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

LA. Shaded areas show 90% credible regions for two independent waveform reconstructions. but instead calculates the strain signal as a linear combination of sine-Gaussian wavelets [40. Bottom row:A time-frequency representation [42] of the strain data. Third row: Residuals after subtracting the filtered numerical relativity waveform from the filtered detector time series.9% by an independent calculation based on [15]. right: L1 strain. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS properties of space-time in the strong-field. Second row: Gravitational-wave strain projected onto each detector in the 35–350 Hz band. Solid lines show a numerical relativity waveform for a system with parameters consistent with those recovered from GW150914 [37. left column panels) and Livingston (L1. One (dark gray) models the signal using binary black hole template waveforms [39]. Times are shown relative to September 14. Occurring within the 10-ms intersite FIG. II. Top row. These reconstructions have a 94% overlap. observatories detected week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 the coincident signal GW150914 shown in Fig. the H1 data are also shown. The other (light gray) does not use an astrophysical model. 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. 1.5 GW150914 arrived first at L1 and 6.38] confirmed to 99.4 ms later at H1. as shown in [39]. all time series are filtered with a 35–350 Hz bandpass filter to suppress large fluctuations outside the detectors’ most sensitive frequency band. 2015 at 09:50:45 UTC. 1. high-velocity regime and confirm predictions of general relativity for the nonlinear dynamics of highly disturbed black holes. þ0. for a visual comparison. shifted in time by this amount and inverted (to account for the detectors’ relative orientations). and band-reject filters to remove the strong instrumental spectral lines seen in the Fig. For visualization. Top row.41]. left: H1 strain.PRL 116. and Livingston. the LIGO Hanford. right column panels) detectors. 3 spectra.9−0. OBSERVATION On September 14. WA. 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]. showing the signal frequency increasing over time. Subsequently. 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. The gravitational-wave event GW150914 observed by the LIGO Hanford (H1. 061102-2 .

without the filtering used for Fig. Top: Estimated gravitational-wave strain amplitude from GW150914 projected onto H1. Over 0. 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. each arm contains a resonant optical cavity. This bounds the sum of the Schwarzschild radii of the binary components to 2GM=c2 ≳ 210 km. III. 1.46]. 3) that measures gravitational-wave strain as a difference in length of its orthogonal arms. 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. was operating but not in observational mode. formed by its two test mass mirrors. and to measure wave polarizations. Estimating f and f_ from the data in Fig. To achieve sufficient sensitivity to measure gravitational waves. separated by Lx ¼ Ly ¼ L ¼ 4 km.PRL 116. where h is the gravitational-wave strain amplitude projected onto the detector. Below. 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. To reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz (half the gravitational-wave frequency) the objects must have been very close and very compact. while compact. a partially transmissive power-recycling mirror at the input provides additional resonant buildup of the laser light in the interferometer as a whole [49.50]: 20 W of laser input is increased to 700 W incident on the beam splitter. acting as test masses. detector [33]. At the lower frequencies. widely separated detectors to distinguish gravitational waves from local instrumental and environmental noise. This differential length variation alters the phase difference between the two light fields returning to the beam splitter. Fig. A passing gravitational wave effectively alters the arm lengths such that the measured difference is ΔLðtÞ ¼ δLx − δLy ¼ hðtÞL. due to gravitational-wave emission. though not sufficiently sensitive to detect this event. This shows the full bandwidth of the waveforms. The Virgo detector was being upgraded. we present a general-relativistic analysis of GW150914. equal Newtonian point masses orbiting at this frequency would be only ≃350 km apart. Only the LIGO detectors were observing at the time of GW150914. while a black hole neutron star binary with the deduced chirp mass would have a very large total mass. transmitting an optical signal proportional to the gravitational-wave strain to the output photodetector. a partially transmissive signal-recycling mirror at the output optimizes 061102-3 . a modified Michelson interferometer (see Fig. 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 . 1.. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 propagation time. and GEO 600. their orbital inspiral and merger. where the amplitude reaches a maximum. the detectors include several enhancements to the basic Michelson interferometer. 2. The basic features of GW150914 point to it being produced by the coalescence of two black holes—i. Third. the signal increases in frequency and amplitude in about 8 cycles from 35 to 150 Hz. 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. Furthermore. The most plausible explanation for this evolution is the inspiral of two orbiting masses.2 s. The inset images show numerical relativity models of the black hole horizons as the black holes coalesce. A pair of neutron stars. The LIGO sites each operate a single Advanced LIGO FIG. 2 shows the calculated waveform using the resulting source parameters. we obtain a chirp mass of M ≃ 30M⊙ . and would thus merge at much lower frequency. m1 and m2 . where f is the gravitational-wave frequency calculated with numerical relativity and M is the total mass (value from Table I). the events have a combined signal-tonoise ratio (SNR) of 24 [45].e. to provide source sky localization. Second. which is further increased to 100 kW circulating in each arm cavity. DETECTORS Gravitational-wave astronomy exploits multiple. First. implying that the total mass M ¼ m1 þ m2 is ≳70M ⊙ in the detector frame. and subsequent final black hole ringdown. would not have the required mass. that multiplies the effect of a gravitational wave on the light phase by a factor of 300 [48]. This leaves black holes as the only known objects compact enough to reach an orbital frequency of 75 Hz without contact. Each arm is formed by two mirrors.

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

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

its false alarm rate is lower than 1 in 22 500 years. and En is the dimensionless residual noise energy after the reconstructed signal is subtracted from the data. Each event pisffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ranked according to the detection statistic ffi ηc ¼ 2Ec =ð1 þ En =Ec Þ. In order to illustrate the significance of GW150914 against a background of events with arbitrary shapes.4σ. GW150914 is the strongest event of the entire search. (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. Based on their time-frequency morphology. The significance of GW150914 is greater than 5.2. where Ec is the dimensionless coherent signal energy obtained by cross-correlating the two reconstructed waveforms. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 Detected with ηc ¼ 20. In the background of this class there are four events with ηc ≥ 32. Specifically. A. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS multiple classes.1σ and 4.1. it is found in the search class C3 of events with increasing time-frequency evolution. which is used to assess the significance of the second strongest event. and all remaining events (class C2). 4 shows the C3 class results and background. The left panel of Fig. 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). The scales on the top give the significance of an event in Gaussian standard deviations based on the corresponding noise background. 061102-6 . we use only two search classes: the C1 class and the union of C2 and C3 classes (C2 þ C3).72]. the events are divided into three mutually exclusive search classes. Search results from the generic transient search (left) and the binary coalescence search (right). The left panel of Fig. The selection criteria that define the search class C3 reduce the background by introducing a constraint on the signal morphology. 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. this significance is decreased by a trials factor equal to the number of classes [71].6σ. for signal frequencies up to 1 kHz and durations up to a few seconds.6σ for the binary coalescence and the generic transient searches. The classes C2 and C3 are defined in the text. yielding a false alarm rate for GW150914 of 1 in 8 400 years. equivalent to 4. 4 shows the C2 þ C3 class results and background. The statistic ηc thus quantifies the SNR of the event and the consistency of the data between the two detectors. events with frequency that increases with time (class C3). we also show the results of a search that uses the same set of events as the one described above but without this constraint.) The purple curve is the background excluding those coincidences. as described in [41]: events with time-frequency morphology of known populations of noise transients (class C1). 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.PRL 116. 4. Consistent with its coalescence signal signature. respectively.0. This corresponds to a probability < 2 × 10−6 of observing one or more noise events as strong as GW150914 during the analysis time. FIG. This corresponds to a false alarm probability of 5 × 10−6 equivalent to 4. In this two-class search the GW150914 event is found in the C2 þ C3 class. The search reconstructs signal waveforms consistent with a common gravitational-wave signal in both detectors using a multidetector maximum likelihood method. this search identifies coincident excess power in timefrequency representations of the detector strain data [43. Generic transient search Designed to operate without a specific waveform model. 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.

