimenko. Perreca.56 M. Márka. Hopkins. Nitz. T.8 061102-12 . Mukherjee. Nguyen. Meidam.9 L. L.29.83 K. N. K. Heitmann. J. Moore. N.35 M. Kissel. Kinzel. A. Lazzarini. I. Giazotto. H.57.91 Arunava Mukherjee.108 S.1 D.37 D.17 G.6 B. Hardwick.22 H.36 M.51 K. Islas.91 J.37 E. Mullavey.34 R. Kutynia. Nayak.7 C.6 A.29 M.5 H.34 M. Pfeiffer. Pinto. Gustafson. Massinger. F.36 A. Kwee. McGuire. Ma.8 F. J.36 J. Newton.123 V. Mikhailov. Hild. Papa.40 E.102 G.9 A. Grote.89.36 D. S. A.23. Oppermann.46. P. McWilliams.7 Y. Hofman. Hacker.37 J. Kanner. Jaranowski. Heidmann.75 P.17 C.56 E.66 W. Kokeyama. D.29.8.40 B. Houston.105. Malvezzi.10 M. Munch. Palomba.16 M. Landry.98 G.69.13 V.1 C. Keitel. J. Gondan. Mow-Lowry. Millhouse.9 J. Hendry.10 G. McCarthy.6 D. Hoak.8 H. Jawahar. Gray.8 F.72 G.111 Nam-Gyu Kim. Messenger.77 Namjun Kim.36 J. Glaefke.69 D. Pascucci.101 I.104 K.10 S.28.52.15 S.57. R.6 S. O. Green. Mueller. Greco.1 A.103 K.21 G. Husa.36 T. Kontos. J. Kehl. Miller. Nielsen.36 J.49 S.95 K.110 E.99 M. Khan. Pierro.52. Mishra.66 S. W. Paris.49 G. Lee. Piccinni.17 T. Majorana.9 V. Marchesoni.88 C.35 M. J. King. Minenkov. Gleason. Pitkin.1 A. Mansell.35 M. Neunzert. S.8 K. Ottens. Paoletti.56 G.20 A. Howell. Middleton. Kuehn. Gill. Hu.111 H.1 G.23 N.71 H. Lovelace. Grant. J. Martin. Lantz. Healy. Jacqmin.77 J.66 P. Popolizio.91 V. Holz.53 I.6 J. Morriss. Hall. Kim.5 L.77 K. Mantovani.10 L. Kumar. M.39 Z.4 J. Lange. Hart. Oelker.8 B.10 C. Nuttall.35 A. E.35 W.63 P. Nelemans.27 W. Neri. Lormand. Pekowsky.34 L. Merzougui. R.29.20 M.71 A. E.28 R. K.2 N.78 R. J. Hanks. J. Hughey. Mason. Ogin. Heinzel.37 F.70 A.73 E. Oberling.70 C. O. Levin.36 A.2 J.114 A.65 S.104 P. E.13 L.1 R. Hanke.10 A. Nolting. L. Pichot.45 C. Leonardi. Mavalvala. Krueger.29 M.103 L. A. Lackey.58 X. B. M.8 R. Gordon.102 B. Iyer.79.34 M.83 A. J. Isa.1 F.1 E. Mytidis.37 L. Ott.25.83 N. M. Masserot. C. Pai.16 E. E.110 K.7 T. Mendoza-Gandara.110 H. H.109 N. Kringel.97 S.10 T. Lee.37 M.19 K. Ottaway. M. Kandhasamy. Hall.12 S. Jani. Hanson. Hemming.14 V. González. Kéfélian. Libson. Michel. E. H. R. Logue.10 A. Ju. Luo. G.17 F.1 I. Pannarale. Mohapatra. Owen. Meadors.7 S.8 J.87 M.67.36 M.28 I.13 J. M. Heintze. Mangano. Isi.37 C. Mitselmakher.65 I. J.104 J. O’Reilly.10 N. O’Dell.84 F. Gras.2 S. Lebigot. T. Mittleman. Martynov.122 D.108 C. Hosken. T.36 J.58 V. W.37 G. L. P. Passaquieti.18. Martin.2.82 S. Heefner.19 A.18.27 S.66 D. Meacher. Hodge. Pillant. H. V.8 R. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 Archisman Ghosh. Haney.58 J. Mageswaran. Masso-Reid.51 K. G. Z.36 F.1 J. Korobko. Graff. M.86 D. S.6 S.40 P. Inta.10 B.8 N.37 C. Jang. G.98 J.65 L. Kaufer.100 E.5 I.13 N. Markosyan. Melatos.117 M. D. Khalili.16.1 R.58 L. Littenberg. Paoli. Oh. Pedurand.57. Merilh. Ming. S. Kasprzack. Miao.8 S. Lynch.1 G. Haris.107 F. Meshkov.34 E.107 J. Matone.45 E. Gossan.84 V. Moore.36 G. Macleod.5 E. E.54 G. Kondrashov.79 H.6 M. Kumar. Marion. Lousto.106 S. Hammond. Kang. V. Pal-Singh.51 Y. Groot.126 A. Magaña-Sandoval. Moraru.8 J. Mirshekari. D. McCormick. Idrisy. S. Keppel.9 A. Mezzani.8 H.49 I.22 T.34.36 J.-M.8 F.9 M. K. Holt.17. Isogai. Mazzolo. C.44 D. B. Gosselin. Granata. Man.8 B. Hanna. Nissanke.8. Piergiovanni.28 M.16 J. Izumi. MacDonald.8 P. Kennedy.25. Mossavi. E. H.8 J. A.20 S.26 R.36 E.1 H.103 G. J. Pickenpack.36 M. Gonzalez Castro.37 G. Lough.37 R.8 M.48 F.53 I. Haster. R.1 R.18.100 P.8 D.1 V.8 A.8 R.14 A.36 T.6 S. S. C.19 Z. Montani.34 A. E. Mohan. Milano.8.104 D.6 J. Ingram. Moreno. Magee.60 H. Katzman. Pasqualetti. Goetz.58 B. Krishnan.53 M.15 K.37 D.42 P.34 D.19 D. Hough.10 Y. Parker. Lorenzini.62 C.115 K.15 D. Oh.34 R.53 M. P.20 S. Gopakumar. M.112 P. M.37 T. Pearlstone.2. P.36 A. Key. M. Lasky. Lundgren.59 M.36 M.82 D.8 J. M.15 S. Kowalska. Lord.34 S. Grunewald.65 A.90 J. Muir. Normandin. A. Pant. W. Marx. J. K. Leavey. Lazzaro. Heng.10 W. Li.72 M. J. A. Oliver.87 G.82 F.-M. Lombardi. Nedkova. Huet. Murphy. Palamos. N.1 M.36 S.22 B. Pinard. Giardina. Jonker.51 T.36 R. Korth. Mercer.85 G.14 M. Mandic.36 R.19 P.28 S.40 Y. L. Kleybolte. Johnson-McDaniel. Mandel.5 S.77 J.112. A. Kawazoe. Palashov. Mukund.36 E. Gorodetsky.99 N.91 J.60 M.36 C. Kim.45 K.1 E. Khan. Overmier.95 E.29.5 K. B.57.2 F.36 O.62 M. T. W.45 R. Katsavounidis.1 D. R.125 F.10 M. Goetz.23 G.10 D. L. Patrick.72 N. Nardecchia.28 A. Naticchioni. S.34 F. Martellini. Mukherjee. Johnson.117 V.109 C. Loriette. Kim.6 R. Manske. Hello. D. Khan. Kawabe. Leaci. D.45 V. K. R. Leroy.45 C. Lockerbie.2 J.8 Richard J.33 F. Márka. M.53 P. Mendell.27 H.36 S. B.104 R. Kijbunchoo. D.1 J. Penn.23 B.120 L. Guo.52 H.53 S.91 D.35 J. Harry.6 G.35 M. Mazumder. Murray.119 G. K. W.76 D.5 G. R. Królak. Mours. Ochsner. Kalogera. Pai.69 R.57. Hollitt.59 O. Lee.8 A.1 M.58 G. King. B.29 G. Hartman.91 Z. Necula.16 S. Ohme. Huynh-Dinh. Gushwa. Jacobson.6 K.6 A.8 S. Leong.36 E. D. Mitrofanov. R. M. Pankow. O’Shaughnessy.1 S. Koley.79.19 M.15 D. J. A.39 N. Huttner. Gupta.36 A. Poeld. Haughian.39 P. Khazanov. Ghosh.19 B. Pan.36 L. Huang. M. J.18.7 C.72 P.8 B. Pan. Letendre.5. Moggi. Karki.65 H.118. Jones.1 T. Maros. Hennig. L. Messick.37 M. Gustafson.36 P. D. McIntyre. Pele.121 