02. and dimensionless spins up to 0. VI. Source parameters for GW150914.5 −0. The spin of the primary black hole is constrained to be < 0.6 is larger than any background event. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 TABLE I. final spin. To model systems with total mass larger than 4M ⊙ . as for GW150914. and for each model perform a coherent Bayesian analysis to derive posterior distributions of the source parameters [89]. 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].87. Several analyses have been performed to determine whether or not GW150914 is consistent with a binary 061102-7 . The source redshift assumes standard cosmology [91]. The GW150914 detectionstatistic value of ρˆ c ¼ 23. also detected GW150914 with identical signal parameters and consistent significance. The system reached a 56 peak gravitational-wave luminosity of 3.0þ0. We rank coincident events based on the quadrature sum ρˆ c of the ρˆ from both detectors [45]. To refine them we use general relativity-based models [77.5 erg=s. The estimated total energy radiated in 2 gravitational waves is 3. to convert to the detector frame multiply by (1 þ z) [90]. The right panel of Fig.4 × 10 þ30 2 equivalent to 200−20 M ⊙ c =s.93].88]. To account for the search background noise varying across the target signal space.3 years and corresponding Poissonian false alarm probability of 0. The parameter uncertainties include statistical errors and systematic errors from averaging the results of different waveform models. independent matched-filter analysis that uses a different method for estimating the significance of its events [85. Based on this. total mass less than 100M ⊙ .7 (90% credible interval) indicating it is not maximally spinning. 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 þ0.99 [44]. so only an upper bound can be placed on its false alarm rate. nonetheless. corresponding to 5. The initial and final masses. we provide estimates of the mass and spin of the final black hole. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS For robustness and validation. Using the fits to numerical simulations of binary black hole mergers in [92. −0.86].76] with results from black hole perturbation theory and numerical relativity. Values of χ 2r near unity indicate that the signal is consistent with a coalescence. B.09−0. These source parameters are discussed in detail in [39].78.67−0. Approximately 250 000 template waveforms are used to cover this parameter space. This translates to a false alarm probability < 2 × 10−7 . we also use other generic transient search algorithms [41]. but the resulting templates can. Across the three search classes this bound is 1 in 203 000 years. 4. Repeating this procedure ∼107 times produces a noise background analysis time equivalent to 608 000 years. 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]. some of which include spin precession. Masses are given in the source frame. the second most significant event has a false alarm rate of 1 per 2.1σ. we use the effective-one-body formalism [75]. A second. The final step enforces coincidence between detectors by selecting event pairs that occur within a 15-ms window and come from the same template. Waveform analysis of this event indicates that if it is astrophysical in origin it is also a binary black hole merger [44]. but it provides only approximate estimates of the source parameters.07 410þ160 −180 Mpc þ0. distance. the total energy radiated in gravitational waves. and redshift of the source are shown in Table I. 4 shows the background for the search class of GW150914.78] assumes that the spins of the merging objects are aligned with the orbital angular momentum.03 0. the background used to determine the significance of other events is reestimated without the contribution of this event. while the spin of the secondary is only weakly constrained. This is the background distribution shown as a purple line in the right panel of Fig. and systematic errors from averaging the results of different waveform models. SOURCE DISCUSSION The matched-filter search is optimized for detecting signals.PRL 116.6þ0.84]. 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. A different search [73] and a parameter estimation follow-up [74] detected GW150914 with consistent significance and signal parameters. The waveform model [77.5 M ⊙ c . If χ 2r is greater than unity. ρðtÞ is reweighted as ρˆ ¼ ρ=f½1 þ ðχ 2r Þ3 =2g1=6 [83.04 When an event is confidently identified as a real gravitational-wave signal.05 0. The 15-ms window is determined by the 10-ms intersite propagation time plus 5 ms for uncertainty in arrival time of weak signals. effectively recover systems with misaligned spins in the parameter region of GW150914 [44]. and the peak gravitational-wave luminosity [39]. candidate and background events are divided into three search classes based on template length. which combines results from the post-Newtonian approach [11. Binary coalescence search This search targets gravitational-wave emission from binary systems with individual masses from 1 to 99M⊙ . We report median values with 90% credible intervals that include statistical errors.

OUTLOOK Further details about these results and associated data releases are available at [116]. KAGRA. In this second check [94] we place constraints on these deviations. 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. Binary black hole systems at larger distances contribute to a stochastic background of gravitational waves from the superposition of unresolved systems. Analysis results for the entire first observational period will be reported in future publications. which could be interpreted as a bound on the graviton mass mg < 1.99] by factors of a few and a thousand. The authors gratefully acknowledge the Italian Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN). Additional support for Advanced LIGO was provided by the Australian Research Council. 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. This is the first direct detection of gravitational waves and the first observation of a binary black hole merger. respectively. These observational results constrain the rate of stellarmass binary black hole mergers in the local universe. Department of Science and 061102-8 .109]. assuming a modified dispersion relation for gravitational waves [97]. For quasicircular inspirals. and the State of Niedersachsen. we obtain rate estimates ranging from 2–400 Gpc−3 yr−1 in the comoving frame [111–113]. Further astrophysical implications of this binary black hole discovery are discussed in [110]. and for the creation and support of the EGO consortium. Germany. which are possible in stellar environments with metallicity lower than ≃1=2 the solar value [108. for the construction and operation of the Virgo detector. for support of the construction of Advanced LIGO and construction and operation of the GEO 600 detector. it would provide information about the evolution of such binary systems over the history of the universe. Within the post-Newtonian formalism. but does not improve on the modeldependent bounds derived from the dynamics of Galaxy clusters [100] and weak lensing observations [101]. CONCLUSION The LIGO detectors have observed gravitational waves from the merger of two stellar-mass black holes. Predictions for such a week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 background are presented in [115]. these are predicted uniquely by Einstein’s equations as a function of the masses and spins of the two progenitor black holes. These observations demonstrate the existence of binary stellar-mass black hole systems. and seeing if the resulting waveform is consistent with the data. which is fully described by its mass and spin. Binary black holes have been predicted to form both in isolated binaries [102–104] and in dense environments by dynamical interactions [105–107]. and the Foundation for Fundamental Research on Matter supported by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research. the Max-Planck Society (MPS). and establishes that binary black holes can form in nature and merge within a Hubble time. Efforts are under way to enhance significantly the global gravitational-wave detector network [117]. Using several different models of the underlying binary black hole mass distribution. Thus. The coefficients of this expansion can be computed in general relativity. 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.96] by allowing the coefficients to deviate from the nominal values. all three tests are consistent with the predictions of general relativity in the strong-field regime of gravity. A first consistency check involves the mass and spin of the final black hole. The formation of such massive black holes from stellar evolution requires weak massive-star winds. This improves on Solar System and binary pulsar bounds [98. our observations constrain the Compton wavelength of the graviton to be λg > 1013 km. we can test for consistency with general relativity [95. the end product of a black hole binary coalescence is a Kerr black hole. VIII. VII. finding no evidence for violations of general relativity. with only the lowest event rates being excluded. Finally. Using fitting formulas calibrated to numerical relativity simulations [92].2 × 10−22 eV=c2 . This is consistent with a broad range of rate predictions as reviewed in [114]. In general relativity. If the signal from such a population were detected. The authors also gratefully acknowledge research support from these agencies as well as by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research of India. Advanced Virgo. with no evidence for disagreement from general relativity. In summary. the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS). and a possible third LIGO detector in India [118] will extend the network and significantly improve the position reconstruction and parameter estimation of sources. These include further commissioning of the Advanced LIGO detectors to reach design sensitivity.PRL 116. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS black hole system in general relativity [94]. which will allow detection of binaries like GW150914 with 3 times higher SNR. Additionally. the phase of the gravitational waveform during the inspiral can be expressed as a power series in f 1=3 . GW150914 demonstrates the existence of stellar-mass black holes more massive than ≃25M⊙ .

Nature (London) 227. in Quantum Optics. Weisberg. F. G. 936 (1970). Meystre and M. England. S1809 (2004). Rev. R. 119. Rev. Living Rev. Rev. Blanchet. Moss. Soc. 170. 11. Rev. STFC. 3515 (1995). 042004 (2016). C. Littenberg. Abbott et al. Space Sci. [24] P. This article has been assigned the document numbers LIGO-P150914 and VIR-0015A-16. A.. O. CNRS and the State of Niedersachsen. I. Marronetti. Abbott et al. 1972. 1. GWD/137/JH(89). 043007 (2013). J.. Martin. M.org/LIGO‑P720002/public/main. Akad. [25] M. Phys. 10.uk/114852. Akad. M. edited by D. p. Abbott et al. [11] L. K. Astrophys. A. Wiss. and Measurement Theory. Katsavounidis. 325 (1992). NATO ASI. Blanchet. Abbott et al. VIR-0517A-15. Rev. Weiss. Sekiguchi. Schwarzschild.org/LIGO‑P1500227/ public/main. Gen. Rev. 024001 (2015). 084006 (1999). L. JETP 16. Chatterji. 135012 (2015). Casares and P. Vogt. Jonker. R. [49] R. T. 433 (1962). [33] J. Gertsenshtein and V. Drever. Russian Foundation for Basic Research. Proc. [2] A..02357. [3] P. and J. [8] C.. Sitzungsber. the Royal Society. 965 (1958). B. arXiv:1602. Nature (London) 240. Affeldt et al. Hough et al. the Scottish Funding Council. Will. Scully. Proposal for a joint German-British interferometric gravitational wave detector. Vol. Y. Rev. The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the NSF. Press and K. 10. Canadian Institute for Advanced Research. Electromagnetically coupled broadband gravitational antenna. W. Gravit. Rev. C.. Astrophys. Brillet. Abbott et al. the National Research Foundation of Korea. Cornish and T. Aso. and Y. 1. [4] K. Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST). [22] W. Pretorius.ac. the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Experimental Gravity. [16] J. [48] R. the Scottish Universities Physics Alliance. Centrella. J. L. 074001 (2015). Chandrasekhar and S. A. 37 (1972). Relativ. Acernese et al.03840. H. Taylor. Zlochower. P. B.PRL 116. H. Mroué et al. M. https://dcc. A 344. 95. [18] C. P. Deruelle and T. INFN. Wiss. 96. J. the European Commission. Classical Quantum Gravity 31. W. [36] Y. E. 1989.. L. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. Cambridge. D 88.. Pustovoit. Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO) Technical Report. Rev. 189 (1916). Nature (London) 235. R. D. edited by N. [7] R. O. MIT Report No. the Brazilian Ministry of Science. Taiwan. [26] G. 1. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS Technology. Kerr. Baker. pp. Press. 223 (2014). Astone et al. the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund (OTKA). K.. 321. 441 (1975). and R. available for download at http://www. Lett. http://eprints . Phys. Astrophys. Bolton. Rev.ego‑gw. India. Phys. D 93. New York. Kruskal. 111101 (2006). Somiya. P. [27] R.ligo. B. [12] L. [15] M. Finkelstein. the Research Corporation. [34] F. 335 (1972). https://dcc.-I. the Conselleria d’Economia i Competitivitat and Conselleria d’Educació. G. Buonanno and T. [47] B. edited by P. Germany. Abramovici et al. 1989. Science 256. [45] S. K. [20] R. Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB). 908 (1982). Detweiler. Yamamoto.gla. Michimura. 111. Drever. 2495 (1971). arXiv:1602... M..org/waveforms. the National Science Centre of Poland. E. 195.. Phys. Industry Canada and the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation. Phys. Rev. Appl.. T. Weber. Blair (Cambridge University Press. Phys. MPS. G. 688 (1916). Miller. Lett. Phys. Preuss. arXiv:1602. 1743 (1960). in Gravitational Radiation. P. 061102-9 . the Leverhulme Trust. the Lyon Institute of Origins (LIO). K.. Preuss. 2 (2014). Murdin. [28] R. K. [19] J. R. 110. 503–514. P. Classical Quantum Gravity 21. [14] F. 124 (1972). D. Phys. Opt. Damour. Phys. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 [21] J. and A. 74. [35] C. and the Kavli Foundation.ligo. Lousto. 43.03838. L. S. Lett.it/ql/? c=11247. Thorne. Klimenko et al. Preuss. Cultura i Universitats of the Govern de les Illes Balears. V.. Webster and P. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. [46] B. [31] A. 306 (1960). Aasi et al.org/ LIGO‑M890001/public/main. 117. Astrophys. G. 241104 (2013). Choi. Drever. Tatsumi. [5] D. Giazotto et al. and E. Phys. Rev. [42] S. T. Akad. and R. Quarterly Report of the Research Laboratory for Electronics. Einstein. 105. [9] W. Sitzungsber. W. 1983). [13] A.03839. [29] R. Phys. J. 1989. 183. Wiss. Vishveshwara. Blackburn. J. 1991). Weiss. Lett. Hulse and J. Rev. Phys. Campanelli. Raab. Rev. Einstein. arXiv:1508. [43] S. Damour. H. [6] M. Ando. 94 (Plenum Press. MPQ Technical Report 147. Iyer. India. Lett. W. Phys. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. 1983). Drever et al. 237 (1963).. arXiv:1602. Technology. O. 224002 (2014). G. L51 (1975). Thorne. 154 (1918). H. The Detection of Gravitational Waves. [39] B. India. [41] B. Lett. 253. https://tds. Forward. Ministry of Human Resource Development. Sov. P. Piran (North-Holland. 022003 (2010). Annu. the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. [17] B. Saulson. Wiseman. Virgo Project Technical Report No.03843. and H. R. L105 (1971). https:// dcc. and Innovation. D. Usman et al. [32] J. for provision of computational resources. [38] A. No. Miyakawa. Amsterdam. [23] J. [37] The waveform shown is SXS:BBH:0305. 121101 (2005). Rev. L. [30] A. Ser. Astron. [1] A. van Meter. D 82.ligo. 3289 (2011). 96. J. Koppitz. [10] S. Sitzungsber. 111102 (2006). [44] B. [40] N. Phys. D 59.black‑holes. Taylor and J. Relativity 17.