C. Kells.30. Y. C.16 M. Mueller. Greenhalgh. Meyers.105 D.40 B. Huerta. McIver. Isac. Matichard.97 A.6 T. C.6 G.114 B.58 A. Harms.5 A. Phelps.24.8 S.116 N.6 B.31 Y.48 J.113 C.1 C. Koehlenbeck. R. Koranda.57. Martelli.60 M. Kim. Lück. Nocera.47 A. Mitra. Gouaty. B. Kuo. Hannam.125 S. Maksimovic. Passuello.6 D.8.1 K. Indik.98 R. Post. Lee.PRL 116. Machenschalk.83 L.1.35 R. Lenon.19 A. McManus. Kozak. Graef. G.63. Oram. Patricelli.5 R.91 M. Levine.102 J.124 J.-J.17 S. Harry. Khalaidovski. Kaur.36 I. Losurdo.73 A.39 A. Jones.91 B. London. Heptonstall.5 D. Kalaghatgi.

A. J. R. Florida 32611.96 S. Yancey. Italy 5 University of Florida. Wang. A. Massachusetts 02139. G.6 K. S.1 A. A.108 F. Simakov. Quetschke.45 R.1 L. Robie.17 B.42 S.90 L. Wimmer. C. E. A. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.35 O.127. Siellez.20 D. Angelo. Rowan. Strauss.8 M. Voss.91 K.83 C. F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux.59 R. H.28 K.133 B. E. Pasadena. A. van der Schaaf. Thomas. Ricci. Weßels.53 S. Stratta.59 A. H. Yam.112 L.1 S. California Institute of Technology.83 K.95 A. Siemens.9 A.85.123 L. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 J. Vitale.6 A. Romano. Tiwari. Sauter. Zadrożny. Yvert. Prestegard. Tomlinson.102. A.6 P.16 S.37 L.1 V. Yu.8. Tanner. Louisiana 70803.50 D.107 C.8 M.29 G.37 P.89.37 K. Quintero. R. Zhang. D. Warner. J. Winkelmann.8 R. Schnabel.37 A. Trifirò. Wallace.9 A. Shah. Whelan. Razzano.36 S.10 M.25 J.36 F.1 M.b J. Töyrä.54 S. R. Westphal.35.50 J. J. Science Park. Slagmolen. Zanolin. Principe.91.29 M.48 M.1 E. H. Raab.1 T.8 P. Smith.1 L. Smith. Tápai. Shao. Woan.10 L.37 S. Shaddock.5 W. Urban.1 D.53 M.82 I. Shaffer. Sutton. J. Saleem.22 Y.91 S. Williams.36 A. Sintes.45 M. Walsh.90 L.20 T.12 H. Premachandra. Steinlechner.49 A.1 J. Valdes.14 A. Italy 4 INFN.16 J.59 D.2 L. S.53 L.82 M.58 S.1 R. Wang.52.36 R. Complesso Universitario di Monte S.36 R.8 C.83 D.131 D.16.7 B. Wade. Rolland. Rabeling. Riles. Walker. Torres.34 M. Schreiber.70 Y.5 H. California 91125.20 H. J. Scott.47 S. Silva. Tuyenbayev. Louisiana 70754. Winkler.10 T. P. van Beuzekom. Wipf.40 P. F. Raffai. J. Sezione di Napoli. Stevenson. A. Taylor. T.1 T.42 J.12 A. Wette. Sathyaprakash. Reid. Rapagnani. Rew.98.51 H.27 R.10 H. Thorne. Tacca.35 H. Sigg. Rakhmanov. van Heijningen.45 G.45 M. Sun.10 D.8 A.8 A. Tiwari. Ryan. Ward.104 K. Tarabrin. Was. Souradeep. Romanov. L. Predoi. Sergeev. Prix.1 V. Zevin. L. E. Whitcomb. Baton Rouge. Travasso. Shahriar.6 D.102 C. Whiting. Radkins. I. P.1 G.21 M. Yablon. Zhu. Schmidt. Zucker.8.32. Vajente.18. Unnikrishnan.8 