J. W. 044022 (2002). Pratten. Rev. Rev. Aasi et al. arXiv:1511. 064015 (2000). Schwinberg. Phys. Husa. arXiv:1602.. Fryer. [110] B. [104] K. 245005 (2015). S. R. Hannam. M. Astron. D 89. Aasi et al. R. Phys. Sathyaprakash and S. Evans. A. Classical Quantum Gravity 29. and B. 022002 (1999). Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Rasio. Abbott et al. A. S. Prokhorov. S. 044006 (2016). [75] A. 451. 748. Gen. W.. Pürrer. Aston et al. [70] L. Rüdiger. 064010 (2010). J. Bohé. 2061 (1998). S. S. 61. Sci. B. Mizuno. and J. and B. [84] S. Lett. B. Goetz et al. Heefner. Phys. 084025 (2010). M. Rev. O. Nature (London) 364. Hanna. J. T. M. F. G. Postnov. Phys. Phys. S. S. Sturani. D. Márka. R. Ohme. Cannon. arXiv:1510. Márka. Van Den Broeck. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Rev. Lipunov. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. Standish.. M. Ohme. 714. Ann. 115012 (2015). Mon. Repetto. Mishra.03844. Damour. [101] S. and D. M. Stat. Bork. Li. Sathyaprakash. [108] K. Portegies Zwart and S. M. 122006 (2012). Pürrer. E. Abbott et al. Relativ. Whelan. Chen. and E. Jiménez Forteza. Bartos. Abbott et al. Brown. Rev. Abbott et al. Vink.. Schutz. Phys. Rev.. S. C. D 82. Phys. E. [52] J. D 87. Cornish. Choudhury and S. N. V. 065005 (2012). Classical Quantum Gravity 29. Zlochower. R. A. D 93. F. [94] B. L. Astrophys. [68] J. D 93. [66] I. Not. J. Astrophys. E. 022002 (2013). S. D 71. A. D 57. D 85. New York. and F. [79] B. [111] B.. Brady. 3819 (1991). V. Klimenko. Pürrer. M. [96] T.PRL 116. Lousto. Astron. Fritschel. 115. Valsecchi.. [69] B. Smith. 061102-10 . Phys.03842. Not. and A. Hannam. D 85. Schilling (unpublished). Staley et al. Iyer. [97] C. W. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. [88] S. Rev. Rev. Salemi. Lett. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 [81] B. Chatterjee. 104004 (2014). M. Fricke et al. Taracchini et al. E. Z. Frolov. R.. Z. S. Opt.. Lett. 1217 (2010). M. Khan. P. Yungelson. S. D 62. Soc. Kawabe. C. Rev. Rev. Essick. Express 20. Sigg. Kanner. Phys. R. [58] G. [62] L. Belczynski. Rev. G. Pattabiraman.03841. Dominik. Rodriguez. D 93. M. Tutukov and L. [63] B. M.. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. Phys. A. Phys. and F. Weinstein. Phys. [95] C. Del Pozzo. F. Phys. Vecchio. and A. Granata et al. V. Fryer. Healy. Astrophys. [109] M. R. S. A. Owen and B.. Mercer. F. 151101 (2014).. Mon. [86] S. Holz. D 90. [106] S. and M. Strain. Rev. D 91. 082003 (2012). Hannam. Phys. arXiv:1502. [91] P. [56] S. L. E. Abadie et al. 3159 (2014). D 9.. Lynch. 113. Phys. D 44. J. Danzmann. and K. M. T. J. K. 423 (1993).. Barsotti. T. Goldhaber and M. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. [105] S. Rev. Factourovich. Sidery. and S. F. 024033 (2013). Phys. Creighton. O’Shaughnessy. Agathos. and J. 012007 (2016). 235004 (2012). Khan. C. and G. T.. Eur. R. Savage Jr. and J. [76] L. 405 (2007). G. 136 (2012). Buonanno and T. Berthias. R.. Raics. Sutton. Phys. Rev. and P. D 89. Lett. Yakushin. J. Will. Rev. X. González. Frei. R. A. N. [80] B. Belczynski.-J. arXiv:1602. J. D 93. Astrophys.. Spera. J. M. Lyons. Nelson. C. Mueller et al. 2317 (1988). [107] C. Sigurdsson and L. J. Nauchnye Informatsii 27. Mohapatra. Esposito-Farèse. Xhakaj. 87. Classical Quantum Gravity 25. E. Babak et al. [99] L. W. [87] M. K. Rev. Damour. Hellings. D 38. [71] L. Bulik. SenGupta. Phys. Bulik. [60] A. 042003 (2015). Bohé. A. McCarthy.. Phys. Harry et al. Vitale. L. Meers. C. 245 (1997). Phys. 19. 273 (1993). A. Soc. [59] M. Lett. Classical Quantum Gravity 32. Husa. Rev. 1119 (1974). R. Winkler. M.04615 [Astrophys. C. [53] P. 185003 (2015). Dhurandhar. Rev. Anderson. 10617 (2012). Iyer. [89] J. Klimenko. 051101 (2015). J. [85] K. Grover. 024003 (2014). L. Fotopoulos. G. Hurley. 93. Drago. Abbott et al. Talmadge. V. Littenberg. 084026 (2010). [64] E. K. Lett. [82] B. Phys. T. Phys. [90] A. Rev. Rev. Schilling. M. A. [83] J. 061502 (2014). [77] A. Vitale. G. Phys. Sathyaprakash..03845. [103] V. 2. Rev. R. 528. and A. Pürrer. Allen. M. and R. Haegel. Allen. F. 022002 (2016). [93] S. K. Nieto. Rev. 288. Phys. M. Veitch. L. J. A. 114029 (2008). Classical Quantum Gravity 24. Husa. Classical Quantum Gravity 31. Mapelli. Hernquist. 1159 (1988). 084024 (2010). [54] C. Nuttall et al. P. 245010 (2014). R. Millhouse. G. Schmidt. Phys. and A. [98] C. M. R. J. X. R. J. 195010 (2014). S. F.. D. Bohé. 2009. Berti. Blanchet. T. D. Birch. Appl. D 87. Robinet. B. Rev.05955.. Jiménez Forteza. Ruiter. Rev. Classical Quantum Gravity 31. [73] R. Katsavounidis. arXiv:1602. [78] M. Vedovato. Ade et al. Classical Quantum Gravity 29. Finn and P. S. Schofield. D 65. P. J. and M. 4086 (2015). 014502 (2016). [67] J. J. M. 035003 (2012). K. Krolak and B. of the 8th Edoardo Amaldi Conference.. Rev. Kwee et al. P. T. in Gravitational Waves: Proceedings. Goetz and R. [92] J. L17 (2000). D 85. Haster. 1163 (1987). G. Gravit. 818. and Y. [65] A. P. L22 (2016). I. R. 082002 (2012). K. L. Cumming et al. (to be published)]. Ohme. M. Effler. Cannon et al. M.. arXiv:1602. Ajith. [100] A. S. [102] A. P. Rev. C 74. Phys. [55] T. Instrum. 062001 (2005). 70 (1973). Amaldi. Rev. Matichard et al. G. Bressan.. F. P. A 175. D 60. J. [51] B. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS [50] R. Phys. Morscher. Arun. K. 035017 (2015). [61] A. Veitch et al.. McMillan. 044007 (2016). 091101 (2004). W. Privitera. Mitselmakher. S. [72] S. [57] F.01589. Phys. 887 (2008). [74] J.

37 T. Adhikari. Bertolini.71 S.8 S. Fang.56.60 A.11 A. Bozzi.51 S.73 A.70 C.38 J.93 L.10 K.87 S.8.45 N. S. Bell. Dereli.8 R.5 M.37 C.45 A. S.7 Abhirup Ghosh. Altin.36 H.14 F.1 J. Del Pozzo. Caudill.4 J. Bulik.65 C. Living Rev. C. Ackley.67. C. Ducrot. Barclay.53 C. De Rosa. Constancio Jr.13 K.61. F.9 J. Dave.83 J.1 F.65. Dooley. J.28 A.31 F. Dhurandhar. Frey.19 M.6 S.34 T.44 A. Cerboni Baiardi.83 M. Addesso. Farinon. R.79. A.19 L. Di Lieto. Barsuglia.51 G.14 Y. Collette. Abbott et al. Blair.51 D.1 D. G. Gaonkar. Danilishin.21 F.35 M. Bose. Ciani. Cesarini.58 G..69 J.48 I.62 J. B. Farr. H. P. Charlton. R. Berger. Dattilo.14 M.6 R.78 A.29. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS [112] C. Belczynski. Cadonati. Agatsuma.19 J.18. C. Boom.31 A.30 G. Cerretani.4 A.47 A. Couvares.19 S. Fair.49 M.30 H. Conte. T. Chung. Cowart. L.PRL 116.95 N.6 H. P.78 S.36 E.8 M. Fyffe.7 S.1 C.63 T.53 S. Phys. Conti.37 J. Arai. Fays.16 A.64. W. Fairhurst. 173001 (2010).4 M.22 N.42 B. Cavalier.ligo. Babak. P.9 P. Corsi. Bacon. Ferreira. Daw. Gammaitoni.70 M. Bartos. Casanueva Diaz. Fejer.91 H.59 T.37 F.37 S.30 M. Dolique. Gemme.10 C.33 G. P. Bouffanais.36 B. Adya. Biscans.1 V.53 E.15 B. Danzmann. A. Areeda. D. Bilenko.13 S. E.39 R.40 A.10 O. Calderón Bustillo. Chow. week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 [116] LIGO Open Science Center (LOSC).29 P.71 K. J.35 J. Cabero.86 M.23 C.8 S.9 A. Baune. S. Downes.46. Arnaud.52 O. [114] J.79. DeRosa.16 V. Bersanetti.51 R.45 F. Gabbard.53 E.10 T. Farr. and D. Biwer. Eikenberry.23 J. Chan. Deléglise. Coyne.23 G. Ast.20 S.8 Z.65 M. Cominsky. V. Chincarini. X. Cagnoli.5 F. Gennai.13 A. M. Brady. Fehrmann. Carbognani. Barton. Cho.10 M.29 M.66.14 P. Costa.47 A.7 B. S. Branchesi.88 V. Bell. Fisher. W. R. E.86 R.84 A.30 R. 985 (2003). Douglas. M. Flaminio. Gair. Evans.1 J.33 S.57.76 C. LIGO-India Technical Report No. Boschi.34 D. Genin.8 N.24 S. Bergman. Essick. Chassande-Mottin. Frasconi.39 V. Coyne. E. T.37 M. Doravari. Cannon. Cripe. T. C.5 W. Aston.34 H. Cortese.1 L. Drever.45 M.11 F.53 G. Fulda. M.43 C. Dal Canton.25.60 S.1 S. Du. Brisson.9 N.32.60 A. Etzel. Gehrels.8 C. E. Gergely. J. Anderson.15 061102-11 . Frei. R.34 S.8.8 C. Bodiya.16 M.25. Eichholz. J.30 R.79.41.16. Gaur.10 T.8 A. D 91. B.8. Debreczeni.36 S. A. D. Engels. Bhandare. R.28 F. Bock. Bork.71 J. Evans.29. Coughlin.5 M.35 S. Cohadon.19 C. Blair.13 P. D. S. B.16 T.23 R.38 J. Abadie et al.6 P. Chua.50 O. Chakraborty. C. J. Farr. Factourovich..81 M. https://dcc.8 P. [118] B. Cruise. Buonanno.37 T. Relativity 19. Feldbaum. Garufi. Davier.4 S. G. Craig. D’Antonio. B. G..28 L.68 K. Blair. Cavaglià. Barayoga. Barta. M. Davies. C. Allen.36 B.5 V. Abbott.63 F.90 R. Cleva.17 A. Ashton.1 J. Creighton.25.40 D. Bondu.92 M.68 G. Ajith.79. F. Capocasa.88 M. Coulon.53 S. S. P. Bazzan.83 L.4 R. Aguiar. Ascenzi.8 L.35 D. A. A.1 E.3 R. LIGOM1100296.32.7 C. Bulten. Everett.17 T.28 C. Arain.6 R.2 N. Bojtos. Finn. George. Creighton.29 P. D. Brillet. Frede. Clark.85 C. B. Blackburn.1 R. Fiorucci.5 I. T. Abbott. Abbott. W. Germain. Bhagwat. I.23 K.13. Coughlin. G. Camp. Betzwieser.6 D.48 L. Iyer et al. Baldaccini. Cook. Cowan.18.94.1 J.25. Anderson.03847.45 R. Briant. Berry. DeBra. Classical Quantum Gravity 27. P.1 M.25. R. Edwards. Ehrens.36 E. Baker. K. Chen. Bitossi. M. A. K. Aggarwal. Chiummo.76 R. Abbott et al.36 J.77 M. Di Giovanni.8 M. Clara.19 P.9 R.21 J. Behnke. Di Fiore. Darman. https://losc. Acernese. Arceneaux. Brinkmann.1 J.18.10 V. L. Barsotti.6 T. E.1 T.6 R. Da Silva Costa.58 J. Fong.78 Q.89. C.79. Astone. Cao. Daveloza. Cella.8 P.91 X. C. Y.ligo.67.37 Z.45 D.36 L. Degallaix. Franco. 584. Cheng. Bizouard. Cahillane.1 R. Coward. Crowder. Bergmann. Fletcher.82 J. Aufmuth.8 T.-P.54 A. Fournier. De. D. Denker. C. Kalogera.35 R. Brooks.34 C. Dergachev. Frolov. Basti. Bloemen. Aiello.4 K.51 S. Eggenstein.51 M. Cornish. Bogan.7 P.36 C.35 R. Barone. Coccia.21 S. Frasca. Birch. M. Edo.42 D. Bejger. Gendre.47 B. Chamberlin. G.37 G.1 E. Gair. Adams.63 D.30 F.63 G.6 H.20 N.10 A. P. Buy.8.12.73 P.10 T. Buskulic. Drago.1 S. L. Corbitt. Brown.6 P. and C. Cunningham. Di Palma.57. Fidecaro. M. Capano. Araya. 023005 (2015). Astrophys.8 A.16 K.5 C. Adams. Cuoco.2 M.37 I.34 G.34 C.45 T. Braginsky.8 H. Díaz.1 W. Gatto. Chao. Bogaert. J.17.1 V.35 D. Di Pace.8 S.36 S. Fan. Cepeda. Ferrante.34 I.org/LIGO‑M1100296/ public/main. Brockill.36 T. Brau.19 S.1 M.19 P.54 C.60 W. Batch. C.34 S. Fritschel.96 V. Dwyer.19 G. Bradaschia. Ballardin. Bisht.65 F. Ballmer. G.1 T.80 L. Countryman.1 R. arXiv:1602.9 K.40 M. Caride. Chu.44 H.-D.12 H. [115] B. Casentini. Birney.47 B.11 M. Bartlett. Buchanan. Lorimer. Chalermsongsak.13 G.8 C. B.18. Arun.72 M. Ferrini.19 E. 1 (2016). De Laurentis.16 M.19 J.3.75 W. Calloni. Kim.2 S. G.2 A. Bonnand.34 F.75 Y. Abernathy.72 I. Barker.1 C. D.49 G.1 D. Buikema.69 J. S.27 S. Bader. Dojcinoski. Affeldt. Boer.28 P. D.74 E. Cavalieri.53 M. Freise. Birnholtz.55 R. L. Byer. Christensen.36 L..18. A. K.11 L.67. Fricke.67.org/ events/GW150914/. Chen.4 B. Fafone. C. [113] W. Mandel. M.34 C.3. Effler.10 M.28 I. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration). Donovan. M. B. M.23 P. A. Barr. Dent. C.5 S. Bavigadda.40 G.6. DeSalvo. Day. Driggers.26 M. Di Virgilio.17 M.34 S. Allocca. Agathos. A.23 T.48 H.18. Bond. Brown. Frey.-F.30 A. Callister.34 M. Bohe. Favata.53 V. J.34 A. Ain. [117] B. Cho. Fiori.30 D.12.13 R. Cumming.8 V. B.72 M. Billingsley.59 V. C.39 P.23 S. Colla.21 J. Bassiri. V.70 Q. Rev. A. Barish. Aulbert.8 E. Cutler. 2011. Brown.8 V.18.-B. P.19 E.62 D.