M. Sanders. Wiesner. Shaltev.45 S.53.19 V. Willis. Sadeghian.8 K.8 D.58 A.36 J.35 B. Ward.32. Wen. Germany 9 Nikhef.3. Singer. M.37 M.37 B. Schale.41. C.8. V.8 C. USA 7 Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP). Ugolini. Sengupta. CNRS/IN2P3.8 W.34 V.49 R. Torrie.85 P.53 D. Smith.78 S. Vecchio. Weaver. Stephens. Sorrentino. J. 1098 XG Amsterdam. Rollins.8 A.37 D. Talukder.35 F. Willems.8.1. Shoemaker. Qin.37 P. Netherlands 10 LIGO.36 S. USA 061102-13 . R. J. R. Vyatchanin.83 R.29 R.6 T.51 M.128 L.98 R. R. Zuraw. R. S. Traylor. Rüdiger.37 J. Salemi.1 E.12 V. Zhou.25.19 M. Rei. Sadecki.8 T.20 H. Sorazu. Pürrer. Yap. S.1 A.87 S.20 J. Price. Vallisneri. V. USA 6 LIGO Livingston Observatory.38 R.37 L. Viceré.28 V.10 T.17.35 H.114 S.51 P. P.33 C. Read. J. France 8 Albert-Einstein-Institut. USA 3 Università di Salerno.4 G. Tse. Williamson.22 C. Wei.1 M. Punturo. van Veggel.8 P. Veitch.125 B.8 G.8 Z. Shoemaker.16 H. F. Tringali. Schönbeck. Singh.17 L. G.17 P.33 G. M. V. Stone.83 M. I-80126 Napoli. Sanders.132 M.45 P. Saulson.109 G. Roma. Vine. Reitze.8 A.1.61.45 F.66 B. Thomas. Powell. M. Schuette.62 M. L. Wittel. Vass. Wang. Weinert. P. Ramet.1 R.36 F. Straniero.49 O. Zhao. Smith. Privitera. Singh.8.129. Prokhorov. F. B.37 D. Weinstein.83. van Bakel. Wiseman.51 M.9 M. Salconi. Turconi. P. J.17 G. Trozzo.10 S. D. S.83 E.6 J. A. Thorne. Vinet.1 C. Prodi. D.7 A. Vardaro. Swinkels. C. Sandeen. Vousden. Singhal. Setyawati. Re.94 D. Sentenac. A.8 S.9 C. Weiss. E. K. Thirugnanasambandam.42 M.1 N. Sequino.-P. Strigin.30 D. Raymond.36 D.91 P. Romano.42 M.82 G. S. Vorvick.14 V.1 D. Université Savoie Mont Blanc.120 Y. Wright. L.51 V. Sandberg. Sanchez.7 J.82 X. Staley.132 S.98 N. Tonelli. Taracchini.79.17 G.8 J.27 E. Rosińska. J. Prasad. Zhou. H. L. Vasúth.34 M. Wilkinson.23 A.11 D. Strain. Romie. Shapiro. Ruggi.63 K. L. Sachdev.103 and J.19 C.52.PRL 116.82 E.1 R. M. Waldman. Vedovato. Puncken.76 E.120 S.16 S. Shawhan. Wang. Cambridge. Worden. Vo.1 B. J. S.86 B.114 L. Singer.5 R.16 D.18. Zangrando. Willke. Vaulin.5 K. Zhang. Sassolas. Vocca. Regimbau. Sturani. E.91 J. J.c C. Venkateswara. Serna.84 L. Wu. D.86 M. Samajdar.36 G.6 W. Zweizig1 (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 1 LIGO. G.36 J.121 A.76 R. Vinciguerra. Van Den Broeck.76 N.9 M. I-84084 Salerno. Z.1.7 F.65 G.34 K. Yamamoto.20 J. J. Sevigny. Robinet. Schutz. H. White. M. Wade.37 S.43 S. Tokmakov. R. Stuver.22 L. Theeg.2 A. Sampson.59 F. Wang. D.29.13 A.37 T.16 D. Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik. Livingston. Schofield. Zendri.97 J. Quitzow-James.114 T. Raja. Fisciano.10 A.89.34 M. Yakushin. Gainesville.91 B.6 L.99 A. Schmidt. Reyes. Sawadsky. Qi.6 D. S.10 M.47 T. Usman. Steinmeyer. Steinlechner.29 R.22 M. D.36 M.29 H.6 P. C. Zhang. J.-Y. Reed.45 X. C.57.36 N.57. Rocchi.82 Z.10 M. Sellers. USA 2 Louisiana State University. Sheperd. Sammut.8 J. Verkindt. Welborn.1 M. Prijatelj. van den Brand.45 D.17 B.9 J.1.13 L. Williams.8.120 J.-W.65 B. Savage.37 A. Veitch. Puppo. Wade.79. A. J.29 J.37 D. Zhang.16 L. Son. D-30167 Hannover. J.33 P. Thomas. Szczepańczyk.130 C.68 A.57. M.63 X.20 L. Schilling. Vahlbruch. Scott. Vander-Hyde. Srivastava.62 A. Summerscales.9 J. Thrane. Steinke. L.9 D.58 N.97 M.59 J. Robertson.28 M. Vetrano.39 M.82 F.5 M.

Collège de France. Russia 50 SUPA. F-35042 Rennes. Konkoly Thege Miklós út 29-33. Italy 20 Australian National University.O. Mississippi 38677. RMKI. United Kingdom 27 Universität Hamburg. Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik. Washington 99352. Université de Lyon. Stanford. Sezione di Perugia. Poland 44 Astronomical Observatory Warsaw University. D-30167 Hannover. Sezione di Roma. Angelo. F-75205 Paris Cedex 13. Radboud University Nijmegen. I-35131 Padova. Syracuse. CNRS. Italy 48 RRCAT. Western Australia 6009. Italy 29 Albert-Einstein-Institut. 69622 Villeurbanne. University of the West of Scotland. Italy 43 CAMK-PAN. USA 061102-14 . USA 22 California State University Fullerton. Sezione di Firenze. New York 13244. Australia 52 Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP. France 31 Montana State University. Montana 59717. I-56127 Pisa. Firenze. France 66 Universitat de les Illes Balears. H-1121 Budapest. Sorbonne Paris Cité. F-75005 Paris. 6500 GL Nijmegen. France 24 Chennai Mathematical Institute. Observatoire de Paris. Paisley PA1 2BE. Box 9010. Université Côte d’Azur. Italy 19 INFN. UMR CNRS 5306. UPMC-Sorbonne Universités. Pisa. IN2P3/CNRS. Georgia Institute of Technology. Georgia 30332. College Park. Richland. France 56 Washington State University. 00-478 Warsaw. 12227-010 São José dos Campos. United Kingdom 37 LIGO Hanford Observatory. CNRS/IN2P3. Bozeman. CNRS. P. Italy 34 European Gravitational Observatory (EGO). Fullerton. Crawley. I-00133 Roma. Milwaukee. I-06123 Perugia. Eugene. IAC3—IEEC. Atlanta. Greenbelt. I-00185 Roma. Université de Lyon. Washington 99164. USA 64 Institut Lumière Matière. Université de Rennes 1. Sezione di Roma Tor Vergata. Wisconsin 53201. Dipartimento di Fisica e Astronomia. AstroParticule et Cosmologie. CNRS/IN2P3. I-00133 Roma. Hungary 55 Institut de