36 S. Krueger. Palomba.8 J.PRL 116.59 M.67. Pai. W. Martin.12 S. Lee.72 M. Hello. Mezzani. Kelley.36 A. D. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 Archisman Ghosh. Kasprzack.36 A.9 L.69.20 M.1 S. Hart.63 P. Greco.10 A. Khan. M.1 I. Giazotto.9 V.36 A. N. Hanks. M.111 H.106 S.48 J. R. Goetz. Marchesoni. Z. Mitrofanov.6 J. Kawabe.110 E.10 S. Graff. Pan. Naticchioni.28 R.20 S. E. Gill.58 J.19 P. Jacobson. Kennedy.113 C.36 J.49 G. Levin.1 R.83 L.7 T. Levine.57. Hammond. L.8 S.102 C. Moraru. Meacher.26 R. Isac.30.69 D.84 F. Palamos. Pedurand.1 C. Masserot.1 M.65 L.6 K. Granata. Mavalvala.15 S.17 F. E. Li. Montani.79. Markosyan.-M.104 P.107 F. Kim.29 M. K. Nitz. Millhouse.118.36 E. Mullavey.35 M. Marion.87 M. Khalili.37 M.1 K. Lombardi. E. Kehl.56 E. Kumar. D.39 Z. Mukherjee.27 W. Maros. Pierro. V.8 J.1 E. Lousto. Oppermann. Gustafson.72 P. Nedkova.77 J.19 Z.6 J. Koley.37 D.39 A. Mendell. Neunzert.45 C. Mirshekari. J. Nayak. C. Ming.58 G.62 M.88 C.66 S. McGuire. Owen.5 R.29.2 S.54 G. E.57.8 H. Gouaty.15 D. Grant. Landry. Martynov. O’Shaughnessy.1 A. Palashov.49 S.1 M.45 K.8 A. Piergiovanni.10 N.49 I.1 R.6 D. Kokeyama. Mohan.1 G.91 J. Kutynia. Malvezzi.19 K.18.6 A. McClelland.16.85 G. A. Kang. J. Gossan.87 G.100 E. Mikhailov. W.36 A.112.15 S. Meadors.73 A. Passaquieti. Korobko.115 K. Husa.36 J. L. Khazanov. R.10 M. Huttner.6 B.66 D. Meidam. Middleton. G. Jawahar. Isa.36 M. Paris. Magee.37 G. Haughian.34.51 Y. J. Guo. B. Khan. Koehlenbeck.29.5.6 G. G. Minenkov. A. Mossavi.8 K.10 B. Hartman. O’Dell. Majorana.1 J. H. Mueller. I.53 I. Hanson. Iyer. Luo. Ottens.57. Poggiani. Milano. Heptonstall.40 W.1 C.72 N.6 R.36 P. Hollitt. Gray.2 J.52. Man. Hosken. Normandin.107 J.8 R. Poeld.103 L.125 S. Heefner. Ju. Greenhalgh. Pal-Singh.6 M. Kringel. Mandic. A. Healy. Manske. Logue. Leroy.120 L. Martellini.45 C.36 C.110 K.83 A. Harry.100 P.37 E.53 I.20 S.117 V. King. Gupta.34 M. Kondrashov.99 N. Korth.9 A.8 061102-12 . Lynch. T. Lackey. M.58 X. Gupta. Kontos.1 F.105 D. Nielsen. Ghosh.122 D.1 H. Khalaidovski.36 T. Hendry. Pickenpack. O. O’Reilly. Mitselmakher. McIntyre. M.1 D.103 K. Lantz.27 S.91 D.23 N. Lovelace. B.2 N.8 B. Merzougui.99 M. Moggi.18. González. Pannarale. Mangano. D.25. Paoletti.109 C. T.36 R.65 S. Pant. MacDonald. Hall. Miao. Ingram. Huynh-Dinh. S. Gleason.77 Namjun Kim.66 P. Kuehn.124 J. Moreno.8 S.34 E.36 O. P.53 M.78 R.7 C. Kim. Mansell.23 B.102 B.17 T. E. Grote. Mercer.73 E. Kuo. Hodge.8 F.104 K. Hough.22 H.90 J.8 J. L.10 M. R. Krishnan.8 D. Nardecchia.1 A.37 G.35 J.121 C.12. Moore. Mittleman. O.125 F. B. Hild. Isi.72 G. Jaranowski.65 H. Nelemans. M. Grunewald.8 B. Losurdo.17 S. J. Hoak.35 A.58 L.34 L.52 H.58 B. Mendoza-Gandara. Hardwick. Guidi. Oliver. Leaci. Letendre. R.10 A. Heng. Pedraza. Khan. Mours. D.37 F.a A.91 B.102 G. C. Koranda. Hofman. Howell. Johnson-McDaniel.36 E. Hacker. T.36 M.2. Kozak.97 A.39 P. M. K.4 J. Gorodetsky. Gonzalez Castro. Michel.22 T. P. K.91 Z.8 B. Kleybolte.37 D.5 E. Loriette.34 M.-J.77 J.5 C. Kijbunchoo. Kawazoe. M.22 B.36 A.117 M.91 J. Littenberg. Leavey. S. Macleod. Magaña-Sandoval.1 T.34 D.42 P.19 A. G.19 A. J. Jones.82 F. Neri. Parker.35 W. K. Goetz.28 S.6 D. Kowalska. Mantovani.119 G.8 M. Oh.18. Hannam. F. R.9 A. W. Passuello.52. Idrisy. Y. Inta. D. Gushwa. Kalaghatgi.35 M. J.19 D. Papa. Patrick.75 P.53 S. K.82 S. Leong. Lange. Harms.40 B. Lenon. Nuttall. R. Kaufer. Overmier. A. London.45 E.114 A. A. Jacqmin.36 M.111 Nam-Gyu Kim. D.91 Arunava Mukherjee. R.7 S.1 R. A. Matichard.10 G.29 G. Klimenko. Pasqualetti. Green. Karki. Holt. A.16 E.8 F. Huang.6 A. Isogai.6 G.5 I.91 V. Miller. Katsavounidis. D.13 N.57. Ottaway. Lord.8 P. Haris. Heurs.36 T.10 L. Izumi. E. J. B.40 P.28.1 V. M.34 R. Meshkov. Nguyen.16 S. Kanner. Pillant.70 C.14 M.8 J.36 J. C.8. Katzman.16 J. Heitmann.36 L.18.37 C. M. P.73 Y. G. Messick. Messenger.35 M.14 V.51 K. V. Moore. Jani. Lazzarini.104 J. Lockerbie.116 N.60 M. Groot.40 B.70 A.5 K.5 A.45 V. Gras.6 S.82 D. Kells. Holz. Nocera. M.57.59 O.9 J. Mishra.19 M. C. Mazumder.8 Richard J.8 H. Ott.79 H.89.10 T.8 A. Heidmann. Huerta. Królak.5 H.98 R.95 E.17 C. J.37 M.86 D. Márka.123 V.8. Mandel. Oelker. Pfeiffer. Lee.37 C. Lundgren. R.28 M. R. Ochsner.14 A. Pitkin.36 I.21 G. Lormand.16 M.37 T. Piccinni. Hennig. J. Huet.29.52.36 R.83 K.104 D.8 N.60 H.23 G. A.36 M.-M.48 F.8 R.36 J. Keitel. T.57. Gosselin.29.37 L.101 I. McIver. M. Matone. Jonker. Hopkins.1.36 E.98 G. Pichot. Pai.36 J. Oberling.108 C.1 D.36 S. Heinzel.36 D.83 N. Kéfélian.2 J. Indik.109 N.40 Y. Masso-Reid. Maksimovic. Munch.9 M.19 B. H. Giaime. Pankow.28 A. Lück. Leonardi. Kwee.2. Murray. Oram. Kissel. Pascucci. Hu. Kandhasamy.56 M. Mohapatra.35 R. Marx.13 J.108 S. McWilliams. Martelli.36 G. Mukund.53 M.5 L.15 K. Patricelli. King. Heintze.28 I.56 G. Key.33 F.44 D. Post. J. Merilh. L.8 S.36 F. S. H. Jang.37 S. Lazzaro. Penn. M. Kim. S. Popolizio. McCormick. Paoli.71 H. Oh. N. Jones.79. Kalogera. W.25.105.71 A. Keppel.1 J. J.34 S.126 A. Pan.6 S.40 E. Pinard.8.8.1 G.35 M. McCarthy. Pekowsky. Giardina. Lough.5 S.58 V.1 E.103 G. Ohme. H. E.39 N.65 I. Pele. Haney.69 R.51 T.112 P.6 T.114 B. L. Muir. Graef. Ma.29 M.62 C.60 M. Gustafson.95 K. K.20 A.27 H. N.15 D. Hemming.13 L. J. Massinger. Harry. Gordon. Islas. Ogin. Hall.6 B. C. Gondan. Lee. McManus.7 Y. Lebigot.8 F. Kinzel. Johnson.5 D. Morriss. B. J.46. Necula. Mukherjee. Kumar.23. A. M.104 R. M.77 K.17. Newton.34 R. Mason.5 G.53 P.10 C.6 S. Pearlstone.91 M. Lee. D.45 R. S.47 A.79. Mazzolo. Mueller.97 S. Lorenzini. Martin. Mow-Lowry. E.102 J.65 A. Nolting. Murphy. Gopakumar.110 H. Pinto.37 R. Meyers.10 Y. Libson.51 K.7 C.37 J. Phelps. S. W.66 W.63. B. J. Mageswaran. Houston. A. Kim. Hughey. Mytidis. Mitra. Márka.34 F. Kaur. Machenschalk. Nissanke.58 A.8 R.2 F. MacInnis.98 J. Jiménez-Forteza. J.76 D. Melatos.37 D. S.84 V.10 D.17 G. Perreca. Lasky.16 M. Haster.10 W. H. L. B. Hanna.34 A.31 Y.24. Glaefke. P. Hanke.13 V.