Physique de Rennes. Orsay. New York. Germany 18 Università di Pisa. Australia 21 The University of Mississippi. F-69622 Villeurbanne. Nice cedex 4. Spain 67 Università di Napoli “Federico II. E-07122 Palma de Mallorca. USA 17 Leibniz Universität Hannover. USA 63 Center for Relativistic Astrophysics and School of Physics. CNRS. I-50019 Sesto Fiorentino. France 65 Laboratoire des Matériaux Avancés (LMA). USA 57 Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo. Oregon 97403. New York 10027. Germany 30 APC.PRL 116. Germany 28 INFN. India 49 Faculty of Physics. Italy 59 University of Oregon. USA 23 LAL. Glasgow G12 8QQ. USA 38 Wigner RCP. 00-716 Warsaw. Maryland 20742.” Complesso Universitario di Monte S. France 54 MTA Eötvös University. Poland 45 University of Birmingham. Italy 14 Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics. California 94305. I-80126 Napoli. Université Paris-Saclay. São Paulo. United Kingdom 51 University of Western Australia. Netherlands 53 Artemis. France 61 VU University Amsterdam. Sezione di Genova. CS 34229. Southampton SO17 1BJ. Université Paris Diderot. 1081 HV Amsterdam. Italy 47 INFN. United Kingdom 46 Università degli Studi di Genova. Hungary 39 Columbia University. Moscow 119991. India 15 International Centre for Theoretical Sciences. Lyon. I-67100 L’Aquila. Chennai. I-16146 Genova. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 11 week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. California 92831. Brazil 12 INFN. D-14476 Potsdam-Golm. Italy 26 University of Southampton. I-16146 Genova. Sezione di Padova. Maryland 20771. Observatoire Côte d’Azur. USA 41 Università di Padova. USA 60 Laboratoire Kastler Brossel. Italy 33 INFN. I-35131 Padova. USA 32 Università di Perugia. Italy 68 NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center. I-56127 Pisa. Australian Capital Territory 0200. USA 36 SUPA. Budapest 1117. CEA/Irfu. Pullman. USA 40 Stanford University. Sezione di Pisa. Indore MP 452013. India 603103 25 Università di Roma Tor Vergata. Italy 58 INFN. Canberra. Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Gran Sasso Science Institute. “Lendulet” Astrophysics Research Group. Italy 35 Syracuse University. ENS-PSL Research University. University of Glasgow. I-06123 Perugia. India 16 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Birmingham B15 2TT. Italy 13 INFN. Pune 411007. University. Lomonosov Moscow State University. Italy 42 INFN. D-22761 Hamburg. I-56021 Cascina.” I-61029 Urbino. Université Paris-Sud. Bangalore 560012. Netherlands 62 University of Maryland.