Wimmer. Sequino.-W.17 G.8 S. A. Vecchio. Voss.42 M. Wen. Romie. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Wade. J.37 A. Siemens.43 S. R. Sturani. Willke.12 H.53 L.83 R.83 K.8 C.22 C. J.50 J. P. Waldman.20 H. Turconi. Tomlinson. Tacca.36 F.27 R.123 L.35 O. Sorrentino. Stephens.83 E.10 M.130 C. Straniero.53 D. Unnikrishnan.7 J.25 J.29 G.37 P. Vander-Hyde. van den Brand.8 J. Vajente. Baton Rouge.20 D. Walker.102. Valdes. Steinlechner.63 X.62 M. Rolland. Vine. Schmidt.38 R. S. Italy 4 INFN.10 S.87 S.83 D. H.132 S.6 A. Reed. Weinert. E. Torres.1 J.114 S. Szczepańczyk.45 F. S.61. Silva.37 L.9 A. Zuraw.8 M.40 P. Weßels. Prasad.34 M. Vallisneri. Trifirò. Zanolin.6 J. Sentenac. Reitze.1 M. Vo.6 P.125 B. Urban.54 S. F. Quetschke. Sampson. 1098 XG Amsterdam. Rowan. Shoemaker. Wiesner. Trozzo. Sadecki.2 L.120 Y.8 A. M.6 W.16 S. Verkindt. S. D.37 L.PRL 116. Prodi. Vass. Schmidt. Shoemaker.8 G.96 S. Tuyenbayev. Torrie. Simakov. T. D. Steinke.62 A. Fisciano. Vinciguerra.14 V.36 F.70 Y. Qi. Rollins. Privitera. Tonelli.90 L.8 A.16 S. Tarabrin.36 R. Italy 5 University of Florida. Ricci.29 R. Vasúth. Tanner.17 B.5 K. H.98.11 D.89.83.1 M. Whitcomb. Schilling.129.1 M. Theeg. Thrane.6 L. J. Sadeghian. Tápai.1 N. Sintes.28 K. Sachdev.36 D. F. Sezione di Napoli.37 B. Woan.25.37 S.1. Westphal.127.b J.34 M.1 R. Zevin.8 M. Sandeen. Vinet. Whiting.8.51 M.16 D. Prijatelj.12 A.36 S. J.57. Yu. Yap. Wang.78 S.17 P.7 A.1 C. Yakushin.8 J. Tringali. Razzano.7 B. Roma.51 H. R.10 D. V. Son. Williams. Qin.33 C. Smith. A. Schutz. Wang.29 M.10 M. Scott.17 G.53. A.8 A. USA 3 Università di Salerno.36 N.132 M. Robinet. Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik. Sassolas.1 T. Savage.9 M. Rew.1 L. L. Rabeling.63 K.8 T.37 D.1 V.2 A. Tse.36 M.8. Schuette.9 C.57. D-30167 Hannover. Sauter. Massachusetts 02139.76 R. Puncken. Taracchini. Schönbeck. A. Zhou.104 K.9 J. P.20 T. California 91125.91 P.109 G.82 I. Salemi. J. J. Louisiana 70754.1 D.20 H. Robertson. Serna. F-74941 Annecy-le-Vieux. Traylor. Wade. Shapiro.37 M.36 G. J.53 M. Wipf. Regimbau. Travasso.18.37 D.8.21 M.33 G. Florida 32611.1 S.10 T. S. Yam. Scott.1 V.65 B. R.49 A.36 R.68 A.17 B. J. Sanders. Vaulin.19 V. Summerscales. Shah. Weaver.65 G.1 G. Strain. M.34 K.29 R. Ward. J.10 M. Slagmolen. Was. J.1 D. Saleem. Université Savoie Mont Blanc. Zucker. Reid.1 A. Tokmakov.6 D. Raab.52. Sigg. J. Worden. France 8 Albert-Einstein-Institut. Wilkinson. Stratta. S. Welborn.6 K. V.85.8 C.32. Wright. Walsh. Powell.6 T.32. Angelo. I-84084 Salerno. Sutton. Wei.8 D. Swinkels. S.19 M. P.34 V. Zangrando. Saulson.50 D.17. Vyatchanin. D. Robie.-P.47 S.8. B. Zhang.28 M. Setyawati.45 S.45 M.45 G. Steinlechner.41. C. Quintero.9 D. Rüdiger.3.6 P. Vetrano. V.8 K.131 D.20 L. D. Ugolini.1.45 M.89. USA 6 LIGO Livingston Observatory. Sun.66 B. Smith. Wang.1 A.8 A.27 E. R.35. Prestegard.86 B.10 A.33 P. A.10 L. Staley.1 E.53 S.1 L. Sheperd.76 E.1 T.97 J.107 C. Quitzow-James. Schreiber.36 S. Vorvick. Romanov.36 A. R. Livingston. J.-Y. Salconi. Raja. Zhang.29 H. Wang.79.34 M.9 M. Samajdar.1. Thirugnanasambandam.20 J.128 L. Wiseman. L. Williams. A. Rosińska.8.16 H. Rocchi.30 D.42 M. G. J.8 P. Vardaro. Willis. Zhu. Sammut.9 A. L. Weiss.49 O. Vousden. I-80126 Napoli. P. USA 061102-13 . Steinmeyer. Wade. Science Park. Zhang. Veitch.39 M.59 F.4 G.5 H.83 M. Sergeev. H. Gainesville. C. Shaddock. D.12 V.85 P.13 A.49 R. Veitch.112 L. Schale.5 R. Punturo. Vahlbruch. Siellez. Yablon. Sathyaprakash. van Beuzekom. Schofield.58 N.59 A.1 B. P.51 M. F. H. Singer. Predoi.19 C. Yvert.17 L. Rakhmanov. Wang. Vedovato.52.16 J. van der Schaaf.57.58 S.8 P.86 M.8 M. Sorazu.114 L. R.22 L. Raffai. Sengupta. Williamson. Thomas. C. Töyrä.82 G. van Heijningen. S.51 P. K. Smith.10 H.8. Vocca.14 A. Rapagnani.102 C.94 D.45 X. Radkins.108 F.5 M. Weinstein. USA 2 Louisiana State University. Zhang.47 T. Romano.91 K. Talukder.82 X. Wette. Premachandra. L. A. Shaltev. Stone.91 B. Principe.45 P.10 T.133 B.37 P.37 K. M. M.8 W. Thorne.59 D. Raymond. Sevigny.29 J.76 N.45 D.35 B. Wittel. Strauss.79. J.82 E. California Institute of Technology. Tiwari.59 J. Shaffer. Warner. L. E. Sanchez. Smith. A. L. Singer.28 V. Winkelmann.8 R.98 R.82 M.91 S.23 A.5 W. Srivastava. E. Singh. van Veggel. J. J. Stevenson. Shawhan.16. Zweizig1 (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration) 1 LIGO.114 T.121 A. van Bakel. Puppo. Thorne. Shahriar. C. Reyes. D. A. White.36 J.82 F. Ramet. R. A. Tiwari. L. M. J. Zhou.37 S.37 D.35 H. Stuver.35 F. Thomas.48 M. Souradeep. Van Den Broeck.83 C. Singh. Yancey.42 J. R. Whelan.98 N.91 J. Louisiana 70803.18.16 D.103 and J. Singhal. Ryan. Prokhorov. Riles. CNRS/IN2P3.35 H. Sandberg. E.1 R. I. Vitale. Viceré.22 Y. Romano. Sellers.36 J.37 A. Usman. Venkateswara. USA 7 Laboratoire d’Annecy-le-Vieux de Physique des Particules (LAPP). Taylor. Re.90 L.9 J.1.97 M. Sawadsky. Ruggi.59 R. E. Cambridge. Price. Germany 9 Nikhef.95 A. Willems.16 L.120 S. G. M.45 R.8 Z.99 A.120 J. S.37 T.22 M.20 J.29. Sanders. Rei. Read.84 L. Z.7 F. Complesso Universitario di Monte S.42 S. Shao.37 J. G. Zendri.c C. Pasadena. Wallace. Zadrożny. Netherlands 10 LIGO. Winkler. C. Zhao. Pürrer. Schnabel. Prix. Thomas.82 Z.58 A.13 L. 061102 (2016) PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS week ending 12 FEBRUARY 2016 J.91. H.6 D. Strigin. Ward. Yamamoto.1 E.51 V. Wu.1 R.

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

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

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