Brownsville. Wagga Wagga. Australia 105 West Virginia University. Michigan 48109. Italy 80 University of Brussels. Edinburgh EH9 3FD. Seoul 133-791. Walla Walla. California 91125. Chilton. Virginia 23187. China 71 Texas Tech University. Adelaide. São Paulo SP 01140-070. Prescott. Baton Rouge. Parkville. USA 127 Janusz Gil Institute of Astronomy. Dipartimento di Fisica. USA 103 University of Massachusetts-Amherst. United Kingdom 108 IISER-TVM. Northfield. USA 77 Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information. Republic of China 74 Charles Sturt University. Illinois 60637. Glasgow G1 1XQ. I-38123 Povo. USA 82 Northwestern University. USA 79 Università di Roma “La Sapienza. West Virginia 26506. United Kingdom 123 IISER-Kolkata. 2-21-1 Osawa. Korea 126 Hobart and William Smith Colleges. Italy 91 Cardiff University. Washington. Ontario M5S 3H8. Mohanpur. USA 104 University of Adelaide. Cambridge CB2 1TN. South Australia 5005.C. Australia 75 University of Chicago. Cardiff CF24 3AA. Morgantown. Korea 78 Carleton College. USA 98 University of Michigan. Alabama 35899. Pasadena. USA 89 Università di Trento. Massachusetts 01003. 20016. Korea 116 University of Alabama in Huntsville. 00-956 Warsaw. USA 121 Instituto de Física Teórica. 05-400 Świerk-Otwock. Japan 93 School of Mathematics. Ann Arbor. HSIC. Seoul 151-742. Mumbai 400005. Szeged 6720. Washington 99362 USA 125 National Institute for Mathematical Sciences. USA 99 Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Rochester. Amherst. Louisiana 70813. I-62032 Camerino. New York 14456. Minnesota 55455. Texas 78520. India 109 Institute of Applied Physics. Russia 110 Pusan National University. I-38123 Povo. Belgium 81 Sonoma State University. Daejeon 305-390. Minnesota 55057. Hsinchu City. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 69 week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics. Victoria 3800. New York 14623. Poland 114 Monash University. University Estadual Paulista/ICTP South American Institute for Fundamental Research. Brussels 1050. Italy 88 Montclair State University. 65-265 Zielona Góra. Busan 609-735. Poland 113 IM-PAN. Beijing 100084. 30013 Taiwan. California 94928. West Bengal 741252. Australia 115 Seoul National University. Italy 119 Southern University and A&M College. Poland 061102-15 . CET Campus.” I-00185 Roma. I-80100 Napoli. India 124 Whitman College. University Park. Williamsburg. Evanston. Canada 70 Tsinghua University. Lubbock. Daejeon 305-806. USA 102 Rochester Institute of Technology. Pennsylvania 16802. Italy and INFN. Brazil 122 University of Cambridge. Poland 107 SUPA. Texas 79409. United Kingdom 94 Indian Institute of Technology. Dipartimento di Fisica. Italy 90 INFN. Hungary 97 Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. F-75005 Paris. United Kingdom 92 National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. Oxon OX11 0QX. Chicago.PRL 116. University of Zielona Góra. CNRS. USA 106 University of Biał ystok. India 95 Institute for Plasma Research. New South Wales 2678. Illinois 60208. USA 85 The University of Melbourne. Sezione di Napoli. United Kingdom 87 University of Sannio at Benevento. USA 84 University of Minnesota. New Jersey 07043. University of Edinburgh. Dóm tér 9. Trivandrum Kerala 695016. Trento. USA 72 The Pennsylvania State University. Toronto. Gandhinagar Ahmedabad Gujarat 382424. USA 83 The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. USA 120 College of William and Mary. University of Toronto. Korea 111 Hanyang University. Tokyo 181-8588. India 96 University of Szeged. Rohnert Park. Trento. Bhat. Nizhny Novgorod. Gandhinagar 382428. Montclair. University of Strathclyde. USA 76 Caltech CaRT. Australia 86 The University of Sheffield. Didcot. Huntsville. Sheffield S10 2TN. USA 73 National Tsing Hua University. Trento Institute for Fundamental Physics and Applications. I-82100 Benevento. 345 Boyer Avenue. France 118 Università di Camerino. United Kingdom 101 American University. 603950. USA 117 ESPCI. Geneva. Korea 112 NCBJ. India 100 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory. Mitaka. Arizona 86301. 15-424 Biał ystok. D. Minneapolis. Victoria 3010.

Texas 79699.PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS PRL 116. USA a Deceased. March 2015. c Deceased. Michigan 49104. b 061102-16 week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 . I-53100 Siena. Seattle. Deceased. Abilene. USA 131 University of Washington. 061102 (2016) 128 Andrews University. April 2012. Berrien Springs. Ohio 43022. Italy 130 Trinity University. Washington 98195. Texas 78212. USA 132 Kenyon College. Gambier. San Antonio. USA 133 Abilene Christian University. May 2015. USA 129 Università di Siena.